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%
June 16, 2007 06:59 PM UTC
21 Comments
Where I’ve been but I wasn’t even aware that Denver WAS a “sanctuary city”. I kind of thought it was like most every other American city where local law enforcement doesn’t feel they have the time or resources to do the Feds job, especially when, on the occasions when they try, the Feds just ignore them.
but never any case that Denver or Boulder were such places. Unless I do I’m chalking it up as more right wing smear talk.
Denver hasn’t yet passed any laws forbidding cooperation with federal authorities enforcing immigration laws, and I don’t think there are any offical policies to prevent said cooperation. There does seem to be an unofficial policy that leans that way that has been around since the early days of the Webb administration, more of an attitude than actual law.
It can see Webb doing something like that.
truly a tribute to his hard work as ranking minority, waiting-listed member of the Armed Services Committe.
OQD, Lamborn was able to hold 38 of his colleagues with him in his Dog & Cockfighting Caucus http://www.coloradop…. Looks like a few of them have been picked off and he’s going even further downhill now. Give him a few more months, maybe he’ll still be able to persuade Louisiana’s Representative Jefferson to vote with him–if Jefferson lasts that long.
I don’t really know what else to say, except “good for you Rep. Musgrave,” which feels very unnatural and I hope not to make a habit of it.
As for Tancredo, if he wants to forcibly migrate 12 million people, let him round them up with the Army, build camps, and deal with the inevitable humanitarian crisis that would result if he ever got his way. I’m personally going to call all 50 Dems who voted for this stupid bill and tell them where they can cram their opportunistic horseshit.
Enforce the labor laws, through a few contractors and CEO’s into jail, and there will be a traffic jam at the international bridge in El Paso. No workee, no stayee.
Those 50 Dems you disdain were listening to their constituents, for once, instead of their corporate K Street masters.
What’s with these long posts they are hard on the eye. A lot of times I only skim the page to see if there are any stories I like and when you blather on and on so that the top story goes below the fold I generally just go to another site and don’t look at what else is next.
Sometimes blog posts get a little long, though I’m surprised you complained about this one — it’s two stories in one. You want to gripe about long posts, talk to Kay Sieverding. On second thought, don’t. You’ll get a really long answer.
On another level, does anyone else find this “I hate long posts” comment to be a symbol of exactly what’s wrong with America today? Nothing personal, my six year old has a short attention span too.
Maybe I’m wrong….
I concur entirely. An argument takes the length it takes to present it competently; to do less is to do the argument a disservice, and to do more does the reader one.
In practice, you write bloated, prepotentious nonsense, with just a sprinkle of substance now and then. Have you ever considered doing a content analysis of your choice of words, quantifying your use of words that sound weighty but have simpler synonyms that are more easily digested and provoke less disgust? You’re the modern equivalent of Trimalchio in Petronius’ “The Satyricon.” (I’m certain you’ve read it…, or at least will pretend that you have).
I can see why you think that. But I generally try to arue concise points for a couple of reasons – one, the brevity factor others have spoken to, and two, it can be tactical too – sometimes you can give only part of your argument, and someone will answer that part, which then allows you to answer with the rest of your argument. This is one way in which you can say all you want but break it up into bite size pieces. You tend to give us the entire meal at once, but we like separate courses.
I have always worked very hard to write concisely. Doing so not only keeps it shorter, but generally makes the argument clearer as there is no mass of words for it to get lost in.
Yes people have a shorter attention span now, but a lot of that is due to getting so much more information – we don’t have spare time. So if you want it read, not a word more than is needed.
– dave
…WAY too much scrolling up and down on the front page to see if there are some new posts on a thread.
Pols, can you cut the front page stuff? Usually a few paragraphs would be asufficient tease to open the page. Heck, a lot of us read everything anyway, whatever the topic!
We’ll try to remember it, and break these posts below the fold accordingly.
JeffcoBlue, please remember that one size doesn’t fit all, otherwise there would be no need to publish anything other than the Reader’s Digest. That would be tragic.