U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 19, 2008 04:46 PM UTC
25 Comments
Everyone knows that they can’t reconcile their differences on social issues.
Prove me wrong, GOP. Prove me wrong.
If the word fuck does not appear at least once per sentence.
Hillman does raise a very good point – step one is to govern by your principles rather than just feed from the trough once you get elected.
We Dems need to keep this in mind. I think Hillman is indirectly telling us Dems to be true to our principles on the left.
“A man with a hump-backed uncle mustn’t make fun of another man’s cross-eyed aunt.” Mark Twain
As we watch the GOP devolve into a clan of cannibals, we’ve been gleefully watching the carnage (myself included.)
However, it doesn’t take much for the Dems to split into our various factions, and I can easily see the Progressive Dems and the Blue Dogs having an equally nasty fight over single-payer health care or VA reform.
Heed Mr. Twain’s words…
There’s a difference between policy debate and the kind of dissension in today’s Republican party. If you want something comparable to what’s happening in the modern GOP, you would need an emotional issue that people see as fundamental to their patriotism, religion, or other basic values. Something like…. oh, yeah, flag burning! Now that would be something to buy tickets for.
If Republicans have been keeping their trust in their pants, that explains a great deal. (For the nonverbal among you, it should be “Breach” of Trust).
This is the most succinctly I’ve heard the problem put. Well done, Mark.
And the GOP tries each of the 3 approaches, one per state. They love the free market so they should love the idea of giving each approach a shot and seeing which one succeeds.
when all three lost?
Slightly trite, but bulls eye accurate.
Mr. Hillman attempts to convince all of us that if we Republicans will only unite around conservative economic, budget and tax philosophy and policies all will be well. What he fails to acknowledge is the fact that the Republican Party is controlled by the social/religious conservatives. They aren’t about to give up on those issues and focus only on the economic ones. Only two days after the election, the leaders of that wing of the party announced that moderates, like myself, are no longer welcome in the Republican Party. Those people think God has revealed his truth to them and because of that, they won’t set aside the religious right issues and become exclusively economic conservatives. To attempt to gloss over this problem is merely sticking ones head in the sand.
One need only read the latest edition of the Economist to see what is wrong with the Republican Party. In the “Lexington” column this week entitled “Ship of Fools” the Economist labels the Republican Party as the “Stupid Party” not because of conservative economic principles but because the party is dominated and controlled by people who reject ideas and the human intellect; and who, by emphasizing social/religious conservatism, have espoused a philosophy and policy principles that can only be characterized as a “redneck strategy.” The Economist goes on to point out that the so called conservative intelligentsia is “trapped in an ideological cocoon, defined by its outer fringes, ruled by dynasties and incapable of adjusting to a changed world.”
The last paragraph in the article is the most telling:
“But the odds in favour of an imminent renaissance look long. Many conservatives continue to think they lost because they were not conservative or populist enough – Mr. McCain, after all, was an amnesty-loving green who refused to make an issue out of Mr. Obama’s associations with Jeremiah Wright. Richard Weaver, one of the founders of modern conservatism, once wrote a book entitled “Ideas have Consequences”; unfortunately, too many Republicans are still refusing to acknowledge that idiocy has consequences, too.”
What Mr. Hillman advocates is simply narrowing the field of issues that the Republican Party and Republican candidates talk about in public and that if we only do that, all will be well. I have a question. If the Republican Party and candidates do that, but remain committed to the social/religious agenda without talking about it, aren’t they running as stealth candidates and, in essence, by omission, leading many voters to assume and believe they don’t support the social/religious agenda? The answer to this question is obvious (Just recall how Mr. Schaffer tried to run away from social/religious conservatism in the Senate race this year). Mr. Hillman is advocating first, something the social/religious conservatives won’t buy into and second, if they did, it represents a plan to conceal and fool the voters as to the Republican’s true agenda. I’m not buying into his plan.
The Washington times (“WT”) ran an article today about the reporter’s interview with former Maryland Lt. Gov. Steele who has announced for the office of Republican National Committee Chairman. He is already being attacked by the social/religious conservatives because he helped resucitate the Republican Leadership Council which is pro choice, even though he has committed to retaining the party’s pro life platform plank that calls for a constitutional amendment banning abortion. See:
http://www.washingtontimes.com…
The article goes on to quote what former U.S. Senator John Danforth (R-Missouri) wrote in 2005:
“Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians,” adding that the “problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.”
Therein is the problem that Mr. Hillman is desperately trying to avoid but in the end it must be faced by every Republican. It doesn’t matter who is right or wrong, or who owns the rights to the national symbol – the elephant, all that matters is whether the various groups that have made-up the Republican coalition have enough common values to remain in the same party. Mr. Hillman’s answer is to ignore the social/religious conservative values, put them on the back burner, and hope they go away. I don’t believe that is realistic. The social/religious conservatives control the party and they aren’t going to shelve their most cherished political values and goals. To believe otherwise is silly. To lead the public to believe they have is deception.
http://www.washingtontimes.com…
the article is entitled “Steele Chastiises ‘Country Club’ GOP. It was written by Jon Ward and Ralph Z. Hallow.
The differences between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives is real and will continue to be a source of friction but it isn’t the real problem for the Republican Party.
The problem as I see it is that the fiscal conservatives don’t have anything new to offer except more tax cuts which in the long run doesn’t produce BETTER government. There is no such thing as a free government and the idea that government can be replaced with corporations has been proven to be a loser. The inefficiencies of large organizations aren’t confined to government. I have worked for Fortune 50 corporations that are just as inefficient as anything you could find at your local post office. As long as the Republican Party believes that all problems can be solved by more tax and spending cuts, they are going to offer mediocre and ultimately unworkable solutions. There is a common saying about thinking outside the box but Republicans for too long have made it a point of being proud about their tax cuts and eliminate government box. They literally can’t think outside the box of their own dogma.
The ultimate goal is not less government but a government that is capable of solving social, economic and environmental problems in a way that benefits the most people. Principles are guiding lights along the road but never the ultimate destination which for me is a peaceful, prosperous and pluralistic society.
I was focusing on the intra-party fight that is inevitable in my opinion. Your analysis of the econimic conservatives is correct. They don’t think outside the box.
Years ago I worked for one of the largest energy companies in the world and, like you, witnessed incredible waste which never made it to the front page of the newspapers because it was a private business but I came away from that experience with the same belief you expressed. Large organizations, whether public or private are inefficient.
to our world which makes it imperative to reform them in such a way that they can fulfill their missions with a minimum of waste. It is a tough nut to crack but a lot of it comes down to transparency. Government needs transparency and accountability while corporate CEO’s need to be rewarded based on their long term decisions as well as the current financial statement. I’m not anti-corporation at all. I just think they need to be structured so that the CEO’s are rewarded based on overall performance and sustainability instead of just narrowly focusing on the bottom line.
As the current fiscal crisis highlights, unregulated capitalism is not the ultimate goal. Limited government advocates (Republicans) need to rethink what it costs by reducing government in critical areas. They also need to examine what they want government to buy if they are against raising taxes. Did we really get a good deal by paying Blackwater and Halliburton and privatizing the occupation? It isn’t just about keeping taxes low. It is about using that tax revenue to foster a robust economy and meaningful security. In Gilpin county the local Republicans put up a big stink about paying for a community wildfire protection plan (CWPP) saying the contract cost at $80,000 was too much. This is less than the cost of a foreclosed home and yet they worked to stop the contract. You compare this cost to plan for a wildfire in the Front Range forests that are being ravaged by the pine beetles to the costs of fighting an unstoppable forest fire and the associated costs to property owners and it is a ridiculous argument. Buying a good fire protection plan compared to reactively fighting an out of control fire is the difference between spending tax dollars wisely and throwing them away along with the costs of the collateral damage. Republicans need to get back to thinking creatively about how to use government effectively rather than how to kill it. Big difference.
The Republican ethos of personal responsibility dictates that you are the only one to blame for owning an abode in a beetle-ravaged forest. Government should not be in the business of putting out fires in high risk areas.
At least that’s what they say, until a fire is racing toward their house and decades of memories and possessions.
To me, that’s the crux of the divisions in the Republican party. The different groups all have a different idea, and those ideas are frequently contradictory. When you can’t agree on the most basic tenets of a political party, your coalition is doomed.
There was a mention above about the stealth nature of Republicans avoiding talking about social issues. Personally, I think EVERY republican runs as a stealth candidate. When was the last time you heard a republican say publicly that they want to abolish entitlement programs? How have those life-at-conception propositions/amendments done at the polls?
Republicans can talk all they want about how America is a center-right country, but I think a cursory look at the last couple of elections puts that to rest. Democrats currently enjoy larger majorities than Republicans EVER had.
They haven’t been since Ronald Reagen.
These days they resemble spolied brat thugs that want to punish 3 million workers in the auto industry, and throw grandmas in the street on Colfax to prostitute themselves to satisfy their need to punish the American people for rejecting fascism.
It wasn’t our views on social issues that cost us our majority…it was how we approached them. They became the central issue when governing should be the central issue.
I believe that most Americans believe what Republicans believe on social issues. They don’t like people changing traditional marriage, they want God acknowledged and respected, they think people should be able to own firearms…and they want the government to act right when those issues come up.
But it’s a small (and incorrect) minority who thinks that the number one priority is to push those issues.
America will always need and want a party who is the line of defense for traditional values. And the Republican party should be that line of defense. We should never abandon social issues.
But Americans are uneasy when political parties adopt an offensive stance on social issues. We should focus on governing first, and tackle social issues as needed.
But it’s the one that’s got the GOP by the gonads right now. Them and the absolutist small government ideologues are killing the party.
As you note, governing is the primary goal, which is what Dems have been focused on promoting throughout the “bluing” of Colorado. When we get a Republican Party that’s reasonable enough to ditch the social sloganeering and the “cut taxes” rhetoric in favor of echoing voter concerns, then we’ll have a viable GOP again.
Good luck.
I’ll let you know how that goes! 🙂
That was an excellent post. It was really thoughtful and genuine. Too bad Nancy Baldwin isn’t around anymore to read it. It seems like more of a community now that the crazies have quit. Thanks for your post.
PS: Obviously I disagree with some of your content but that’s what makes this forum an interesting gathering spot.
The younger a voter is the more likely they are to support gay marriage. In another 10 years it will be a majority. In 20 people will wonder why it was ever illegal.
Fighting that puts the GOP on the side of what will become a shrinking minority.