CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 24, 2008 01:22 AM UTC
32 Comments
negate your signature line Dave? 🙂
Representative Marcy Kaptur from Ohio kicks some ass in Congress today.
Especially when she said we need more jobs. “Real working assets”.
But it’s oh so lovely to see it from both sides. This is a two party democracy working well. And it will be a combination of the principled ones from both sides working together that will get us a reasonable plan (I hope).
Speaking of principled reps in Congress – have any of the Colorado delegation done anything of note in this?
trying to keep the state constitution from self-destructing.
compared the plan to foxes guarding the henhouse.
and the RMN editorial tomorrow is great.
non-partisan action in Washington. Think of what we could have been accomplishing all these years. Too bad the last coming together moment was over manufactured intel and fear mongering.
tends to cross party lines and piss off everybody, party affiliation be damned.
I didn’t catch it?
Someone up there has to at least act like one for “balance.”
Without any authority to act Former GS Chairman Paulson was beat to the prime rib carving block by Warren E. Buffett.
$5 billion of perpetual preferred GS stock to BRK.A in a private offering.
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/o…
Statement By Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) On Misleading Obama Attack Ad On Stem Cell Research
ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) today issued the following statement on Barack Obama’s misleading new radio ad on stem cell research, which is airing in the Philadelphia suburbs:
“The fact is John McCain has been a champion for stem cell research, which holds the promise of curing devastating diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart disease. John McCain bucked the majority of our party in standing strong with me in urging the Bush Administration to lift restrictions on stem cell research, and last year voted to overturn the Bush policy.
“Delaware Valley voters deserve the truth: On stem cell research and so many other issues, John McCain is a maverick who always puts his country first. As president, he’ll advance the cause of potentially lifesaving medical research that can free families from the fear and devastation of illness.”
FACT CHECK: OBAMA RADIO AD FALSELY ALLEGES THAT MCCAIN DOES NOT SUPPORT STEM CELL RESEARCH, WHEN HE CLEARLY DOES
Misleading Obama Radio Ad Alleges That John McCain Does Not Support Stem Cell Research
Read Script Of Radio Ad
John McCain Has Strongly Supported Stem Cell Research, Voting Against Majority Of His Own Party
McCain: “Mr. President, stem cell research has the potential to give us a better understanding of deadly diseases and spinal cord injuries affecting millions of Americans.” (Office Of Sen. John McCain, Statement By John McCain On Stem Cell Research, 4/11/07)
McCain: “I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It’s a tough issue. I support federal funding.” (John McCain, Democratic Debate, Simi Valley, CA, 5/3/07)
John McCain Twice Voted To Expand Federal Funding For Stem Cell Research. (S. 5, Senate Vote #127: Passed 63-34: R 17-32; D 44-2, 4/11/07, McCain Voted Yea; H.R. 810, Senate Vote #206: Passed 63-37: R: 19-36; D 42-1, 7/18/06, McCain Voted Yea)
In April 2007, John McCain Voted “To Reject Restrictions President Bush Has Placed On” Stem Cell Research. (S. 5, Senate Vote #127: Passed 63-34: R 17-32; D 44-2, 4/11/07; Nicole Gaouette, “Senate Strongly Rejects Bush’s Curbs On Stem-Cell Research,” Los Angeles Times, 4/12/07)
In 2004, McCain Signed Letter With 58 Other Senators To President Bush Urging Him To Ease Restrictions On Embryonic Stem Cell Research. “We write to urge you to expand the current federal policy concerning embryonic stem cell research. As you know, embryonic stem cells have the potential to be used to treat and better understand deadly and disabling diseases and conditions that affect more than 100 million Americans, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and many others. … Mr. President, we know that you have been a strong supporter of medical research and share our commitment to curing disease and alleviating human suffering. We would very much like to work with you to modify the current embryonic stem cell policy so that it provides this area of research the greatest opportunity to lead to the treatments and cures for which we are all hoping.” (Letter From 58 Senators To President Bush To Ease Restrictions On Embryonic Stem Cell Research, 6/4/08)
Nothing.
… it ignores the fact that once McCain kicks the bucket (look at the actuarial facts), new President Palin will be dead-set against stem cell research.
Ahem… Keating Five! Why do we let the same crooks play the same game for say for almost three decades?
I must tell you, there are those in the public debate who have said that we must act now. The last time I heard that, I was on a used-car lot
Uh no, Mike, the last time you heard that, you were agreeing with it and voting for the Iraq war.
Pence was the less famous part of that Congressional delegation to Iraq, the one that went to an Iraqi market in bulletproof vests under heavy guard from Humvees, and described it as peaceful.
Can we get some better Republicans, please?
but neither is anyone on the Dem side. Let’s give him credit for standing up and doing the right thing today. (And next time we disagree with him – we can take him to task.)
Stopped clock and all.
And while no politician is perfect, some are better than others. And almost all are better than Pence.
Yeah, John McCain’s Lobbyis-Campaign Manager’s lobbying firm is still contracting with Freddie Mac.
.
this looting of the Treasury,
and putting the money in the hands of a former Wall Street exec,
has “Karl Rove” written all over it.
As I understand it,
Paulson and Cheney were arguing about how much money to take from the country and give to banks and financial institutions.
I was in the room at the time, but I was texting an order to Dominos for Pizza,
so I missed part.
Paulson wanted $10 Billion.
Cheney said to double that, since taxpayers can’t tell the difference.
That’s when I started to order lunch.
Rove walked in. I kept texting.
When I finished, the bidding was up to $500 Billion.
I heard Rove say, “no, too round a figure. Either cut it by 3%, or bump it up higher.”
Someone said, “is $700 Billion OK ?”
It was still for about 5 seconds, maybe more.
Then a cheer went up! It was settled.
.
It pains me to say this and it actually goes against my own political ideology (I have said “that no one, private citizen nor Wall Street, should be bailed out”), but this bail-out is needed. I come to this pragmatic, practical solution, because liquidity in credit-markets is dangerously low and without liquidity, there is no spending and with no spending, there is no economy (i.e. money changing hands). Even though this may only soften the “crash landing” a softening is needed, because otherwise a financial collapse is on our door-step and that is worse than anything. Practicality must outweigh ideology.
The Bush/Paulson bailout plan is rife with corporate give-away language; no court or Congressional oversight, monies can go to institutions that aren’t actually failing…
It seems that some kind of bailout has to happen; otherwise we’re just going to watch more banks tumbling down and our credit crunch getting worse. But printing up $700b of fresh U.S. dollars might only make the situation worse, stoking inflation by devaluing the dollar. There must be a balance.
Obama among others suggests that our investments in helping these companies to recover be offset by some kind of equity interest in the company, so that the company’s recovery repays our investment in it. There’s also merit in a trickle-up approach to solidify the housing market and the economy in general, though such an approach would have to be staggered over time (multiple smaller payments?) to ease cash flow issues.
We need an answer – we just don’t need the first answer put in front of us. That’s how we got the PATRIOT Act and the Iraq war.
Echoing Phoenix,a bailout is needed, but not this bailout. At the most fundamental level, every previous significant bailout in our history has involved the taxpayers acquiring ownership interests in whatever was being bailed out. This was true with RTC in the ’80s, and it was true of Freddie, Fannie, and AIG weeks ago. That way investors who made investments that went bad suffered the consequences, and to the extent assets appreciated the taxpayers would get partially paid back.
This bailout is just a gift. Taxpayers buy bad debt for four times what it is worth, and get nothing in exchange but the bad debt. When the value of the bailed-out companies increases as a result, investments in those companies are saved but the taxpayers get paid nothing back.
Shock of shock, the Bush bailout saves the rich at the expense of the public as a whole (simplifying, I realize, but generally true). And so far, the Dems are just tinkering out the edges.
It’s sort of like a massive response to 9-11 was required, and they shoved Iraq and a massive power grab down our throats.
Excellent coverage today in the NYT and on BBC. Hope Congress is paying attention.
I agree with Brio.
But this is the wrong plan. It is getting marginally better, but still not there yet.
We’ve gotten by with 5% of people being unemployed, 20% of people having no health insurance, and 25% of our budget going to blow stuff up in Iraq. A third of our income goes to various governments to spend on OTHER subsidies for big business. We survive. People who really want to live manage to find a way.
If that’s not a crisis, this sure as shit ain’t.
I agree with the other Polsters here that the proposed bailout is a disaster for the taxpayer. I’ll add total hypocrisy in terms of moral hazard, alleged capitalist philosophies, and just generally unfair.
What about offering money by buy an equity position in each of the sickly firms related to the amount of money wanted> Since every company is different, and the urgencies are different, they could buy as much or as little relief as they want.
I think that if there is one dollar of help, the taxpayer should also have a seat on the board.
I’ll admit that in terms of my econimics knowledge the water is close to my nose, so feel free to shoot this down as ignorant. Not politically, but economically, please.
We shouldn’t give Paulson a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants without oversight, most definetly, and while I agree that the taxpayer should be repayed, however, I don’t think that we should go down the road of “giving the taxpayer a seat on a board.”
I do have a concern and that concern is that in today’s language, the “taxpayer” is starting to become yesterday’s “worker” or “peasant.” Yes, that is the slippery slope argument, but we are an out of control skier who is about to hit a patch of ice on the mountain and I don’t trust our elected officials enough to think that they won’t do something stupid.
uberconservative Joe Barton of Texas:
“Just because God made the world in seven days does not mean we have to pass this bill in seven days.”