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%
May 22, 2010 12:11 AM UTC
29 Comments
and I think Foster has only herself to blame for it. She was less than forthcoming when first asked about having a family member that was a sexual offender and furthermore, she seems to have a real beef with THE; whether her beef is legitimate is up to others to decide. But she had an obligation to disclose some background details relevant to this bill and she didn’t.
Didn’t the entire Senate adopt the amendment, without much dissent? To the extent that any veto is a “slap,” this veto seems to be a slap at everyone in the legislature who voted for the amendment and the final amended bill.
that Foster offered up the amendment without revealing she was related to a sexual offender that had issues with the same program she now claimed she had received calls of “concern” over.
She did not reveal that her brother-in-law was a convicted sex offender until after she successfully pushed through a last minute amendment on the bill.
So yes, Earnest. This would be considered a slap down specifically to her and why Ritter refers to it as the reason for his veto.
He vetoed the bill because he disagreed with the amendment on the merits (which was supported by the majority of the legislature). He did not veto the amendment because of Foster’s actions. Thus, according to his explanation, his alleged slap was at all supporters of the amendment.
He wasn’t going to sign the bill with that amendment in it.
And, if so, his reasoning had nothing to do with Foster’s connections and lack of candor, as I said above. Thus, to call this a slap at Foster specifically seems inaccurate (if one is to take the Governor’s explanation at face value).
Foster introduced this amendment at the last minute without revealing her direct conflict of interest and it was a pretty major conflict. If you find the title of this diary misleading after knowing that, I can’t help you any further here.
It seems very likely that Ritter would’ve vetoed the bill in any event. So, to view his veto as primarily about Foster seems off base. Thanks for your help anyway.
What I said was “He wasn’t going to sign the bill with that amendment in it.” Foster put the amendment in.
Call Evan Dreyer and see if Ritter would have vetoed the bill without that amendment.
It was the substance of the amendment to which Ritter objected. Not Foster’s lack of personal disclosures. Ritter likely would’ve vetoed the bill with the amendment in any event, even if Foster’s lack of candor was never made public.
Thanks so much for weighing in with your deep thoughts, Earnest.
….please read my reply to Ralphie, in which I address the point that Ritter would’ve likely vetoed the bill with the amendment regardless of the disclosure of Foster’s screw-ups. Ritter disagreed with the substance of the amendmeent and, by extension, he disagreed with all of those legislators who supported the amendment.
Done here, Earnest. So very, very earnest you are.
When will our pols learn that everything comes out? You can say you would rather not answer a question because of concerns for the privacy of others and catch a little flack for it but you can’t lie. You won’t get away with it. It will come back to bite you.
Not only that but somebody has captured whatever dumb remark you just made at that little fund raiser on their cell phone. Almost nothing is private for private people anymore. NOTHING is private for public people. Don’t even try to lie to or keep a secret. It won’t fly.
aren’t we–Blumenthal? Lord.
I can’t figure out why Foster even tried to tag this damned thing on and figured her conflict of interest wouldn’t come to light. This wasn’t terribly hard to find out and she just killed a pretty good bill with her bullshit.
have a habit of being discreet but there are ways to do that without lying. Pretty sure lying is pretty seriously frowned upon.
I mean, God forbid anyone votes in secret? Privacy only matters until you have publicly pledged to do something.
Sort of like David knowing who he’s gonna vote for until he doesn’t.
I thought that went without saying.
Never, ever, ever, no matter what.
And if you do change your mind, do it very quietly…
It’s like cheating on your wife. Better to get a divorce first, then date someone else later.
Tell the truth- There’s less to remember.
Don’t liberals always go easy on sex offenders?
their moms while secretly harboring homosexual urges?
Had the amendment been introduced when it should have, and received public hearing and comment, it would be a different story. Instead it was snuck in at the last minute by someone with the appearance if not the reality of a conflict of interest.
There’s a chance the amendment would never have succeeded if it had been offered in committee will full hearing and expert testimony. It is unfortunate that a majority of the Senate voted in favor of the amendment on the floor. The laws around sex offenders and the SOMB are complex – for a reason. And in my humble opinion, it is an area of the law with which legislators should be somewhat well-acquainted, along with a whole lot of other things like child protection, forest health, water, etc. But we don’t elect policy experts and/or policy generalists very often, do we?! Too bad.