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%
January 04, 2012 12:48 AM UTC
17 Comments
from several articles, I have to say that I don’t think you are giving this group the proper credit it’s due or acknowledging what a major breakthrough this is for the Colorado Republican Party.
True, this is an offshoot group of Republicans forming Coloradans for Freedom but take a look at some of the folks that are publicly signing on and speaking up–Former House Speaker Chuck Berry, Nancy Spence, Kelly Maher, Sean Duffy (believe it or not), former State Rep Rob Witwer. There are some heavy hitters here and some of same said folks have excellent ties to major financing.
So, more props and less sarcasm on this one. Credit where credit is due without turning something significantly good into an insult would be a great place to start. This group may be the final impetus for getting civil unions legalized in Colorado.
Is still one inch to the good! I agree that Witwer and friends are most likely completely sincere. AND I agree with Pols that the GOP has a lot to answer for on the issue of gay rights. Coloradans for Freedom should expect a jaundiced eye because conservatives deserve it. They can prove Pols wrong, and then I’ll join you in demanding an apology.
I do think it’s interesting that both Mario Nicloais and Witwer are fresh off the reapportionment commission, but that’s probably just a coincidence. Hee!
PS. HILARIOUS title, Pols. I hope people get it!
it should be pointed out that civil unions, unless they’re for opposite-sex couples too, are an attempt at a separate but equal kind of status. (And obviously if they’re for opposite-sex couples, then marriage will have to be open to same-sex couples in order to be equitable.)
I’m sure, for Republicans, that this is a real sea change, and it’s nice that they’re finally acknowledging LGBT citizens as, you know, citizens. But it’s still behind the times and betrays their lack of real understanding of this issue.
Granted, it’s not like Colorado Democrats have been great champions themselves…
Why would gay people have the right to a civil union, while non LGBTs wouldn’t?
should become ALL that the county clerk issues. If you wish to get married go to a preacher type
Civil unions ought to be a contract that binds, ensures property rights, etc. Marriage should be a religious only issue
…so to speak.
by that wacky Colorado grandma going on and on at a committee hearing about sphincters.
If Republicans could re-frame the gay rights issue as one of liberty and freedom to live one’s private life as one pleases, as long as it’s not hurting anyone else, this could have the potential to change the political landscape.
I would try to take this issue off the table before another generation of kids becomes convinced that Republicans are haters. I believe that both Nicolais and Witwer are very smart Republicans.
It’s even more of a shame, then, that their colleagues are not so smart.
over the past several decades. Authoritarian Christian social conservatism has become mandatory, a no compromise GOP litmus test. Today’s GOP isn’t about personal liberty. Not at all.
That may have been something the GOP wanted to be known as standing for in the past but whether we’re talking about gay rights or the oldest most hallowed rights to habeas corpus or freedom from indefinite detention, subjection to torture, protection from unreasonable invasion of privacy without a warrant, the GOP is now the party of government authoritarianism everywhere, except in the boardroom.
Only the liberties of corporations, unfettered by any responsibilities to the public, are to be preserved. The public is to be subject to all kinds of limits and denied all kinds of liberties, civil and social.
The question is can Republicans who really do believe in individual and civil liberties have a voice in the contemporary GOP? Will they take back a degree of power within the party or will they remain sidelined, unable to help create a viable 21st century party.
It will no longer be possible to be strictly the party of the white religious right in the not very distant future and win elections but I don’t think the GOP is ready to face that head on yet. Corporate style, they still believe in fighting just for immediate profit and the success of the current quarter only. Let some other poor future CEO worry about the evil day when it comes.
At some point the cognitive dissonance will reach a pitch and volume that the whole Republican party will shatter.
The country will be a much better place when the Republican Party collapses.
Will Romney win the nomination and a big segment of the base fail to go along quietly as usual with the establishment pick, as they did with McCain? Will a third party candidate crush GOP hopes? If not now, demographics will do them in just a bit more gradually unless they do their present incarnation in themselves by transforming into something completely different.
Wacky Grandmas and Wacky Presidential Candidates. When will it ever stop!?
I think that wacky grandma was a liberal plant, inserted to discredit the Republican Party.
That’s the only sensible explanation for Santorum, Perry, Bachman, Paul.
I mean, do you know people who actually believe all that weird crap (ahem)?
Although they could have gone all the way and picked a more frothy mocha shade.
That “someday” was actually 20 years ago when a Republican conservative who knew the difference between individual freedom and the moralistic tyranny of the religious right fully supported gay and lesbian rights, including their right to serve in the military.
His name was Barry Goldwater. Weird, huh ?
Now they’re all about moralistic tyranny (for the riff raff. They live by different standards. Ask Newt and that Appalachian Trail guy), unfettered Wall Street anarchy and socialism for the wealth and power elite. Main Street? That’s just for the little people they get to vote for them with the whole gays, guns and God thing.
I know he was the “Father” of modern conservatism, but he sure was at odds with a lot of what that’s become. But then again, my guess is that he was a true fiscal conservative, and most of the BS associated with that label was brought into the GOP when they attracted all the social cons.
I was still a Republican. Goldwater said, that he didn’t care whether people serving in the military were straight, he only cared if they could shoot straight. He was pro-chioce. The main Republican pro-choice group has an annual award named after him. When Nixon was in trouble he said, “God Damn it, quit asking me that question. If he’s guilty he should resign, if he’s not, he should stay and fight.” He had the knack for letting people know where he was with a minimum or words, no pandering and no misundertanding and no flip-flopping. We could use those qualities on both sides of the aisle these days.