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%
July 05, 2006 08:00 AM UTC
44 Comments
This will counter all the attacks being made by Peggy about Ed’s oil connections. Ed’s campaign is running like a well oiled machine / Salazar who is so dedicated that he must have burned all his vacation / Welchert / Radovich-Piper are all doing a great job. Tim Knaus handling the well funded 527 Committee insures that will be top notch. Watch for that John Ferrugia interview to be played over and over again in ads paid for by the 527 Committee.
Ah, the Ferrugia interview. I believe this occurred back in February, and was played and publicized AD NAUSEUM. The result of this constant barrage? A commanding lead for Lamm in the polls and a Perlmutter free-fall that continues to this day.
So, let’s bring out the interview again!
The Perlmutter follies continue. He’ll keep up his shenanigans until his poll numbers approach Absolute Zero.
Go Ed Go — If by “well-oiled” you mean “well-funded by oil industry hacks,” “well-tuned in to what the oil industry wants” or “Oil-Well Friendly” then yes, Ed’s campaign is well-oiled.
Let’s replace Both Ways Bob with Every Way Ed. If not for the intervention of Tony Massaro at LCV, how in the world does an environmental group endorse a person who gets the following written about him from his friends at Colorado Oil & Gas Association?
Insider Ed does it again. It is not news that another Washington power group endorses Ed.
Didn’t the political director of national LCV, Tony Massaro manage Ed Perlmutter’s state senate campaigns?
Not only did Tony Massaro manage Ed Perlmutter’s campaigns, he wrote Perlmutter’s field plan before he left Colorado for DC.
I just can’t believe Peggy has any momentum at all–her campaign is just running on her last name. If this race were merit-based, Perlmutter would have had it by a long shot, but then this is politics 🙂
Merit based? Let’s take a look at the merits of Ed’s voting record and ideology. He voted three times against gay rights, voted to take away money from public schools for vouchers and voted for the the “Oil and Gas Dream Bill”(Denver Post) Some merits.
Perlmutter racks up another endorsement . . . the attacks commence. Business as usual.
Yeah, Ruby, it’s sure a shame that all of these dirty posters use facts in their attacks. It doesn’t seem fair.
Wow, the Lamm posters are pretty surly today. Is the coffee machine at Peggy’s apartment/campaign office broken or something?
After a little research, it looks like LCV also endorsed Nancy Johnson in CT 05. But she only has a 56% score from LCV.
So the bar is set pretty low to get an LCV endorsement…”sometimes doesn’t personally rape the environment”
It is a testament to Ed that Alan Salazar is at Ed’s campaign of full time. Alan must be losing tens of thousands of dollars in pay to help Ed. Welchert / Salazar / Radovich-Piper / Tim Knaus doing the 527. Poor Jim Merlino is out gunned.
It’s interesting…EZ Mak points out Ed’s voting record. Did Ruby’s articulate and relevant comeback defend Ed’s votes? No, instead the gist was your coffee machine must be broken.
Says it all.
You know, if I didn’t support Ed before, I would have plenty of reasons to now. Let’s look at the accusations (from EZMak and others), then the reality:
He is anti-gay rights!
This one is the most damaging, because he did in fact place some votes that he now says he regrets. I understand this can still be spun, and certainly the Lamm campaign will do so, but he has since been praised by members of the GLBT community for his leadership on these same issues. Take that how you will. The salient point is that he has come out strongly in favor of domestic partnerships and garnered the support of plenty who have a vested interest in these issues. The fact that we have gay activists marching with us at parades tells me this is a non-issue among those who pay attention.
He’s pro-business!
He gets endorsed by every labor union that has chosen to endorse in this race. Not generally something that happens with a big-business-loving Democrat. Labor unions across the board think he’s a good voice for them. That’s enough evidence for me.
He is anti-public schooling!
He and his daughters attend(ed) public schools in Jeffco, and then he gets the CEA endorsement over Peggy, who is a former teacher. So who do the educators think will work for them and further the cause of public schooling? Apparently they choose Ed.
He’s in the pocket of Big Oil!
This is the most ridiculous. Ed has publicly talked about his alleged “connections” to the oil industry. He started out on some oil cases when he was a new lawyer and gained an understanding of the industry. He has some friends in some of the smaller local oil and gas companies (like the guy who wrote the above referenced letter) who think that his experience with their issues would be valuable in a Congressperson. (As I’ve said before…You know there are Republicans with a deep understanding of Oil and Gas…why is it a bad thing to maybe have a basic knowledge of these issues on our side?) And this “dream bill?” He sponsored a bill that settled a dispute about royalties between different parties *within the oil industry.* It didn’t hurt the common man…it cleared up a contentious issue within the industry so they didn’t keep squabbling about it. And now the latest endorsement from the League of Conservation Voters, who apparently think he’s the best candidate to further the interests of Conservationists.
Every time Lamm has cried “wolf” the accusation has been disproved by people who are closer to the situation and have more vested interest in how their Congressperson actually votes on the issue at question. Now we’re down to the Lamm camp claiming that it’s an “insider” thing that he’s raking in the endorsements. This is starting to sound desperate to me. I know those people will never be convinced, but it seems clear to me that there are a whole lot of people who think Ed is the best choice to send to Congress for a number of issues Democrats care about.
Gosh Damn Facts!,
I guess a quick stab at humor really degrades the ultra-high standards for commentary on this blog. Lighten up – it’s a blog.
Here’s some conent, though not my own. TakeBackTheHouse reported this at SquareState:
“Massaro responded to questions about Ed’s opponents, Peggy Lamm and Herb Rubenstein, by expressing that while all of them were reliable on environmental issues, and while each of them had shown leadership on other issues, Ed Perlmutter had consistantly shown leadership on the votes that matter most to the environmental community.
Using examples from Perlmutter’s Senatorial record on renewable energy, water policy and other issues, Massaro laid out the case that Perlmutter was not just a reliable vote but a “champion of the environment” that would show leadership in bringing the issues to Congress.”
We can all hold our own opinions about the quality of whatever organizations, but as many know, endorsements are mostly good from a fundraising and advertising standpoint. Despite any criticisms being tossed around here, the LCV endorsement is a good thing for the Perlmutter campaign. Sour grapes is the impression I get from the Lamm zealots on here . . . if the LCV is such a terrible organization, then would Peggy have rejected their endorsement if they had chosen her? Not likely.
First off this sentence doesn’t make any sense:
“It is a testament to Ed that Alan Salazar is at Ed’s campaign of full time”
Did that come from a Perlmutter newsletter?
Second-How many congressional campaigns have Welchert, Radovich-Piper, and Knaus won. How many has Merlino won?
I went into this election with an open mind, but after reading the above I’m really sold on Ed!
Sure, Ed had some bad votes on GLBT issues. But who out there has a better record besides the other 2 candidates?
Sure, Ed’s getting a lot of dough from big biz and big oil, but what’s wrong with money?
Sure, Ed has supported vouchers, but who hasn’t (again, other than the other 2 Dem candidates)?
Thanks to these shills, er, informed commenters, I’m with Ed!
Skeptical infomercial host (aka EZMak)-
I know anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a “shill.” Could be I’m just a person who supports a candidate. I laid out my points above and the relevant parties who WOULD be affected by the accusations levelled against Ed have decided that the accusations hold no water. By all means keep spouting the same tired things on every thread, but the people who pay attention to the issues you’re so concerned about have chosen their candidate and it’s not Peggy or Herb.
w0nderm0nkey:
So what you’re saying is that Ed will change his positions on the issues as he sees fit? He’ll vote against domestic partnerships but then “come out strongly in favor of domestic partnerships”? Can we trust Every-Way-Ed not to change his position again once the election is over? I don’t think so…
This stinks to high heaven.
When you consider the fact that Ed supported takings legislation (loathed by LCV), is the developers’ water boy, is a member of the Oil and Gas Association (which accuses groups like LCV of using junk science), voted to cut funding for drought protection in order to fund tax cuts for mining companies, the idea of LCV endorsing Ed is laughable.
There is no question that his pal Tony Massaro took advantage of a leadership vacuum at LCV when he pulled the strings to make this happen.
It’s the same kind of sleazy backroom nonsense that got Perlmutter’s wife the lobbying contract for the top secret developing interests. (front page of Sunday’s Denver Post)
LCV should be ashamed for selling out. Ed Perlmutter sold himself out to the developers a long time ago.
Monkey-
I’m not creative enough to think of that name, sorry.
WR-Dem-
I’m sorry you don’t think Ed can be trusted. I’ve talked to Ed, I’ve heard him talk on these issues, and I (and many others) believe that he is sincere about his beliefs on these issues. The fact is there are members of the GLBT community who agree with that assessment and those who do not. One side will win out on August 8, and we’ll see if the other side all runs to support O’Donnell.
Ed Perlmutter and Herb Rubenstein have a real position on Iraq. Peggy Lamm has some dribble on her website that makes no sense at all. In fact her refusal to take a stand on the War is shameful.
Oh I know she is against the War. Who is not against war? What does she plan to do to end the War is the question.
Ed has assembled a great team. Alan Salazar is around all the time. I wonder how much pay he is losing. Steve Welchert has done a sensational job with the direct mail and Danielle Radovich-Piper is great with the volunteers. Ed Perlmutter is on his way to Congress.
Peggy’s direct mail is great and it is effective. It is funny that all the Ed fans have not offered any facts to rebut the solid case made by Peggy in her mail about Ed’s record as a shill for the oil and gas industry.
Welchert’s direct mail. Ridiculed in the press shows Perlmutter as Ed-Zilla towering over Denver not showing the district. Insider Ed is in a suit or tie in every piece. Remember it was a Welchert’s ham handed mail piece attacking Angie Paccione in her 2002 primary that basically won Angie the race.
“It is funny that all the Ed fans have not offered any facts to rebut the solid case made by Peggy in her mail about Ed’s record as a shill for the oil and gas industry”
I haven’t seen the mail piece so that makes it hard to answer. Is it available on her website? You can bet Peggy will be sending out a lot more attack mail, so I guess I’ll see one eventually.
Anyway, wOndermOnkey addressed the issue very articulately a few posts back, if you care to look.
Somehow the Peggy shills have hijacked a thread about yet another Perlmutter endorsement and started harping on a mailing that came out two weeks ago . . . fascinating.
This is my debut post. I believe it’s self-explanatory.
Yes, it is. And…it speaks volumes about the level of intellectual discourse we can expect from you in the future.
Man whoever is doing Peggy’s mail is great.
They tore Perlmutter a new one and I hear more is coming.
Ed will show that John Ferrugia interview with Peggy over and over and over. You know the one where Peggy can’t remember where she stayed the night before.
It is funny but I bet none of the Lamm Lovers have anything to say about the Ferrugia interview. Than again what can they say?
Don’t make me change my name Middle of the Road
Tony Massaro returns to the scene of the crime today in Denver for a press conference at the Capitol. Only problem, no one shows to cover the story. Massaro is whoring LCV to save his own ass. Will LCV take money from COGA and developers to support Insider Ed? Stay tuned.
So Ed voted against domestic partnership legislation before he voted for it? Remember what happened to the last Democrat who voted against a bill before he voted for it? Little Ricky is gonna have fun if Ed is the nominee……
Looks like I got under somebody’s skin . . . as I’ve already said, it’s a blog, chill out. I have to say, the Lamm people do have a commanding lead in one category – name calling! Rest comfortably knowing that my feelings are mortally wounded by your witty remark.
@ WR-Dem…..Every Way Ed won’t wait until after the election to change positions on same sex marriage and domestic partnership. In the unlikely event that he catches up and overtakes Peggy in the polls, and actually wins the primary, he will start to re-define his positions before the general election. Otherwise, he faces the prospect of Little Ricky labeling him a flaming liberal.
For those who don’t want to read the whole thread…
Perlmutter has polled consistently higher than the other candidates. Technically, the category he’s polled higher in is unfavorability ratings, but it still is higher.
Ed is the only Dem with a proven record of voting against gay rights. However, that’s actually a strength because, er, oh nevermind.
Ed is heavily funded with oil and gas interests and has been a great ally of those businesses in his career. Of course, oil and gas people are just that–people. So, Ed is a man of the people. The rich people.
The Ferrugia interview! Remember when that came out at the start of the year? That crippled Lamm. The interview has been played hundreds of times and referenced dozens of times in the news and has resulted in…wait for it…a BIG LAMM LEAD IN THE POLLS!
Do the shills have anything to add? We’re all breathlessly waiting for any fact-based or record-based support of Ed.
If re-running the notorious Ferrugia report is all Tim Knaus is going to do w/ Jordan’s 527 $$$$, it will probably be the quickest fee Knaus ever earned and is a waste of Tim’ creative ability.
Any truth to the rumor that Rutt Bridges is going to run a 527 against Every Way Ed?
Uh, well, a few corrections maybe . . .
“Perlmutter has polled consistently higher than the other candidates. Technically, the category he’s polled higher in is unfavorability ratings, but it still is higher.”
Actually, I believe that Peggy boasted the highest unfavorability rating in the last polling. You may want to take another look.
He did vote against an earlier version of the domestic partnership benefits legislation, not whatever ‘gay rights’ is supposed to be. If you check out the website you’ll see that he’s enthusiastically endorsed by leadership in the GLBT community. Are you suggesting that those people are idots or naive for supporting Perlmutter? Frankly, I think they’d have a better grasp on what’s at stake here than your average blog poster. I also noticed that Peggy recently added a GLBT letter to her site – months after Perlmutter, but imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
“Ed is heavily funded with oil and gas interests and has been a great ally of those businesses in his career. Of course, oil and gas people are just that–people. So, Ed is a man of the people. The rich people.”
I’d like to see some evidence of this ‘heavy funding.’ Some COGA people threw a birthday party/fundraiser for him, big deal. What percentage are we talking about here? The Lamm people are always screaming about facts, so I’m curious what you base this ‘huge number’ upon. And frankly, the constant demonization of the entire energy industry and the people that work within it on this blog stinks of college sophomores in the W. Bush era. Anybody that drove a car, turned on a light, or used a product wiht a petroleum base in it today ought to take a moment and rethink their stances on this supposedly odious industy. Besides, as we know, Peggy collects significant personal income from oil and gas investment – will she be selling that since any connection to the industry whatsoever makes a candidate a puppet of special interests?
“The interview has been played hundreds of times and referenced dozens of times in the news and has resulted in”
Where was it played hundreds of times? I actually don’t think all that many people have seen it. Has it been in a TV commercial? Nope. Hundreds of times? I’ve only seen it once. Where was the interview played so much exactly? If you think that won’t make a good clip in a commercial, then, uh, I guess you’re welcome to your opinion. Personally I think it will. A candidate not being able to explain where they live is fairly damaging, this is a common sense call.
“wait for it…a BIG LAMM LEAD IN THE POLLS!”
Ah, we’re back at the polls again, the only thing the Lamm kids have to crow about. I’ve said it before, but I wouldn’t trade a name favorability poll a few months before the primary, before any major media, for what Perlmutter has, which is 1) a huge money advantage, 2) uncontested victory in the endorsements race with the all the support and organization of unanimous labor, 3) a much larger and stronger volunteer base in the district (Peggy is still struggling with this – the ads aren’t on craigslist anymore but they are pasted all over the CU campus – at least she’s recruiting from her home district).
Bey hey, if you want to hitch your wagon to that poll, then by all means. Personally, I think Perlmutter is in a great position right now and you all are grasping at straws . . . but that’s just my opinion.
The readings are off the charts on Ruby’s post! The truth is below:
-Survey USA had Lamm at +5 favorability and Perlmutter at -3.
-Some CD-7 Dem voters want a candidate who has NEVER voted against GLBT rights. Perlmutter does not fit into that category.
-Ruby’s defense of the oil and gas industry doesn’t register on the lie detector, as it is an opinion. Many CD-7 Dem voters don’t agree with that opinion. While just accepting money doesn’t necessarily mean that a candidate is beholden to the donor, some voters don’t like the idea and would rather choose a different candidate.
-The Ferrugia interview was originally broadcast on FEBRUARY 13! Literally dozens of websites linked to the video (including Daily Kos). The Associated Press and Channel 7 covered the attempted prosecution of the case to ensure the story had as long of a life as possible. Another Ruby lie.
Well, not to nitpick . . . well, yeah to nitpick, not that anybody is watching this thread anymore, but . . .
“Survey USA had Lamm at +5 favorability and Perlmutter at -3”
Peggy still had the highest overall unfavorable rating of any of the candidates. I believe this is a symptom of the fact that her name is Lamm, as is her higher overall name ID ratings, but this has already been debated to death. All the same, Peggy has the highest overall unfavorable rating, so no lie there.
“Some CD-7 Dem voters want a candidate who has NEVER voted against GLBT rights. Perlmutter does not fit into that category.”
Not sure how this fits under your “lie detector” moniker – I never suggested that Perlmutter hadn’t previously voted against some partnership benefits legislation. How does this counter any of my comments on the matter?
“Ruby’s defense of the oil and gas industry doesn’t register . . . “
See my above comment for this one. Where is the lie exactly? I agree, some voters might not like the idea, but you yourself admit that Ed’s loose association with COGA doesn’t make him beholden to their agenda. This is exactly what I said. So i guess we agree, wonderful. No lie to found there either. You’re not scoring very well on my card.
“The Ferrugia interview was originally broadcast on FEBRUARY 13! Literally dozens of websites linked to the video (including Daily Kos). The Associated Press and Channel 7 covered the attempted prosecution of the case to ensure the story had as long of a life as possible.”
This one you may be right about, I certainly didn’t take into account all the internet replay the video may have recieved. My oversight. That being said, being linked on DailyKos months ago is hardly the same sort of exposure as having the video effectively placed in a major television ad – even the most ardent Peggy supporter would have to agree with that.
“Another Ruby lie.”
Actually, considering the first statement was actually quite correct (Peggy most certainly did have the highest unfavorable rating in the USA poll), and the other two had no comment on the validity of the statements, this would actually be the first “Ruby Lie.” And, considering that I simply disputed the fact that the video had already been overexposed and played “hundreds of time,” I’d hardly call that a lie either. The video has not nearly recieved the exposre to date that it will if aired on television. We’re talking about a difference of tens of thousands of eyes of voters repeatedly seeing a commercial, as opposed to a perhaps a few thousand prior. Hard to debate that fact.
Unfortunately I think you may have overestimated your monopoly on the truth ‘Lie Detector,’ but I do thank you for allowing me to further restate and clarify my points.
To EdZilla:
I know it is fashionable to come on the blogs and spew half-truths, innuendo and distortions, however, if you’re going to be an “insider political pundit” you must strive for some semblance of accuracy.
First, at my recommendation the Perlmutter campaign hired the Mack Crounse Group to provide direct mail services. I’d like to take credit for it–because their work has been outstanding–but I cannot. As for the skyline picture…the shot is from Aurora (7th CD) looking over the city with most of Jeffco (also 7th CD) in the background. I know that’s not the view from Boulder but I think most voters will recognize it.
Second, and most troubling is your comment about my friend Angie Paccione. I knew Angie before anyone on or reading this blog knew her. I have nothing but admiration for her life story and her career. To the contrary, Welchert & Britz encouraged her to run and had nothing to do with the independent expenditure attacks on Angie. While it’s true we worked with CEA at the time, they knew we supported Angie and would object to this smear of her good name. CEA under the direction of their political operative John Chase made this and several other political mistakes that led to our parting company. Your source…if you care to ever ask her, is Angie.
Steve Welchert
P.S. We have written mail pieces that would take the paint off your Chevy, but I would challenge you to point to any piece we’ve ever done over 20 years that attacked the person rather than their positions.