U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(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) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
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%
June 28, 2008 07:53 AM UTC
11 Comments
Clearly McCain was joking when he made that comment, to suggest that he wasn’t is ridiculous.
People may be more inclined to listen to liberals if they wouldn’t make such nonsensical statements.
EVER funny?
Satire or not, it’s inappropriate.
but rather to illustrate the absurdity of the statement that he was “running” from the governors low approval rating.
Why not argue the issues rather than trying to make something out of nothing?
For example, compare Obama’s high tax, big government, socialistic agenda with McCain’s low tax, smaller government, capitalistic agenda. There’s plenty there to discuss.
I’ll start by asking a simple question:
Q: How will increasing taxes on people or any income level help our economy?
A: If taxes are increased on “rich” people that will simply lead to those people cutting costs in their businesses to increase profits (e.g., layoffs). Which, in turn, leads to fewer income tax payers and more unemployment claims (e.g., tax consumers)
Not intended to be funny? Then why was he laughing?
McCain’s statement about wife-beating had nothing to do with issues. The fact that he was chuckling when he said it speaks a great deal about him.
Start a thread on the issues if you want to discuss them. This is about his statement on wife-beating.
And I’m repeating myself to make the point a little clearer for you.
as Slimeball Clinton telling the world he loves his wife and would never cheat on her.
Like my newest friend here just said, you are making something out of nothing.
He cheated on his wife. Repeatedly. I won’t forgive him for that. It was dishonest and disrespectful.
But McCain was chuckling while making a statement “and I stopped beating by wife just a week ago.” It was a statement about wife-beating.
You okay with that? I thought you guys were all about family values. Maybe that pal of his making a joke about rape years ago made an impact on the Senator’s sense of humor.
I never thought I’d agree with Gecko on anything, ever, but she’s right about this. McCain’s response was a turn on the loaded question about “running from” the Nevada governor. As Go Blue and Jake Tapper point out, it’s rhetorically tone deaf because both McCain and Gibbons have troubled histories with their wives, but it was hardly a “statement about wife-beating.”
I understand the context of the statement, but the fact that he was chuckling when he said it bugs me.
As someone who’s seen abused women, I don’t think there’s an appropriate context for anything like what Sen. McCain said.
A guy with a history of anger management issues and calling his wife names like “trollop” and “cunt” in public should know that any mention of wife-beating would used against him.
Your lack of knowledge of economics or history of economics is confirmed by your ideological bleatings.
We had, in this country, the greatest middle class and the most opprotunity for its citizens when “the rich” were heavily taxed. Tax policy certainly was not the only reason, but it was a major one.
Are you even remotely aware that the “socialist” nations in Europe are producing more millionaires per capita than we are? That a child born poor in the EU now has a better chance of rising up than in the US? (And having healthcare the whole damned time!)
Who should we tax to run our society? The poor, with no money? Or “the rich” with more money than they can spend in 20 lifetimes?
And how did “the rich” get to be so? Yes, I’ll certainly grant hard work (sometimes, sometimes inherited), ingenuity, and risk taking. But also because they could hire people that could read and write, benefit from the military and police to secure their resources, the courts to decide issues, the roads for transporting workers and goods, and on and on.
You might wish to examine my essay, “A day in the life of a conservative American” at http://www.bigcottonwood.net/d… . Of course, you would probably remain in your matrix and not be informed, I’m guessing.
I think it was a very fair response he made. The reporters ask gotcha questions and McCain threw this one back in the reporter’s face.
that will get you more grief from your fellow libs..