President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(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%
August 02, 2008 04:32 PM UTC
14 Comments
They had almost nothing to say about Rollie himself, because there isn’t much there except generalities. Take this part for example:
That has noting to do with Rollie – to find something with specifics they had to bring up something that has nothing to do with Rollie.
Rollie has support of 99% of the Boulder Political Elite and the Camera responds to that pressure. And that’s to be expected – local papers do tend to toe the line.
But don’t call it well written or compelling – they should have done a better job writing this. I support Cindy and I could write a much better pro-Rollie editorial.
since you repeat it often.
Spare us the pro Cindy article though, please.
I happen to agree with you on the State Senate race, but, to be honest, disagree with you about the CD2 race. But either way do you think you could try to be a little less hysterical and partisan in the things you say? Honestly, in undermines everything you say.
My point was that what they wrote was pretty lame. It’s almost like they were told they had to endorse Rollie so they did as bad a job possible writing it as they could get away with.
My complaint was that they should spell out strong compelling reasons for supporting him. He’s a good candidate and those reasons exist. Why didn’t they do so?
He is not working for a campaign and for the most part he is a constituent with an opinion. My political pet peeve is people not saying who they support because someone or group of some ones will be upset.
While I like Rollie and Josie just fine, they are outstanding people; I think politically Cindy is the better choice for the district. I have taken some heat for that opinion, and quite frankly, I find it refreshing that David is passionate about his choices.
This is America; we should talk about our choices. Who knows it may even change a mind or two to your way of thinking. I have been considering supporting McCain since so many of you have great things to say about him and his race.
PSYCH!!!!!!
I support Rollie, but the Boulder “elite” is very much split. Look at Cindy’s website for a list of her endorsers. It’s impressive.
Cindy Carlisle was on Boulder city council and she’s a CU regent. It’s hard to say she’s not part of the Boulder elite.
She has made some very embarrassing votes as CU regent as well.
Go to the Daily Camera Website and read the blog posting on the article. Cindy’s supporters (or more likely the candidate herself) have been trying to spin this key endorsement into a positive for her.
To them I ask, didn’t she seek that endorsement too? Telling she didn’t get it after all the mudslinging.
It’s less than impressive that neither the MSM nor the bathrobed-and-typing find a candidate’s inaccurate/deceptively false financial statement damning. Heath receives significant income he does not acknowledge, and from corporations he wouldn’t want to wave in front of (supposed) progressives or environmentalists.
When queried, he said he’d had nothing to do with CACI for a decade. But he’d sat on their Board of Directors for four of the last ten years. Huh. Deceptive, dingy, or Cheney Level Secretive, it doesn’t speak to someone claiming the ethical stature he does.
He lost his cool when this was brought up and jumped all over Carlisle’s late father in law with one inaccurate accusation, had that sorrowfully drawn to his attention, replaced it with another inaccuracy, and neither apologizes for his claims nor presents a coherent explanation of why an inlaw of his opponent is relevant.
Boulder OWES him, we gather. As the nation owes McCain, apparently.
“Yesterday’s Solutions Tomorrow!” is not the theme to carry into the capital, as Heath proposes, and which his schlerotic supporters advocate. Carlisle has never lost an election but this was in spite of transient approval from the hyphenated names and now elderly Boulder Social Forces in years past, and who now compose the Rollie Rictus. She didn’t ever owe them.
The avoidance of anything to be remotely confused with detail in the accusations against Carlisle amount to method, but then, that’s the fun of right wing misogynists and their multiple User ID’s.
Under the gaze of an antagonistic state administration; fellow Regents of the GOP for whom ‘rubber stamp’ would characterize too much pro-active thinking; two Democratic Regents who vote to move all CU administration to their own districts (and know Carlisle will fight them in the Senate as well to keep stuff in Boulder); and a bitter, bitter bunch of college football fluffers who found nothing in their mental makeup regarding women at odds with a former CU AD’s concern about “plausible deniability” offered to those who – somehow, as if by magic and including himself – felt the need to spend time with their families soon enough, Carlisle as Regent managed to get much of what she campaigned on, but not in the manner anyone could have predicted or she would have chosen.
The charge of conflict of interest is blatently bogus, since anything like it would have required the participation of the State officers, the highly paid if dubiously competent CU legal team, and all the other Regents to be true. Owens’ ethics guru said Carlisle had done everything correctly. ANY of those entities would have loved to have found evidence of minimal violations. Nobody could. She’s clean. So, let’s shut up about that absent Iota One of evidence.
Her votes on Churchill and Benson were based on the fact her votes didn’t matter, and were designed to keep issues before us. In any case, there was no beneficial political upside to her for either of them. None. Rather, guaranteed political blowback. An internal imp of the perverse is the worse than can be said.
Carlisle is being burdened with the embarrassments of CU’s sleazoid handling of a misogynistic athletic environment, although she fought it from the beginning. What pisses some folks off is she had the temerity to be on the winning side.
Credit who you will, but a near criminally inept series of financial horrors in the Athletic Department, the football camps, the CU Foundation, and various support entities were uncovered and are supposedly fixed. A set of amazing yet high paid incompetents – University President, various subordinates, Head Coach, CU Foundation chief, etc. – were rooted out and are gone.
Clear achievement without a lot of help.
Your points are very good too – but how you put it together is beautiful. Very well stated.