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%
July 28, 2005 08:00 AM UTC
40 Comments
We have been talking about it all day on the open thread. A blind man can see who’s side she’s on….special interests. I can’t see how even the most loyal of the R’s in CD4 can continue to see their interests go down the drain…Musgrave already has the lowest return to the 4th per tax $$ of any Rep. in the state….geeeze.
I wonder if CAFTA plays in CO-4 like Ref. A played in CO-3…
If issue ads blasting her for abandoning her people in favor of special interests were run right now while CAFTA was in the news, the issue might play a year from now as the campaigns gear up. If not, memories are short and it’s an R district.
watcher
I don’t know the details, but the talking points the GOP is pushing says that on this deal, we already don’t impose tariffs on imports, but our exports are subject to tariffs. Which would mean that CAFTA is very, very good for farmers.
Now, if that talking point is excessively misleading, obviously what i’m saying is wrong. But if there’s a strong element of truth in it, then the democratic party has abandoned the progress Clinton gave them in order to pander to a union base that is fractured at best. Not the greatest strategic decision, no matter how much the liberal blogs beat their war drums.
Phoenix Rising: One can only hope.
We can’t sell our sugar beets and our house is in foreclosure but at least them queers won’t get married!
Ref. A support is still enough to sink a candidate – indeed, it’s enough to sink a completely unrelated referendum using the same letter!
If farmers are as steamed about CAFTA as West Slopers were about Ref A, the damage will be around long after the specifics are forgotten.
Hmmm… A vote against sugar beet farmers, a vote for sugar consumers. Shame the sugar consumers will likely never realize it.
Apparently the Farmers in the 4th don’t know what is good for them and their products…but, thank God, Marilyn does.
I bet they don’t forget anytime soon. As luck would have it, now that vote is behind MM and she can get back to work on the really important issue, making sure the 50% of traditional marriages that stay together have no competition from farm animals.
I’ve been looking unsuccessfully on the House website for a breakdown of the vote – how each congressman/woman voted on CAFTA. Anyone know something I don’t on how to get this info?
Try: Project Vote Smart – Voting Records. Don’t recall the exact http://www. stuff.
Here is the site I was looking for Bumpa…www.govtrack.us That should get you more info than you ever thought you would want to know….*
*A public service message brought to you by tommix.
tommix – Thank you for the information, I’ll bookmark the site. I also found the vote listed by state rep., of all places, at the Guardian UK(!) in their US news.
We linked to the roll call vote in the original post.
Did anyone consider that there are other ag industries in the 4th besides sugar beet growers? Ag industries that will benefit greatly from being able to export unfettered by tariffs?
The sugar beet growers are vocal and extremely well organized (to their credit), but they’re not representative of agriculture in the 4th.
Sure we considered it. We just aren’t crazy about Musgrave. She is still a special interest darling.
But the biggest and baddest special interest in the 4th is the sugar beet lobby.
Watcher said:”If issue ads blasting her for abandoning her people in favor of special interests were run right now while CAFTA was in the news, the issue might play a year from now as the campaigns gear up. If not, memories are short and it’s an R district.”
We’re talking about the economic viability of her district, their memories won’t so short when Musgrave’s vote is directly impacting their ability to feed their families
Point being, that you can hate Musgrave all you want, but this was a vote against the special interests.
Bumpa – I have a breakdown of how the local house members voted as well as a link to the actual vote on my blog
http://yellowdogdems.blogspot.com/2005/07/cafta-passes-house-217-215.html
Ummmm – you said it yourself, the sugar-beet growers are vocal and extrememely well organized. They warned Musgrave in 2004 not to support CAFTA, you better believe they’ll be coming after her now.
watchingwhat?
Are you kidding me? Is everyone a beet grower in the 4th?
The ag industries behind CAFTA:
Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
Colorado Wheat Growers
Colorado Corn Growers
Dairy Farmers of America
Colorado Livestock Association
For everyone but the beet growers, CAFTA will be “directly impacting their ability to feed their families”.
It will be helping them.
yellowdogdem:
Which is my point. This vote was against the powerful special interest and in favor of the 4th. The sugar beet growers will be coming after MM alright. That’s what they do – they look out for their own interests.
Face it: this was a vote where MM took the less politically-expedient route. She could have had the money of the sugar beet growers on her side, but she voted with the rest of agriculture in the 4th – a group that is less politically organized and less financially powerful.
Colorado Farm Bureau, the state’s largest ag organization, broke ranks with their national organization and opposed CAFTA. CFB is supposed to represent all of the ag industries, what does that tell you?
It tells me that there was dissent on the issue and that the sugar beet growers are very powerful.
But the:
Colorado Cattlemen’s Association
Colorado Wheat Growers
Colorado Corn Growers
Dairy Farmers of America
Colorado Livestock Association
…all broke rank with the Farm Bureau.
My point being: you can say this was a vote agains the sugar beet growers of the 4th. But you can’t say this was a vote against ag in the 4th or the farmers and ranchers in the 4th. And you can’t say this was a vote that was dictated by special interests when in fact it was a vote against the most powerful ag special interest out there.
Say what you want….CAFTA, NAFTA SHAFTA….all it does is signal goodbye to jobs in America….and that is not in Colorado’s best interest….MM does not do what is best for her district…she votes the way Tom Delay tells her to vote and even you R’s know it.
Ummm…
You can say all you like. Fact is, your gal is in trouble. In what should be a safe Republican district.
Yellowdogdem, thank you, I found the info.
tommix, re CAFTA NAFTA SHAFTA; AMEN! — Salazar voted against CAFTA, that was the info I was looking for.
The realignment of farmers from the Democratic party to the Republican party is definitely a post-WWII phenomena. It doesn’t date back to the 19th century as suggested (albeit probably in jest).
Take a look how this is playing in the district. looks like MM voted with the ag community to me.
Musgrave sides with district’s ag interests in trade pact vote
By BILL THEOBALD
Gannett News Service
WASHINGTON – Rep. Marilyn Musgrave sided with her district’s major agricultural interests – cattle, corn and wheat – in voting for the controversial Central America Free Trade Agreement.
The trade pact was approved at 10 p.m. MDT Wednesday in a dramatic 217-215 vote.
Even on the day of the vote, Musgrave, a Fort Morgan Republican, had not decided how she would vote on CAFTA, which was opposed by the Colorado Farm Bureau because of fears that sugar imports would undercut the area’s sugar beet industry.
“As the representative for one of the country’s most agriculturally intense congressional districts, I am pleased to promote Colorado agriculture and join the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, Colorado Wheat Growers, Colorado Corn Growers, Dairy Farmers of America, and Colorado Livestock Association and many others in support of CAFTA,” Musgrave said in a written statement.
Cattle interests supported the treaty because it would eliminate 40-percent tariffs on prime beef exports to the Central American countries and Dominican Republic.
Beef exports to those countries could triple by 2015 from $12.5 million annually to $41 million, according to estimates by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
Cattle accounts for 50 percent of the sales of agricultural goods produced each year in the 4th Congressional District and sugar beets account for about 2 percent, said Guy Short, Musgrave’s chief of staff. The value of cattle raised in the district ranked seventh among the country’s 435 congressional districts, he said.
Statewide, cattle sales total almost $3 billion annually, while sugar beets account for about $30 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
“She had to worry about the entire district,” Short said.
CAFTA, which passed the Senate 54-45 last month, would immediately eliminate trade tariffs on about 80 percent of goods made in the United States and sold to Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic.
Tariffs on other merchandise, including autos and auto parts, would be phased out over five to 10 years.
But the agreement would permit the importation of an additional 109,000 metric tons of sugar in the first year and more in subsequent years, which U.S. sugar beet growers fear will put them out of business.
All but 15 of the House’s 202 Democrats opposed the agreement, including some who have voted for past trade pacts.
Twenty-seven Republicans voted against it, many of them from districts in the South and Midwest with textile factories or sugar growers.
On Thursday, Colorado and national cattle officials and several other groups contacted a reporter to laud Musgrave’s vote.
“It’s really a courageous thing she did. It’s the right thing for Colorado and it’s the right thing for the country,” said Mark Smith of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Originally published July 29, 2005
Did I hear right…
Angie P. said she was going to raise 3 million dollars???
This from the same bankrupt, Angie N0-Pay-cionee that can’t send in her homeowners association dues…
Run Angie Run
You guys crack me up. The sugar beet growers get the press because they complain the most. I have heard that the Farm Bureau was basically taken over by the Beet growers, entirely to oppose CAFTA. They are not a good representation of Colorado Ag, or even the 4th CD’s Ag community. When you have corn and cattle both in favor of a vote here in Colorado, you better listen to them a little more than a crop that only accounts for 2% of ag produce. You guys are the same people who criticized Beauprez’s ag background, basically most of you don’t really have a clue what you are talking about. My advice is go watch Green Acres, or better yet take a drive by a cornfield then come back and post on here.
RAR, that’s a dead horse…everybody knows she didn’t pay her property owner’s assosication dues because your old buddy’s in Ft. C’s R party let everyone know….and she didn’t deny it and still got 58% of the vote….so who do you think cares? Not the voters. Can’t you guys come up with anything new?
It seems to me that the free trade votes have become more political than constituent driven, as seen in this chart courtesy the Wall Street Journal (no of votes in favor)
Nafta 1993 GOP 132 Dems 102
China MFN 1997 GOP 147 Dems 112
Trade Promo Authority 2001 GOP 194 Dems 21
Cafta 2005 GOP 202 Dems 15
Musgrave vs. Her Constituents: Round One
Over at <a href=?http://coloradopols.com/archives/2005/07/grange_revenge.html?>Colorado Pols</a>, they’re speculating about whether Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado 4th) is going to pay for <a href=?http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/rol…
Musgrave vs. Her Constituents: Round One
Over at <a href=?http://coloradopols.com/archives/2005/07/grange_revenge.html?>Colorado Pols</a>, they’re speculating about whether Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado 4th) is going to pay for <a href=?http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/rol…
In fact Colorado became a state specifically because of it was safely Republican (at least in terms of political leadership) as part of the 1876 Compromise. You got those freaky 1890s (and 1980s?) as the exception, but Colorado is a solid red Republican state, historically and today, miner to farmer to soccer mom.
can viagra be used by women
Grange Revenge?
can viagra be used by women
Grange Revenge?