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
50%↑
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%
May 09, 2009 12:59 AM UTC
29 Comments
Loading ...
but there a lot of people out there mad about the Guv’s Senate pick.
(is his position exempt from this pool?)
We’re thinking you’d like that even less.
That’s you, alright.
As a gay man, I’m deeply offended by some of the crap that comes out of Scott Renfroe’s mouth.
However, as a human being, I find shocking beyond believe some of the stuff that Schultheis says and does.
before I saw your comment. It was a toss up between him and Dave. They both suck, in my opinion but you make a good point–Dave’s so vile it’s actually shocking.
Because she did NOTHING, not even enough to piss people off.
You’re even worse than a mean one, Mr. Grinch.
I’d like to offer as a very unusual option: John Morse.
Although the Dems throughout the State have fallen in love with him, he has taken positions that have alienated him within the Colorado Springs area (his constituents).
Some examples:
He sponsored the legislation (sorry, I can’t remember the bill number) that would have increased attorney commissions for lawsuits involving builder defects. Not a good idea when the single most powerful PAC (and the largest political contributors) in CS are the builders.
He supported the legislation to give collective bargaining to firefighters (I know, I need to get the bill numbers) in direct opposition to Home Rule cities like CS.
He supported efforts to gut Urban Renewal (okay, I promise, I’ll include bill numbers on future posts) when CS is just on the verge of making a couple of urban renewal projects viable.
My point is, he might be the worst because while he is winning the approval of progressive Dems, he is pissing off the local CS community and they are the ones who will re-elect him (or not) in 2010.
isn’t quite like Colorado Springs as a whole. You can tell by the fact that he won his first election, against an incumbent, with 60% of the vote. (Yes, I know the guy he won against was a certifiable moron… and I don’t say that as a generic insult or a slur because he is a Republican; I think his general intelligence was insufficient to make reasonable decisions, even on nonpartisan issues. Still, 60%!)
John’s district includes the west side (which is at least leaning progressive) and downtown (different mix of environmentalists versus poverty advocates and religious progressives, but still leaning progressive). Yeah, he’s got some pretty staunchly conservative areas in his district too, but I think getting progressives out to vote for him is also important.
That said, I do think he’s been unusually brave in some of his positions… and I don’t consider that a bad thing! And I certainly don’t think he’s made himself unelectable in 2010.
if that criteria really goes to best/worst.
Rather, those are political calculations:
Builders will never support him anyways, so why alienate trial lawyers; public employee unions are probably the most influential in this state, and firefighter support is good for warm fuzzies around election time; coming from the northern part of the state, we’ve seen plenty of URA abuse, so I don’t think that’s necessarily a deal killer.
Just playing devil’s advocate. Someone like Schultheis or Renfroe, on the other hand, are an embarrassment no matter where you are on the ideological spectrum. Their ham-handed bigotry and ham-handed skills in front of microphone do themselves no good.
someone willing to be true to what they think is right, and trying to lead his constituents in that direction.
But he still will face a well funded opposition who will drive home some of the points in my previous post.
She made some decisions that caused a lot of damage.
For declaring a voice vote in favor of the Republicans on HB-1312, when it instead was the Democrats who were louder.
Just kidding, though. We’ll chalk that up to beginner’s unluck. Sue’s a dynamo legislator and a good vit for HD-24.
The kind who is worthless and does nothing, like Bradford. And the kind who actually tries to do things to destroy the state – like Schultheis and Renfroe. Haven’t voted yet, because I am not sure which is worse. At least Schultheis and Renfroe fight for something, even if it is evil and vile.
And that’s not helpful.
There were things Bradford could have done to help her District. While it’s not your district, there are still needs here in Western La-La Land.
Bradford was not sufficiently engaged to even ask what those needs were.
from the Daily Camera we have Daniel Kagan HD-3 with
According to Representative Kagan the laws should apply to you and me, but not to those that pass the legislation.
on several levels.
1) That’s not what Daniel is saying. He’s saying that it shouldn’t be blown our of proportion as a political and reputational matter. He isn’t saying that anyone should be exempt from criminal and civil liability for their actions. No one is arguing that Pommer shouldn’t have to pay the fines, which is the application of the law, as it would be applied to you and me.
2) Daniel is defending someone he respects, at a personal cost (such as drawing comments such as yours), something I consider admirable rather than shameful.
3) Daniel is suggesting, correctly, that our scrutiny of public officials should be primarily directed at their dilligence and responsibility in carrying out the tasks with which we entrust them, and not at the dysfunctional sport of salivating at every whiff of conceivable malfeasance embedded in what is in fact often just ordinary carelessness. Having read the original article, it really doesn’t appear that the late filing of the campaign finance disclosures was done as an attempt to hide anything, but rather as a slightly more eggregious form of what appears to be a common failing (others were late as well, just not as late).
is all these people that say it’s ok he’s not filling these forms out because he’s doing a great job in the legislature. That’s very different from look at his good points also.
In addition these requirements are there for a good reason. And I disagree with the approach that it’s no big deal if it’s someone that we think is on the up and up. The reason we have these requirements is to find those people that appear to be honest, but actually do have things to hide.
And finally, with all this publicity, why hasn’t he filed yet???
but not criticizing Daniel for stating his presumably honest opinion that he thinks the issue is being inflated out of proportion.
It troubles me that Kagan, a lawyer, comes out of the box saying the rules don’t matter that much. David’s right, reporting requirements are there for a reason. An occasional slip-up? Everyone’s human, pay the fine and move on. But Pommer seems to have a congenital inability to do what the law requires. Kagan shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss that.
but, on the scale of things to hold state representatives feet to the fire over, defending a colleague you respect, at your own personal political peril (as this discussion demonstrates), for an infraction which may well not be one indicative of moral reprehensibility, this one should be the smallest of footnotes in a long list of inevitable minor slip-ups. For my money, I still find Kagan’s actions more admirable than offensive, but even for those who take the latter position, Kagan’s role in coming to the defense of his colleague certainly cannot be considered a major issue.
Besides, I think Daniel is one of those humble, sincere, dedicated representatives who just want to serve the people well. Part of his virtue is that he thinks less about his own political ass, and more about what he personally believes is right (whether you agree with his conclusion on a specific issue or not). I hate to see him taking heat for not being cynical enough to be less loyal and more insincere.
or his sincerity. I’m questioning his judgment. It’s an odd battle for Kagan to pick for a freshman legislator appointed to his seat with a month remaining in the session. It hardly merits putting him on the “worst legislators” list, but that’s awfully early for him to adopt such a clubby, breaking-the-rules-doesn’t-matter attitude about a fellow legislator, or at least for him to put it into print.
There’s no reason we can’t “focus” on Pommer’s aptitude with the state budget while at the same time making the point he flouts the rules when they apply to himself. Kagan is proposing we do the first and ignore the second, and that bothers me for a brand-new legislator to be saying that.
Perhaps Schultheis should not have been in the poll. After all, he is a professional and we should only be ranking amateurs. His place in history is secure so it really isn’t necessary to dwell on his accomplishments – it will be sometime before someone exceeds his records.
However, he does serve a purpose. Without Schultheis, it would be a real horse race between Lundberg and Renfroe.
Now there is a Trinity to contemplate.
to retire Schultheis’ jersey after this one. But if he keeps upping the ante, like he did this session, I say he deserves the prize.