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%
March 24, 2014 05:03 PM UTC
45 Comments
"Can't Cut It Cory" strikes again!
That's the problem with complex, single audience-intended, multi-tiered political lies: the liar often winds up being strangled from both sides of the fence he was attempting to straddle.
Now that is a great visual metaphor.
There's still Baumgardner!
Yes, really Repubs, you can rally around The Mustache! All he did was harbor a sex offender.
As to why "so many conservatives are not fazed by this," again I refer one and all to the startling recent admission by AC: that he and his fellow Republicans will knowingly vote for an obvious, transparent, bald-faced liar and craven coward simply because he/she has an "R" by his or her name — "thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" (or, presumably, lie about one's self) be damned.
Patriot Party? Daddy Party? Liberty Party? Truth, Justice and the American Way Party?
Try the Friggin Power-Mad, Shameless, Cowardly Liars, Haters, Racists and Bible-Trashers Party.
Photo caption: "Cory Flip-Flops, available now and every day through November — size LARGE only!"
Meh. Who else are the righties going to vote for? But as a way to attract more of the middle? More women? More young voters? A complete failure.
I wish I had something substantive to add, but this photoshop of the flip flops is bad and you should feel bad.
Ed Hanks is a friend of mine who I disagree with on Personhood. While he is well connected and a good guy he hardly speaks for the conservative movement.
Help me out here, Elliot. Why should I give a shit who does or doesn't speak for the conservative movement? You have Rush. Who else do you need?
What Ralphie said, Elliot. It's not as if there's a faction of the conservative movement whose views deserve more respect. It's all bull.
EF – sincere question: just what are the tenets of the conservative movement in your mind? Three of my closest friends are Republicans – and I couldn't get a consistent response out of any two of them. One falls in to the 'Personhood' column, another in the Ron/Rand Paul column, and another in the 'Barry Goldwater' column, although he has his own version, dismissing what the Goldwater Institute stands for today (and recently left the party, registering as an Independent, although he's very liberal on social issues.)
Depends which faction you are in. For me it is originalist interpretation of Constitution (basically repudiating Roe v. Wade, Kelo, and Wickard), seeking to reduce longterm govt spending, and supporting Capitalism
Thanks – the way you crafted your initial response in this thread I read it as though there was a writ large 'movement'. I suspect Ed Hanks thinks he is as much an authentic spokesman for the conservative movement as the heads of the other factions are.
Under the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, we'd still have slavery and blacks would count as 3/5 of a person. Sure you want to hang your hat on that?
…and that pesky, 'women can't vote' thing?
Now that would be pretty convenient for Mr. Gardner right about now.
It brings a whole new meaning to 'taking our country back'.
And you forgot amendment 19
You threw me off with the 'originalistt'….as in 'the original, unamended' version. So you agree it's a living, breathing document?
It is not a living constitution. You have to change it by the formal amendment process
Silly me…
Funny. The one thing our founders definitely were not was "originalists, much less conservative. The last thing they would have wanted was for their progeny to remain stuck in time, clinging to antiquated notions and mired in rightie science rejecting religious superstition. They sure as hell weren't.
In matters such as these I tend to refer,and defer, to one of the originals.
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." – Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816[10]
Whether he was an "originalist"or not I'm not sure I do know it was not a "conservative"decision to confront the leading economic and military power of the time and he does use the word progress.
You forgot amendments 13-15
I carry a copy of the Constitution in my shoulder bag. I'm well versed on the amendments.
I don't think anybody has forgotten them except "originalists" who say they apply only to reconstruction..
You're losing this argument, Fladen.
let him drown on his own stupidity. it's the only way to be sure.
Elliot's not stupid-we disagree on interpretation of the Constitution. We need to get beyond name-calling and into substance.
Well, I did go to law school so I couldn't have been all that bright…..;-)
(insert anti-lawyer joke here) Have you heard the one about the sharks?
professional courtesy…right?
That "Kelo" decision you reference upheld "eminent domain" in private property transfers. If it were repudiated, much of the oil and gas development in contemporary Colorado would have no foundation.
Anita Sherman and "Fracking Fighters" are asking legislators to stop bill SB-14-093, which is good for energy companies, but terrible for private property owners.
A truly conservative movement which repudiated unlimited corporate eminent domain rights would also be against SB14-093.
A bought-off, corporate-funded movement which only pretended to be "conservative" would be for SB14-093, and for anything else which benefits large corporations at the expense of individuals and the public "commons", i.e. air and water.
If there truly were a conservative movement which was about conservation of the common good, clean air, clean water, public health and safety, I would support it. I think that there are a very few conservatives out there who align with this view; I don't think that they actually have a "faction" in power in the Republican party. More's the pity.
Well said, MamaJ…and given the dynamics of today's party of Lincoln ( T-Roosevelt (national parks and busting monopolies), Eisenhower (interstate system), Nixon (EPA) PapaBush (acid rain cap-and-trade-program) and Dubya (deregulating ERCOT, creating largest state wind portfolio in the nation, establishing the nations first renewable fuel standard and whose Supreme Court classified CO2 as a pollutant) there isn't a soul on this planet that could survive a primary or a state assembly with any of those ideas attached to their campaign.
MamaJama wrote on March 25: "if there truly were a conservative movement which was about conservation…..clean air, clean water…..I would support it….."
Good news. Perhaps you have not heard of ConservAmerica, formerly known as Republicans for Environmental Protection. We have a small chapter in Colorado that we're looking to grow. Visit the following web sites to find out more:
http://www.conservamerica.org
http://www.conservativestewards.org
http://www.climateconservative.org
Sincerely,
Conservative Head Banger (AC/DC Rules!)
And CREA! Don't forget Jack Abramoff's fake "Republicans for Environmental Advocacy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Republicans_for_Environmental_Advocacy
ConservAmerica is NOT a fake. We knew we'd made it a few years ago when El Rushbo referred to us on his radio show as a "bunch of environmental whackos." Given the GOP's history of conservation that traces back to Abraham Lincoln (he set aside land in California that eventually became Yosemite National Park), people really should not be surprised that Republicans can be strong conservationists. Another example: 2014 is the 50th Anniversary of the signing of the Wilderness Act. In 50 years, the president who has signed more wilderness bills into law than any other, to date, is Ronald Reagan.
The President of ConsercAmerica is a very good man, Rob Sisson. I've had the oppotunity to work with Rob – he's top shelf.
Note to politicians, never have a picture taken of yourself featuring flip flops. It will come back to haunt you.
There's only one thing a politician can use to defend against photoshop, and that's their own consistent, reasonable set of values and track record on issues.
I think that was originally a photo of a broken cellphone and has been photoshopped.
You are correct. You can still see some white around Ryans' hands where the phone was removed.
The original (with camouflage iPhone, rather than flippy floppies) was the subject of a "caption the photo" here a week or so ago. I'm sure the assumption was that visitors here had seen it.
When is Gardner going to accuse the Personhood people of "distorting my record."
No need – he's never been a purist. From TNTSNBN:
See how easy that was?