U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(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) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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%
June 30, 2009 03:26 PM UTC
69 Comments
Sort of tangential, here, but my favorite conservative wackaloon, Senator Dave Schultheis, has set up a Twitter account (http://twitter.com/Sen_Schultheis), which I followed for a day. It was only a day, apparently because I referred to him in a tweet of my own as “batshit crazy in 140 characters.” I was blocked from the Schultheis feed later than day.
Well, it is his Twitter account, but I wonder if it’s really appropriate for elected officials who sign onto social media to banish members of the electorate for being critical. As a candidate, sure, but once on the public payroll shouldn’t all utterances (and tweets) be available to the constituents?
Rush must be assuming that Obama has 2012 in the bag with ours because now he’s claiming that Obama’s stand on the coup in Honduras shows he’s trying to pave the way for a third term for himself and might not even stop there!
http://www.realclearpolitics.c…
Guess he’s given up on that whole failing thing.
I believe that emails of public officials doing public business, are subject to CORA…Colorado’s Open Records Act.
Now, I am still trying to remember my password for various blogs, so I am not technical current. Do twitter posting disappear into the vapor or are they somehow saved? If the latter, I think you should make an Open Record Request for Schultheis’s on a given day. It would appear that communicating with your constituents is public business, IMHO.
These are a couple of questions that I need to answer that I hadn’t thought of.
Thanks for bringing up the point.
Link.
It’s a “report” by an economic advisor within the EPA who does not have any training in environmental science.
The EPA and other government bodies aren’t in the business of producing reports for every single viewpoint within the organization; their job is to form a solid consensus viewpoint and produce their best available option and possibly a few of the more plausible alternatives.
The Bush Administration turned this on its head; they suppressed consensus reports in favor of political opinions. Now we have the consensus career EPA officials back doing their jobs. Hooray for the immortality of bureaucracy.
It’s not like there’s anything magic about this particular report. In fact, if you look at the analysis at realclimate.org you see that:
So, given how easily this report is shot down, EPA should have considered it and knocked off the arguments, one-by-one.
Hi all;
Ok, interview tomorrow morning at 9:00 with the Gov. I have the questions I like from the last list of suggestions but if anyone has any new suggestions – please post.
My first question will be “How can you hope to win if you do not have the full-blown enthusiastic support of the 5 most liberal posters here on Pols?” 🙂
I don’t really know where I fall on the left-right continuum, though.
I may not agree with every decision he has made, but I am personally convinced that he, far more than he is given credit for, makes his decisions based more on what he thinks is the best policy (or best choice), systemically, for the people of Colorado as a whole, than based on what best serves his political career (though I do think that the tension between the two goals creates some distortions sometimes). That’s exactly why he is so often accused of being politically oafish: Because he has the courage not to prioritize political expedience above implementing good policies.
Last night, for instance, he spoke at a small gathering in my house district, and fielded a question regarding his choice of Senator Bennet to replace Ken Salazar. He told the story from beginning to end, and it was clear to me that he simply sought first to determine what qualities make for the most effective U.S. Senators (actually surveying sitting senators and others to gain insight into that question), and then to match those traits to the person he felt best exemplified them.
Personally, I think he has far more integrity and far more political courage than people give him credit for. Too many posters here, and too many self-annointed politicos in general, rate politicians according to how well they act in politically expedient ways (see all the comments on how Ritter has “hurt himself politically”) rather than according to how much integrity and political courage they demonstrate. It’s high time we reversed that prioritization.
I know there are plenty of people who disagree with me, and I may be wrong, but that has always been and remains my impression of the man.
He does have courage and integrity. Unfortunately, those are not electable qualities. Voters ultimately care about themselves, and for union voters he has been a disaster.
It’s not like Romanoff would have made a bad senator, or anything.
he is governor of Colorado. So, the issue is whether they are “re-electable qualities” rather than “electable qualities.”
What he’s going to do for money and volunteers now that he’s thoroughly pissed off the unions.
Does he expect CACI to take up the slack? Maybe the Club for Growth?
With this new funding opportunity his CoS has been hunkered down in his office dialing for dollars.
(I’m sure R-36 will insert some defense about the calls being made from his campiagn manager office, but that is BS and we all know it)
I’d ask if the Governor’s anti-union stands appeal to both the “government pragmatists” and the “moral pragmatists” — or if the stands appeal to the “government pragmatists” more so than the “moral pragmatists.”
http://www.newyorker.com/repor…
Same thing regarding Governor Ritter’s sudden backing off of supporting needle exchange programs. Is that mostly due to a concern over how “moral pragmatists” will vote — or is it a concern about the votes of “government pragmatists,” too?
http://www.westword.com/2009-0…
I’ll split the prize money with you.
Do you think that Ritter is alienating too many “liberals” at this point? People who wouldn’t necessarily vote a third party (what third party?), but who just might choose to not vote at all (for Ritter for governor or anyone else)? I question whether the Governor can make up in extra “moral pragmatists” for the “liberals” that he’s losing.
maybe, but by next spring the liberals will be back because there will be more clearly defined alternatives. In the meantime, the pragmatists will have swallowed an impression that Ritter says no to his friends and calls ’em as he sees ’em.
If someone is a pragmatist in one case but not in the other, won’t the non-pragmtist side drive their vote?
Those are polling blocs Carpie and Kenney use to tailor Ritter’s response to everything — from the death penalty to labor’s bills to budget cuts.
I’m just not sure you can seperate it like they do. At least not in a way that is useful.
to name three things he admires about Josh Penry, Scott McInnis and Don Maes. (That’s partly a trick question to see if he knows anything about Don Maes — if he does, he’ll be ahead of the crowd.)
…”do you still beat your wife.”
Please – legit questions
but that’s a great question. It’s commonly used in presidential (and other) debates and reveals a lot about the interview subject.
I know I’ve heard that question. I always thought it made everyone look silly and act disingenuous, and I never felt like I learned anything at all about the candidate except that s/he becomes uncomfortable when asked awkward questions.
Good Lord, 3 candidates, 3 things you admire–we could be here all day. I have heard candidates asked to name a quality they admire in their opponent. They asked that during the presidential campaigns.
1) Penry? He’s kind of tall.
2) McInnis? He represents his corporate clients well at our old firm.
3) Maes? I thought he ran an excellent campaign for mayor of Denver.
Okay, next question.
He’s got a hell of an arm.
Alert the media – SXP & I agree on something. It’s one of those questions that invites a generic vague response.
… as if your standard question “Are you passionate about your job?” doesn’t?
as does “Are you SURE you love your daughters?”
As for Ritter, I think getting a decent response on a single important thing, even if it takes the whole interview and leaves no time for the Big Picture stuff, would be really helpful.
My question would be, “What the fuck were you thinking vetoing those pro-union bills? What kind of asshole would fuck over unions like that? Can you think of one good reason to shit on them like that?” And then the followups, after he tries to dodge (“Oh, I didn’t think it would matter much”) would just be on the same issue. After I slapped him.
Meh, that’s just my little fantasy, I’m sure I’d be obsequious and polite if I actually met him at lunch.
as does “Are you SURE you love your daughters?”
As for Ritter, I think getting a decent response on a single important thing, even if it takes the whole interview and leaves no time for the Big Picture stuff, would be really helpful.
My question would be, “What the fuck were you thinking vetoing those pro-union bills? What kind of asshole would fuck over unions like that? Can you think of one good reason to shit on them like that?” And then the followups, after he tries to dodge (“Oh, I didn’t think it would matter much”) would just be on the same issue. After I slapped him.
Meh, that’s just my little fantasy, I’m sure I’d be obsequious and polite if I actually met him at lunch.
It’s never happened before, I swear. It’s just that I haven’t commented in a while, and you just got me so excited, and… Uh, I have to go home now.
It’s never happened before, I swear. It’s just that I haven’t commented in a while, and you just got me so excited, and… Uh, I have to go home now.
to provoke generic, vague responses if he wants to — it’s his interview!
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
It would demonstrate how much of an understanding Ritter has of his potential adversaries. Also if he has any clue what their campaign themes will be.
Just how many jobs can his people document being created by the Owens-Ritter Energy policies?
What the 2009-2010 forecast for these jobs by public, private and education sectors?
Who would give more to go back to December 15th 2008 and start again? Pat Bolin or Governor Ritter
Besides the Guv has proclaimed a 100% successful session. His minor concern has been there was not enough money to spend, but that’s not his fault, its Bush’s.
Both you and I have proposed solutions to CBMS that are more cost effective and efficient than the direction that HCPF/DHS has chosen to go, i.e. the large, out of state, fee for service megacorp.
What, if any, is the governor’s commitment to in-state businesses?
Though I fear that CBMS is pretty much a horse that’s been let out of the barn at this point.
I think we are going to see this continue to be a significant problem for quite a while.
before CBMS. The previous Administration did not learn from its mistakes, and I’m not yet convinced that the current Administration has learned from the costly history.
I have yet to hear anyone who deals with it on a regular basis praise it’s merits.
The Minnesota Supreme Court broke it’s typical Thursday schedule today, issuing a 5-0 unanimous ruling declaring:
The End?
here
but I’ll bet anyone here a six-pack that he won’t.
Unless Coleman concedes, he won’t sign until the 10 day rehearing request period has expired. The judgment isn’t final until then.
Here’s to hoping Coleman can read the writing on the judicial wall. He hasn’t had a single person on any board or court rule in his favor since election night.
His goal isn’t to win, it’s just to keep anyone else from winning for a few months and go down in wingnut circles as a political martyr. Then maybe he can make a Nixon-type comeback.
Can he find a single Supreme Court Justice to grant a stay? I can think of four or five.
He’s the reviewer for the 8th Circuit. But that’s only a temporary. He needs to get 4 to hear the case, and 5 to win. If the SCOTUS is that polarized, then perhaps it’s time for impeachment proceedings to begin. There’s no basis in state law, and the trial court ruling even used Bush v. Gore against Coleman (as a theoretical “what if”)…
He weasel-worded it a bit. He said he’d sign if MNSC issued an order. Haven’t seen an order yet, just an affirmation of the lower court.
that an order is implicit in election law, although it’s true that MNSC did not specifically order Pawlenty to sign the certificate. More like, “A certificate should be signed,” which sounds like it should be the same but is not.
It doesn’t look like MN election law is terribly clear about WHEN the certificate would need to be signed. After the results are in, after the courts have decided, yes, but how long after? Five and a half years?
Pawlenty, as quoted on Kos:
Those two sentences don’t say the same thing, but the first one suggests he doesn’t need to be personally ordered to do it.
It’s indicative of what a douchebag Pawlenty is that we have to parse his words like this.
ST. PAUL, Minn. – The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Democrat Al Franken be certified as the winner of the state’s long-running Senate race.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
whether that legally means the same thing as “We order the governor to sign the certificate.” Pawlenty kept answering this question by saying roughly, “I will sign the certificate if ordered to, unless I can find some way not to.”
As I read the statute. But, per the Kos article, he’d rather have an order to give him cover from his own party.
We’ll see how long he stalls waiting for an order.
RE Huffpost comment, I didn’t see an order on the MN Supreme Court site. It certainly wasn’t in the opinion.
We can at least prevail upon all Dems to go for cloture whether they plan to vote for a given bill or not. Seems reasonable and allows them to say they simply voted to allow a democratic up or down vote while a few could vote against if they think they really need to in order to please their constituency back home. Of course that would be assuming they actually are more concerned with small “d” democracy than with big “M” Money. OK, stop laughing.
In Harry Reid’s ability to herd 60 cats as opposed to 59.
Still, there will no longer be any excuses.
by Coleman. Should be happening shortly. Hopefully, he will concede so that Pawlenty can continue to be a complete panty waist and not actually have to step up and act like a governor by actually certifying Franken.
The case before the MN Supreme Court was not about whether he should sign or not. It was about whether or not the lower court erred in their decision. The MN SC found it was correct in its decision. Of course, these are desperate Republicans we are discussing and no one should believe that the Coleman/Pawlenty crowd will abide the law or court orders. If Pawlenty refuses to sign, it may take impeachment or recall to get it done. And Pawlenty might have learned from Sanford debacle. A Republican presidential frontrunner cannot afford scandal and keep his/her national political ambitions alive. Out of self-preservation, Pawlenty will throw Coleman under the bus.
He’s conceded, and has been gracious in doing so (or at least as gracious as dragging this thing out for 6 months can be….).
He’s been contesting this since last November.
Coleman is speaking. Says he will abide by Minn. Supreme Court decision and has called Franken to congratulate him.
Congratulations, Senator Franken.
of democratic virtue de Gaulle was…
Isn’t that the context of the remarks?
Well, I have a very nice health care plan. It costs me over $5k/yr. My employer pays more. I consider that a tax on both of us.
If, at the end of the day, I pay less overall for taxes plus health care, I’ll consider that a tax cut.
And it’s say 10% more than what we presently pay for insurance – I will be thrilled.