President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
September 22, 2005 08:00 AM UTC

Thursday Open Thread

  • 33 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Bill Clinton has his own condom. Take that, Bush.

Tweet
Share

Comments

33 thoughts on “Thursday Open Thread”

  3. The list below shows the amount of pork Representatives and Senators have committed to cutting as reported by bloggers and blog-readers who have contacted them. The goal is to get every Representative and every Senator to commit to cutting significant pork projects in their district or state. So if your representatives show as ‘NO CUTS COMMITTED’, contact them and ask what they would cut

    ColoradoRoleNameCommitted To CutSenatorWayne Allard (R)NO CUTS COMMITTEDSenatorKen Salazar (D)NO CUTS COMMITTEDRepresentative
    7thBeauprez, Bob (R)NO CUTS COMMITTEDRepresentative
    1stDeGette, Diana (D)NO CUTS COMMITTEDRepresentative
    5thHefley, Joel (R)NO CUTS COMMITTEDRepresentative
    4thMusgrave, Marilyn N. (R)NO CUTS COMMITTEDRepresentative
    3rdSalazar, John T. (D)NO CUTS COMMITTEDRepresentative
    6thTancredo, Thomas G. (R)NO CUTS COMMITTEDRepresentative
    2ndUdall, Mark (D)NO CUTS COMMITTED

  4. Considering Beauprez has about 5 times the pork from the highway bill that any other CO representative has I say it’s up to him to stat it off.  $10 on him not doing anything.

  6. Your wisdom belies your handle, Idiots.
    The political dictionary defines:
    Pork (see also, Fraud, Waste:) Federal spending anywhere outside of my district.
    Investment (see also Compassion, Infrastruture)
    federal spending in my district.

  7. I’d just like to know, what pork we’re bringing home to our own state and how it compares to the immense amounts of pork spending on agribusiness, the military-industrial complex, and bridge construction in the Bering Strait.

  11. CU Student:

    Apparently you aren’t aware of the amount John Salazar is bringing home in highway money.  It dwarfs Beauprez’s.  And you can expect that absolutely nobody is going to fork over their highway money to pay for Katrina. Hell, even the Louisiana delegation isn’t supporting that suggestion.  Other than Don Young’s “bridge to nowhere” most of the high priority projects are pretty reasonable.

  13. To “Idiots”

    First- It’s dishonest to name your self after the post.

    Second-If you believe the correct role of government officials is to manage either local, state or federal spending through pork style spending, let me ask you a question. Please answer is honestly and carefully. Who among us can afford, as the result of paying taxes, “pork” spending?

    Third- Does LMFAO stand for Laughing my FAT ASS off?

  15. This is cut and paste. If it doesn’t interest you, skip it. Otherwise, I’m just sharing like my mother taught me.

    (From the http://www.dailykos.com diaries. This analysis is as good as any, and may actually be on the money)

    To whit:

    There are a number of diaries recently expressing shock at various Democrats announced votes on the Roberts confirmation (Feingold “Yes”, Hillary “No”, for instance).  So far, I haven’t seen any that are particularly surprising.

    To figure out how people are going to come down, you simply need to look at several factors. . .

    Any Democrat considering a run for President in 2008 is going to vote “No”.  No one wants the next Howard Dean nipping at their heels.

    Any Democrat seriously considering leading a filibuster of the next nominee and planning to keep the gang of fourteen on board is going to vote “Yes”.  Voting “No” on Roberts would allow, in fact almost require, the Republican G14 members to break ranks under pressure (“Come on, de Wine, this guy even voted “No” on Roberts!”).  Conversely, voting “Yes” on Roberts strengthens the Democrat’s argument with the seven Republicans who will matter (“Listen guys, I’m reasonable, I even voted for Roberts.  But Judge Hitler really is an exceptional circumstance!”).

    That accounts for Clinton and Biden voting “No”, and for Byrd and possibly Leahy voting “Yes” (Byrd being one of the G14, and Leahy the ranking member on the Judiciary committee, both well positioned to lead a filibuster).

    Furthermore:

    Any senator genuinely concerned about Senatorial process and commity is likely to vote “Yes”.  That’s because Roberts did appear, did answer questions (if not as specifically as some would have liked), and nothing has emerged to disqualify him from the post.  The reasons for voting him down are that you believe he lied under oath (always a possibility) or you believe there is some skeleton in the missing Bush administration papers that would disqualify him but that hasn’t been leaked in some form already.  Those are positions that can be held by a partisan player, but not by a collegiality-oriented Senator concerned about maintaining the integrity of senatorial process.  I put Feingold, and possibly Leahy in this camp.

    Senators from Red States will likely vote “Yes” — why lose their jobs over a symbolic vote?

    We’re left with a relatively small number of Democrats, partisan players from blue states with no interest in a Presidential run or leading a filibuster.  How many of them are there?  My guess is that they’ll break on the “No” side since a “Yes” vote won’t get them anything and the “No” will earn them a little credibility with the base (and besides, who in the Senate is thinking maybe, someday, of a Presidential run?).

  16. When I was in the Peace Corps in Armenia during the Lewinsky affair, there were vodka brands with Clinton on one bottle and Lewinsky on others.  There was a chocolate bar with Monica on it.  The wooden Russian dolls that fit into each other, the largest was Clinton, then Lewinsky, and Hillary, Bush Sr and Barb. 
    It makes one wonder what the Bush dolls would look like.

  21. Actually, Sir Loin, American GIs in WW II and I’m told in Vietnam as well often did put condoms over the end of their rifles, to keep dirt and water out.  Hugo is right about the problem of missiles getting pregnant, which is why they proliferated so quickly before Ronald Reagan began negotiating mutual reductions with Gorby, letting the world breathe a little easier.  That was one win for the Gipper than benefitted all humanity.

  23. Time to hit the road. Quick comment-

    Thanks to all of the bloggers on this site. Since discovering it, I have been made to feel very welcome by many of you. I learned quickly not to cut and paste:-) From now on, only “original” thought, unless I can’t help but share, in which case I’ll preface and give fair warning.

    I agree with you voyageur, that whenever there is a successful effort to reduce the danger of nuclear, bio-chemical, or other weaponry that destroys life and robs us of resources that could be used for peaceful and productive purposes, everyone needs to applaude. To the extent that Reagan did, he deserves to have history note it. I also remember him introducing space weaponry (on campus they spelled his name Raygun).

    Today, we face many threats from many different weapons of destruction, both mass and otherwise. Nuclear “bunker busters” leap to mind. There are catastophes both natural and man made, as we’ve been made keenly aware of lately. My vote and money go to those individuals and groups who work to reduce all destructive devices. Unfortunately, we have seen few if any initiatives under the current political representatives and no leadership from the current adminsitration. I’d love to raise the level of this debate and hear more from both Republicans and Democrats.

  24. Thoughts on “Bush broke it, we own it” diatribe:

    Bush broke it, he owns it, well, now, what to do? The oil quits flowing and we all face the reality that we have already used our share and the more we burn the worse the air and water become. My suggestion is buy good, comfortable winter weather gear and comfortable walking shoes/boots, take a tip from the Russians. The energy crisis is more than the shortage of resources, it is about blatant disregard for the environment and our insistence on private transportation pods. Iraq was not broken by Bush the Lesser, it was broken by the Reagan/Ollie North/Rumsfeld/Cheney/Bush I cabal. America will be better off without another single barrel of Middle East oil. Necessity is the mother of all invention as well as great movements of social change. You’ll start seeing GE wind energy machines from the front range of the Colorado Rockies to the Missouri line so fast you’ll wonder why it took so long, in Denver, that’s the only direction we can go anyway.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

66 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!