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%
October 24, 2009 01:40 AM UTC
18 Comments
Westword reports that Cory Voorhis has been silenced by a judge’s order.
The GOP has issued a stinging statement telling Villafuerte to speak up or step down.
So is his supervisor, upon whom Vooris’ defense was based.
http://blogs.westword.com/late…
If there’s a point you want to make, you might want to rely on a better example to illustrate it.
Seems to be some smoke here but Wadhams jumps to the defense of the wrong-doer Cory Voorhis rather than focusing on the possible wrong doing of the nominee.
Colorado Democrats are blessed to have Colorado Republicans as their opposition.
Voorhis accesses NCIC to come up with dirt for R campaign.
Ritter campaign complains to DA’s office.
Ritter accuses Beauprez’s campaign of breaking the law to get the information.
Campaign ends- Voorhis gets into trouble.
Where’s the mystery or the inequity?
I know reporter Karen Crummy (giggle) seems to think this is a big deal, but as far as I can tell, Beauprez’ campaign accessed a database illegally to find out information about some convict to use it in a campaign ad. Then people in Ritter’s campaign including Villafuerte discussed this among themselves.
Yet another nontroversy from people desperate to attack Ritter.
And then she gave statements to the FBI about those discussions. There are accusations, backed up by some circumstantial evidence about phone messages, that she wasn’t entirely forthcoming with the FBI. That could be a problem.
but is there any allegation that she did anything illegal aside from lying to the FBI? (Which of course is not trivial, but still, is there an underlying crime she’s accused of?)
but, if true, that ain’t nothing, especially for a potential top federal prosecutor.
The other part of the story, though, is that some agencies — allegedly at the direction of the Ritter campaign — also accessed the database for purposes other than law enforcement.
But what if the Ritter campaign asked the Denver DA’s office to check the database in order to determine if the Beauprez campaign broke the law by accessing the database? And the goal of the Ritter campaign and the Denver DA’s office was to blow the whistle on the Beauprez campaign (about its breaking the law)? Is that a form of law enforcement?
that the Ritter backers were trying to figure out how Beauprez could have connected the two names and, in the process, violated the law themselves by accessing the database. I am not sure, but I don’t think what the Beauprez campaign was alleged to have done is n the Denver DA’s jurisdiciton, so doubtful they could make the kind of bootstrapped law-enforcement argument you’re suggesting (tongue in cheek, I’m guessing).
So to save face an avoid admitting that when this name surfaced, that they did the exact same search in the NCIC, the campaign (including Villafuerte) try to cover it up. It appears that the FBI had no interest in pursuing the case, but regardless, if this story can get some multi-day run, it won’t bode well for Ritter.
The story appears to be a total hit job by Crummy, but when a reporter raises some legitimate questions and the Governor’s office sends out Dreyer who says that we won’t answer questions until they become moot… What story was she was supposed to write? If there isn’t in fact a story here, the Ritter office’s handling of it is certainly turning it into one.
Finally, there is nothing really new to the accusations. You would think the Governor’s office would have been prepared and out in front of the story. Not their finest media moment.
The Post headline is wonderful (“Questions raised…”). It appears that the only questions about the nomination that are reported are those raised by the reporter.
Republicans have been banging this drum for some time and reacted with outrage with Vilafuerte’s nomination was announced.
Has anything happened in 2009 that hasn’t made Republicans react with outrage?
They boo everything, for crying out loud. They’re worse than Philadelphia sports fans.
ask questions. That’s what Bernstein and Woodward did. If you don’t ask any questions, you never get any answers.
Of course, reporters should ask questions. But the headline/storyline for the subsequent story shouldn’t be “people are asking questions!” (Especially when the story doesn’t refer to any questioners besides the reporter.) Cuz, then, the reporter created the news that is the subject of the story.
who is asking the questions should be made clear. If its Crummy asking the questions, then it should be stated as such.
Reporters should be asking questions, its part of their job. And like anybody else, they should be held accountable for their behavior.