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%
July 19, 2007 10:12 PM UTC
63 Comments
Good stuff, Haner.
700 people is a fabulous crowd, period. And getting a presidential candidate to attend is quite a coup (and I say that as someone that worked on Democratic County fund raisers for the last 3 years.)
Sounds like Lamborn is not so popular. Frankly, I never understood how he beat out Crank in the first place. He’s obnoxious and doesn’t strike me as all that bright, either.
Good diary. Highly recommend reading it to get a glimpse of what’s happening across the aisle.
Your Lamborn letter comments are just the thing you would never read in the MSM.
Good work, but if the attendees think the Dem prez candidates are bad, they need to look in the mirror. No comparison.
And I think we had enough of a quorum for that motion to pass.
By the way, that’s quorum as in dictionary definition #2, not #3:
http://www.m-w.com/c…
🙂
“Schaffer isn’t going to get primaried if last night was any indication. When his name was announced, he got a standing ovation that rivialed Romney’s. Republicans in El Paso county are solidly behind him.”
What a suprise, El Paso Cons are behind the neo-con!
Yawn.
Stalin and Hitler were “progressives,” too. I’m not getting your point in continuing to misunderstand the modern illiberality of the “liberals,” and the “conservatives” conserving liberalism.
Godwin has something to say to you, sir.
Don’t besmirch my name!
I got called a Nazi earlier, so I figured fair’s fair around these parts. Guess I figured wrong – either that, or too Right.
Anyways, I grow weary of the inane “so-and-so was a liberal,” particularly when the name-caller doesn’t seem to understand the difference between liberal then (nominally what is being “conserved” these days) and liberal now (closer to European “Social Democrats” than any true liberal I ever heard of).
Do you even know what the words liberal or conservative mean?
Conservatives throughout history have been against “change”, including against giving women or people of color the right to vote; against anything that does not fit into their white Christian male of view of the world as owned by them.
Conservative…a person who is reluctant to accept changes and new ideas. Lincoln was not a conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Liberal-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
The conservatives are eager to “conserve” a way of life that favors, gives special privileges to white, male Christian Americans to rule the world. No thanks. \
Personally, I own more than one dictionary, a thesaurus, and even a world almanac.
I don’t need to consult any of them to realize you are having trouble figuring out if you should be more angry at white Christian males or conservatives! So which is it? Or do you hate both?
In case you were wondering, the first white Christian male that comes to my mind is William Wilberforce. I won’t argue whether he was a conservative or liberal, but he did something with the slave trade you should check out.
The first conservative that comes to my mind is Victoria Beckham. I don’t know why, but I do know you can’t hate on a Spice Girl.
HA! Nice.
I think our esteemed colleague thinks the “conservative” Japanese who kept European ships out of their harbors were prejudiced in favor of white Christian men, too.
It all depends on what is being conserved. Japanese feudalism? Russian monarchy? Arab tribalism? Western liberalism?
The argument that “so and so” was a liberal back in the day is a “straw-man”, for lack of a better word. Are today’s conservatives hypocritical because we believe in a philosphy that was considered liberal at the time? Hell no! That’s like saying that today’s liberals are conservatives because Stalin used tactics similar to Hitler. Does that make any sense? Didn’t think so. Nice try though
All my brain can process is the melodious lyrics “Tell me what you want what you really really want, c’mon tell me what you what you really really want…i really really really want to zig-a-zig ah”. I never figured out what “zig-a-zig ah” meant, but I feel it may have sexual connotations.
This wistful belief floating among the left wing blogosphere in Colorado that Schaffer will get primaried by a more “moderate” candidate is nothing but fluff. El Paso Republicans are no different than Republicans across the state and we are ALL united behind Schaffer for Senate. Everyone I talk to is absolutely excited about the race and Schaffer’s fundraising numbers have stunted any doubts about his viability against Udall.
Yawn all you want. But, friend, I do believe that you’ve got a race on your hands. =)
A moderate would have a chance–shaffer no chance. He’s the best thing to make Udall look moderate.
Neither Udall nor Schaffer are moderate and neither can mask that fact. This election will be won by the candidate who is best able to appeal to the core concerns of these moderate voters. I’m not sure why you think that Udall is automatically going to bank these voters. Moderates are every bit as likely to look right as they are left.
What you’ll see from Schaffer is a campaign focused on common ground, common sense issues. Schaffer will neither pretend to be a moderate nor hide the fact that he has stood the conservative ground in Washington. But he also realizes that to appeal to the broad center, you have to target key issues like fiscal responsibility and national security to win.
Frankly, everything I’ve seen from Udall suggests that he still believes that he’s running in CD-2. Well, the state is a different place–a MUCH different place–and it seems that only Bob understands that.
1 the war. BS is still beating the drum for the war. Its going to force a flip flop. He could have staked out a more neutral ground because he didn’t have any votes to explain, but he didn’t. Udall is one of a few people in washington that made the right call on the war. So BS is already in trouble there.
2. The state is pragmatic-not ideological, the most popular statewide politicians are not ideologues-even a conservative like Bill Owens governed practically from the center. While the idelogues in the GOP want to toss owens over the side and scream “he’s not one of us”, he was, he just practical. Udall has been adressing practical bread and butter issues.
3. The political environment. Its going to be hard for the GOP. The Bush legacy has so damaged the party it would take a generation to repair if the democratic party took advantage of it.
BS is beloved by the right, the scope of his defeat is going to shock prople who live in a buble–like you.
It’s a fact that, right now, moderates ARE looking more to the left than the right. They used to look more right than left but not now.
That clarified a few top issues regarding the 08 election in my mind. Well said!
I hope Schaffer *doesn’t* get primaried. We can beat him.
what he deserved.
A friendless, flip-flopping liar who looks like Frankenstein and hates fire.
He strapped his to the top of his fucking car while on vacation and left the dog up there, terrified, until it pissed all over itself.
Nice guy. You can have him.
So that’s what you were referring to. Is that for real?
Such animal cruelty would get you the electric chair in Boulder.
I couldn’t believe it when I read it. I guess you could google Romney + dog and see what comes up for links. It was big news a couple of weeks ago.
I can’t imagine sticking a dog crate on top of my car, driving along at 70 mph and refusing to stop for a rest stop break for the dog, while he’s up there peeing on himself out of fear. That’s just sick.
I just read that Time article, and I want to hurl. What a twisted man.
And he came back later to defend himself, saying “Seamus enjoyed it.” I’m sure that’s a lie, but regardless, Romney’s lack of common sense is staggering. How one treats children and pets is a keen window into one’s true character.
The dog asked him to stop and Romney somehow drove 12 hours straight on one tank of gas! I wonder how he did that? Incredible really. And in 1983 was the speed limit 70 mph? I don’t think so. I’d put the speed of a station wagon full of kids and a dog on top somewhere around And have I seen dogs stick their head out of a window or stand up in the bed of a truck? Yes.
You have to admit you are being more than a little foolish in your assumptions. The dog had diarrhea on the car…I think that is kind of funny actually. The dog didn’t die, it didn’t break a leg, and it didn’t turn into a ferocious killer. Lighten up people. (if video comes out of romney turning corners at 30 mph and the dog flying all over the cage then i’ll recant, but I am guessing he drove carefully with his dog on top).
I guess you agree with Rush that Abu graib was just like fraternity hazing.
Cruelty is not funny.
That would give fraternity hazing a good name.
I’m trying to find a way to give you a good name. Hmmmmm
That comparison is wrong, flat-out. You demean what was done to those prisoners and you should be ashamed. Seriously.
What was done to the dog was not cruel. I love dogs, and most of the ones I know hate being in cars and prefer the pickup bed or at least having their head hanging out the window. If the cage had fallen off that would be cruel, if there was not a windscreen to protect it, maybe that would be cruel.
You should learn a lesson from Ellison and not make idiotic and horrible comparisons.
When someone is trashing Republicans.
Any presumed hurting of doggies is untouchable. You’re the worst possible person if you try to provide context when someone’s accused of hurting a doggie.
Just ask Michael Vick. He’s worse off than Pacman Jones these days, and he didn’t even shoot anybody.
I merely pointed out that Rush said that Abu Graib was just joking around and Yokel said that strapping a dog to the roof of a car for a 12 hour trip on the interstate was “kind of funny” both seem to reflect a weird view of what is cruel and what is not.
Of course it is cruel. If the dog shit everywhere he was terrified. Dogs do not shit in a confined space unless they are afraid, old or confined for a long time.
And to answer a below comment, I do not elevate animals over man. If torturing my own dogs would save the life of 1 child I would do it without question. But much cruelty is simply cruelty for its own sake.
I don’t think was intentionally cruel. Hey accidents happen, but to think its funny, that’s problematic.
The article does not say they never let the dog out, and I personally see no way any driver or tank of gas could last 12 hours. Impossible. My environmentally friendly vehicle’s only lasts 6 hours. Is there a recommended stopping time while traveling with animals though?
I never said you elevate animals over man, and I never said I agree with Rush that Abu Ghraib was like fraternity hazing. I think that demeans Abu Ghraib, and on top of that I don’t like fraternities.
The part I thought was funny was that the dog crap ended up on his car. And generally when dogs become motion-sick they throw up as opposed to pooping. And with that I am finished talking about dogs for the day!
http://www.washingto…
http://dogsagainstro…
“My owner lets me ride inside. She even bought me this sweet sweater.”
I think putting dogs in sweaters should be illegal. They could overheat, that is cruel. Especially if they do it in the summer. Dogs hate sweaters, you can see it in their eyes when a silly owner puts it on them. Bringing unprepared dogs into a climate where they would potentially need the “extra warmth” is also a travesty. And I am serious, I feel bad for dogs in sweaters!!! Hopefully the lady in the picture won’t run ever run for President, I will expose her for who she really is.
I have to agree with CCtiger on the whole dog sweater thing
I knew we’d find some common ground!
I can just imagine how cool those comercials would be.
that posts about Lamborn misspell “decent” as “descent”? Methinks that no matter the honorable intention of the poster that keyboards can tell how folks feel about the twit.
I’ll admit it, I mis-spelled the word, and my spell check didn’t catch it. Sorry…
Your reporting is the next best thing to being there…
I think you’re experience is very close to the trends I’m seeing in Colorado these days.
* Romney has won over the party leadership in Colorado and he’s collecting big donor after big donor. But the average conservative primary voter in Colorado is still a little on the fence. I absolutely do not believe that Rudy is in as good of shape as the recent ARG poll indicates. Colorado Republicans are some of the more astute, savvy, and socially conservative around and their support for Rudy is inversely related to how much they know about Romney. The more Mitt shows his face, I think the more support he’ll get in Colorado. But, as of now, this is Thompson’s race to lose (at least in CO).
* People love Bob Schaffer. I don’t think I recall the Republican Party in this state being so firmly united and, maybe more importantly, excited, about a candidate in years. Schaffer is exactly what the Dickter ordered and I don’t think he’ll be a tough sell to the people of Colorado.
* Lamborn can win again if he wants to run. And, make no doubt about it, he wants to. But my impression is that Jeff Crank is the sort of guy who can get 70% in his district, win re-election, and then set himself up for statewide office. Lamborn doesn’t have any appeal outside of El Paso County (and, frankly, I’m not sure he has much there, either). It would be good for CD-5, good for the GOP, and good for Colorado to have a tremendous family man like Jeff Crank on the beltway to success. He reminds me a lot of Bob Schaffer and we’re a lucky party to have him. The key will be to find a way to push Lamborn aside without causing a rift among El Paso County Republicans. It is essential to have an enormous turnout from Republicans there to win the Senate race and another bloody primary won’t help.
Why is it everyone has a nasty lisp? Do Democrats have this same issue? I tried to listen to what they were saying and all I could hear was the whistling of their lisps and their kermit-the-frog-esque voices!!!
Ok, that behind me I thought Romney gave a good speech. I think he should’ve used the time he spent on the war to harp on the fact he balanced the budget. That wasn’t discussed at all in his speech. And instead of the war he could’ve discussed national security issues.
He did well discussing his private sector experience and “change as a necessity”.
I zoned out for Lamborn’s letter, but a guy who stayed awake said it looked like the reader got to the last page and realized it lasted the whole page. Instead of reading it, he just slapped an ending on, forgot it was supposed to be from Lamborn, then said after a pause “Sincerely, Doug Lamborn”. Funny stuff. How about Rayburn’s 6 tables that he made others pay for though?
Could we say that the letter was read in the manner in which Lamborn would have delivered it live had he been there, so, it wasn’t an imitation of Lamborn but as good as Lamborn?
An excellent write-up, Haners. I thought the turnout was surprisingly good. We heard a bit of grousing about their not allowing candidate tables this year with literature on display. It was better without the candidate tables–and without the live auction–and without the silent auction. Balink and Garcia did a great job. Kudo’s to John Suthers for getting Republican of the Year.
By the way, I did not see Tom Minnery at
Lamborn’s table, but his wife was seated there. We took that as an intentional ambiguous political statement by Minnery who caught hell for failing to call Lamborn’s campaign on the rug for its sleazy campaign in 2006. Allowing the wife to be seated at Lamborn’s table but Tom’s not being there splits the difference but still puts him in a bad light. He should have kept his wife at home!
What’d you think about the “Reagan Dinner” idea? Maybe that’s where they’ll have the candidate tables.
I thought that the length of the program was just right. The food was good, there was plenty of time to say “hi” to people, and everyone kept their speeches to a tolerable length. Even had time to get home at a reasonable hour and help my wife study for her test.
Also, that was my first time seeing Greg Garcia in action. He seems like one dang good party chairman. The whole event did a great job generating some energy for the party.
I hope Wadhams was taking notes so we can have an equally effective state convention this year!
It’ll be interesting to try it one cycle and see how it goes. Frankly, his predecessor sure wouldn’t be able to do it. I actually thought we wouldn’t have a Lincoln Day Dinner this year the way she let things slide.
I heard it was pretty bad last year.
Maybe they’ll have the Reagan Day Dinner be the one with the auction and candidate tables…
I guess that depends on what you call bad. If you think making $28,000 profit compared to THIS YEAR’S $14,000 profit is bad you need to go back to school. Last year’s event was fun and raised more money with 550 people in attendance that this year’s 700 people. Maybe the egotistical Greg needs to go back to school also. I fund raiser is supposed to RAISE MONEY. Not be a pretty little show piece for Greg to get his picture- once again- in the paper.
There was only some 200 people there.
I have to say, it seems rather odd how most of your posts seem critical of Garcia, but seem to spare the previous chair, who by most accounts didn’t do a good job.
And your posts all praise the current chair. I do not know one person who can find fault with the previous chair. She had the best caucus and assembly the county has seen in a long time. Just ask Cadman, Bensberg, Williams, etc. etc.
And I have to say you have no specifics on how Greg is doing so well. Time will certainly tell who is right and who is wrong.
That’s had something bad to say about the previous chair, then people aren’t being honest with you, which again makes me wonder if you’re not the previous chair (that and making such a big deal over a nice comment about Garcia). Now I’m not one to try and find out who posters are, so I’ll leave it at that, but I’m so amazed because you are the first person I’ve seen stick up for the previous chair.
You know, I’m racking my brain as to who the previous chair was, and I can’t think of her name to save my life. But I know who Garcia is. Getting noticed isn’t everything, but it certainly is a part of a chairman (or woman’s) job.
Assemblies aren’t everything either. Republicans didn’t do to well in 2006 here in El Paso county. Phone banks were under staffed, and there just didn’t seem to be the same energy. But Garcia has re-energized the Republican Party around here, and under his watch, there was one hell of a Lincoln Day Dinner. And now he’s proposing a “Reagan Day” dinner. Sure sounds like he’s doing a good job and coming up with good ideas to me!
But you’re right, time will tell who is right and who is wrong. Regardless, I just hope you haven’t taken my exchange with you as snarky or disrepectful in any way.
I, too, am impressed with Greg Garcia. He brings a practical, business mindset to the job and the party which has been missing and, I believe he is committed to restoring integrity to the party. The party has suffered a lot from skanky, hypocritical players and single-issue zealots. I hope that Greg portends things to come.
Have you tried to actually get any work out of headquarters? Walking lists, maps, phone numbers. They now have 5 people counting a chairman, vice-chairman, secretary, treasurer and paid staff- Kyle- who don’t have a clue on running a political headquarters. Don’t believe me? Someone recently called down asking who the State Senator for for SD 7 was and was told they “thought” it was Wayne Allard! Definately a bunch of bright bulbs down there now!!!
I think it’s telling how many people DIDN’T notice Lamborn’s letter…
…that Lamborn didn’t even show up? If you’re the GOP Congressman from C.D. 5 which is centered around El Paso County, isn’t attendance at this dinner a “Command Performance” event?
I see three possibilities: (1) He was afraid of being “booed,” (2) He’s not running again, or (3) That $29.00 net fundraising take last quarter wouldn’t cover the price of a ticket and Jeanie wasn’t willing to treat.
He may also have needed to stay in D.C. to watch the phone in case there was an opening on Armed Services.
And had about three tables at the dinner
I am definately NOT the previous chairwoman. Enough said about all that. I still say that making a profit of $28,000 is much better than making a profit of $14,000. So—regardless of which chair is or was better, you can’t deny that making twice as much money at a Lincoln Day Dinner puts your comment regarding last years dinner as being “pretty bad” in the WRONG column. After all–the Lincoln Day dinner is a MAJOR fund raiser. And that’s enough on that subject.
But “enough on that subject” isn’t going to keep me from commenting. If the money earned was the only measure, than sure, if the previous dinner netted 28k then that’s great. But when you look at the amount of people at this one, the big name headliner, and the press generated, well then that certainly doesn’t make it a failure.
It was a lovely event. I thoroughly enjoyed myself. My only comment was that the previous years was certainly not a failure as was stated earlier. People I have talked to who attended both thought the previous years was more fun and made more money. I know it made twice as much money and I certainly had more fun.