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) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

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%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 22, 2014 06:52 AM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 106 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

"Behind every failure is an opportunity somebody wishes they had missed."

–Lily Tomlin

Comments

106 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread

      1. Must be kidding about Perry. He's such a scaredycat he thinks he needs the National Guard to protect him from children voluntarily turning themselves in to authorities at the border.  Don't mess with Texas or what?  He'll crap his pants? And those glasses aren't going to fool anybody into thinking he's smart as long as he can still talk while wearing them. Guess Texans like their women barefoot and pregnant and their men scared and stupid.

    1. Here's a question for you, AC – what do you propose the President do?

      Challenge Putin to a duel?

      Nuke Tehran?

      Build a steel wall 50 feet high and 50 feet deep?

      How about, just once, your side propose a solution instead of screaming "Do something!" or "don't do something!"

      1. OF-Because the Russians shot down a civilian aircraft, that would be my starting point. Prohibit landing rights for any Russian carrier at any US airport and prohibit any US carrier from landing at any Russian airport.  Put on table prohibiting landing rights at any US airport for any carrier that lands at any Russian airport pending new EU sanctions.

            1. Well, AC, it's not clear that the Russians themselves shot down anything.  But shoot-from-thehhip jingoists like you don't like to wait for facts.  (Think "WMD.") Second, the Europeans have a lot at stake all of a sudden.  We would be much more effective joining EU sanctions than acting unilaterally.

              Oh, and while we're at it, where's your outrage at all the innocent children being killed by Zionist butchers with their disproportionate military action in Gaze?  Trust me, you can be anti-war, even anti-Zionist, without being anti-Semitic.

                1. Your reading comprehension is lacking.  No, I would be revving up the EU to sanction the Russians in a way that hurts.

                  And I'd quit selling tanks, artillery, jets, and ordinance to Netanyahu.

                  1. Actually, you'd have to ask Hamas to stop firing rockets into Israel first. And they have been doing that for a long time. Even before the three Israelis were kidnapped and brutally murdered 30min to 1 hour later.  

                    As for the Palenstianian kid's murder "revenge" – it was done by right-wing Israelis who are affiliated with the late Meir Kahane, which is already known as a hate group, and has heavy presence in Israel as anti-everything but their own.

                    Gazans has said they have supported the Egyptian-led ceasefire which Hamas has turned down – repeatedly. 

                     

                    Where has the money going from the Arab states to Gaza to improve the infrastructure – there are none – all of them has been diverted to build terror tunnels and rockets and its explosive components.

                     

                    1. How many civilians  has Hamas killed with their rockets compared to how many Israel has killed with its disproportionate response?

              1. The sanctions are already working. No more AK-47s imported into the US. I can live with that.

                Here's what I hope: the European countries that believe they need Russian / Ukrainian oil and gas from Gazprom will be looking at Germany, and saying….hmmmm. This is a northern latitude country with only mediocre solar resources, yet it is on track to provide over 20% of its energy from solar.

                Perhaps it isn't worth puttin' up with putin after all.

            2. Well AC, he's already done a lote more than your St. Reagan did when the same thing happened on his watch and it was all his handlers could do to get him to cut his 25 day vacation short a few days. He did it but complained bitterly about it . It's all right there in his very own diary. 

              1. That would be "a lot". Also you do know that back in '88 we accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian passenger jet, went through the same pattern of denial then finally admitted it but offered all kinds of great excuses. Not to excuse the Russians and their ethnic Russian bully boy separatists in Ukraine who are certainly raising the bar on the level of outrageousness in the handling of this type of incident. Just a reminder that this isn't exactly a unique occurance.

                1. after we shot down the Iranian airliner we gave a medal to the captain of the USS Vincennes and another to the guy in charge of the anti aircraft guns that brought it down

                  1. Pretty high on the outrageousness scale, that, but I think drunken thugs destroying evidence and not letting families have the bodies for days while they decompose in the heat gives the Russians a slight edge.  

                  2. Oh, also the separatist thugs are stealing everything valuable, personal jewelry etc, they can get their drunken grubby hands on. They get extra points for that, too. But I take your point.

                2. Incidentally, AC, It's been fun watching all your rightie talking heads make idiots of themselves, carrying on about how Reagan took immediate action when nothing could be further from the truth or more well documented including by Reagan himself. Watching those fallen faces on Fox when confronted with… you know… objective reality in conflict with they're most cherished myths, was priceless.  Thinking about it still makes me chuckle.

        1. in minutes there would come a barrage fro the Rethuglicans about the job killing, industry harming executive order. And Obamacare. And Benghazi. And he would only do it to deflect attention from IRS. And Benghazi, And VA. And he didn't call Putin a thug.

          in hours there would be some cute cartoons you could post

        2. So, not only are you jumping on the unproven "the Russians did it!" bandwagon, but your solution is flight restrictions? That's only slightly less feckless than the inaction claim you heap on the President. 

        3. Where in any news accounts does it say Russians did this? BTW, I saw the same (from two days ago)  news story about Antarctic ice accumulation. The scientists who were observing the ice increase were unsure what the cause was; yet, AC was able to provide an explanation, a debunking of climate change. How is this? Where does AC get facts? Wrong two days in a row, like the name sake, a gross polluter,

  1. Somewhere in a storage box of keepsakes is a round silver disc with a peace symbol on a leather neck strap.  The bumper sticker "Give peace a chance" wore out before the car did but I may still have the button. We sang beautiful songs about "Peace on Earth" and being one people.   Today it seems our efforts and good will were in vain.  

  2. I read The Trouble With Jared and a couple of thoughts sprung to mind:

    1. This will probably work out very well for Jared.
    2. The Oil & Gas companies not only own the Republican party, but most of the Democratic party too.
    3. Once Jared wins this he'll be the most politically powerful individual in the state. The only person who can buck the O&G industry. And the only one who puts the people of the state before O&G profits.
    4. It's bullshit that it's anti-business. Yes it hurts O&G profits. But it helps homebuilder profits (better sale price if there's no drill rig next door) and high-tech jobs (more people willing to locate here if there's no drill rig in their back yard).

    Once again I'm really glad to have Jared as my rep.

    1. ….and the high-tech sector produces 2x more jobs per dollar of state GDP than does O&G.  This waterboarding we're getting via the public airwaves re: Jared is going to destroy our economy is a joke.

    2. I bet Udall is greatly appreciative of Jared's fine work.  Per the WSJ:

      After initially supporting incumbent Sen. Mark Udall (D., Colo.), through the first quarter of this year, oil and natural gas companies have since overwhelmingly supported his challenger, Rep.Cory Gardner (R., Colo.), over Mr. Udall.

      I wonder what caused that to happen?

       

        1. …and becasue our troll boy can only calculate math in Dumphuckistanian mode, he completely missed the point that if you add up the collective donations in both quarters that they've given practically the same to both candidates. 

          Just like every corporate whore in America – they cover ALL their bases.

           

           

          1. Frick is to imbecilic to realize that his precious little chart as presented is a blatant badge of dishonor to all but his brain-dead ilk.

      1. Money shifted because O&G will always hedge it's bets. In the first quarter, Udall was a near lock to win, so they gave him money so he would be nice to them in the Senate. Now that Garder's made it an actual race (though Udall is still in front, regardless of the one poll you see as Udall flagging), they have shifted to Cory Gardner, a member of their traditional congressional allies in the Republican Party. I'm sure if you pulled out 2010 numbers, you would see the same shift from Buck to Bennet in the last months. 

        You will never understand anything if you keep not seeing the forest for the trees by trying to pick anything favorable to Gardner out of every little stat you see. 

    1. Except the ruling will be appealed and then voted on by the full DC circuit court which is majority Democratic appointments. Obamacare will be upheld withe the subssidies. In the meantime nothing changes. Yes a game changer against the right, trying to deny affordable healthcare to Anericans isn't very patriotic is it AC?

    2. And what does it demonstrate other than that if your unfortunate enough to live in a state controlled by spiteful GOTP morons you're getting screwed and if  you live in a state like Colorado, you're getting your subsides? I got mine. My insurance costs less than half what I was paying before I had to drop it because I couldn't afford it. It's no better but it's no worse. Same high deductible as I had before but can't afford more. Still, it's a whole lot better than the no insurance I could afford before ACA. If something awful happens we won't have to make a choice between me dying or losing everything.  My husband has medicare and it's much better than any private insurance ordinary self employed people can afford. 

      The real answer is civilized universal like the rest of the 21st century world has. But you troglodytes won't let that happen until demographics destroy your power once and for all. 

      Sure this is a good thing for the your side?

      1. The GOTP only have a few more years before demographics render them completely irrelevant.  

        So as is their nature, they feel the need to inflict the maximum amount of damage on the weak and powerless before they, themselves, become weak and powerless.

        AC's just trying to do his part while he still can.

      2. These folks still don't get it!   First, the tea-bagging wing nuts who are the guvs and legislators in all those red states which voted for Mittens refuse to set up their own exchanges leaving their bitter constituents clinging to their churches and their guns as well as to the dysfunctional federal exchange while those of us in more enlightened places had our legislators and governors take control of the situation by setting up state exchanges which work just fine.

        Now, those of us with state exchanges are eligible for the federal subsidies while those in red states can pay their own way!

        I don't know about anyone else but I see it as poetic justice should this decision somehow be upheld!  (For too long, ther folks in the blue states have been subsidizing the backward red states in federal tax and benefits redistribution.  This would be a step in the right direction…..) 

        1. Poetic justice will probably have to wait. Most experts doubt this will be upheld. Unlike the Obamacare case that went to the Supremes this isn't about constitutionality so the feeling is if the righties lose the next up round, and as has been noted here pretty much certainly will, and it's good enough for the IRS, the entity in charge of the tax subsidies (a certainty), the Supreme's probably won't take it up.

        1. Ralphie, there is no appeal.

          They can petition for a rehearing en banc, rarely granted.

          They can petition for a writ of certiori to the US Supremes, also rarely granted, but one of the grounds upon which it may be granted is the disagreement of the decisions in the differenct circuit courts of appeal.

      1. Agreed– here's a good analysis of why this ruling is unlikely to live for very long:

        http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/07/22/3459165/halbig/

        Judge Randolph epitimizes the role of Right Wing Nut Job (RWNJ) activist judge.  Purely partisan, ignoring precedent, inventing legal arguments to substantiate the decision.

        Judge Randolph is a staunchly conservative judge who spent much of the oral argument in this case acting as an advocate for the anti-Obamacare side. 

        in this case uncovered a drafting error in the statute where it appears to limit the subsidies to individuals who obtain insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” Randolph and Griffith’s opinion concludes that this drafting error is the only thing that matters.

        The Supreme Court of the United States, however, has long recognized that a law’s clear purpose should not be defeated due to an error in proofreading. 

        The 4th Circuit just handed down it’s decision in a similar case challenging Obamacare subsidies in the federal exchanges. It reached the opposite conclusion and upheld the subsidies.

        Bottomline:  the full DC Circuit Court will save the GOP from themselves and toss this obsurd decision, thus preventing massive voter revolt against Republicans in November.

        If [Chief Justice] Roberts was unwilling to trash the law at a time when the impact would have been relatively small, it is unlikely that he will do so under circumstances that are likely to inspire the masses to storm his castle while wielding pitchforks.

        1. Also they'd have to get Kennedy to go along to get the usual all Catholic all male majority 5. No guarantee there. And if they win the case Repugs would have to explain to a whole lot of people who thought they had affordable safety net coverage that, in the interests of defending their freedom to get sick and die, they don't have it anymore. Dems could pound Rs for screwing it up for all of those people all the way to election day. Yeah Rs could insist it was the Ds fault for leaving out a word or two but Dems could counter by saying  the intent was clear and …. no suit and you'd still have your coverage. Why is AC so happy about all this, now?

          And, by the way, daily checking at RCP reveals these latest attacks aren't lowering Obama's rates further and, in fact, there's some slight improvement in a few of the well know polls. So they aren't getting anything more out of Obamacare than they have already and attacking the administration's handling of the Israeli/Palestinian crisis and  the downed plane is having much effect.. Leveling out at best.  

          So go ahead. Take people's newly gained coverage away by making it unaffordable again. Do it while suing the President for exempting some companies for a while from what you said you didn't want in the first place. Also energize Dems with threats of impeachment and have everyone stick to their guns on federal personhood, just like the personhood that couldn't even pass in Mississippi.  

          That's the GOTP plan as I understand it.  I think it really improves Dem chances of keeping the Senate and improving numbers in the House and among Governors after all. 

      1. Of course. But to these regressive, xenophobic nativists, that's (ugh! ick! gross!) EUROPEAN, and we must never be like THEM!!! Much better to watch our fellow citizens go bankrupt and/or die due to lack of health care. It's the manly, macho, rugged-individualistic way! Bootstraps, baby. It's all in the bootstraps!

          1. Nativism is the political position of demanding a favored status for certain established inhabitants of a nation as compared to claims of newcomers or immigrants. (wiki)

            And yes, most GOTPers are indeed of European ancestry.

          2. Surely you've heard these right-wing knuckleheads rag viciously upon anything that so much as even distantly smacks of European-style governance!? They always mention it in the the same breath as the word socialism.

    3. And yet, the 4th Circuit ruled in favor of the administration in a similar lawsuit.

       

      The law says credits are available if insurence is purchased on an exchange established by the state, it doesn't say anything about that exchange having to be managed by the state. If the state refuses to create a state-run exchange, the state exchange is ipso facto the federal exchange from that point. 

    4. And on the same day, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals just south of the Federal Circuit upheld the government's position on the very same issue.

      The text of the law is pretty clear in stating that the federally run exchanges are considered set up "by the State" (and see Davie's link to Think Progress' analysis for more text from the law that goes against the judges' logic).

      Two other sad notes for you… The two judges that ruled in this case are "senior" judges – aka they're semi-retired and not considered active for purposes of the en banc review the government says it will appeal for. They won't be on the review panel. And if the full appeals court overturns this ruling, then there will be no conflict between the circuits, and the Supreme Court will not be obligated to take the case at all.

      1. I believe that one R and the dissenting D are the senior judges.  In any case, the DC Circuit's internal policies indiacte that "The Court sitting en banc consists of all active judges, plus any senior judges of the Court who were members of the original panel and wish to participate."

    5. Still don't see why this is a winner for your side. People who just got insurance they could afford will have to drop it. So many people who can now afford insurance, but won't if your side "wins", are self employed, owners of very small businesses, young single people and young families, many of whom consider themselves independents, the kind your side needs more of. They aren't going to be very happy after all they went through to get those policies with those subsidies.

      Bet insurance companies aren't going to be thrilled either, losing all that business they just got with the difference between what people need and what they can afford made up for with a subsidy.  It's really kind of lucky for you your chances of "winning" are so slim. I'm guessing you know that and this is really mainly red meat for fund raising purposes. 

  3. Den- Disagree and you are not patriotic? 

    Did you go to the Howard Dean-Andrew Romanoff school of social skills?

    Let's just say I am not a socialist.

    There are Americans who are, perhaps you are, but I am not one of them.

    1. You and your buddies are socialist as all hell when it comes to demanding the general public transfer wealth via subsidies and tax breaks to the corporate elite. There is no safety net too golden for them. Nobody in American politics demands more socialism than you conservative Republicans. You have presided over the greatest confiscatory transfer of wealth in our history. The fact that it's from low and middle income Americans to a tiny wealthy elite just makes it socialism for the very rich. Very similar to the economics of fascism.

      1. Just once, wouldn't you love to see one of these skeevy, turd-dropping cowards actually have the nerve to respond substantively (as though it were possible) to such a deadly accurate, no-survivors takedown of them and all they hold dear? They never defend, only crap and run.

        1. BC-If your starting point is the State owns everything and there is no private property, then your conclusion makes sense.

          That is not my starting point.

          The state allowing people to keep some of their own property is not a subsidy.

          1. What a fantasy.  Without the state there is no definition or enforcement of property rights.  The state costs money to operate (we can disagree on how much).  Allowing someone to reap the benefits of state protection with out paying their share is allowing free (or reduced cost) ridership.  Selectively forgoing revenue from certain property holders is no less a subsidy than taking revenue and providing it to them.  That's why we call such things tax expenditures.

          2. Wow. Where to start. No, my starting point isn't that the state owns everything and that's not the starting point of a single Dem in congress or of the President. The idea that the state has only been allowing poor defenseless rich people to keep some of their earnings is absurd and you know it. Their tax burden has steadily decreased for decades, many paying no income tax at all and few paying the government a higher percentage than ordinary working people who pay payroll taxes on 100% of their income along with income tax. 

            Tax and subsidy policies over the past decades have resulted in the greatest reverse Robin Hood transfer of wealth from average earners into the bursting pockets of the wealthy in our history. For decades the middle class has stagnated or lost ground while the incomes of the wealthy have continually increased at an ever more dizzying pace. 

            One doesn't need to start from a point of the state owning everything to see something wrong with this picture. One only has to look at the decline of everything from our infrastructure to our space program, our declining quality of healthcare, educational opportunities and upward mobility for average Americans to see where this enormous and unprecedented wealth transfer has brought us. 

            You conservatives are the ones who confuse being asked to pay taxes with state ownership. Conservatives slashing taxes and promising that privatization would accomplish more than government ever could, more efficiently and cheaply, have been completely discredited by the cold hard reality of our continuing decline under your shrink the government policies.

            We don't build great things anymore. We don't keep up the great things we used to build or embark on the great projects and explorations. We don't because conservatives insist we can't afford a government that does great things anymore and, no, the private sector hasn't come close to taking those accomplishments over. The only thing conservative policy builds is the portfolios of a tiny elite at the expense of everyone and everything else.

      2. Some good reporting this morning on why European sanctions on Russia are challenging.  For one, there are a small handful of such extremely wealthy Russian oligarchs that they simply couldn't give a shit what the international community thinks.  They would let their their people perish, if necessary.   While they have facial scrubs with caviar, the Russian economy is stagnant – even with $100 oil. 

        Ironically, their wealth is derived from petro-dollars. It's hard to miss the similarities between their situation and ours….and even more so when you understand that those who are attempting to buy our government made their money making oil deals in the old Soviet bloc.

        1. A while back David Brooks, in one of his back and forths with EJ Dionne on NPR, jokingly commented that all it would take for Europe to bring Russia to its knees would be for Europe to threaten to expel all the oligarchs' children from their posh private schools in London and Switzerland. 

          But seriously they've got the EU on the hook for gas and us on the hook for what's left of our space program. I notice even the Rs don't have the chutzpah to blame Obama for that.  The space program is one of the things their shrink government to bathtub drowning size efforts actually managed to shrink very nicely, along with our once but no longer world's greatest middle class.  No surprise since they really aren't about shrinking government. They simply want all the power government wields to be put to the service of the top .1% and to controlling women and minorities.

  4. What does socialism have to do with the healthcare law? Spin all you want – Obamacare has been a success and this will hurt the right. People like you are void of any substance or facts but are quick to try and put labels on others.

          1. Gee thanks, now that awful image of him  – that God I don't have a picture image – will be with me the rest of the day. May have to start drinking early today.

      1. Sure, why not? 

        AC, you are clearly willing to sacrifice the good of the Country, and the good of its people as a whole, to further the goals of your party, and to further enrich the people who pull their strings. You are eager to send our children to war for no other reason than it makes you feel tough, nut  Dead servicemembers are nothing more than political tools for you to bleat about trumped-up scandals. You are perfectly willing to deny food, housing, and medical care to fellow Americans simply because you don't like them.  You would destroy this country as it is, to force it back to a version that never existed, that you would be more comfortable with. You have NO concern for this nation, outside of your vision of exactly how you want it to be. Anything less than that is of no value to you.  

        You, Sir, are unpatriotic

        1. pa·tri·ot [pey-tree-uht, -ot or, esp. British, pa-tree-uht] Show IPA noun 1. a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

          Wingnut translation: "I've got mine, fuck you."

          1. Ralphie translation now that he is on publicly provided healthcare to his grandchildren who are paying for it 'I've got mine, fuck you."

              1. I desperately hope these amoral, pinheaded, anti-teachings of Jesus Koch-fluffers end up utterly dependent upon the largesse of the ACA someday.

  5. I think I've decided that our comics would be better enjoyed with fresh bagels . . .

    . . . Main Street Bagels tomorrow morning, say 7:30ish, anyone?

    1. I had the misfortune last summer walking across the Capitol grounds as King, Louis Gohmert and Ted Cruz were holding a Tea Party Rally (it was the day after I sat in the House gallery and watched Jared Polis wipe Kings behind in a debate on industrial hemp).  Those three, surrounded by angry old, white people (bussed in from Virginia) – simultaneously thumping their Bibles and calling for Congress to gut the food safety net. 

      It wasn't America's finest hour.

        1. Not that the bible is any way relevant to the immigration policy of a national government barred from dabbling in matters of religion. Ours is a state mandated to be secular, to deal only with matters in the temporal sphere, leaving each individual citizen complete freedom of conscience in the spiritual sphere. 

          It's called religious freedom, both of (believe what you wan without government interferenct) and from (nobody, including the government, gets to make you live by their religious beliefs if you don't want to). They can thump their bibles and shout about Jesus all day but they can't dictate policy according what they think some ancient writings or a guy they say is their saviour supposedly said. 

          1. I merely meant that as a religious tome, it is defilied in the filthy hands of those who so clearly discount the actual teachings of their alleged Messiah, and who twist and pervert it to serve as a bogus pretext for their vile actions.

            1. I  knew that. I just like to remind people that it's entirely irrelevant to the role of government, whether used to support good things or bad. 

              Being born Jewish I'm much more familiar with what Christians call the Old Testament and it promotes all kinds of very harsh approaches with lots of smiting, genocide, death sentences by stoning and other brutal means for relatively minor offenses, etc. 

              Also a good deal of harsh stuff attributed to Jesus in the Christian bible according to Christian friends who've studied it but the good old "Old" Testament has it beat by miles for sheer quantity of barbaric brutality supposedly mandated by God. So I don't look to the Bible for arguments for or against 21st century legislation. I could give a rat's ass what Jesus supposedly said. Besides the fact that our Constitution mandates a Government that keeps its nose out of religious matters.

    1. Another thing. Read in the paper today that Chipotle had a much more profitable quarter after some changes including raising prices. Interesting because fast food chains always claim, as an article of free market faith, that adding some change to a Big Mac in order to pay a living wage would be a disaster. Why wasn't raising prices a disaster for Chipotle?

        1. It's the choice between fresh, tasty wholesome ingredients vs. meat-flavored cardboard with cheez whiz on top.  The price difference is negligible.

      1. I've been watching a few of my friend's (loose term) head pop over that report.  It's no secret that Big Ag and the conservative Farm Bureau membership hate Chipotle.  They actually call them anti-farmer.  It's hard to understand how one is anti-farmer when the contents of my damn (good) burrito is filled with 'farmer stuff'…

        Here's a video from my favorite guy about Chipotle's procurement process:

  6. No more calls, please.  We have a winner!   The Mesa GOP has replaced the irreplaceable Steven King with Matt Lewis as their sheriff candidate. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

47 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!