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
30%↑
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%
March 04, 2010 12:18 AM UTC
47 Comments
I have already received and forwarded an e-mail from Credo Action asking people to thank him for signing. Maybe he’ll get enough thank yous to convince him to sign? What does he have his aides tell people who call with thanks? Awkward!
On the plus side, Bennet himself appeared on Rachel Maddow so no doubts there.
Subject: Sen Udall came through for us.
Well it sure sounded like he had signed, especially considering everything else. But it does say
And now something about his supporting a public option only at the state level? But if he meant state level, reconciliation would be irrelevant. So if he does support public option and reconciliation why not sign the letter? I’m still confused.
Because the letter didn’t specify certain provisions in the public option (regarding negotiated rates) and certain requirements for how to proceed with reconciliation. If it had, his spokeswoman said, he would have signed it immediately.
Not legislation. Seems off base to be picky about that level of detail. But OK, if they say so. Udall still deserves thanks for support and guess the state only thing not accurate? Rachel Maddow did a nice job of clearing up confusion about actual signing while still commending the non-signers for their support last night. More ado about not much, I guess.
I don’t whether to be impressed or revolted.
Twisting himself into that statement may cause him to throw out his back. Fortunately the lack of a spine makes it possible for him to wrap himself into a pretzel.
I don’t think it’s as simplistic as you want to make it, David. Here’s what Udall’s spokeswoman said when Riley asked, “So again, why not sign the letter?”
It doesn’t fit on a bumpersticker, but we’re talking about some serious and complicated stuff here. Udall’s position might not be as monosyllabic as you’d like, but it’s not unclear, either. So Udall says, here are the conditions under which I’ll support a public option via reconciliation — sounds like an opening for public option supporters.
I told you all a couple weeks back there was no chance in hell Udall was going to sign on the dotted line. And who’s surprised Rachel Maddow is playing fast and loose with the facts?
Keep movin’ people, nothing to see here.
any day.
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
Good thing she’s not trying to promote an agenda.
The Media Research Center its damned self wouldn’t be promoting an agenda, would it?
So Rachel agrees with many economists that deficit spending during the Great Recession is not a bad thing?
So Rachel thinks that ‘climategate’ is–as a means to ‘disprove AGW’ i.e. a ‘…gate’ i.e. a significant (as in substantive) scandal–is made up?
I am not saying Maddow is always right. I am not saying that, as with every other pundit, she doesn’t overstate on occasion her case. I am saying that compared to the bloviators populating cable shows on Faux Noise, she generally gets her facts right. But we all know that reality has a liberal bias.
Your fact checking of all Fox News and Rush Limbaugh results in one video of Beck writing the world “oligarchy” with the wrong spelling on a chalk board. Scaaaaaaaaaaandalous.
Next please.
He didn’t spell it ‘oligarky,’ ‘oligarcky,’ ‘olligarchy,’ or any other variation of the sort. He spelled it with an ‘h’ but omitted the ‘c’. He obviously knows how to spell it. The way he wrote it, phonetically it would read “all-ig-are-he.”
This would be a thin point/argument if he had spelled it with six W’s, three X’s, two J’s, and a Z. But the way it is just proves how little you have in the way of “ammmo.”
Makes me all warm and fuzzy.
Good response. Almost convinced me there that MSNBC is anything more than a padded-room network for the craziest SOBs out there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Comedian Chris Mata faked the audio of the producer supposedly flipping out.
You’ve been punked by a 3 year old hoax.
Do you also forward all those e-mails about Nancy Pelosi’s 100 million dollar booze parties to your friends?
Until the cows come home and the Rapture comes. Thiessen is a complete fucking hypocrite and a moron.
Nice changing the subject though, this thread is about Mark Udall and the Public Option. Goodbye.
First, Tara Trujillo is correct. The statement did not say Udall was co-signing the letter. In fact, most of the supposed co-signers since #18 or so have been the same–releasing statements rather than co-signing, for the reason that Tara Trujillo stated. They don’t support the Medicare or Medicare +5 public options, but the negotiated rate public option, and Bennet’s letter didn’t specify.
But there is no evidence that Rachel Maddow got the “co-sgner” information from ColoradoPols. She listed Udall along with all the other “signatures” (none of whom actually “signed” but issued statements). At the same time, the on-screen graphic was from the DFA/PCCC/Credo website.
Second, ColoradoPols didn’t “send out a tweet.” Just as Mike Riley’s blog does, a tweet is sent automatically whenever a blog is posted.
Third, ColoradoPols is not cable news. It doesn’t “report” anything “all day.” Just like The Denver Post, it’s posted once and it’s posted unless someone edits it.
Fourth, ColoradoPols didn’t report anything of the sort. As ColoradoPols reported above, the blog was posted by random community member sxp151 and promoted by elected front-page editor MOTR. If it’s fair to say that ColoradoPols reported anything, then the Denver Post has to take ownership of everything Ross Kaminsky and John Andrews ever posted to PoliticsWest (a Denver Post property that has since been replaced by The Spot).
Here’s the thing. Community blogs like Daily Kos and ColoradoPols are not media sites. They are community sites. The content is created by regular people, not reporters. But the same can be said for the Denver Post, as most of the content there occurs in the comments below the articles. If ColoradoPols and the blogosphere as a whole have to own a minor headline error (as if the Denver Post proper never makes those kinds of mistakes), then the Denver Post has to own every statement made by every teabagger in the comments on their articles from the sensible ones to the ones wishing the white powder envelopes delivered to Congressional offices had actually killed people.
Riley didn’t mention that Bennet was on the program. Maddow wasn’t just “introducing a segment on the possibility that the public option may be revived through the reconciliation process in the Senate,” she was introducing Michael Bennet. Will Riley own that omission?
None of them very funny.
The diary sxp linked to had been up for nearly an hour when he posted his here and the update from CREDO was a pretty clear confirmation of Wyden, Casey and Udall had signed on.
Here’s the best part that the Post either doesn’t know or recognize–several of us called to thank Udall’s office for his support. I commented on it in sxp’s diary. His female staffer thanked me several times over, never mentioning that he had no intention of signing it. I specifically mentioned Bennet’s letter and CREDO. So who’s being disingenuous here? I’d say Udall.
Read the e-mail, I posted it above.
Nowhere in their e-mail does it say Udall, Wyden, or Casey had signed the letter.
And as I said, it’s all for the same reason. They have very specific policy positions that the Bennet letter didn’t address.
And the Credo/PCCC/DFA website is very clear:
It then goes to list whether it’s “letter” or “statement” or “unknown.”
I misread the CREDO email.
Apologies to MOTR and everyone else.
I misread it, too.
CREDO and Udall and everybody else are in fact toeing a fine line to present a unified front. It’s easy to misinterpret.
And of course lost in this discussion is the reason for that policy fine line, which is a legitimate concern that Medicare’s rate structure is hosed, it hasn’t been updated since 1983, and neither Obama nor the Congressional leadership wanted to to to war with the doctors and insurance companies by messing with it in the process of this reform bill.
🙂
Just that it’s not accurate to say that ColoradoPols reported something if it doesn’t say “by: ColoradoPols”
I didn’t take it as demeaning, not coming from you, Thilly.
Oblique… Very oblique… Adjacent to obtuse!
Will you marry me?
Depends. Are you hot?
stochasm anything like sarcasm?
Or that other more fun asm?
Why do you think anyone studies math?
When I say “signed on” I don’t mean they put their signature on a letter. I mean that they had come out for passing the public option through reconciliation, as reported by CREDO. As in “sign me up.”
Hope that clarifies since there is so much confusion all the way around here.
But the Riley article was all about the literal signing which is why I have to make such a literal debunking.
Because this is becoming more confusing by the moment.
I sincerely apologize for front paging it.
It’s good news. The fact that the headline wasn’t precise doesn’t mean it wasn’t accurate. If the Bennet letter had been specific, Udall would have physically signed it. Tara Trujillo said as much.
But the fact remains that Udall is for the public option that he said he’s for, which is the same public option that DFA/PCCC/CREDO give him kudos for saying that he’s for.
They think it’s good news and so do I.
Here is what he said in a 9/9/09 Denver Post article:
So perhaps he feels the public option is too big a move to put in a reconciliation bill that is already controversial.
Or perhaps he thinks this Bennet letter is strictly a “too little, too late” cover your ass political maneuver that has no chance of succeeding so why take the political risk of signing it? It’s good for Bennet in the primary but what does it do for Udall? Nothing unless the outcry from his Democratic constituents becomes so strong he must sign on.
Udall does on occasion rebel against political bullcrap. As with the gas tax holiday.
until he has a primary challenge.
Read the above comments.