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
January 17, 2007 12:52 AM UTC

Angie Paccione Still Ready to Scrap

  • 98 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Says the Greeley Trib:

Last year’s bitter election between incumbent U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Fort Morgan, and Democratic challenger Angie Paccione, a former state representative from Fort Collins, would be enough to make any candidate sit out the next inning.

But Paccione says she might run again. Musgrave intends to defend her seat. And Reform Party candidate Eric Eidsness might jump back into the fray.

Could we see a rematch?

“Obviously we gave Marilyn a run for her money — not only her money but the (National Republican Congressional Committee’s) money,” Paccione said. “I haven’t taken it off the table. We got closer than any Democrat has since Wayne Aspinall was in that seat, so it certainly makes it worth looking at a second time.”

Aspinall, a Democrat, served from 1949-73…

Tweet
Share

Comments

98 thoughts on “Angie Paccione Still Ready to Scrap”

  2. she won’t be facing Marilyn. In keeping with the recent spate of “emergencies” over the last several months, I would expect Marilyn to get a call from the “Molester in Chief” saying he needs her to fill a federal slot around – oh, next June – if Republicans can fill from a vacany committee. Do the CDs work the same way as the HDs?

        1. You know what, the guy (or gal) motivates me to change my handle to something as inanely stupid as his. Something like “Denver Reagan Democrat” or better yet “Boulder Goldwater Democrat”, that one is probably the most accurate.

          1. He was governor of New York and then vice president for Gerald Ford.  Considered moderate in his day, he died in the passionate embrace of his much younger mistress.  EPRR is probably telling everyone that he’s not so far to the right that he’s ready to fall off the edge of our flat Earth.  Hope this helps in your search for a new handle. 

            1. See I thought he was referring to Senator Jay Rockefeller, the honorable Democrat gentleman from West Virginia.
              No offence Lester, but my way makes more sense as he comes off less a RINO and more a Quisling.

                    4. Yeah, I think Bill is a RINO too. Not because of what he thinks, I could actually care less what Bill Owens thinks nowadays, but rather because of what he does.

                    5. Owens would have ran a deficit just like any other neo-con, if our laws had allowed it. As it was, he flouted the laws to get in T-Rex, even though he fought against our using the money that we had back then (so now we are stuck with paying lots of interest to the texans).  Owens is  absolutely a republican. And matches up quite nicely with GW and Reagan.

                    6. …but I’m not sure I would classify him as a member of that species just yet. He certainly displayed RINO tendencies from time to time (supporting Referendum C, the immigration special session bills) but it was usually accompanied by an apology to the right wing fanatics (i.e., I’m sorry but the Democrats made me do it) and some act of contrition (i.e., campaigning for the Maine TABOR-like ballot initiative).

                  2. because of the condition of today’s Colorado Republican Party. I hold him responsible for eviscerating the Party leadership and squandering a 175,000 registration advantage.  He did this by:

                    1) Selfishly insisting, in 2000, that the Party keep $250,000 in reserve for his 2002 reelection campaign.  We lost the state senate by one seat and Mary Mullarkey got to appoint the deciding member of the Redistricting Committee.  Now we’re screwed for the foreseeable future.
                    2) Allowing Karl Rove to manipulate the selection of our candidate to run for Ben Campbell’s senate seat.  Schaffer was our best hope to beat Ken Salazar and RINO Bill screwed us again.
                    3) Screwing whoever it was he screwed and ruining his marriage.
                    4) Ref C.  Romanoff and FitzGerald came out smelling like roses.  A schism developed in the GOP.
                    5) Making sure the GOP bench is thin.  He wanted to be the shining star for 8 years and wouldn’t tolerate anyone else in the spotlight.

              2. worked in support of Nelson’s campaigns when I was school. I loved Ford’s choice of him as VP. He was a supporter of fiscal restraint while working for civil rights. I really don’t see I am that far off of his positions. A “Quisling”? I have been asked why I haven’t changed my affiliation – it is because I have just as many, if not more, problems with the extreme left wing of the democratic party.

                Simple description of the issues – I believe the old fiscal restraint Republican Party wanted government to act responsibly but believed that every person had a responsibility to support the government of the US in providing the basic structure for America. That meant that programs that furthered the good of all Americans and that was fiscally responsible should be funded adequately. I see much of the current Colorado Republican delegation as believing government doesn’t work except as a conduit of funds from taxpayers to private firms – I disagree with that completely. If you think government programs fail because mediocre people are managing unmotivated people; then your concern is waste. If you think that replacing that with mediocre people negotiating with very intelligent people whose objective is personal and corporate gain, regardless of impact on the citizens, is a guarantee of success, then you are just flat ignoring reality.

                That said, I have the same problem with many Democratic proposals. The “savings will pay for it” (a mantra heard on both sides of the aisle) line is great but what happens if it is wrong? Does the program collapse – rarely. The people running the program have a built in incentive to show the savings. So, I am skeptical that all things can be solved.

                So, do I become an unaffiliated? No, that leaves me with no standing in the primaries. Besides, if my Republican registration can be helpful to individual Democratic candidates whom I know and approve of their thinking, then I have no problem with that.

                I think the most dangerous voters (for the party leadership) are those who do not care about putting a party “in power” but rather about governance. Do I have any problem opposing a candidate I supported in the last election because the reality of their actions did not support the positions the expoused – none whatsoever. I think candidates and parties have to realize they are supposed to represent the all voters – not just their core constituency.

                So, if you think I am a quisling, then you have just labeled yourself as someone who is “my party, right or wrong” – in other words, someone who has no respect for the basis for our democracy, the goals of our government and the intent of the founders of this country. My thoughts, lengthy maybe, and you may disgree at your leisure.

      2. (In case you forgot.  Here’s the link: http://www.coloradop… )

        1. We’ve always had one big rule: You may disagree, but you may NOT be disrespectful. Inappropriate language and vulgar comments will not be tolerated and will result in immediate dismissal.

        2. Attempts to float a negative rumor about a candidate or campaign are absolutely not permitted. If you write, “Joe Smith is having an affair with his neighbor,” then you had better have the proof to back it up. Otherwise, your comment or diary will be promptly removed. Anyone who continually attempts to do this will have their account disabled.

        3. As always, press releases are not permitted in the comments section. If you want to post a press release, put it in a diary entry.

    2. A vacancy committee would convene to designate a new candidate for the primary ballot if a vacancy occured in June.  HOWEVER, if Musgrave actually resigned her seat in Congress, then the Governor could/would call a special election to fill the seat until the newly-elected member takes the seat in January.  I think the special election would be as soon as thirty days after the vacancy.  Vacancies in office are not filled by a vacancy committee for Members of Congress.

    3. I have it from several different and independent sources that Musgrave IS going to run again.

      Plus the times that I have heard her speak she loves her current job, and has no desire to become just another government bureaucrat.

        1. you never know.  From what I have seen and heard I really don’t think Musgrave will run again.  Has anyone looked at her financials?  Does she NEED the job?  I wish I lived in her district.  She would certainly have my vote.

          1. ya’ll are missing the point.  I’ve heard a bunch of folks down at the Capitol who know the situation say that she’s running for her seat again AND the she just bought a house in DC. 

            I think she’s getting ready to camp out in that seat until she’s ready to go back to the farm in Morgan County, full time.

  3. I see two scenarios:

    1) The GOP spends millions AGAIN defending that seat and thats dollars that are not being spent elsewhere. A good thing from a Dem point of view.

    2) The GOP wash their hands of MM and Angie gets the seat. Another good thing from a Dem point of view.

    Seems a rematch would be a win-win for Dems.

    2. The GOP won’t want to dump a ton of money into an extreme right congresswomen who only barely won re-election in a red district. My guess is they’ll try to get someone more McCainish to run for that seat in order to assure a cheap victory. Musgrave’s days are numbered. But as for Angie being the defacto winner, I’m not so sure about that.

  4. Interesting, Paccione was lucky enough to ride a huge wave or Republican discontent in the 06 election and still lost. If she can’t win in that political climate, she sure can’t win in 08.
    ToTheRight.org broke a story today that Musgrave was definitely running again, not only that but that all other potential Republicans for the 4th have all bowed out after learning of Musgrave’s intentions of seeking re-election.  I’d say narrow that bigline of yours down abit.

      1. Ha, well maybe you are an insider with connections that I dont have.  I also think she is running again though, if the Democrats can’t get her out in a year like 06 which was the worst for Republicans since 1974 then they certainly won’t in 08.  Also if the new FEC law is able to stop billionaires like Gill and Stryker from forming 527’s, then Musgrave walks away with it.  People talk about the money it took to defend the seat, but that money wont be needed if 527’s targerting Musgrave are put to rest.

        1. Just because you post it on this website doesn’t mean it’s true.  You continually post stuff, with out citation and claim that it is fact.

          THIS IS JUST A RUMOR!!! You have no proof to back it up, if you had you would have trumpeted it in your post.  You’re far worse than ToTheRight when it comes to rumor mongering.

        2. I swear, the number of posters here (myself included) who “know” what is going to happen, who is going to run, who is going to win…

          Make enough predections and some have to be right. (Unless you’re George Bush – he does seem to be at about 0% right.)

          – dave

    2. ToTheRight.org was so embarrasingly, unbelievably wrong last year that it almost seems that a citation to it could only be meant in a humorous way.  Quite frankly, if ToTheRight.org at this point says something, it is almost a given that the opposite is much more likely to be true!

      1. ToTheRight.org is a silly site run by a young Republican man who makes things up in order to flame anyone who comments.  It’s not a real blog, more like a stinky, yellow flytrap.

      2. I seem to recall ToTheRight predicted Lamborn’s Primary win, my girl Marilyn’s victory in the 4th, as well as the futility of BWB’s and O’Donnell’s campaigns. When everyone was losing their minds thinking a DEM could win the 5th, they threw the BS flag… and were completely right.

        Their attack on Salazar’s al-Qaeda Staffer and hence attempt to sully Big Brother John is about the only dud I saw them with.

        I don’t read them every day but it seems to me they are right more often than not.

        2. that you would defend ToTheRight as your wife Laura and buddy Jesse run the site. How about how wrong they were on Jane Norton as LT Gov? Or Beauprez’s press conf with the widow of the man he killed in africa that never happened?

          2. Who signed up at 17:03 (that’s 5:03 pm for you silly-villians out there) today. I wonder which of my points motivated you to rush out and register today.

            Anyhow my wife Laura doesn’t run ToTheRight.org… I have asked her organize all the State Dinners now that Condi is out to bring Peace to the Middle East and it just keeps her way too busy to run a blog. Remember, I’m your President, I listen because I care.

            Besides Jesse and the rest of the Tipton crew were big supporters of Citizen Crank and oddly enough, eventually Citizen Beauprez. So I’m somewhat shocked you would punk him out that way.

            Good point about the gorgeous LT GOV Jane… Of course Janet was a shock to her too you know.

            Now Al… er, I mean John… er, I mean Andy… Actually, I don’t care who you are… Have you anything constructive to say or is this just your way of making friends with the DEMs and hoping for a job in th Ritter administration?

        3. Iron Mike, everything you cited there were PREDICTIONS, as opposed to “insider” information about upcoming events or decisions.  What this post is about is whether TTR is ever right about things that it purports to “know” about.  The truth — as so eloquently shown by your lack of ability to refute it — is that TTR is simply a horribly poor source for information.  Maybe a decent source for right-leaning predictions, but a poor source for insider information.

          3. What, are you pre-menstral?

            I responded to your comment… You did not discriminate in your little rant about whether ToTheRight was wrong in it’s predictions or it’s insider information. You said they were wrong… I said they were right… But I will concede you are right in that they “predicted” well, as opposed to revealing concise insider information.

            Now, given the vitrol with which you jumped all over me… Are you Salazar’s al-Queda staffer? If that is the case I can understand where you’re coming from and it’s cool.

            Now when I pronounce your name… Can I just say “Hack”? Or do I actually have to hock up a loogie to say it properly?

        1. Insiders say Owens, Benson and Durham are all pushing Schaffer to run for that seat.  Under that scenario, I guess, MM would step aside.  But as much as the Owens hacks push the absurdity — it aint happening.

          1. Schaffer isn’t going to run against Musgrave. Period.

            And she’s not going to step aside because a bunch of moderates like Benson/Durham/Owens want her to…

            Plus, after what Owens did to Schaffer in the ’04 Senate Primary, I suspect they’re not on each other’s Christmas Card lists, let alone part of each other’s inner circle.

            Musgrave stands up for principle which is something the hacks on this site have trouble understanding….

            2. Musgrave stands up for principle Musgrave stands up for bigotry

              Speaking of which, I got a call a couple of years ago from her office (I’m president of a small company) asking me to “join” (ie donate and write letters) some group she formed for small business owners.

              When I replied I would not back someone who was trying to enshrine discrimination in the U.S. Constitution the person replied – this has nothing to do with that. I replied that it sure did and declined to join.

  5. Rumor out of Larimer county is that Congresswoman Musgrave is definitely running again and that the other potential R’s in the mix are standing down and waiting for another year.
    Quick question Pols, in an online story by the Greeley Tribune it says that there was a poll on ColoradoPols that had Musgrave losing to Ken Buck….I don’t ever recall seeign that type of poll.  Can you set the record straight?
    I’m sure that ColoradoMediaMatters is hard at work right now finding more inaccuracies in the Tribune story ;o)

    2. “I’m sure that ColoradoMediaMatters is hard at work IMAGINING more inaccuracies in the Tribune story.”  See their tease above:”KMGH listed potential Republican candidates to replace Allard, ignored Democrates” :0(  George Soros must have a lot of time on his hands.

    1. In the same story from totheright, it says that both the NRCC as well as the RNC are backing Musgrave.  It also specifically singles out Buck as backing Musgrave already too.

      2. The RNC doesn’t even know who it’s supporting for its own chairman right now.  And the Larimer GOP doesn’t know who its next chair will be, either; at least one candidate doesn’t even *like* Musgrave, and supported Eidness.

  7.   People generally get to make a first impression on people only once…… 
      Correctly or incorrectly (and I think it’s incorrect), Angie will always be perceived as “Angry Angie,” just as Beauprez was branded as “Both Ways” at an early, defining moment in the ’06 campaign and never got over it, Janet Rowland acquired her pet name during her PBS rant, and of course, Millionaire-Lawyer-Lobbyist Tom Strickland never got any further than that moniker.
      If Angie is serious about running again, she’s got to acknowledge the perception that she came across as angry, and apologize to anyone offended.  Then maybe she could move on. 
      Remember how successful Shrub was in overcoming the “smirk” problem he had in 2000?

    1. Musgrave for Senate!  Let’s promote that.  Then at the very least she’s out of politics completely after a horrible loss in a statewide race.  Leaves a seat wide open for a “good” Republican in the 4th Congressional District.  I bet her constituents would appreciate that.

    1. you’ve been so far off base in the past, it forces one to wonder if you’ve ever even met Senator Brophy, Rep. Musgrave or Guy Short.

      Marilyn is running again for her House Seat, not the Senate. and Brophy is not going to challenge her.

      1. Unless you’re sleeping with the Congresswoman, I’m betting my information is nearly as accurate as yours.  Yes, I happen to know the trio….and they know me.  Just what was it I was wrong about?  That our hideous federal deficit accumulated under the Congresswoman’s watch is nothing more than a delayed tax?  That gay marriage may not be the most important issue facing our nation? Shall I go on?

  10. Angie vs. Marilyn?  Again?

    I’d rather sit and listen to the Hildebeast (Clinton) rail on about “Bush lied, People died” or “It takes a village.”  Lord knows she’s shrill but nothing beats Angie vs. Marilyn.  That was like Rosie O’Donnell mud-wrestle with Elizabeth Taylor.  Yuck.  It pained me every time I had to see one of those damn commercials.  It was either, “Angie, if you love illegal aliens so much why don’t you just marry one?”  or “Marilyn, I won’t let you talk sh*t about me like dat.  Hoe, I’ll kick you a** and you know it.  Besides, the illegals got my back.  B*tch.  Word up.  Sista.” 

    Wow!  I don’t think my bloodpressure can take any more of that.

    1. If women campaigning for office makes you so apoplectic, spare your blood pressure and don’t watch TV.

      Musgrave vs. Paccione was no more vitriolic than other Congressional races in Colorado.  It’s called “running for office.”  Does your characterization of Tancredo vs. Winter also devolve into a Ricki Lake catfight?  (And why do you make Ms. Paccione speak in ebonics?)

  11. An aggessive, but doomed to failure pushback by conservative’s on this post. They have failed on every front. Let them DEFEND their policies…we’re waiting.

  12. So… like, here is my take on the Paccione VS Musgrave. I would think that Paccione would have won the district heads up with Musgrave. I believe this because Eidsness took 2 to 1 votes from Paccione. His 25,000 votes at 2 to 1 would be about 16,000 more for Paccione. & about 8,000 more for Musgrave. Do the math. Paccione eeeks out with a 50. something % over Musgrave.

    Wait you say… Typical 3rd party candidate would take 3% – 4% tops in a federal race. Why did Eidsness take 11%? well maybe, because Coloradoan’s For Life (Stryker 527) raised Eidsness’s (punctUATION on the Eidsness ownership???) name ID on network telivision to the tune of about 4,000 points in 2 weeks, along with 2 direct mail pieces, just as early voting started. Double that with the DCCC pulling the $$$ TV time for Paccione at the same time because of a dumb ass Channel 9 News poll that contradicted 2 other legit polls in the field.

    oh wait… says the DCCC 2 weeks out. You guys are dead even, possibly ahead in the polls, here is the $$ we pulled.

    Hey DCCC, too late assholes! You put the $$ back in when about 50% of the people have already voted.

    But at least the RNCC spent millions protecting Marylin “The Terrible” Musgrave. & possible allowed 2 to 3 other seats to be picked up by the Democrats nationally.

    Angie can win heads up, but not with Eidsness in the equation. End of story. 

      1. See, that’s why we always try to hook you up with idiots…

        Along comes this guy (he obviously didn’t check the board to see that you were on), he makes this clear, concise and extremely informative analysis and it just frustrated the hell out of you. I’m sorry buddy. Let me make it up to you… I know this guy in Boulder County, he’s a Phys Ed major, dumb as a stump, just your speed. Not only that but he is so dumb he thought he could run for GOV… I know hard to believe, but Bob is your man. Let me see if I can raise him on the phone and get him to get online for ya. He’s like you smart guy, he’s got nothing better to do all night long but rant about shit he don’t understand… He almost made a living out of it so maybe he can give you some pointers.

    2. HA, You cant just say “End of Story” without a little bith of explanation first, then you can end all the stories you feel fit.  You say Eidsness took 2 to 1 votes from AP and MM respectively, but where did you get those #’s from?  I never saw any type of polling that would indicate that, on the contrary I would guess a former Republican would take more votes away from Musgrave than he would Paccione.

      1. She couldn’t win against MM.  There are too many votes to use against her in the 4th.  However, I would like to know where she is at.  Perhaps she would like a bag full of poo for her door step.  LOL

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

171 readers online now

Newsletter

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