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%
September 01, 2009 08:32 PM UTC
30 Comments
While your at it.
that he wants to see the final bill. And I find it hard to fault someone who says they won’t say what their vote will be until they can see what the bill will do.
Can’t get any clearer than that. This is the single most important issue to me, and I presume a lot of other Coloradans as well. He’s got my vote.
Thanks, Bennet staffer.
So everyone who supports Bennet is a paid shill? Emma, if you read this site, you should know FDN is a long-time poster and hardly a “staffer” for anyone.
I know it’s kind of getting hard to tell the difference between the sock puppets and the real people, but all you need to do to tell that FDN–or anyone for that matter–is a real person is look at their profile page and see their comments.
Or are you simply pointing out that the diary was posted by the Bennet campaign? If that’s the case, you should probably make it a little more clear. From my reading, it sounds like you’re marginalizing anyone who isn’t drooling over Romanoff.
I don’t work for Michael Bennet. Hell, the last politician I worked for was Roy Romer ! I am too damn old and jaded to be a cheery fresh-faced Bennet staffer. I just like to follow politics. I shave once a week on a good one, I haven’t dressed up for work since the 90’s and I sure as hell don’t enjoy working with others, especially in a political setting.
I am just happy to see any support from our reps and senators for the public option. If it fails I am guessing I will stop following politics in disgust.
I’m not totally in the bag for Bennet either, AND Andrew Romanoff is one of the best and brigtest pols we have had on the left side of the aisle for a long time. I was wary of Bennet’s corporate connections and still am, but his presentations and work
on behalf of HC reform (especially presenting it as a fiscal/debt issue) show me he can be creative and persuasive.
And RSB, thanks for pointing that out !
I was thanking Bennet for Colorado, who I assume is a Bennet staffer. Sorry FDN.
I totally misunderstood. Hope you can forgive me. I’ve been up to my neck in snark from people lately, so it was my fault for not seeing you were being serious. All apologies.
Thanks for posting. This should, although probably won’t, satisfy the Romanoff Democrats calling him a fake progressive. Can’t get much more clear than this statement though. Keep fighting for health care reform!
I think Romanoff may support a public option but he hasn’t been out front on these issues stating his positions imo. He has been very quiet in preparing his run and people don’t know where he stands on a lot of things, which is ironically the same thing Romanoff supporters criticize Bennet for.
http://www.statebillnews.com/?…
“But he told the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce’s membership that reform is not based on a public option, despite his belief that reform should include a public option for those who can’t obtain private insurance. The senator acknowledged that there are several ideas on the table and that a public option is not the be-all and end-all.”
I’d like to hear exactly what he said to the Chamber. From that article, it sounds like a slightly different message.
live blog of Senator Bennet at DMCoC
What I took away from his speech on this was two things on this subject.
1) That the larger problem is reducing our spending on healthcare to under 10% of the economy. And the public option has no impact on this. (BTW – both statements here are spot-on.)
2) That the public option can be many things. And that having competitive insurance without preexisting/dropping/etc does not require a public option. He’s committed to having competitive insurance for all and would vote for the public option. But he sees the requirement not as the public option, but solving the problem. (My worry here is he thinks they can craft legislation where insurance companies won’t continue to game the system.)
He wants to see a public option, but it’s only one part of reform. The President has been urging health care reform supporters to explain a public option to people who might not understand it, but to those who will not be effected by a public option (the great majority) he suggested explaining the other benefits of reform like consumer protections and tighter restrictions on the insurance companies (who aren’t going anywhere any time soon under this plan.)
It makes sense to be hammering public option to people at constituent meetings, because many of them will probably benefit directly by being customers of such an option. The business world is saying “I already have health insurance, and I’m fairly happy with it, why should I support this? What’s in it for me personally?” Those aren’t bad questions either.
I don’t think it’s that bad of a strategy to emphasize the aspects of the bill that will help the particular people a politician is explaining it to. In fact, I’d say it’s the mark of someone who knows how to get things done.
His opinion on public option is clear–even if it wasn’t 6 months ago–and it doesn’t make any sense to go into meetings with people who will in all likelihood not be affected by it, talking about how great it is. Public option is an important aspect of health care reform, but it is only a part of it. It’s a complex issue, and it affects different groups in different ways. It needs to be sold to those groups in the same fashion that Bennet is trying here.
I hope it’s not possible to post a more unflattering picture of Bennet! (the initial screencap, that is)
I neither posed for nor posted that pic. I merely pointed it out! You see, your comment is what destroys important discussion in this country.
🙂
that I hate democraCEEEE
and it’s a little odd, isn’t it, I find it just a wee bit strange, that you come back with these vicious personal “kill the messenger” attacks. Actually, I find it somewhat amusing to be the target of so much rancor (there’s a $10 word for you!), you whiny little commenter who hasn’t ever authored a bestseller, much less two. Meh.
Lots of power worshipping, hatred of small ‘d’ democracy, and of course I’m not a true “Montanan” like the Dave-meister!
— or is it a Colorado saying? I’m trying to keep my bona fides straight — “When you’re shooting at a rattlesnake, don’t frighten the cattle, or you’ll have a stampede on your hands.”
This is Michael Bennet explaining why he’s using the Force to choke a kitten (not shown).
This is Michael Bennet hard at work writing “death panel” legislation.
Old, Grizzled Third-Party Candidate May Steal Support From McCain