President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 31, 2019 04:26 PM UTC

Colorado Republicans Stand at Historical Crossroads

  • 11 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Via CNN

On Thursday the House of Representatives voted along party lines to formalize the process for impeachment proceedings against President Trump.

For weeks Republicans have railed against Democrats for not opening a “formal” impeachment inquiry — it was easier for Republicans to attack the process than to defend Trump on the merits of his actions — but on Thursday the GOP demonstrated that this argument was more style than substance. If Republicans can’t assail the process or defend the President’s decisions, then what’s left?

The only obvious step forward is to actually consider the case against President Trump and to vote accordingly. As the editorial board of the Aurora Sentinel wrote on Wednesday:

Credible, compelling, consistent and growing allegations against Trump extorting Ukraine for his own political gain have reached a tipping point…

…Trump himself has now offered honest Republicans a way out of having to defend an indefensible, lying, untrustworthy and incompetent president. Trump has admitted his “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Democrats are documenting them and making the unequivocal case for impeachment. Gardner and others can now finally step out from under the pressure to appease Trump’s misguided base of supporters. But to do that, they must commit to representing the voters in their district, not the delusional, fear-driven scheme of Republican Party leaders.

This is the way out for Gardner and other Republicans of becoming complicit with a duplicitous president. The nation is about to see Trump’s malevolent scandal exposed, and all voters will see which Republicans have the temerity to spurn or defend it.

The nation and history are watching what happens next.

Clockwise from top left: Cory Gardner, Ken Buck, Doug Lamborn, and Scott Tipton.

History does not yet appear to motivate Republican members of Colorado’s Congressional delegation. Instead, they appear more concerned about the present and how they will be perceived by Trump in 2020. Congressmen Scott Tipton (R-Cortez) and Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs) are the co-chairs of Trump’s re-election campaign in Colorado; even if you could figure out a simple way to explain this to Lamborn, there’s little chance that he would bother to listen to the arguments. Congressman Ken Buck (R-Greeley)? He moonlights as the Chairman of the State Republican Party (or vice-versa) and has been clear about his loyalty to Trump.

As for Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Yuma)…well, Quid Pro Cory gave up any pretense of a conscience long ago. Gardner may not have a breaking point when it comes to Trump.

It seems clear that Colorado Republicans aren’t going to be moved by the present, but surely they can comprehend the impact impeachment proceedings may have on their own legacies. David Greenberg, a history professor at Rutgers University, examined this subject for The Washington Post:

Still, people return to this notion for a reason: It acknowledges the potentially high stakes of any political action — how a single vote or decision can loom large in someone’s legacy when the day of reckoning finally comes. It appeals to transcendent ideals that may be obscured by the fervor of the moment; sometimes these coalesce crisply over time, making right and wrong seem obvious and incontestable in retrospect. When, for example, a dying Sen. John McCain went to the well of the Senate to give his thumbs-down on the gutting of Obamacare, he knew this was an act he’d be remembered for…

…But the Watergate saga does tell us this much: Those loyalists who abandoned Nixon early, when it mattered — who stood up for principle over party, for integrity over professional advancement, before Nixon was politically doomed — are remembered and praised for their courage. [Pols emphasis]

And what of those who chose to stand with Nixon?

None of these men has been well remembered. All of their obituaries led with the fact that they defended Nixon. That decision became the headline of their entire lives. [Pols emphasis]

Wherever the impeachment inquiry leads, Tipton, Buck, Lamborn, and Gardner have shown no indication that they will do anything but march alongside Trump.

But there is never a wrong time to do the right thing.

Tweet
Share

Comments

11 thoughts on “Colorado Republicans Stand at Historical Crossroads”

  1. R's everywhere: 

    – Nothing happened
    – Even if something did happen, it was not a crime. And definitely not impeachable.
    – Well not impeachable for an R president
    – and even if it was a crime, Ds did it too
    – her work emails on a private server (just like Bush, Cheney, Rove, Trumps, Kushner, etc), but her emails
    –  hey! Look ! a squirrel! Jeff Sessions and Judge Moore in the same race. Now that's something.

     

    1. – Bu, bu, bu, but “stand[ing] at historical crossroads” . . .

      . . . or something, maybe ???

      This time they’re really gonna’ kick that ‘ol football; you’ll see!

  2. Fearful Republicans are threatened by democracy.  Much better suited to their sensibilities is a simple theocratic dictatorship where freedoms are only for the deserving elite, earned through fealty to the sovereign. 

  3. I did not follow the process or the final debate, so I don't know what sort of "process" the Republicans were advocating.  I've seen a couple of mentions about allowing Republicans to call and subpoena witnesses.  And I've seen some say the President ought to be able to have his lawyers involved, with access to all materials and testimony the committees have.

    As far as I can tell, the investigatory committees continue to operate on the same rules the House Republicans created in 2015. The formalities voted on today allow Republicans to request subpoenas and either the Chair or a majority vote of the committee would trigger its issuance.  Until I know there is a request and the Democratic majority & the chairman refuse to go along with it, I don't know if the process would be an absolute partisan decision or not. 

    I hope enterprising news media will ask the Republican Representatives a similar set of questions that were addressed to Senator Gardner — "do you think it is okay for the President to ask for other countries to investigate political opponents?"  I have yet to hear any defense of what Trump did on camera in the driveway of the White House, asking both Ukraine and China to investigate the Biden situation.

    1. They keep equating this to a criminal prosecution which it is definitely not. If you think about it, it is more like an employee disciplinary proceeding with the HR Department. Has he done things to warrant getting fired?

      And even if this were to be compared to a criminal prosecution, the House is the grand jury. Do you know how much due process a target gets before a grand jury? Not much. In federal court, they can't even bring their lawyer with them.

      When they take this to the trial stage – the Senate – them he gets the complete dog and pony show. Unless, of course, Moscow Mitch moves for summary dismissal.

      1. I like the comparison to an HR decision. 

        I wonder if Republicans would advocate EVERYONE gets the same sort of employment rights as the *resident….

        1. Preet Bharara, former U.S.Attorney, said on Firing Line tonight that it specifically CAN'T be criminal because it does not end with a sentence and jail time or fines. He just loses his job.

  4. Accomplice = a person who helps another commit a crime

    Lamborn, Buck, and Tipton are accomplices to Trump's obvious commission of "high crimes and misdemeanors".

     

  5. Democrats want to reverse what they couldn't reverse a the ballot box. For COlorado Democrats who just screamed bloody murder about recalls it's even more hypocritical.

    1. Democrats want to reverse what they couldn't reverse a the ballot box. 

       

      What?  You mean a popular vote loser making it into the Oval office and becoming chronically unpopular?  Now being under a cloud of impeachment because he tries to get a foreign nation to interfere in our next election?  But, I guess it's different because he's not a Democrat, and it wasn't a blow job.

      And certain other "personalities" of yours were happily calling for a do-over for state level elections they REALLY couldn't win at the ballot box.

    2. . . . sayeth the most hypocritical recall-supporting dipshit ever to post up an electron here . . . 
       

      . . . PS.  Donnie lost at the ballot box, too.  Dunderhead

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

82 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!