U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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%
July 19, 2007 04:07 PM UTC
65 Comments
Here’s Mitt running hard for the privilege of carrying Ted Kennedy’s cape:
This guy dosen’t stand for anything. He’ll tell anybody anything just so he can be President. Total pandering weathervane.
Its hard not to come to the conclusion that Mitt Romney is either a lying opportunist or an opportunistic liar.
Dobby-is-Doglike(sorry to all my four-legged friends, very unfair): how about it? What about the 20 years of jurisprudent precedent? The fundamentally American notion that women should be free to make their own choices, far from the prying eyes and corrupted hearts of Dobson, flip-flop Romney and the rest? Or was that just bullshit, spun out to win win win, and the truth be damned? Did he lie then? Or is he lying now? And that represents some sort of moral fortitude how exactly?
“Romney said he strongly supports the war in Iraq, as well as President Bush’s authorization of intense interrogation techniques on prisoners of the war…”
I am just not even sure what to say…”Wow” is the only thing that comes to mind. This is a sad commentary on what the polling numbers say about El Paso county.
While the radical right argues over who has the bigger Gitmo, Dems are acting on issues that matter like ending the occupation in Iraq, fixing healthcare and education.
Is this how Mitt Romney wants to defend freedom?
…I’ve said here a number of times that MR is the Dem’s biggest problem in the presidential race.
Having read that he supports the war and torture, I retract all those observations and put RM into the dust bin of presidential politics. The American people disagree with him (Outside of EPC, anyway.) Caveat: In November 2008 things are pretty much as they are now.
Did anyone else catch the hypocrisy – oh no, not another R hypocrisy – of talking about socialistic Dems but that he signed the bi-partisian MA mandatory health law????????
Eventually he’ll clue in to his polling numbers and shift his positions accordingly. It’s what he does. Just like Reagan (and Frederick of Hollywood), style beats substance, and Mitt looks great with all that makeup on.
TV debates are literally decided by who’s taller and who smiles more. On that basis, I’d rather go up against Herr Guiliani or Grampa McCain than sparkling, lying Mitt Romney. I have zero faith in our national media to point out Mitt’s phoniness on the issue; they’d rather crow about John Edwards’ hair.
Yes, he’s still the biggest threat to the Dems, but he is now living in the gutter of incompentency and out of step with most Americans. I didn’t see that before this posting.
Mitt paid $300 for all that lipstick and rouge. Just another elitist playing dress-up for the camera’s.
He fits right in with all the other televangelists in Colo. Springs–slick Bible-thumper, and totally hypocritical.
He’s either lying today about half the things he claims to believe, or was lying over the last decade in Massachusetts. You can’t do a 180 on so many key issues and expect to be believed. Mitt Romney is unctuous, sanctimoniuous, and two-faced. Although I don’t have a lot of faith in die-hard Republicans to see his double-dealing for what it is.
Come on, DDHGLQ, your boy Romney is looking pretty bad here. Time to cowboy up — what’s your response to this video of Romney supporting everything he says he hates now? How can you possibly reconcile that?
Maybe, like the Pols say, it’s a totally different guy in the video. An evil Romney doppelganger, Dobbie? Or a pathetic flip-flopper who will guarantee us a Democratic President in nominated?
When you’re in Mass. you have to run to the left. When you’re in El Paso County or Colorado or even nationally, you can afford to let your conservative side shimmer. The only core issue Mitt has changed on is abortion. And I, for one, find it a legitimate conversion.
Mitt Romney’s not looking bad at all. The fact that Colorado Pols has spent lots of blog space, that the Denver Post rips his faith to pieces on the front page, and that the lefties here have spent more typing time on taking whacks at Mitt, shows me that liberals are deeply concerned about Romney.
He is picking up endorsements left and right, he’s raising money like gangbusters, and he’s throwing down grassroots that will be very tough to beat next year.
The fact of the matter is that most of you thought McCain was the heir to the GOP throne when I was flashing the “Good Travels For Romney Ahead” sign. Most of you thought his faith was an insurmountable feature in a GOP campaign. I told you his values mattered more to evangelicals than his theology.
So far, my record is pretty good. Believe me when I say you’re quite right to be concerned about Mitt.
I totally agree–he looks like a dreamboat.
However, a new ARG poll of Colorado Republicans shows flip-flopper Romney to be in 4th place, behind McCain, with only 9% of GOP voters here preferring him:
http://americanresea…
And again, his fundraising has slowed. Last quarter he had to pitch in several more million dollars than the previous one in order for his FEC filing not to be embarrassing.
Dobby, you’re the least reality-based Republican I know.
the breakdown of the same poll shows that Romney’s support among unaffiliated Colorado voters is only 3%–dead last among the Republican candidates. Even Tancreepo beats that.
Hopefully I don’t need to explain why winning over unaffiliated voters is crucial in the Centennial State.
Wow, Rudy is surging in a conservative state like Colorado w/ 35%. (Imagine what he must be doing in California!)
Meanwhile, Two-Faced Mitt is only two points behind the comatose John McCain (9% to 11%).
Don’t you mean picking up endorsements on the far-right and lunatic fringe… (rather than on the ‘left and right’). Tripping over all his own past statements trying to get as far into loopy land (aka ‘the Springs’) as possible, to the detriment of any integrity, well coiffed/packaged or not. Sure against Walnuts McCain and Herr Ghouliani I admit its a tough call. And your statement that:
“So far, my record is pretty good. Believe me when I say you’re quite right to be concerned about Mitt.” is simply delusional.
It’s just incredible that you can spew this load of kool-aid swilling nonsense with a straight face. What the hell? Abortion is the only issue he’s flipped on? Not gays, too? Is he really “more pro-gay rights than Ted Kennedy” or isn’t he? How about gun control? You’re completely, as everyone else says, delusional.
Please don’t do anything wacky like trade out your title of “Dr.” for “Emperor.” We’ve had enough of that this week.
Mitt is burning through his cash quicker then he’s raising it. He’s picked the low hanging fruit but hasn’t cut back on expenses. So, no, he can spend all of his own cash, but he’s just not moving numbers in the polls. Like every other self funded candidate, he’ll burn out. Sorry Dobbie…… usually I’m with you.
When you’re in Mass. you have to run to the left.
Pragmatic or pandering? I say the latter.
“That same day, a Focus on the Family spokesman took to the radio airwaves to ask whether Romney would “turn a blind eye” to pornography if elected president. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which functions as Focus’s Washington lobbying arm, immediately joined the pile-on. He briefed The Associated Press on the record, explaining that Romney must “take some responsibility” for his supposed connection to Marriott’s porn profiteering.”
Value Voters Unleash Wrath Against Romney
The Nation: Christian Right Highlights Romney’s Porn Connection http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/18/opinion/main3070228.shtml
Hotel pay per view porn is a big target for these folks. Mitt Romney is going to have a real problem on his hands with this story.
http://www.cbsnews.c…
Wow, did you folks all wake up this morning, see this Romney post and commence salivating all over your keyboards?
Gotta admit…I really love watching you jump all over Dobby like a pack of bloodthirsty wolves…it reminds me of grade school, only more civilized.
Oscar (the Grouch) seems to be the only one on this thread who hasn’t forgotten that it’s not the American people who will chose the next President, it’s the media.
Romney could throw on a coonskin cap, call himself Davy f*cking Crockett and storm the capital with a hunting knife…nobody would give a rat’s ass if Teddy T. or Rupert M. decide it ain’t newsworthy.
Now…if Mitt the Tit claimed the Title of American Idol…that might get people’s attention…
Mitt Romney is not Ronald Reagan (unfortunately for the wing nuts) nor is he another Shrub (fortunately for all of us), but he does closely resemble one former GOP president: George Herbert Walker Bush.
Like Mitt, Daddy Bush was for most of his life a moderate, pro-choice Republican. (Although Daddy never promised to out-do Teddy Kennedy on gay rights!)
However, when opportunity knocked, each man announced he had experience an epiphany, adopting the right wing agenda (at least, outwardly doing so). Daddy Bush jettisoned his pro-choice history not to mention his labeling of Reaganomics as “Voodoo Economics.” He was rewarded with the vice presidency.
When he ran for president in ’88, Daddy Bush needed to further beef up his right wing credentials, so he made all the right noises (i.e., ran racist TV ads and gave the infamous “Read My Lips” speech).
But once he was elected, he governed from the center-right. He attacked the Iraqis in Kuwait (and appropriately so) but knew better than to go into Iraq itself. A professed anti-Communist, he become buddies with Mikhail Gorbachev. He put Clarence Thomas on the Sup. Ct., but balanced that with David Souter. And while giving the “Read My Lips” speech, he signed the 1990 tax increase which laid the foundation for balanced budgets in the mid 90’s.
Like Daddy Bush, Mitt is simply saying what needs to be said to make the right wingers happy. If elected, he too will govern from the center-right.
although, I would have to say that Daddy Bush had far more experience than does Mitt.
Back then, I had written off George Herbert Walker Bush for President due to his previous tenure as the head of our spy agency. “That could happen in Guatemala or Albania, not the U.S.,” was my thinking at the time. I was very wrong.
But when do we get our turn with Edwards, Clinton, and Obama? Frankly after that debate I had so many notes on absolutely stupid stuff they said i didn’t even know where to start. “the war on terrorism is a bumper sticker”…you can ridicule iraq all you want, but that statement is simply idiotic.
Edwards thinks GWoT has been used crassly to justify many extremist policies by this Administration, and that our involvement in Iraq is actually counterproductive to making America safer.
As to your question–I don’t know when any of the Dem candidates are planning to visit us. I have a lot of criticism to bestow on them as well, although I’m in agreement with Edwards on this specifically. The candidates’ website calendars don’t extend very far into the future, and the Colorado Dems’ website doesn’t list anything.
Anyone know?
Other than Hillary went to Aspen but neglected the actual state of Colorado. Money and big players trump spending time with the people she says she’ll help.
As for Edwards, what is his plan? I’m asking honestly, as I don’t know. I can see the counter-productive argument, although the people who point to the fact we haven’t had a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since then are also right. Who knows if the same would be true without the Patriot Act and War in Iraq. Then, of course, the question is “Is it all worth losing the lives we’ve lost in Iraq?”
Anyway, Edward’s plan?
http://johnedwards.c…
The URL goes into some detail on his plan. Here’s a quick summary:
– Tighten border security: Require our largest ports to screen cargo containers for radiological and nuclear materials now, and all ports to screen within 3 years. Require 100% screening for explosives in air cargo. Beef up Border Patrol, consular officials, and Homeland Security ranks.
– Protect our most vulnerable targets: New standards for chemical plant safety (after they were crippled by Bush). Fund research into improved building technologies for skyscrapers. Require all federal agencies to follow best practices for cyber-security, not just a few.
– Improve domestic readiness: Strengthen first responders (SAFER). Encourage you and me to serve at least one weekend a year in this area. Replace the color-coded alert system with more practical, technical information.
– Military: Disengage completely from Iraq within 12 to 18 months. Rebuild our military to its previous strength. Repudiate the “Bush doctrine” of “preventative war.” Repair the international alliances that made America the leader of the free world. Engage in direct talks with all relevant actors in the region–including Iran and Syria.
– Other: Fix the PATRIOT act where it harms the freedom of citizens. Respect the FISA court. No torture.
That’s a sampling. You may not buy it all, but you can’t say he doesn’t have a detailed plan if you take the time to read what he’s written.
Why is research on skyscrapers needed? So we can build skyscrapers that will resist a plane being flown into them? Is he going to re-build every skyscraper in the US? That is one of the dumbest things I have heard today, far worse the “War on Terror is a Bumper Sticker”.
And increasing our military might won’t do much, we aren’t in the Cold War anymore and the war we wage is one where less brute strength and more intelligence gathering is required. I would like to see a plan on how we can increase our international intelligence network while avoiding the “big brother” video system in place in Britain. (for the record I’m staunchly against torture, so there we agree)
But better training for the PRIVATE security industry? If a private firm sucks, won’t the company simply fire them? Or is the market somehow not working here?
I hadn’t spent time reading any of his plans because I figured he was just running for VP again, and that’s what his plans seem to say. His plan seems like a lot of expensive fluff. Good thing there aren’t any Edwards supporters on here.
near the end of August next year.
Heard something about a get together they’re having…
Gave a great speech that fired up the crowd. Trash him all you want, but he is far and away better than any candidate on the Dem side.
Experience? Richardson, far far more than Mitt. Makes Mitt look like he just got out of high school in comparison. Edwards and HRC, not bad. Obama, less. The dark horse, Gore? Better than all of them.
Consistent messages? i.e., not a flip-flopper? Even HRC, the worst, is not too bad. Compare to Mitt and Rudy.
Ideology? In the eyes of the beholder.
are just looking for a Ken Doll to clutch for four more years so they don’t have to give up their thumb sucking habit.
…I’ve frequently observed that Lincoln could never get elected today. Not photogenic enough. Sadly, one little part of Kocinich’s problem.
Experience, though not in government. I like the fact that he is the only candidate who has been successful in business and will be able to a) help the U.S. compete internationally (an important issue in my mind), and b) help the government to operate more like a business. He has had good experience serving in elective office and his one term as governor gives him more experience to be president than other’s senate experience.
He has good experience dealing with security matters, since he was able to get MA an “A” rating for terrorism preparedness.
You like Mitt becuase he can “help the government to operate more like a business.”
Putting profits over people is exactly what’s wrong with our country today. Corporatists have been feeding at the troth while the rest of us are getting screwed. We have a President who cares more about his shareholders over at Halliburton than the soldiers in the field.
General Petraeus is usually guarded in public by a cadre of private contractors?
That the number of private contractors in Iraq (180,000) exceeds actual troop levels (160,000)?
The military is only one example of profits over people going horribly awry. Why join the military when you can get paid more than twice as much to do similar or less dangerous duties as a hired gun? Do we care about Americans serving America, or keeping KBR rich?
No wonder it’s costing us $3 billion a week.
Because making the goverment more responsive and making tax-dollars go further is such a bad idea. You’re right, what am I thinking? The government runs things so much better than the private sector
is counter to America’s best interests. See: healthcare, homeland security, voting.
Yesterday Senators Webb and McCaskill called for an investigation into war profiteering, specifically trying to determine why $9 billion recently allocated for Iraq cannot be accounted for.
That’s not making our tax dollars go further, unless by further you mean far far away, to some beach in the Bahamas, where Cheney’s former business partners are currently sipping daquiris.
The so called Conservative Movement has failed. The hyperbole is still there, with the wrongful use of Smith’s ideas, but the actual policy put forth by neo-cons in the last 30 years has been a complete failure which is why we have 1/8 of Americans living below the poverty line, 50 million without health care, the outsourcing of American jobs so corportatists can make recording breaking profits and at the expense of our security and environment. The Neo-Con movement almost destroyed the middle-class, the backbone of our American society, and has sold out our American principle’s.
While your rhetoric hangs around as a good campaign slogan, the actual policy of social and fiscal neo-conservatism is nothing than one of regression to a fuedal state where there are the “haves and have nots.”
$10 billion per day of tazpayers’ money in Iraq good business? How is turning a budget surplus into a budget defict good business? How is mortgaging our future to China good business?
You want to make tax dollars go further?
Don’t replace steam pipes in NYC laid in 1924.
Government not only runs things much better very often, it is our commons. You can change government by political action and how you vote.
Try changing Aetna’s health insurance system by being a customer. They just ignore you while the CEO private jets off to another golf tourney somewhere.
In my life, I have had far fewer problems with government than private business. You may not like the rules that government sets up, but they are known, they are public, and the beaucracy hews pretty close to them.
That used to be a very common phrase, much less frequently heard these days.
The problem with the concept is that government and business have two very different reasons for existence and what would be considered a good outcome.
For business, it’s real obvious: profit. Nothing wrong with that, in and of itself. Obviously the drive for profit can lead to immoral, illegal, and results detrimental to the population at large.
For government, it’s service. Often those services are nothing but money pits, you know, police and fire protection. A good government is one that responds to needs, both current and future and minimizes graft, corruption, and waste.
It’s a cliche. No basis in fact.
Government is spposed to serve us all.
Government can’t deny you for a pre existing condition.
Government has to accept you into the 1st grade even if you have a learning disability.
Government shouldn’t police some neighborhoods and let others turn into wastelands.
Some innovation of the private sector should be adopted by the government, but let us not confuse the 2.
since he’s getting plenty of responses here, but – look at our current president. He’s a businessman by training. By most accounts he wasn’t a good one, but he’s still illustrative of how a businessman really isn’t who you want running government.
who strive for efficiency rather than patronage, and who would rather fold up shop than put Americans out of work just to save a few cents. Ross Perot comes to mind.
Free markets are a wonderful thing, and I agree in most cases beat our plodding, wasteful government in distributing services. But capitalism is an economic system, not a religion. It’s there to serve us, not the other way around. And when it’s demonstrable that we’re being bilked by private contractors, or that introducing a profit layer increases costs beyond what a government-run system would, we should look at that honestly and think outside the box.
Republican businessmen like Bush have excelled at looking the other way while other Republican businessmen get sweetheart no-bid contracts to do such crucial things as count our votes or protect our country. A true American capitalist would be incensed at the kind of graft that’s gone on in Iraq War funding.
But not Bush. And not Romney either. They like the system rotten. They know that game well.
On how it would work.
Also, I don’t view disagreeing with me as picking on me. I am a Republican on a left-ish site after all. 🙂
But you want to be careful about evaluating candidates based on their profession as opposed to their professional experience. Yes, some business leaders are good at politics and make effective politicians – Roy Romer comes to mind. But I think many voters think to themselves that being a businessman is automatically preferable to being a lawyer when evaluating candidates without looking more closely at the individuals, or remembering that there are plenty of good lawyers and bad businessmen.
Glad you don’t feel picked on. Some folks complain about “liberal pig piles” every now and then and I generally don’t make answering comments if others have.
I love how I say “I like Romney because I think he’d run the government like a business” and knee-jerk liberals (I’m talking to you “Go Blue”, among others) automatically respond with crap about Bush being a sucky president. Forgive me, I may be mistaken, but I was talking about Romney-NOT Bush. Just because Bush couldn’t do it doesn’t mean that it can’t or shouldn’t be done.
Also, did I say that government needs to be run by businesses? No-I said more like a business, so drop the “war profiteering” crap, because that is not what I said.
Look at New York City, and Mike Bloomberg. You think he should turn ship and run everything like an in-efficient bureaucracy? Because he’s ran that city more like a business, and HOLY CRAP IT’S WORKED!
Y’all are pissed because someone can’t change something in a company while the CEO flies around in a corporate jet? First, that’s bull. Second-what, bureaucrats are better? They’re so efficient that all they need to do is show up and :::twang::: all the world’s problems are solved! You think the government is so great at everything? Hold your breath for FEMA
USPS is one of the most efficient operations in the world, makes money and hs lower overhead than Fedex and UPS.
Medicaid–lower overhead than private insurers while basically delivering univesal service.
There are plenty of inefficiencies. One of my side companies does some government contracting and administering contracts for audit purposes requies a 25% gross up over comparable private contract. Fortunately most of the head scratching MILSPEC crap is gone (that’s why you got $600 toilet seats and hammers). But the truth is the government does many things very well considering that the mission is different than business.
Some things the government does that are ineffiecent have to do with providing services (medical, mail, roads, rail, airports, phones, power, water) to rural areas or areas that are under served. If the government didn’t do it no private entity woud do it.
Some things have to do with the paper work/audit issues which are neccessary to prevent “profiteering”.
Some things have to do with not using off the shelf products and instead designing custom solutions. the has been particularly inefficient with technology platforms (see the IRS automation disaster).
Gore did a lot to change government practice, but it is a constant iterative process.
Having worked a lot on business risk mamagement issues there is a constant tension between efficiency and control culture (managing risk) even in the private sector. The government always has to err on the side of control because the risks of efficient, but ultimately out of control, practices to our fundamental liberties.
Ever lived in Chicago? If not, I’d suggest a site visit.
Like many things is finding the right balance. But based on some people’s comments, it seems that some aren’t interested in that at all.
Where I work, we handle some government contracts, and the systems they make us use are terribly out-dated. There are cheaper and more efficient systems that the industry uses. But since the government still uses them, we can’t convince them to modernize. Just one example where the private sector has surpassed the government.
….maybe they can’t buy the better systems because of the federal budget that’s been controlled by Republicans?
BTW, FEMA was outstanding under Bill clinton. He saw how Poppy Bush ran it, put an expert in charge instead of a horse racing association president, and made it work.
Bush II not only reverted to his father’s system, but evern worse.
It’s a state contract, contracted by a rather blue East Coast state
…that makes it even more likely that the state doesn’t have the money. We have one of the lowest per capita budgets in the nation.
I’m not trying to be coy here, I just don’t want to blab about where I work. But in all honesty, other systems could be maintained for cheaper, but they want to do it their way, no ifs ands or buts about it. They pay us for the contract, tell us to manage the accounts, but then tell us what system we have to use. We manage another state sponsored account, but they let us use our own systems. One state saves money by letting us use our own systems, the other has to pay us more. One state plan people like working on, the other state plan frustrates people. One state is a “red” western state, the other is a blue east coast state…