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%
February 14, 2010 09:16 PM UTC
64 Comments
This is awful. And yet kind of hilarious. I don’t mean to laugh at the guy but if his website is any indication of his competency as a candidate…
Now I have to clean up all the coffee I just snorted on my pajamas.
That Colorado is now the most populous state in the nation, what with 59 Congressional Districts. Do you think this guy might show up in Washington, D.C. next year if he were to actually get elected???? Great laugh for Valnetine’s Day morning.
about those phantom congressional districts in that stimulus-spending report. Or maybe Kennedy doesn’t really understand he’s not going to Congress, no matter what.
And I hate to see him subjected to public ridicule, even if it’s the result of his own poor judgment. But he’s emblematic of a larger problem: The belief that having a pulse qualifies oneself as an expert on public policy and governance.
This is why representative democracy is such an excellent system, in which we elect qualified people to do a complicated job, and, like any employers, hold them accountable for the job they do. In a saner world, we would recognize that some form and degree of expertise is required, something that we should demand candidates to demonstrate in their campaign. Otherwise we end up with what the combination of excessive direct democracy and the Republican caucus in Colorado has come to resemble: A bunch of Garys making our policy decisions, with predictable consequences.
We shouldn’t hire people who don’t know anatomy to perform surgery, and we shouldn’t hire (or allow) people who have no understanding of social, political, legal, and economic systems, to govern.
And Gary, seriously, I wish you all the best, just not in public office.
He’s not much one for the spoken word, is he? Or coherent thoughts.
for far too many (blindly ideological) voters, that in no way disqualifies him. I mean, what rational person would imagine a Renfroe, or a Shultheis, or a Jim Kerr actually winning an election to political office? It’s simply mind-boggling.
This proves the lesson of using the Intertubes is sinking in to the far reaches of our great state.
My daughters would have done better than this when they were in 2nd grade.
He has a solid base of support in SouthWestern Colorado and has a great chance of winning 59
I’ve always enjoyed hanging out with him down in Cortez – he’ll make a great Rep
If he were running for State House District 59 instead of Colorado Congressional District 59…
So that means the GOP field has been winnowed down to what? Only 16 candidates?
http://www.hickenlooperforcolo…
but “coming soon” is far better than Kennedy’s.
“1969 to 1975 – High School Diploma, San Juan High School, Blanding ,Utah
He took six years to graduate from high school, and he wants to HIGHLIGHT that?
Plus, how about this gem:
“I want Colorado to be known as the State that will IMMEDIATELY remove from office any and all persons for NOT representing the People.”
Um, how does that work exactly? Shooting or hanging?
While I won’t vouch for the quality of his education in Utah (check out his campaign office on “Hanaball” Street in Aurora), the 6 years to get his diploma has a simple explanation — he’s 53 and so started high school in the 7th grade.
My high school in little ol’ Davie Florida did the same thing.
Posting his full resume indicates that he’s basically a very sincere, “Gary, Plain and Tall” type of person.
I completely agree with SH’s commentary. If his stump speeches are all like the one posted, I think his future serving outside of the state legislature is assured.
If Blanding back then did not have junior high schools, he would have gone on to high school in ninth grade through twelfth. That’s five years. Add one year for the school year starting and ending in different years, and there ya are.
Well, it’s four years, but a combination of your and harrydoby’s explanation makes sense.
they would have felt like an eternity.
If his 7th grade school term started in 1969, it would have ended in 1970. Increment 5 additional years and apparently, out popped a high school diploma (at roughly the age of 19).
Maybe he repeated a year, and the high school started at the 8th grade level. But I’d go with the simplest explanation barring evidence to the contrary.
This is probably more attention than he’s ever gotten across the state of Colorado to date.
The site was created with Homestead.com, which is a website that auto-plays a 2-minute video. In other words, the blind leading the blind here…
I’ve known Gary for most of my life. He’s a great guy and he means well. He’s obviously not a professional politician and his website doesn’t do him any favors, but I don’t see why that qualifies him for ridicule here.
And before anyone jumps in to lecture about the perils of running for public office or to explain that everything Gary does is fair game for ridicule, I’ll just say that I would think a blog as widely read as this one might pick bigger targets.
seat when he’s really only seeking a seat in the state legislature (formally known as the General Assembly but NEVER properly referred to as “Congress”) as well as being unable to spell
is a legitimate target for criticism and even mockery.
It’s a shame www.herbrubensteinforcongress.com has gone dark.
And I think much of what has been posted here was unnecessary. Furthermore, I do not believe that running for office should be interpreted to mean volunteering to be a target for the arbitrary malice of others.
But there is a real issue that is implicated here, and that is: What does “democracy” mean? Does it mean that being a nice guy with good intentions are the only qualifications necessary to hold elected office? And, if not, how do you address the candidacy of someone who is woefully unqualified, who, in Colorado, very well could win anyway, without hurting his feelings a little bit?
But your point is well-taken; though the Republicans may have co-opted the phrase, I, too, fervantly desire “a kinder, gentler” nation. As I wrote above, he’s probably a very nice guy, and sincerely wish him all the best, just not in elected office.
Steve, pointing out the legislative candidate has somehow invented a 59th Congressional District isn’t malicious. It’s just funny.
I can’t say that it didn’t make me chuckle as well. But I honestly don’t like to see anyone ridiculed. “Arbitrary malice” might be too strong a term for this situation (I was speaking more broadly), but not all things that are genuinely humorous are worth mining when you consider the pain they could cause. (I, for instance, hate American Idol for the way some of the contestants are legitimately ridicules on national television. That, I think, is just plain vicious).
There’s enough suffering in the world. And, yes, being subjected to public ridicule can count as “suffering.” It’s at least a legitimate consideration.
Technically, democracy means there is no “elected office”. That’s the problem here. We love to shove “democracy” down the throats of our children and then wonder why they don’t trust government when they’re older.
We need to be teaching our kids what “representation” really means. It is an inherent trust in your elected representative at all levels. And if those representatives betray that trust, then it is the voters’ responsibility to elect someone else.
When we continuously preach the idea that the People know what’s best for the community as a whole, we fall into the same trap of all previously attempted “democracies”. WE THE PEOPLE do NOT know what is best for the community, but rather just ourselves. And we express that through a single vote for an individual we “trust” will “represent” our self interest.
hiring someone for a job that they are experts in, but that you must oversee as the CEO. In our representative democracy, we are the employers, the CEOs, the sovereign. We hire our representatives, to act as our agents, but in ways that requires training and focused attention that we, in general, don’t possess and can’t afford to invest due to our own responsibilities.
Part of the job of these agents of ours is to listen to us and keep getting a continual sense of what we want them to do, in broad strokes (eg, “pass health care reform that reduces costs, increases coverage, and eliminates unethical denials of coverage”). When the task demanded is impossible (eg, “cut taxes and increase services”), it is our agents’ responsibility to inform us of why the task we have assigned them cannot be accomplished. It is also their responsibility to offer us feedback on what demands aren’t being met that we should consider addressing.
Personally (not meaning to criticize you), I don’t like reducing it to “trust,” because that whitewashes over the agency problem that democratic processes are designed to address. It’s a classic principle-agent relationship, and a flipping of the former one in nation-states: Instead of the people being agents of the sovereign rulers, the rulers are agents of the sovereign people.
If he considers that website acceptable, then I think it’s legit to wonder what kind of judgement he would show in the legislature.
My point is just that putting his website up for the blogging masses to ridicule is a small-minded thing to do.
That’s not to say he’s abnormal. Perhaps he is a good guy but relatively speaking, that’s not saying much and his website still reeks of days old humidified pig intestine in the summer.
But you’re right. I’m bored.
I think it serves a legitimate public interest to point out why a candidate isn’t qualified, and to do so publicly. My agreement with you is that there is a balance to be struck, not that we should turn a blind eye to incompetence in applicants for public office. We are collectively the employers, and his campaign is his job interview. Since there are a lot of us employers, scattered far and wide, we have to consult with one another in the ways that we can: Newspapers, blogs, and so on.
I agree that the website shouldn’t be posted for the purpose of ridicule (for the mere entertainment of others). But I think it definitely should be posted.
I’d like to see such public vetting done without complete insensitivity, but I emphatically disagree with you that it shouldn’t be done. The competence of candidates for public office is a legitimate public concern.
You really think someone needs coloradopols (or you) to point out that the guy’s website is bad? And, if so, do you really think that this was posted as a public service for those poor voters who couldn’t figure it out for themselves?
Please. The entire point of this post was to mock him. And that’s well within everyone’s rights as voters, activists, and pseudo-journalist bloggers. I’m just saying that if a blog wants to put itself forth as a reputable source of political information, then maybe it should reach a little higher than the lowest hanging fruit.
it is irrelevant both in its capacity to humiliate, and in its capacity to inform. As we both know, it is, in fact, irrelevant in neither way.
I agreed with you on the aspect that you repeated, as if disputing me, while chastising me for not agreeing with the value of discussing the competence of a candidate as evidenced by his website.
It has nothing to do with my estimation of myself, but rather of my estimation of public discourse. The ultimate political battlefield is the human mind, and what we do here matters, even if only marginally. Democracy depends on engaged people discussing everything of relevance to the policies and people they choose to represent and organize them. That, to some extent, is what we are doing here. It does not depend on people making sport of one another, and so I criticize that aspect in isolation.
Part of the nature of public discourse is your freedom to dispute these assertions, and to argue why your position is more compelling. The selection of righteous indignation, introduced with a gratuitous mild personal insult, in place of an argument, is also yours to make. In an ideal world, it would be everyone else’s to disregard.
And get into a long drawn out fight with one of the few people who was agreeing with you.
Maybe you should save your energy ranting here, and use it to try to help out your friend who is obviously struggling with what it takes to run for office in Colorado or anywhere else.
And I have to take issue with the fact that you’re still haranguing on Pols, when you should be thanking them. Without them “humiliating” your friend, that website would still be up in its original form actually humiliating him.
not only did it not work, but I didn’t get a grammar error message. Can you guys fix that link in the diary plz thx?
(I ain’t no grammar boy. I’m fierce!)
is that too much to ask?
IS IT?
:'( I need summore candy. This joke is going nowhere.
Uhh, just asking, but when did federal price supports and subsidy for agriculture NOT constitute “larger government in any form” and “government takeover of private business”?
And how do we get “government out of our lives and our pockets” while swilling down taxpayer subsidies for production of crops like wheat and cotton and (I kid you not) Tobacco?
Mr. Kennedy may not be able to able to spell “candidate” but he apparently doesn’t have any trouble with the word “hypocrisy.”
government agencies simultaneously pay farmers to grow, and not to grow, the very same crop.
That changed with the late and lamented Freedom to Farm Act. Before that, you got paid for idling acres and other things (not growing crops) Now, you can grow all you want and still get your subsidy check. At least, that’s true with wheat, which I grow on our farm in northeast Colorado. Conversely, even today, you can go to jail for growing peanuts without a government allotment (and would ceertainly face a civil fine.) That’s because the special interests that already have peanut allotments have persuaded the government to keep any potential competitors out. And, of course, massive tariffs on sugar protect our domestic sugar beet industry in Colorado while helping destroy the Florida Everglades. And did I mention that we subsidize destruction of the Tongass rain forest because destroying rain forest is a good thing — for the logging industry.
Of course, Mr. Kennedy works for a water district. The federal government subsidies agricultural water up to its eyeballs, as it does with the REA (electricity) and WAPA (hydroelectric power)
This shrinking government for everybody else so I can eat higher off the taxpayer hog thing gets complicated, so just remember: “Economy in government, but not in my district.”
or where exactly to dig it up (one of my law school case books), but some time in the not too distant past, some agency (don’t know which one) paid farmers not to grow certain crops that were in surplus in order to keep prices high, and the same or another agency simultaneously paid the other farmers to grow the same crop under different provisions. Maybe some portion of that was under the Freedom to Farm Act, and no longer is in effect. So, obviously, I have no idea about the current state of the laws and regulations on this topic. But I do distinctly remember that it was true, not long ago.
Is it too late for me to change “pay” to “paid”? 🙂
does not understand the standard issue Republican talking points, it does not mean that he can’t try to put his personal spin on them. The ignis fatuus is still the same.
that he looks like 2 people I know– one would run for prez on the prohibition ticket and the other was a neighbor, both of whom would beat their wives and children, or should I keep that to myself?
to criticize a website, and a candidacy, that affiliates itself with nativist stupidity. He may be the nicest guy in the world, but if under “My Pledge” he cites “Ocean Exploration,”
well I think we can all agree that “Ocean Exploration” is not a pledge. And how about this:
“Real Science on the environment (weather – animals – plants – reptiles – fish – climate – ????)”
What exactly is the policy implication of “weather-animals-plants-reptile-fish-climate- ???” Perhaps Obama could appoint him to a mid level spot at NASA?
I can’t get “heckuva job, Brownie” out of mind’s eye.
????
I’m skerred. What ocean? Why?
I think the plan is to dig for oceans in western Colorado. They’re filled with resources. It’s unlikely to work, but just imagine the payoff!
No. No I still don’t get it. Now, I’m just a silly girl so maybe that has something to do with it but this whole ocean exploration thing, I think it might be a waste of time if you’re running for that house district thingy. Am I wrong? I DO like turtles.
Proud to live in Colorado
.
but I saw his website when he was running for US Senator, and this is the same website, with minor changes.
That may be why he has staked out such a broad platform beyond mere parochial interests of the 4 Corners area.
.
on the website, the issue is not, as far as I can see, the narrowness or breadth of his platform. His words, both written and spoken, scream that he has only a vague, blindly ideological, and frequently inconsistent understanding of the political economic landscape. If the voters seek to elect competent office-holders, rather than disregarding competence in favor of mere ideological agreement and general “similarity” to the voters themselves, Gary would be immediately disqualified. And voters should seek to elect competent office-holders.
The kennedyforcolorado website has been changed. Misspellings corrected, jurisdiction of the 59th District resolved, date stamped photo removed (and date stamp on another photo inartfully covered with another photo). If this helps candidate Kennedy, then he will have CO Pols to thank for pointing this out long before most voters even are aware this is an election year.
However, the exchange of blocks of red and green and yellow to replace the “brown-mountains-of-Sept-28-2003” cannot be called an improvement.
I thought we had a bicameral legislation in this state. Apparently we have at least a sexagintacameral legislation.
very nice cold hard facts on rig counts. This would be a great stat to recite in a debate with Scooter.
You know Scooter is going to bring it up about how “the new regs are killing O&G”. Its about half of his platform – the other half is that he somehow can’t discern state budgetary figures right now.
Unfortunately, Hickenlooper is saying that the O&G regs were too harsh or something to that effect. I was really hoping that the guy who almost lost a thumb in an accident would be for the regs–especially when there’s such conclusive proof that they are not damaging the businesses they affect from a production standpoint.
I think chimpanzees can hold markers in their hands without straps.
But if you wrote this knowing they could, and it’s an insult at an even higher level..
OH SNAP!!!
So this website is now “under construction,” thanks in no small part to coloradopols.com, I’m sure. However, despite the “construction” he still hasn’t capitalized his last name on the top of the site. I hate to be the grammar police, but come on. This displays a lack of attention to detail that is unforgivable in a candidate for public office.
Um, have you taken a look at your own site lately? It looks like someone set off a clutter bomb. The code is so bad one validator gave up after finding too many errors. Some poor sap running for office gets suckered by Homestead on what is probably his first attempt at a web presence and you’re all over him, while you, a big institution with resources, don’t have the first clue about usability, accessibility or clean design. If this site looks okay to you it is a testament to your incompetence.
If you want to throw stones you had better get some plywood up over all that glass. Start with Section 508, standards compliance and having the remotest idea of good graphic design.
I extrude and flush better web designs than this train wreck.