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%
February 10, 2011 09:23 PM UTC
8 Comments
THIS IS THE OBAMA ADMINSTRATION’S CASE.
Don’t you think that detail should be included somewhere in your polemic?
Let’s ignore the man behind the curtain. He’s not important anyway. Speak to the point. Oh, and see my snark below. I think it hits the Justice’s points more succintly.
Are you for state’s rights or not? If you are, then Massachusetts has the right to allow anyone it wants to to marry and you should support that. You know, you should also read the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution. I know you guys don’t like to read the whole Constitution and you like to ignore certain founding fathers, but you know, really. Oh, that full faith and credit clause was probably one of the ones that the Republicans left out in their reading of the Constitution because they don’t like it.
The reasoning in the piece is unassailable.
from Justice Dubofsky.
You expect these people to be consistent. But consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Please, there is another, more important reason for them to be inconsistent. Really. I know that you don’t understand it being the fine jurist that you were and the great lawyer that you are, but really, the anti-gay consistency of the Republicans is much more important than consistency on state’s rights, and particularly about such an important issue as, oh my I not sure I can say it in polite company, GAY MARRIAGE (oh, I hope lightening won’t strike). Did you learn no lessons from Terry Schaivo. That was the time when the Republicans in Congress and the President of the United States tried to override state law in one of the most sacred of states-retained-rights areas, the right to die or not die. You see, they had a more important principal, you know, that sanctity of life stuff where they make the baby be born and then cut off any funding for anything thereafter for the welfare queens or make you live until God takes you but cut your Medicare or Medicaid at the same time so you will have to suffer. Please, we can’t be silly, states rights is only for cutting budgets and stopping social security and Medicaid and Medicare and stuff like that which will reduce the size of the Federal Government. But when it comes to important things like fertilized eggs and dying cancer victims and (again I hate to bring this up in polite society but) medical marijuana well, then the Federal Government must step in because the states simply can’t be trusted. Do you understand now?
to show what an ideological chameleon he is. He’s for states rights if it opposes forcing people to pay for health insurance coverage but he if for recognizing national statute to force people to not love each other. What?
and start doing his job. Yes, this is a rant, but it’s short, so bear with me.
As I recall, then-Attorney General Ken Salazar was pretty active in going after violators of the no-call list. After Suthers moved into the office, unsolicited commercial calls increased (to my phone number, anyway). The mice finally determined that the cat had disappeared, and now the unwanted phone solicitors call a couple of times a week.
Yes, I tell them to take me off of their calling list and that I’m on the no-call list, and when I say that, the calls stop. But the point is that they’re not supposed to be calling me in the first place (I know the loopholes, and these callers don’t fit in any of them). I thought the attorney general was supposed to be enforcing the no-call rule. Suthers, do your damned job.