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%
March 12, 2013 09:02 AM UTC
18 Comments
One of the best ways Rep McLachlan can measure the positive impact he's having – he's got the nuts all upset.
I think his votes here will help him when he runs for re-election. The gun nuts are louder but they still only get 1 vote each. What will be real interesting is if he wins while Cheri Jahn and Lois Tochtrop lose because Dems figure "why bother" when they ask for support.
You say the arguments against stripping gun owners of their freedoms are sufficiently irrational to render further debate useless. I support further debate.
We need to determine what constitutes sufficient v. Insufficient irrationality.
Concur.
Just because you're irrational doesn't mean you don't have something to say.
I'm not an expert, and I don't have time to research the topic, but I believe it is a fact that irrational debate is better than no debate at all. It is your responsibility to prove me wrong.
amusing to me that the 30 round magazine is now being touted as standard. It isn't. 8 round is standard. as the 30 round mags began being produced they began being included
Can anyone find a single example where someone needed more than 5 rounds for self-defense. And examples from movies don't count. But a single real life example. Just one…
Can anyone cite for single example of a citizen carrying & using an assault rifle (regardless of clip rounds) in self defense. Conceal/carry is pretty much null when the AR15 ain't really concealed.
Gun nuts rant about infringement on their freedom to buy super mags for their semi-auto assault rifles while continuing to use self-defense as the purpose. But cite recent examples of a citizen coming to save the day using said assault rifle to combat a weapon-brandishing villain. More likely these nuts replaying too many Hollywood action scenes in their Walter Mitty minds.
So shooting up marauding watermelons doesn't count? I sprained my ankle pretty bad once in a furrowed field. An AR-15 would have been pretty handy — as a crutch.
Thanks for the piece, Pols. Love it when there's actually, you know, rational argument on these pages.
I wonder if Sen. King supported the recall of Gov. Walker (R-Wisconsin)? Apparently, he did. He seems to be operating on the principle that if you disagree with how a legislator voted or if they're in the executive branch what position they have, on a given piece of legislation they can be recalled.
No elected official, Republican or Democrat, should be recalled upon that ground. The recall election mounted against Gov. Walker was nonsense. He supported several pieces of legislation that he was able to get through the Wisconsin legislature and he signed them into law. I didn't like his anti-union bills but isn't that how we do our public business in the United States. If we don't like how a legislator voted on a given bill, then we can vote that individual out at the the next primnary or general election. Gov. Walker's supporters, the Republican Party, utilized that argument (rightfully so) in his recall election but apparently, when the shoe is on other foot, that principle doesn't hold any water.
Rep. McLachlan should not be recalled simply because he performed his constitutional duties to consider and vote on legislation that comes before him as a member of the Colorado General Assembly. Those who opposed the gun safety legislation should campaign against him during the next primary and general elecitons.
I agree with the general proposition of not attempting a recall just because you disagree with the votes and the political position of the elected person–if he or she is voting on the platform on which he or she ran. Scott Walker is a bit different, however. He did not run on the platform he immediately pursued upon election. He was clearly deceptive. In short, he lied to the voters. He was fair game for a recall, and in a just and less money dominated world (outside money saved his ass) he would have been recalled.
You are right that Walker's supporter utilized the argument that he shouldn't be recalled just on political grounds. That is a valid argument if true; it just wasn't true in Walker's case. I don't know the details of McLachlan's campaign, but I have no reason to think there was deception on his part. Thus, there is no valid basis for a recall.
Of note is that the same group is threatening a recall effort against Senate President John Morse. And that is total nonsense.
malfeasance is not present here, I think.There are very specific guidelines in statute.
I don't like Governor Walker, or what he stands for either but I a recall was inappropriate. A recall should only be used as a last resort when there's credible evidence that an official has committed a crime, or perhaps incompetance. Using a recall for anything else is abusive and makes the the political and governing processes that much more dysfunctional.
Deliberately decieving the voters about what you intend to if elected to office–as Walker did–is also "abusive and makes the poltical and governing process that much more dysfunctional."
gaf-I think all know what you mean by dysfunctional so I hope there don't havve to be a multitude of posts where you are askedd to define it as BC was asked to do with "function"
What's to stop Republicans, when the situation is reversed (in Wisconisn or somewhere else) from iniating a recall against a Democratic executive they disagree with, but who hasn't done anything illegal? The Democrats, at least in Wisconsin, aren't going to have a lot of credibility to complain when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. This is likely to happen sooner or later.
To have a functioning democracy, there has to be a certain amount of respect for the process, which includes only iniating recalls or impeachment in extenuating circumstances. You can't have a situation where every executive faces the possibility of being recalled or impeached after they've legitimately won an election. Governor Walker's move against collective bargaing was definitely a cheap shot but he also won the election.
I am not disagreeing about the general principle–I said that above. I do not advocate attempting to recall someone for doing what they said they would do if elected (if it is legal and constitutional). I think we just disagree on what you here call "extenuating circumstances." I include Walker's deliberate deception and lying about what he would do as governor as an extenuating circumstance that justifies a recall. You don't. Got it. It seems we agree on the principle but draw the application line in a different place.
Republican 36:
I may be in the minority on this thread but I find myself in agreement here, even though I'm very much a Democrat.
Democratic governance requires a certain amount of respect for the process. Put another way, You can't have a functioning democracy if every elected official, who has legitimately won an election, can be recalled merely because the opposition disagrees with their agenda.
I thought Governor Walker’s legislation on collective bargaining was a cheap shot and red-herring—the real problems have little to do with whether public-employees can collectively bargain. At the same time the recall was not appropriate—Governor Walker had won the election, and had the votes to pass his legislation. I would also add that the collective-bargaing legislation was not (to the best of my knowledge) illegal or unconstitutional.