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%
November 27, 2005 09:00 AM UTC
28 Comments
Leggitt’s a hired gun. I see his having worked for Bradley, a solid guy, as a legitimate plum in his resume. The fact that he’s now working for a candidate, Holtzman, I don’t support in no way undercuts my respect for Leggitt’s professional abilities.
Just got an email from Angie2006.com last night, her website is practically radioactive, looks like a fight to the finish to me. I like her spunk, sent her $100 for keeping the gloves off. She can beat Musgrave, unless Musgrave buys up all the airtime, seriously doubt that Musgrave will debate head to head and only 34% approval rating of the POTUS, Musgrave can only count on the most blinded partisan support. Her voting record is pathetic and her ratings by veterans groups is abismal, a “0” by the DAV is noteworthy:
2004 Representative Musgrave supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 0 percent in 2004.
2004 On the votes that the The Retired Enlisted Association considered to be the most important in 2004, Representative Musgrave voted their preferred position 33 percent of the time.
2003-2004 Representative Musgrave supported the interests of the Vietnam Veterans of America 38 percent in 2003-2004.
Who supports the troops????????
CO U.S. Senate Sr Wayne A. Allard Republican 0
CO U.S. House 1 Diana L. DeGette Democrat 100
CO U.S. House 2 Mark E. Udall Democrat 100
CO U.S. House 4 Marilyn N. Musgrave Republican 0
CO U.S. House 5 Joel Hefley Republican 100
CO U.S. House 6 Thomas G. ‘Tom’ Tancredo Republican 0
CO U.S. House 7 Bob Beauprez Republican 0
Norton isn’t running in the third.
Mike where did you get those interesting #’s about who supports the troops? As far as Veteran’s supporting Musgrave you are wrong. The VFWPAC endorsed Musgrave, so did Veterans Vision, I believe Musgrave was the only one in Colorado to be endorsed by either.
Oh just hilarious. Last time Colorado Pols reported, according to dubious un-cited sources I might add, that Paccione was “frustrated” and thinking of backing out of the race and going for state re-election. Now they?re reversing their own rumor, which was never substantiated in the first place. Way to go. I’m looking for a little bit more than constant hearsay here guys. Do better. I know you can.
GOPER, from vote-smart.org, the VFWPAC you site is pretty right wing, very much interested in perpetuating the Military/Industrial interests. Kind of like the American Legion, not sure about Veterans Vision. Of course the Russians, with their new found oil wealth are pursuing a ramp up of “defense” expenditures, so perhaps wasting $billions of resources in Iraq was perhaps a very stupid thing to do?
EMRosa — Get a grip, that “recently” and link we stuck in there for your benefit is as implicit as reading the Big Line (takes up an inappropriate amount of the homepage so it’s easy to see). This isn’t hard, we just occasionally deviate from one or another side’s talking points and somebody gets mad at us.
But whatever gives you that “gotcha!” feeling. And no, that’s not what I meant, but since you’re an “angry liberal” I figured I’d clarify before you sue me.
Somehow I don’t think I’m the one that needs to get a grip here. It’s not about the website linking to its previous post on the subject matter, I did realize that.
It’s the fact that there has been nothing to substantiate anything you say about Paccione. Save for fundraising numbers, two weeks in to the announcement. It’s just because some unnamed people say so, hearsay.
Then it’s easy to not take responsibility for an error in such claims because, after all, it wasn’t the website that said such things. It was just what the website heard.
Well, a candidate dropping out of the race is a pretty serious rumor, and maybe a website with the stature of Colorado Pols would be kind enough to give us one, just one real person, who says so, and why that person has such beliefs. This problem also happened with the election leading up to C and D. He said she said. There was no explanation.
Like I said, I know you can do better.
Cry me a river. Like Judith Miller can tell you, there are two kinds of people in the world: knowledge producers and knowledge consumers.
Aren’t you being a bit feisty for a guy who’s supposed to be dead, Peabody?
In Miller’s case, I’d add two more kinds of people: information fabricators and information withholders. Plus the ever reliable Suck Up to Power toadies. God knows, she fit all three. What a jerk.
In other words, you have no arguments to refute my claims, so you’ll just throw out some pretentious psychobabble. Way to go James, way to go. Really, I think time will tell how valuable this particular hearsay is.
If you want to have a logical argument about what responsibilities a self-described news site has to at least provide some kind of explanation in rumors, I’d be happy to talk with you about it.
I think that Pols is a good site with a lot of influence. With the resources you guys have, and the knowledge, I know you can do way better than this. In fact, you?re way above this. Dependence on hearsay is just no good. Fine every once in a while, but not this much.
Just to clarify, the reference to “what a jerk” refers to Miller, not the dead guv. I have enough problems with poltergeists as it is.
EMRosa: jeez alright already. We’re sorry, definitely you’re right, no more “hearsay.” “Hearsay” is bad. In fact, we’re going to wait now to post anything we hear until we read Jim Spencer’s column about it in the Post, and if Jim Spencer doesn’t write about it it obviously never happened.
I should shut up, Alva’s going to get mad and lock me in the basement with the spammers and Zed if I don’t start being nice to you.
PoliceSquad: don’t we flipping all.
Call me crazy, but when news sites and newspapers make news, don’t they usually have sources and explanations? It’s not a hard concept. You use secret sources, but not all too often as it can seriously affect the integrity of the story. I?m not asking anyone to regurgitate the news.
Hopefully you’re not personally offended.
Mike Collins, all I can say is GOOD GRIEF. So basically what you are saying is that there are some Veterans groups that are good and reputable, and then there are the crazy RIGHT WINGERS who people should not take seriously. People involved in any Veterans group have served our country and deserve our utmost respect. For you to say that some are there to only perpetuate military interests is absolutely ridiculous.
is it just me, or is everyone a tad bit sensative these days?
psst…wanna get your name in the papers? It’s easy if you are a vet coming back from a GWOT deployment: speak out against what your brothers are doing back in the sand box. Liberals will beat a path to your door. They will ask you to speak at meetings, sign off on fundraising letters, or run for office.
Why are these people so cherished by the left? Because they are rare. Legitimate veterans groups such as the American Legion and VWF are solidly behind our mission. So are an overwhelming majority of our nation’s veterans.
EMRosa: of course not, in fact I think you’re kind of cute with your “credibility” and “integrity” (hand gestures).
There’s nothing wrong with people trying to keep other people honest, even when (as in this case) they’ve got nothing to worry about.
It’s you, Strider. Nobody else here is sensitive. Certainly not (twitch) me.
GODDAMMITIt’s you, Strider. Nobody else here is sensitive. Certainly not (twitch) me.
GODDAMMIT
Yeah we’ll see James. We’ll see when another person is propped up for the state race, when GLBT groups endorse Paccione, and when Emily?s List raises a whole bunch of money for her…
EMRosa – if you don’t like the site you could just leave.
I don’t think anyone here would mind one bit.
Here you guys are fiddling over dumb stuff while Hank Brown is moving to Denver and Order has fallen from the Supreme Court.
Ha, ha… Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Goper said:
Mike Collins, all I can say is GOOD GRIEF. So basically what you are saying is that there are some Veterans groups that are good and reputable, and then there are the crazy RIGHT WINGERS who people should not take seriously. People involved in any Veterans group have served our country and deserve our utmost respect. For you to say that some are there to only perpetuate military interests is absolutely ridiculous.
Hey, you hit the nail on the head, there are people in the rear with the gear, there are “Pentagon professionals”, take away Med. cruises and no one joins the Navy. Nepotism is rife in the service academies, garbage in garbage out. Let’s see, the American Legion just declared war on war protestors, ask me if I belong? The VFW is split about 50/50 with MOST combat vets under-represented. I heard the POW from Texas give the Murtha rebuttal the other day, someone should have asked him if he emptied his 38 before he surrendered, but he obviously did not or he wouldn’t be such a cock proud Republican from Texas. He made no mention of the 3 million dead Vietnamese, the kind of thing true Christian redemption makes you think about. I was a grunt in the 1st Air Cavalry, I can assure you, surrender was never an option and annihilation was always a possibility. Had the country ever had a meaningful discussion on how wrong we were in SE Asia, maybe we could have prevented Iraq. I’m ready to have that discussion anytime.
threeblindmice:
I never said I didn’t like the site.
I?m offering constructive and factual criticism.
Why do people have such a problem with it?
We haven’t heard anything to suggest that ColoradoPols is ashamed of that hack-job column. Quite the shrilly-delivered reverse, actually.
penis enlargement
Thanksouts http://d.1asphost.com/penisenlargement1/‘ rel=”nofollow”>penis enlargement!
penis enlargement
Indeedimplied http://penisenlargment.9cy.com‘ rel=”nofollow”>penis enlargement?