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%
July 24, 2007 03:36 PM UTC
25 Comments
What do traits do you think are important in a member of the house?
Please refrain from shilling for a specific candidate.
I’m not talking about getting elected, I’m talking about what it takes to be effective once elected. I just got thinking about this because of the dominance of the Majority leadership on the process.
Aside from longevity, I would assume that doctrinal purity, fundraising (for others) power, and likability would be the dominate factors determining your power.
Aside from arriving with specific policy expertise that helps support leadership priorities I don’t see any short-cuts that would allow someone to be effective without spending significant time in the house.
Thoughts?
As a voter these days I want my elected officials to represent a dramatic change in the direction of our country. I am a Dem and a fan of our political system but do not need a partisanly? entrenched representative. I would like to repopulate the house with members who have the fewest attachments to the bigotry, ignorance, and morally suspect values of old. And I think that a new arrival can be effective when he or she is not immediatley pocketed by the old, which fundraising power can help insure. Then they’ll like you when politically they cant afford to hate you.
Oddly enough, I’m not sure that likability is that important. Chuck Schumer is not the most likable guy in the world, but he raises $$, takes a high profile stand on critical issues, and is an effective senator for his state and imo nationally.
To be effective in congress, you’ve got to know why you are there. Many people get elected, then stick to the party line, hope to climb into leadership, and never leave a real mark.
The ones who make a difference are members who “own” an issue. I hate the hell out of mccain-feingold, but those two senators made a massive change in our electoral system with that bill. DeGette isn’t the best politician, but she owns stem cell, and is the go to person on the issue, which gives her credibility and clout. Biden is a blowhard, but he’s the guy when it comes to foreign policy in the senate. Tancredo is an ass, but he has helped raise the profile of immigration as a political issue.
As mentioned re: Schumer, fundraising helps members jump ahead. Schumer, Rahm, Steny Hoyer, etc all rose into leadership positions mainly b/c of their fundraising prowess.
I would add a third category, which is “effective use of political power.” Otherwise known as the Tom DeLay corrolary. Not a likable person. Not a policy leader or known for any issue (does corruption count as an issue?) but the guy knew how to leverage power, which is an art form in D.C. Rahm is similar on Dem side. Trent Lott was from this school, as was Dick Armey. Dingell and Rangel aren’t shabby at this either.
there are conflicting demands that must be balanced, a formula that becomes exponentially more complicated when you include getting elected and reelected as a constant consideration (which it must be if you believe that you provide something of unique value to the process).
As a result, probably the most important of all abilities is the ability to compromise, both with those of other ideological leanings, and with the competing demands mentioned above. Nothing is accomplished by a congressman who knows what’s right and refuses to bend: It’s okay to know what’s right, but not to be inflexible about it. While doctrinal purity may confer some kinds of power, it saps others. Therefore I would refine that to read “political skill,” which obviously needs to be defined. Political skill is the ability to rally a base while simultaneously cooperating with opponents.
One must be able to draw upon, and judge between, the expertise of others, which is a talent in and of itself: It involves networking, enough intelligence and training to judge esoteric analyses on a variety of topics, an ability to judge the character and relative credibility of competing experts, the humility to know that you don’t know, and the justified confidense to believe that you are especially qualified to draw a conclusion from competing arguments.
So a combination of analytical intelligence and exceptional “people skills” is essential (This was Bill Clinton’s strength).
A combination of political courage and willingness to accomodate others is also necessary. Again, it sounds contradictory, but it is part of that overriding requirement to be able to balance seemingly contradictory demands. The way this would play out is to have a clear philosophy painstakingly developed and always open to new information and insights, but to recognize that the road to implementing it is not a straight one, and that you must work effectively with others who have conflicting philosophies in order to successfully advance your own.
Frankly, it’s a tough job to do well, and too often democratic politics selects for skill sets that are quite different from those that would be most effective. But not always.
The house has a winner takes all design. I agree the senate works on compromise, but I think the house functions differently.
Depends on the chamber. If looking for a good house member, I would want someone who was attentive to the district needs and values. I would like a representative who was effective at getting needed funding for local projects without going overboard with pork. I would like a rep that had the political sense to be able to stand for principle without burning bridges or embarassing the district. I think that the ability to articulate views is important, so that they could explain themselves without being confrontational, and could earn the respect from those that they disagree with. Also, they should be approachable and attentive. In short, I would want them to take a good delegate role.
The senate is a more “trustee” role, but I would like them to have the same basic attributes.
to the needs and wishes of his/her constituents. Accessibility is the key.
When I talk to my respresentative about an issue, if they’re response to me is “what does such-and-such lobby think?”, that’s when I start looking for a new representative.
But I would say the ability to speak well and listen well. If your opponents feel you are actually listening to them they might hear you out as well, and if you are able to speak and communicate ideas in a clear and concise manner you will be much more capable of accomplishing things in Congress.
Of course, I have no personal experience there so what do I know. But the more I do think about it the more I think speaking and listening abilities are the most important.
From an Aspen Daily News article:
[Carl] Bernstein said he sees the parallel between Bush’s professed ignorance on the weakness of the New Orleans levies and his blindness to dissenting intelligence findings going into the Iraq war.
The Republican Party is now in pieces, no longer a monolith, Bernstein said.
“Bush destroyed the Republican coalition,” he said. “If he’s known for doing anything good, that’s going to be it.”
Ward Churchill fired from CU today.
About friggin’ time…
from 9news
“Immediately after the decision was announced people in the crowd booed and some swore at the board members.”
“I am going nowhere,” said Churchill. “This is not about break, this is not about bend, this is not about compromise.”
Jeez, the guy sounds like he’s running for office.
Not a bad way to lose a job.
I am embarrassed for David Lane, a good lawyer who has fought many important underdog causes. He should never have ponied up on this one.
If Ward is so valuable and such a great scholar, why doesn’t he just go elsewhere???? Oh….
…I believe that he only has a Master’s degree, which in most institutions might, might get you and adjunct position. Let alone full professorship and let alone tenure.
Pegged the firing as being over his comments over 9/11. Pretty lame reporting if you ask me. We’ll see if they change their tune here by tomorrow
How effin’ lame. No wonder people don’t respect journalism in general.
Yes, I check out Drudge several times a day. Even with the spinning headlines (not necessarily Ward), it’s a great page to link to other stories.
PR, your buddy, John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic hitman, makes exactly the same arguments as Churchill does….perkins gets rich and churchill gets axed…..
I’d like to see the same fine toothcomb applied to the works of other professors at CU which were applied to Churchill….
Now where is dobby? if he is who he says he is…I’d like an academic committee to go over his writing….as well as his use of company time to blog here….
Dobby is not posting…maybe dobby is churchill? maybe dobby was some kind of “circles within circles” to prove that anything “goes” at CU…or, maybe there are differnent standards for different departments……white guys…in poli sci and maybe the Business School…are not subject to the same tough academic standards as those “johnny come latelies (sp??)” over in Ethnic Studies….
I am glad Lane is going to court….this will be a good thing for the university and academic freedom…evidentially.
man, that would be ironic to say the least.
For something I would have gotten kicked out of school for? Should speech protect false works?
Churchill should not have been hired with tenure in the first place. The faculty review committee did NOT recommend his hiring. But the administration bypassed the normal hiring process and did what they wanted to do. They wanted a token and they got more than that.
This is what’s wrong with academia – when administrators try to bypass the normal procedures of shared governance and try to micromanage. University Presidents should focus on fund raising and PR. They should overrule faculty on hiring and tenure decisions only on very rare occasions.
I don’t think Perkins has plagarized (did I miss something?), nor presented himself as an academic.
WC (Water Closet?) should never have been hired. And he wasn’t fired for his “little Nazi’s” statement, although he and Lane keep saying that he was.
Perkins presented himself as the embodiment of the destructive american empire which churchill denounced in his essay about “little eichmanns”…If you accept Perkins at face value, he proves that what churchill said in his original essay is accurate….
I mean, you have read the book, right? You agree with Perkins, right? OR am I missing something?
Churchill falsified his research and plagarized; that much came out of the commission investigations.
What would you like to hear – that Ward’s 9/12 essay had a valid point to make? Yes, it did. It was also cold and insensitive to those who died on 9/11. I could probably write an essay about the essay, but what does it add to the central fact of this diary? Churchill deserved to be punished for his academic misdeeds; fired or suspended I’m not sure – I’m not on the CU Board nor was I involved in the investigation, so I’m not in a position to know. And that is all that really matters to me. The rest is just a waste of taxpayer money by both sides.
I have read Perkin’s book.
I agree with Perkins – and WC, brutal as his choice of words were.
Yes, you are missing that this was about plagarism and crappy research, not his “little Eichman’s” statement. That was what opened the door to his academic sins. When 21 academicians in three committes, from other universities, found his works plagaristic, sound pretty incriminating.
See my namesake’s, the other PR’s, comments.
PRs, I respect your opinions. You are supporting the university’s contention that this was not about the essay. I think Lane is right. If WC had not written the essay and called attention to himself, there would not have been the media attention focused on all his work which led to the university investigation. Does the university routinely review the work of other tenured professors for plagerism or inaccurate citation? NO.
Now, I have a lot of problems with Perkins…he is the walter grump of international politics….however, he should be read and if you agree with his statements, then it becomes critically important that other academicans, like WC, be able to support or assert the same opinion …….that is what is important. Do you think other professors at CU or any other college/university in Colorado are going to stick their necks out and voice an “unpopular” opinion….that is what is so chilling about this….
I do not think that any university tentured professor could withstand the kind of scrunity which WC underwent. The remedy for free speech errors is more free speech. That is what the term “peer reviewed” means….other academicans should have discovered and refuted what WC wrote….in some cases they did…however, others supported WC contention……Academia is messy,….kinda like a blog.
A final comment. WC and I are from about the same generation…I am older, but not by much. Back in the day, there was no such thing as “Ethnic Studies”…..you couldn’t get a doctorate in “Ethnic Studies”…..most minorities professors had degrees in education….easy to get…easy to be employed….the prevailing “academic” perspective back in the 60s was that Indians needed to be “assimilated” to the dominant culture…….and there were programs designed to do just that……there were some anthropology departments which kinda adopted Indians as “pets”…..it was god awful….
The “ethnic sensitivity” which grew out of the civil rights movement was a long time coming….in the mid 70s…you had all that violence up on the Rosebud and the wounded knee standoff…conflicts which divided Indian communities…it was not messy, it was brutal. WC was already in his thirties when this was going on and already finished with his academic training , so to speak. WC started working at CU with programs to help Indian kids make it on campus…that was hard for them…..
When CU started the Ethnic Study program, it was a brand new concept….all of this is mixed up with the history of the United STates and the treatment of Indians….It is not like hiring a biology professor…(however, there are politics involved there too.) There were not academic guidelines for such a department.
Like I say, I welcome the court action…it will be important to see how this is finally solved. The issues are real. Thanks for the exchange.
As WC not being Indian, could be. What I understand is that he grew up in a family which believed that they had Indian ancestors. What is interesting is that most American families in the first part of the 20th century and certainly in the 19th century, were busy hiding any nonwhite, nonchristian ancestors.
In my family, we don’t use the term “black Irish”….it doesn’t mean the results of the wreck of the Spanish Armada on the Irish coast…..it means…how come one side of the family can trace themselves back only one generation…and then NOTHING…and all that kinky black hair on a couple of my cousins….my my…..passing? who knows.
good god, i am wandering…..but then, there is that jewish ancestor which we don’t talk about, either.
To be considered officially “Native”, you need to be significantly of American Indian descent – not just that relative everyone hid in their closet. My great-aunt was the family genealogist, and she claimed that my father’s side of the family had an Indian in the tree – that I am 1/64th Native. I can’t find any official record in the charts, but it’s curious that one of my ancestors has only a first name (no last name, no middle initial) – and not a typical Irish ro English name, either. What does that get me? Nothing. I don’t claim it on my ethnicity, and can’t, legally. The bar is generally set at 1/16th; that is a pretty easy standard to research nowadays – 4 generations. For legal purposes, Ward is probably *not* Native.
the law is now that tribes decide who is a member and who is not and they are the sole “deciders”….I don’t know when that law went into effect…N/C….
It could be part of treaties. However, WC did try to get membership in one Indian tribe and was not successful. Whether that was geneology or polictics, I don’t know.
Except…(and again where is our legal panel? We should all chip in and sent Mr. Toddles back to law school)….in terms of racial identification and affirmative action, doesn’t the individual get to decide who and what he or she is?
This is why this whole court case will be so important and so “only in America.”