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%
September 14, 2008 12:14 AM UTC
33 Comments
Those Falcon guys may be small, but they are active and have some amazing pull.
Kudos to President Pat Morgan.
Pat is supported by founding members Mark Shook, John VanderMullen, and Chuck McClellend, plus a cadre of local Conservatives.
I wonder if Dan Lanotte will moderate again. He was very good last time.
.
Somehow Newsman overlooked this quote from the article:
The El Paso County Clerk and Recorder’s Office Elections Department plans to send out mail-in ballots starting the first week of October. I believe it is similar for Chaffee, Lake, Park, Fremont and Teller Counties.
By my estimate, 90% of those ballots will be returned before the first debate.
If 70% of voters have chosen to mail their ballots in,
you could say that the election will already be over by 30 October.
………….
Newsman says:
But the Congress was in recess from
“August 11 – September 5 Summer District Work Period”
this is right off the official calendar at
http://www.house.gov/house/Hou…
During that time, he was certainly busy. He was in town, and he was on vacation; he met with lobbyists, fundraisers, & party bosses, and he made some appearances that were kept secret until after they were over.
He may have had a dental appointment.
I don’t know, but he may have gone on a lobbyist-paid junket.
In fact, his own website shows he was in Colorado starting around 4 August.
http://lamborn.house.gov/Calen…
But he was NOT so busy during that period with the “people’s business” that he couldn’t spare 3 hours to come before the voters and defend his performance in office, either before or after the Primary.
While he had several local events that included ordinary voters, he didn’t have one single event that was open to the public that was announced ahead of time.
He has had plenty of opportunity to appear in public. I check his website often, and he only announces his appearances after they are over. http://www.lambornforcongress….
What’s more, Congress is scheduled to adjourn for the year on 26 September.
He could easily debate any day from 27 September to 11 October and still make his case to the voters why they should return him to office BEFORE they mail their ballots back in.
…….
Congressman Lamborn is afraid to debate.
Here’s another clue: it isn’t Hal Bidlack that has him quaking in his boots.
Colonel Bidlack is an accomplished public speaker.
Heck, he is often paid to impersonate Alexander Hamilton. Check it out:
http://www.hamiltonlives.com/b…
Although Hal’s advisors seem to have taken the pictures of him in character – and in tights – off the web.
But he is out of step with the values of this conservative district:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/…
http://www.Bidlack2008.com
No, Lamborn is afraid of the third candidate on the ballot – a conservative representing a conservative party. Me.
I’m not that good at public speaking, and I haven’t been in a debate since 6th grade.
Congressman Lamborn is a true conservative, but he answers to the Republican party leadership, and that party has strayed from its conservative principles.
If he has to please John Boehner, the GOP House Leader, then he must deviate from conservative principles.
And the only way he got that seat on the House Armed Services Committee was by pleasing party leadership.
Congress today is all about compromise and making deals, and no longer about fulfilling Constitutional duties.
Doug Lamborn has learned how to “play ball,” how to “go along to get along.”
There’s a heck of a lot more to being a Congressman than a sterile voting record.
…….
The Congressman isn’t afraid of my debating skills.
He’s afraid of the voters finding out that he has sold out for the good of his own political career.
If he won’t even show up before voters to defend his record, does he really deserve a lifetime appointment ?
.
.
Hal and his campaign manager are also avoiding a debate on the issues with me.
I have asked them repeatedly to debate me publicly, even if the incumbent Congressman refuses to participate. That’s a little like David’s kid brother (if he had one) challenging Goliath.
Campaign Manager Ratliff said he would talk about it 5 November. Cute.
I’m the only candidate who thinks voters are entitled to an accounting.
I’m the only one willing to go before the public and explain why I want their vote.
The other two candidates believe they are “entitled” to the votes of specific constituencies just because of labels.
Of the three, I’m the only one who thinks Democracy is a good idea.
.
…keeping your identity a secret ain’t a great strategy for winning election, dearest.
.
I am scrupulous about not using my IRL name here because I want to participate in this forum without a certain element harassing me.
Whenever I post with my ‘in real life” name at other blogs,
that element finds me through the magic of Google, and disrupts the entire forum.
Here’s a tip: Google the word “Mercenary.”
I am the nation’s leading activist in trying to stop the US Government from employing them. Due to a federal lawsuit I filed last year, I have had numerous death threats from people in that line of work.
Wikipedia uses my name twice in their definition of Mercenaries.
I’m sure you already know this, but the Declaration of Independence implies that civilized nations don’t use Mercenaries.
There’s a federal law prohibiting their use, 5 USC 3108. Well, at least there’s a decision of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that interprets the law thus.
In 2006, then-Candidate Lamborn starred in a viral video, telling me to shut up when I challenged his assertion that the US doesn’t employ mercenaries.
Check out the Fawcett-Lamborn debate in Canon City on 5 October 2006 on YouTube.
Jared Polis may not fully agree, but I say that I’m the one who turned him on to the importance of this issue. It ended up being an important part of his political formation, his campaign, and his leadership on the Responsible Plan.
I’m also the author of the “Model Community” approach to stabilizing Iraq. The “Anbar Awakening” approach was derived from the “Model Communities” approach.
An enterprising plagiarist with zero understanding of the culture of tribal honor in Iraq took one piece of my integrated approach and applied it in isolation.
I grade that effort a failure, but it is still the smartest thing the Bush Administration has done in Iraq to date.
.
.
My name, either in full or last name only, now appears at least 7 times at the Wikipedia definition. Start with footnote 9.
Apparently, since the last time I checked many months ago,
a Mercenary or a Mercenary sympathizer has rewritten the definition yet again
in an attempt to minimize the impact of my lawsuit.
The fact remains that the Defense Department under Secretary Rumsfeld actually rewrote several regulations in response to legal challenges I have filed.
For example, DFARS 252.225-7040 now specifically authorizes “Contractor participation in hostilities.”
Before my many challenges, the US military used to conform its regulations on Contractors to the Geneva Conventions.
The USA ratified those conventions as an international treaty in 1949, giving them the power of US law.
But the Rumsfeld Department of Defense, under our imperial Bush Presidency, abrogated that treaty with a mere rule change published in the Federal Register.
You may be pleased to hear that 6 US citizens or parties actually objected, including the American Bar Association and yours truly.
You may be distressed to hear that NOT ONE SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS took notice.
You want your country back, but don’t feel up to the challenge of taking it back yourself ?
Help a brother out.
.
for standing up for the constitution.
I can’t believe the court ruled the Pinkerton law so narrowly. As if the fact that these mercenaries weren’t breaking up strikes made them any more legitimate.
Unrestricted Democracy is a terrible idea. That’s why the founders made this a Democratic Republic.
I stand by my statement:
That is a forward looking statement. I was not addressing anything that happened before Lamborn won the primary, or during the time off many of the candidates took after it.
I am talking about now. From this day forward.
feared factions (parties) would tear apart the political fabric of the country.
I’m as big of a fan of the two party system as anyone, but to say the founders wanted there to be only two, well-funded candidates in any given House race is going a little far.
This makes sense. Thanks for sharing. I have my reasons also.
I knew you were invited, I am the one who passed the message.
What I was driving at was, “are you on the ballot”. The reason I said all of what I did, was I happen to know for a fact that the debate parameters and rules have NOT been reviewed or given final approval by the RCF executive committee yet. They will be I am sure. But… I know at least 1 member who would have voted NO to any candidate participating in the debate /forum who did not meet certain qualifications. Being on the ballot was a biggie as I am sure you can understand.
I assume the events committee made sure you fit the bill before they firmed the invitation. They are a pretty well run group from what I have seen.
Dear Barron X,
I hate to break this to you, but you are not eligible to run for the Fifth Congressional District seat. You are a fictitious screen name on a Liberal blog, just like I am.
If you want to debate, you have to be registered with the federal election commission, and on the ballot for the fifth CD.
You have no prayer of being approved by the debate sponsors unless you are a serious candidate with a shot at more votes by percentage than Biden got when he ran for President.
Do you want to be taken seriously?
Show your bona fides.
Otherwise. pipe down.
You pipe down. He has every right to debate in the public venue of CoPols like you do. Stop being an asshole.
I am talking about debates. Real live in person debates. Not this anonymous name calling in Pol-land.
You must be a real person. If he wants to participate in the debates, the organizers are going to have some ground rules to debate, like you have to be registered with the federal election commission, and be on the ballot for the fifth CD.
I am challenging Barron X to show that he meets those qualifications. If not, he can only speak here. He isn’t going to be allowed on the stage to talk to real people.
Not because I say so, because the real people who moderate and sponsor the debate say so.
.
I don’t think that it really matters to the voters whether or not I’m registered with the FEC. I know the FEC doesn’t care.
But I agree that it does matter whether or not I’m on the ballot.
………….
Still, I have to take issue with the heart of what you’re saying.
While I am pleased to have been invited to participate in the 30 October event (fait accompli,)
that event will take place after most votes have already been cast.
I would like voters to have a chance to hear opposing candidates before they vote.
I know what you are thinking, as a Lamborn partisan: don’t confuse the voters with choices.
………………..
I don’t recall what percentage Senator Biden got.
Do you mean 1% ? 5% ?
The Republican Party has liberated itself from the shackles of conservatism.
Barry Goldwater wouldn’t recognize today’s Party of militarism and corporatism, the party trying to eliminate one of the world’s major religions and trying to force people in distant lands to like us through the misuse of military power.
The party that started a war in Iraq as a reelection gimmick.
The party that chooses to not get Osama bin Laden, because they want him running free and scaring voters.
For conservatives who are disenchanted with the GOP,
it is welcome good news that an authentic conservative party,
the American Constitution Party, the third largest political party in the nation,
now has enough registered members to guarantee ballot access for every federal contest in Colorado for the next 4 years.
Membership in the 6 counties that make up the 5th CD has shot up over 100% just since April.
While I appreciate your concern about whether or not I make the ballot, Secretary of State Coffman has that settled.
Check out his website.
I suspect that, just having my name on the ballot gets me votes from the 1 or 2% who are unhappy with the two candidates of the major corporatist parties.
If, despite your best efforts, word gets out that I represent the American Constitution Party (it will be printed on the ballot, after all,) that might rise to 3%.
If people see that I’m the only one that signed the term limit pledge, maybe I’m up to 3.25%.
If they find out I promised to serve only 1 term, maybe it’s up to 3.5%.
Then there’s the Ron Paul wackos. As you have suspected, I’m a kindred spirit. A wacko just like them. Maybe that gets me up to 3.875%.
Then there’s the people that see this election as being centrally about CHANGE. If “change” is just a buzzword, those folks go Democratic in the Congressional race. But if they really are serious about change, they vote for me. That pushes me to maybe 4.179%.
…..
You know my party’s platform, Newsman, and my one-dimensional reason for running.
I find it resonates with people who love this country, and who want it to get back on the right track.
I have promised to focus all my efforts on restoring the Congress to its Constitutional role, which it has abrogated in deference to an imperial Presidency.
Furthermore, I have promised to set up my office in Baghdad, Iraq, until we finally withdraw our military. I don’t trust McCain or Obama to do the right thing, unless some committed person (wacko) forces them to respond to the demands of the American people. And I fear that one of those two is going to be elected.
I think that gets me up to about 4.77%.
So what this all comes down to, Newsman, is that I am asking for your vote.
If I can get you and about 500 other Lamborn supporters
(or even 500 Democrats)
to switch and vote for me,
you will push me over the 5% threshold.
Its a secret ballot; your neighbors and friends will never know.
.
as well you should.
You might break 5% in Chaffee county, but not even close in EPC if you are counting on many of the non-Democrats.
Haven’t you heard. We are winning in Iraq, and going to start a withdrawal anyway.
.
He speaks of achieving “Victory.”
Al-Qaeda in Iraq today consists of about 250 gang bangers. They are a law enforcement problem now, albeit a touchy one.
Our military forces are fighting on one side in a civil war. They happen to be fighting on the side supported by Iran.
Would the Congressman be satisfied with “victory” when Iranian President Ahmad din Nejad takes complete control of Baghdad ?
………..
Due to poor leadership, we are fighting in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.
While we ARE fighting to protect our forces and installations and convoys,
and that all makes perfect sense,
look at the bigger picture.
We are also fighting to support the ad-Daw’a faction over the Sadr faction.
We are fighting to support the Iran-friendly Shi’a over the more Western-oriented Sunni.
But the main reason we are fighting there today is because we were there fighting yesterday. Inertia.
We are NOT advancing US national security interests,
and we are NOT prevailing over any identifiable military adversary.
I have heard the Bush team say that they are winning,
and politicians wearing Army ACU and generals’ stars say that the Surge has succeeded,
but soldiers say they are living out “Groundhog Day” in a combat zone.
What do you think “winning” means, anyway ?
But the most important point I’d like to make is that neither McCain nor Obama will withdraw from Iraq,
unless Angelina Jolie or Warren Buffet or some prominent American icon takes up residence in the Green Zone and squawks every single day to the US media that we gotta get out of that place, if its the last thing we ever do.
I am a poor substitute for Angelina. But if I’m a Congressman, it will be enough.
……………
I think you misread the conservative nature of the District.
We are not in Iraq for American interests.
We are in Iraq so Bush and the GOP don’t have to admit their mistake.
Every soldier that dies in Iraq today is dieing so Bush can pretend it isn’t a fiasco.
I believe that the conservatives in the District care a whole heck of a lot more about their country than their party,
and I think they see the almost total failure of their party at the national level.
They are willing to cut the GOP loose and let it die, if need be, to save the country.
I’ll guess you know the Constitution and Declaration better than me.
How in the world does a true conservative support a war started for false reasons that was about skewing an election (2004) in favor of the GOP ?
Conservatives have already come to the realization, and gotten sick to their stomachs, and know that President Bush has severely damaged the country, and killed thousands, all for his vanity.
When they have a choice between the self-serving Republican Party and true conservatism, I believe they will repudiate the corruption of President Bush and embrace a better future for the country.
At least 5% of them, that is.
Can I count on you ?
…..
ps: if Lamborn repudiates the corruption and evil of Bush, I don’t have a chance. Is he man enough ?
McCain is close to that point now.
.
Doug Lamborn will have to face the voters every two years until he retires, dies, or is defeated.
Barron wrote:
“But he [Bidlack] is out of step with the values of this conservative district”
I don’t think so. Bidlack isn’t a flaming liberal. Sorry. You’re barking up the wrong tree. I’ve known him for years. I’d call him a moderate, even by conservative standards, particularly on fiscal issues.
The eight issues of importance he outlines at his site are:
*The Economy
*Fiscal Responsibility
*Energy Independence and the Environment
*Foreign Policy
*Veteran Care
*Privacy/Civil Liberties
*Immigration
*Health Care
He doesn’t believe in spending more than we take in–duh! He believes we should be independent when it comes to energy issues. Duh! His foreign policy experience while working with the State Dept at the Pentagon is impressive. Veteran care? He is one and he cares! He’s a brilliant historian who is fundamentally and passionately dedicated to the principles upon which this nation was founded–namely civil liberties, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. Immigration? He states plainly at his site he does not support “amnesty.” Health care is in a crisis state. Something must be done. Even those with insurance are going bankrupt.
Look again, Barron. Now who’s afraid?
.
He can call himself whatever he wants. Its a free country, at least for now.
On his website, he mixes some liberal ideas with some conservative ideas when talking about energy, the economy, pretty much all those issues you listed.
Is that moderate ? I call it “jumbled.”
Why don’t you list his positions on the more controversial issues ?
I think what’s more important is how the electorate categorizes him.
And in this District, we have a short list of litmus test issues, what you may put down as “social conservative” or “fundamentalist right wing wacko” issues that center on human life and family.
We can disagree about this, its OK. But I think that any candidate who thinks the voters here are going to overlook their positions on these core issues is fooling themselves.
Exactly what does Hal have to say about abortion ? I don’t think the subject is addressed on his site. There’s some bold leadership for ya.
…..
I talked face to face with both Hal and his campaign manager 3 weeks ago. They both declined to schedule a debate with me. I believe they are afraid that I will peel away the anti-Lamborn voters who are true conservatives.
Frankly, they are smart to avoid me. I’d do the same thing in their position.
Why should they help me get my name and my positions out before the public, when my positions make more sense to the voters ?
If Hal and I have a formal debate, with an empty chair for Doug up front with us, he will make mincemeat out of me with his oratorical skills. But in the end, his positions on the issues will come out, and then he loses and I win.
I don’t mind if “progressives” smugly consider themselves more sophisticated or more modern than, for example, those of us who still go to church every Sunday. We religious fundamentalists believe that God gave you a Free Will, and though He wants you to choose righteousness over evil, you are still free to choose evil.
What I DO mind is when “progressives” think they have the right to come into a conservative community (CD-5 is a majority conservative community) and take away our right to set our own standards and norms and values.
I fully support your right to hold liberal values. But you have no right to foist them on us. And a Congressman who rejects our values on those social issues simply would not be “Representative.”
.
And it is a fundamentally conservative value to protect the rights of a minority when a dominant majority is hell-bent on setting (and enforcing) a community’s “standards and norms and values.”
Practice what you preach all you want in your own church and your own bedroom, as do I, but don’t insult my intelligence with the claim liberals are the ones foisting values onto activity in the public square in a “majority conservative community.” Note even close.
.
that he supports expanded access to abortion.
In this community, that’s not our values. In this one limited respect, if I have assumed correctly, his views are not representative of community views.
If he were to go to Congress to supposedly represent us, could he ?
.
Keeping legal clinics that provide a legal medical service open in the face of thugs who would shout and intimidate them out of the “community”? Bidlack might support that, I don’t know.
Perhaps I should have been more thorough: Practice what you preach in your own church, your own bedroom, and your own doctor’s office.
How is it a conservative value, as opposed to the value of a religious zealot, to enforce your values in my church, my bedroom and my doctor’s office?
I’ve lived in (at least what is now) the 5th congressional district for most all my life, since I was 9 years old. I don’t take well to being told that if I’m a progressive I shouldn’t come into your community and foist my values upon you. I am a part of this community, whether you like my politics or not. And if you want to define me out of the community because you disagree with me, I question whether you really know the meaning of a community.
I’ll concede that Barron may have used a bad choice of words, but true none the less if the word majority or vast majority were thrown in now and then.
We live in the most Conservative part of the reddest county in Colorado.
If you can’t call this a conservative community, then what community fits that description?
You mean other than Colorado’s many compounds, where they do get to set their own religious-based rules and enforce them on everyone?
I heard Hal Bidlack with my own two ears–and they still work perfectly even after 51 years–challenge Congressman Doug Lamborn to no less than SEVEN debates. Alas, the congressman seems to have selective hearing.
.
I just wish it was before more than 50% of the votes will have been mailed back in.
.