All Eyes On CD-4: Trifecta In Reach?

12 thoughts on “All Eyes On CD-4: Trifecta In Reach?”

1. at the Camera.

   “Less than 500 of them were Republicans”

   Fewer.

   Log in to Reply

   1. You want grammar, too?

      Yeah, one of my pet peeves. It’s obvious that editors no longer edit.  

      Log in to Reply

2. Marilyn’s make-over farce has failed to overcome the fact that she slid into re-election in 2006 with a minority of the popular vote.  More CD-4 voters cast their ballots against her than for…regrettably that majority of votes was shared by two candidates.

   The act she’s put on over the past two years has been both infuriating and comical.  Only the hard fact that she continues to pursue Gay Marriage Ban legislation shows that she has not changed her marginal and radical agenda.

   The “go to jail for 5-years” lie also seems to have backfired.  Despite MM’s TV spending on this smear, all respectable media and legal sources have correctly labeled it a false attack.

   Now MM is facing a Congressional complaint, and possible censure, that she is the one who has broken both Federal and State laws by conspiring to submit a false report.

   Log in to Reply

   1.    That’s an amazing feat on the part of Musty.  When you think about the %’s that the Potted Plant and Big Oil Bob used to rack up running in that district, not to mention the vote totals that Hank Brown would win by, she must have made one hell of an effort to get her numbers to where they are today.

      Log in to Reply

3. Log in to Reply

   1. Obama’s remarks came in a long interview on civil rights and Constitutional law with two other law professors on the Chicago public radio station WBEZ in 2001. .. Sunstein argued that Obama is discussing redistribution in a relatively narrow legal context: The discussion in the 1970s of whether the Supreme Court would create the right to a social safety net — to things like education and welfare. He also noted that in the interview, Obama appears to express support for the court’s rejection of that line of argument, saying instead that the civil rights movement should aim for the same goals through legislative action.

      Courts are all about redistribution. When you sue, whether in a contract dispute or a tort (injury caim), your remedy is redistribution from the defendant to the the plaintiff to make the prevailing party “whole.”

      “What the critics are missing is that the term ‘redistribution’ didn’t man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer,” Sunstein said. “What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals.”

      Obama is arguing that the courts are limited in what they can do–a conservative argument.

      The first mention of redistribution, which does not appear on the YouTube clip, comes when Obama discusses a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.

      “One other area where the civil rights area has changed… is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution — how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early ’70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, ‘You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that’s not a race issue, thats a wealth issue and something and we can’t get into.”

      He is arguing very narrowly about the limits on courts in providing a good education to every child.

      Later in the interview, Obama seemed to concur with conservative and mainstream liberal scholars on the court’s more modest view of its powers:

      “Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts,” he said. “You know the institution just isn’t structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order … changes that cost money to local school district[s], and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.”

      He argues again that legislation is the correct place to address failing schools, not the courts, although it may be more convenient to use the courts.

      “He’s saying you dont achieve stable social change through judicial activism,” …”It’s two minutes and 17 seconds of what I could say in front of a class,”

      In essence Obama is arguing against activist judges–a conservative argument.

      http://www.politico.com/blogs/…

      Log in to Reply

4. Moving to the middle may have muddled Musgrave’s image. Actually I am surprised that there were not more Musgrave ads picturing her with Udall and the Salazars.

   This one is over.  The only question now is who challenges Markey in 2010.  Scott Renfro, Greg Brophy, Ken Buck, Marc Hillman, Cory Gardner are all saying the same thing at Republican Headquarters:  “We have come to bury Marilyn not praise her.”  Look where Bob Schaffer spends his time the next week. If he his hanging around CD 4 he is likely to try and resurrect his political career by attempting a return to Congress.  

   Log in to Reply

   1. As much as this one appears like it might be over, I wouldn’t get overconfident now.

      Musgrave is a determined politician and pulling out whatever stops she can.  GOTV will be important.

      Log in to Reply

5. Suthers should be very very worried. And in the Congressional races in ’10, Coggman has more to worry about than Markey.

   And everyone – don’t get cocky – remember to vote, to get your friends & family to vote, neighbors, co-workers, strangers on the street – everyone needs to vote!!!

   Log in to Reply

   1. Coffman does have a lot to worry about.  Arapahoe County is now a Blue county and I don’t think Mr. Coffman can rely on S. Jefferson to sustain him. Even in Douglas County, Bill Ritter received 45% of the vote in 2006. Douglas is part of the exurbs that are turning purple.  That leaves Elbert County which is growing but not the major player the other three counties are in the district. Mr. Coffman needs to play his crads very well to avoid trouble. As Senator Obama said in his acceptance speech in August: “There’s something stirring out there.”  There sure is.    

      Log in to Reply

6. Mike Coffman’s only fear is a GOP primary challenge.

   No Democrat can win this seat.  

   Log in to Reply
   1. Log in to Reply