President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(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%
October 01, 2013 08:06 AM UTC
35 Comments
Cory Gardner and every Rethug who voted for delaying Obamacare is guilty of dereliction of duty, and they all ought to be impeached. The people who support them and their actions are disloyal citizens with no love of anyone but themselves and those who think like them – the polar opposite of a good American. They want to ruin this nation because they can't have their way. Selfish scumbags, each and every one of them.
Let's debunk his, "they won't compromise with the House" statement: the Senate CR – the one
sitting right this very minute on Boehners desk that has yet to be acted on – agrees to spending levels $90 billion below the debt celing compromise and only $19 billion higher than the Ryan budget proposal.
…and in the event the Congressman, theoretically representing tens of thousands of un-insured constitutents in his own district missed it, the Colorado Health Exchange is up and running this morning. Instead of touting our state's success – he's rather burn down the house trying to get rid of the mice visible only to him while experiencing one of his donor-induced hallucinations.
Gardner knows it's the death knell, and it shows already.
By "theoretically representing", I mean He is "theoretically representing his constituents" – not that his constituents were "theoretically uninsured". Those souls are real, live people. Represented by a "theoretical Congressman".
BTW, over the past two weeks I noticed an inordinate amount of my rural friends having concerns about thier Blue Cross-Blue Shield plans. In fact, Mark Hillman made special mention of the limited PPO/HMO options.
Today, Blue Cross – Blue Shield announced a multi-state, PPO/HMO program that will cover 30 states starting next year; Colorado is one of those states.
This is going to be bigger than an iPhone rollout.
The insurance companies are going to have to staff up to handle the volume.
They are already past derelicion of duty – they are committing treason.
This is how they win the media war: Cory is technically correct. They have sent three CR's back to the Senate, which they have rejected. He apparently missed the fact that the "Clean CR", the one passed by the Senate last week and is still sitting on Boehners desk. They could call a vote and pass it in 10 minutes. Boehner won't allow a full vote of the House on the clean CR – and if he did he would no longer be "Mr. Speaker".
Cory banks on low-information voters to perpetuate his lies.
Ten percent of one-half of one-third of the the three branches that make law on Capitol Hill – holding a country hostage. That's their definition of 'Democracy"
Cory says the GOP offered to compromise. Since a compromise means both parties give up something, what was the GOP offering to give up in exchange for the Obamacare delay?
. . . a day at the beach ??
45 days before their next act of political terrorism.
The compromise took place during the legislative process when the administration's opening bargaining position on health care reform was to go 90% of the way towards the GOP 's demands in the first place. Public option wasn't even on the table. The final plan that passed in the legitimate legislative process is almost identical to Romneycare and based on ideas directly from conservative think tanks.
They also failed to repeal it over 40 times through the legitimate legislative process. They've also turned down Senate requests for conference on the budget 19 times since early spring. They can now hold a gun to our heads and say give us what we want and couldn't get in any legitimate process or else but that's got nothing to do with "negotiation" or "compromise".
Dem pols need to counter that lying message hard every time they get to speak to the media.
Sorry . It was om only 18 times.
I think it was Chris Matthews who said yesterday that it is like the gop is holding the money hostage and demanding the baby. That paints an interesting picture since what they really want is to kill the "baby".
“Buy this magazine, or we’ll shoot this dog”. Can one of you able young nerds post that National Lampoon cover? It’s a classic.
I'm not young enough, and I'm about to prove it, so here's some wikilinks:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lampoon_(magazine)
(BTW the dog looks worried. He shouldn't be. Just some bland 1973 2nd amendment execise of rights . . . )
In a related story:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_the_Lobster_%28SNL%29
(Too bad Youtube"s not got this sketch . . .)
thanks… is that Ted Cruz on the other end of that revolver?
Probably not. 1973 cover; doesn't look like the hand of a three-old old. Could be his old man . . .
OK Mr. smarty pants.
That was my first National Lampoon. How could you see that cover and not buy the magazine?
Some day I will explain to the young 'uns what a magazine was.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) said on CNN this morning that the Republicans just don't think Obamacare is ready for prime time and thats why they want to delay it for a year. OK, let's take Rep. Issa at his word. The next question to him and Rep. Gardner is if Obamacare isn't ready for prime time what amendments are you prepared to propose to the CR that will get the law ready for "prime time" in one year? Thats the question Rep. Issa and Rep. Gardner need to answer since they haven't proposed any amendments to improve the Affordable Health Care Act to date.
Thus far, they have supported repealing it in its entirety and the last few days they want to dely its implementation for one year. Based on Rep. Issa's comments this morning, one can only assume they have specific proposals to improve the Affordable Helath Care Act. What are they? We all know the answer. They don't intend to offer any substantive amendments to improve the law. They want to destroy it.
As an aside, this morning my oldest child signed-up for health insurance on the exchange here in Colorado. He now has health insurance, at a reasonable price, for the first time. Before President Obama's health care act was passed, he couldn't purchase insurance because he has a pre-existing chronic condition which, if left untreated will cause his death. He works and will be paying premiums. The President saved his life. The Republicans want to take it from him. You can imagine how I'm voting next year.
In the words of Newt, "They have no alternative". And their latest proposal, which again, is a brand new version of a CR, not the clean CR passed by the Senate that has been sitting on Boehners desk for days, wants the Senate to agree to a conference committee. One problem: that subverts the "holding committee hearings" part of the legislative process.
They could end this in literally ten minutes, the time it takes for the House to vote. And then, the "people" will have truly spoken.
Great news on your oldest child. Have a similar family story. It's a good day for the under-insured.
That is an excellent point. No alternative. None. And why should they? Obamacare is a freakin' Republican plan.
On some of the more left-leaning sites I frequent, it's not uncommon for someone to attribute Republican actions to the fact that they just don't like that black man in the White House, and at times I simply can't find a way to disagree. There is no rational reason for what they do, so one has to conclude that the reasons are irrational.
To me it seems very transparent that the R's want to delay implementation of Obamacare as much as possible because once people sign up for it and like it and their lives improve, who will they thank the next election ? Sure as hell ain't gonna be the people that tried to fuck all of of us over in order to kill it.
Delay implementation so you can falsely claim it is a failure before there are even real results to analyze. Assholes. In the future I don't think I will be able to stomach when they turn 180 and tell us they were for it all the time. We deserve better than these useless fucking jerks.
All the best to your family, 36, and may your oldest child live a long, healthy, happy, prosperous, fulfilling life. Shame on those who would wish to deny those with preexisting conditions access to affordable heath care.
There you go. Abandon the Republican Party and join the Democratic Party – why the hell would you still be a Republican after all this shit that just went down, and your son is finally covered after years of no insurance.
I'd like to have Gardner identify which unions are in opposition to the Affordable Care Act. His use of unions is to make the point that even his most hated political opponents are united in getting rid of the ACA but doesn't bother to mention which ones they are. Maybe this is something that Jason can ask him.
Suddenly they're supposedly siding with unions and calling for good faith, holding hands and singing compromise. What else that they hate are they suddenly going to be all for? But guess what? If it was all to stop the ACA roll out, just what did they accomplish besides screwing everyone, including their own constituents, in a giant spoiled brat tantrum?
Some questions for the Congressman:
​Although I know these questions will not be answered, they are not meant to be rhetorical. Regardless of where you stand on the merits of the ACA, the method the tea party is using to attack it are extremely dangerous to our system of government.
Cory Gardner is a disingenuous, lying sack of shit. He's perfectly at home in today's GOP.
I don't think any further analysis is needed.
That and I think Gardner rather enjoys being a smarmy little prick.
Y'know, I just love how "negotiation" for the Republicans means, "You must accept ALL our conditions" rather than suggesting that these are starting points, not ending points.
A bit of a civics lesson for Rep. Gardner: In order to pass bills, you have to get a majority vote in both the House and Senate and then get the President to sign it.
Two reasons why the blame lies 100% with Republicans:
1) The "clean" continuing resolution from the Senate has enough votes to pass the House. So far none of the "compromise" (aka whiny I-want-more Republican extortion threats) has had enough votes to pass the Senate. The only reason the government is shut down is because Republican House leadership won't allow the clean resolution to come up for a vote – because Speaker Boehner would have "former" prepended to his title if he allowed it.
2) Democrats in the Senate have been trying for more than six months for a conference committee to work on a budget compromise. House and Senate Republicans have both worked to block a conference committee – 18 times. We could have had a REAL budget months ago but for Republican obstruction.
And in light of the fact that everything you've said is true, isn't it infuriating how the media continues to portray this as a matter of the two sides being equally at fault for failing to negotiate?
ACA is law. The Supreme Court had the chance to declare it unconstitutional and didn't. What on earth is unreasonable about the winners not agreeing to surrender their victory because the losers can't accept their loss? Have any of House Republicans who are driving this, and as you point out there are more than enough who would join the Dems in passing a clean CR if given a chance to vote, ever played a team sport?
But I guess we must have it all wrong to look at this as being about ACA. because, in spite of the fact that ACA is going forward on schedule the Tea Party faction is, in their own words, giddy over the accomplishment of shutting down the government. Michele Bachmann says that they got everything they wanted. Really? Everything? How do you square that with their claims that they're the ones who wanted to negotiate and avoid a government shut down?
If the goal was to stop Obamacare/ACA then this whole episode would have to be viewed as a total failure. Not at all what they wanted. But they're jumping up and down with glee.
So apparently Obamacare was just an excuse. What they really wanted all along was the government shut down they're so happy about. Guess this what happens when you elect people to govern who can't decide which they despise more; the American form of government or the democratic process.