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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 25, 2014 03:57 PM UTC

Ruh-Roh, Republicans: Gardner, Fracking Attracting More Money to Colorado

  • 37 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Republican Congressman Cory Gardner is well beyond the "honeymoon" stage of his initial campaign announcement in late February, which puts us well into the next act of examining his record as an elected official. And it's not just abortion and Personhood that is perking up ears across the country.

Bad News for Republicans in Colorado
Ruh-Roh, Republicans!

Gardner's extreme partisan record on environmental issues is drawing new interest to Colorado's Senate race. Last week, the League of Conservation Voters kicked off a $1 million ad buy criticizing Gardner for his anti-environment record and naming him to their "Dirty Dozen" program. On the heels of that announcement came news this week that the CREDO SuperPAC has included Colorado in its small list of targeted Senate races; CREDO plans to spend at least $500,000 for both TV ads and to hire some 30 organizers.

Both Gardner and the Oil and Gas industry would be right to be a little nervous about the level of support in Colorado from LCV and CREDO, but they may have a far bigger concern on their horizon. Colorado Pols has learned that representatives for Tom Steyer were in Colorado this week to discuss Steyer's potential involvement in both the Senate race and a possible ballot measure related to concerns about fracking safety. Steyer is a retired billionaire investor who is becoming increasingly active in progressive political issues. As the New York Times reported in February:

The donor, Tom Steyer, a Democrat who founded one of the world’s most successful hedge funds, burst onto the national political scene during last year’s elections, when he spent $11 million to help elect Terry McAuliffe governor of Virginia and millions more intervening in a Democratic congressional primary in Massachusetts. Now he is rallying other deep-pocketed donors, seeking to build a war chest that would make his political organization, NextGen Climate Action, among the largest outside groups in the country, similar in scale to the conservative political network overseen by Charles and David Koch.

In early February, Mr. Steyer gathered two dozen of the country’s leading liberal donors and environmental philanthropists to his 1,800-acre ranch in Pescadero, Calif. — which raises prime grass-fed beef — to ask them to join his efforts. People involved in the discussions say Mr. Steyer is seeking to raise $50 million from other donors to match $50 million of his own.

We understand the legislature is furiously working on something that would make a fracking ballot measure unnecessary, but Steyer has openly looked at funding such a measure in California in 2016, and his involvement could certainly change the dynamic here in Colorado — both for Gardner and any potential ballot measure.

Tweet
Share

Comments

37 thoughts on “Ruh-Roh, Republicans: Gardner, Fracking Attracting More Money to Colorado”

    1. Good for Steyer. If Kochs can spend billions lying to people, Steyer will get his investment come true for him as he spends billions telling the truth. The truth trumps stupid cheap lies every time.

       

      Did you realize that American Committment is yet another Koch-funded PAC that has no business being in Colorado?

    2. Tom Steyer offers a biribe of $100 mill in campaign contributions if you don't approve of Keystone.  Dems accept bribe.

      Lie down with a dog, wake up with fleas.

      2. Not a $100 million bribe. The Keystone XL job will ultimately net just 50 permanent jobs. Forget it. Not even worth endangering our sensitive environment issues for the almighty dollar. Word already has it that Obama is not approving the plan, so you can go bitch on it some more.

         

         

      4. Keystone does nothing writ large for our economy.  Those who are against it aren't just environmentalists – if you have more than two firing neurons you can perform basic mathematical equations and arrive at the same conclusion.

        1. Exactly. It is about on ramps and off ramps and lease holdings by billionaires. Pipelining North Dakota oil to refineries on the Gulf Coast can be done with much smaller, more direct, projects. Let Canada worry about the value of the Koch Brothers holdings in Canada. The Keystone XL pipeline holds no value for America or Americans. There is no need for it to enter our nation.

          And lots of reasons

      1. I keep saying this, and you keep ignoring it. I would guess that "nuance" is not in your vocabulary.  "Money in politics" isn't the issue.

        The issues are:

  5. "Extreme partisan"?

    Just out of curiosity, is there any view that ColoradoPols disagrees with that is NOT extreme?  I'm just trying to figure out what ColoradoPols thinks is a wrong, but acceptable, position. 

    1. what ColoradoPols thinks is a wrong, but acceptable, position.

      wrong, but acceptable…? Sorry…I don't understand.

      Is that sort of like "That was not meant to be a factual statement."?

        1. So you're looking for some kind of nuanced debate . . . maybe a "one-ounce-or-two" type of diary?  surprise

          I'm pretty sure, however, that there's not a lot of passionate, or even impassionate, partisan or non-partisan, interest in the latest speed-limits-on-I70 controversy?!?

          1. Not so much a nuanced debate, but a greater reluctance to demonize a person/their position just because you have a disagreement with said person/position. 

            1. That's a reasonable thing to strive for, IMO.

              Nuanced debates on the issues would be helpful for clarity.

              Adults should have better debating skills than middle school kids, whose basic retort upon discovering disagreement is, "You're STUPID!"

               

    2. On which specific issue? There is no generic liberal position on all issues. Unlike the GOP, we generally don't take the "Just Say No to Obama" route. As BC would say, we're not the Borg.

        1. OK, we can look at the progressive/liberal/Democratic position spectrum on those issues. I would not presume to say what Coloradopols positions are on those issues.

          On fracking:

          The spectrum includes, from the least restrictive to the most restrictive:

          • one which basically trusts the O&G industry, but wants them to tighten up safety / emission/ pollution standards and pay severance taxes, have greater transparency about which toxic chemicals are being released
          • one which wants lo institute "local control", i.e., communities should be able to choose for themselves whether and how much O&G should be able to develop within municipal boundaries
          • one which wants a statewide ban on all freaking fracking.

          On abortion, from least to most restrictive:

          • The original radical feminist position, "Free Abortion on Demand".  Medicaid should cover abortion. Strengthen Roe v Wade, repeal Hyde Amendment on Fed funding.
          • Abortion should be safe, legal, widely available,  & covered by insurance.  Emergency contraception s/b available over the counter for all ages. Maintain & strengthen Roe v Wade.
          • Abortion should be "legal, but rare". Contraception and education should eliminate the necessity for abortion. Stop closing clinics, keep funding for Planned Parenthood. This is a defensive position, against right wing attacks.Abortion should be limited to first 20 wks, and/or for instances of rape, incest, and jeopardy to life of the mother.
          • Only allow abortion for exceptions listed above. Restrict to ___ weeks.
          • There are liberals and progressives who are truly "pro-life" as opposed to "pro-birth". These individuals adopt kids, or volunteer with child social service agencies, and their pro-life positions are consistent (no death penalty, anti-war, anti-violent solutions generally) and usually religiously or spiritually based. These folks are rare, but I do respect them.

           

          As for me, I'm in the middle of both those spectra.  I suspect that you, and most Coloradans, are, as well.

           

          1. So if a personhood volunteer spent a respectable amount of time doing social services work (say for their church) or with an orphanage, you wouldn't call them extreme? 

            As for fracking – let's say you are skeptical further regulation is needed.  Does solely that make you "extreme"?

            1. On personhood:

              For me to respect the person's "pro-life" position, they would have to be against all state-sponsored murder and violence.

              On fracking:

              That's a total misstatement of my position. Absolutely, further regulation is needed, and a fair share of taxes such as other states, to be paid by oil and gas developers, in those communities which decide to allow fracking.

              I didn't note in my "fracking opinion spectrum" above, but Hickenlooper wants even less regulation than the most liberal position stated above. He is not in favor of oil and gas paying fair severance taxes; he is in favor of suing communities which have voted for moratoriums or bans on fracking.

              So, on my spectrum, Hick is the extremist on fracking, or he is right in line with industry norms and preferences.

            2. Come on Elliot. Another false equivalency argument? 

              Opinions are extreme, moderate or indifferent. 

              Actions are good, bad or inconsequential.

              Conflating the two isn't winning you any points on your critical thinking score.

               

               

  6. Col Pols…I see this site attracts a few regular gop/bagger supporters…As I follow this blog and read the comments, I see the "baggers" show up to spew their talking points like good robots…I have seen they have no need of the truth, and proven facts…this is doing more to motivate me, and my group to GOTV…These folks have failed the test of "humanity"…they have failed the test of "Jesus"…in their own words…this is why the gop/baggers will fail in the long run…

      2. Good for you. It just means you're not religious.

        I am turning myself into an atheist because I don't believe God exists and religion has done absolutely nothing for me and I don't believe in "miracles".

         

        1. I think it's an absolute frickin' miracle that someone as dim as Moderatus could be considered functioning by anyone?

          (. . . not a divine miracle, however, merely an astoundment . . . )

        2. dp,

          I am sorry to read that you are rejecting the notion that there is no other sentient force in the universe. Don't hold the reality of "religion" against God (Yahweh, Allah, the Great Spirit…whatever) or whatever notion of a greater conciousness may be out there. Religion is a construct of Man, and I completely understand your disappointment in "religion". It has done nothing for me, either.

          No one has proof of Gods' existence, and that is a good thing. Otherwise, how would we learn of the power of faith? I make a point of never proselytizing…what you believe is what you believe, and I respect everyones' right to do so.

          I was an atheist for most of my life…I am no longer an atheist because of personal experiences that I choose to share privately, only with those who ask. As you go forward in life, do not let the emptyness and hypocrisy of "religion" close your mind to the wonder and magic of the human spirit.

          If you do not knock on the door…it will never open. Read "the Desiderata". Open your heart and mind to the joy and beauty that is all around us and someday you may find something in which you can believe.

          Good luck…maybe one day, a "miracle" will find you…

          If not…then, I will have been wrong…smiley

          1. A young Native man, who was an idiot in most other ways, gave me a profound metaphor about religion and spirituality. At that time in my life, I had serially rejected Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism for various political reasons. All religions, I had decided, were political, and the politics should be evaluated by their effects on the living world.

            The young man told me that religion was like being inside of a tipi, looking up at the poles leading to the hole in the center. Each pole was a religion, and all led to some understanding and relationship with the Creator.

            So those are my understandings about religion: all religions are political, and all lead to the same place.

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

74 readers online now

Newsletter

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