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 19, 2008 07:57 PM UTC
39 Comments
and I’m already sick of both the anti-Udall and anti-Schaffer 527 attack ads on TV. How many more days until the election? I am beginning to actually miss the plethora of Jared Polis commercials.
If you’re tired of the 527 ads now, just think about what it’s going to be like right before the election when 527s on both sides of all the myriad ballot initiatives start running ads. We’re all going to be saying, “Oh my, wasn’t it just wonderful when ads for consumer products would air on the television? Those were the good old days.”
was a wonderful invention!
That quote and description makes my skin crawl.
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
Personally, I prefer the “Skip” Udall ad.
This is one seriously nasty race.
…I love that the truth is irrelevant. Brute force carries the day. Darwin is back, back with a vengeance!
The VoteVets ad SLAMS Schaffer!
it appears it was designed to give the feel that Bob Schaffer voted against Iraqi vets. Schaffer wasn’t in Congress when the War in Iraq started.
The media fact checkers are going to zoom in Rick Duncan’s comment: Too many vets can’t get the care they need. Congressman Schaffer voted against billions in funds for veterans.
What votes were used to justify that statement? Not a single one is listed. Don’t expect voters to accept that statement at face value.
Casey Howard’s final comment: We fought for our country. Why hasn’t Bob Schaffer voted for us?
Well, maybe it was because he was no longer in Congress before you even went over there, Casey.
and he most certainly voted on veterans appropriations, and he was most certainly in Congress when we were in Afghanistan.
SCHAFFER VOTED FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ!
He’s even said he would vote to go into Iraq again and again to look for those “missing” WMD’s.
I never stated that Bob Schaffer did not vote on Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq in October of 2002.
I wrote that Bob Schaffer wasn’t in Congress when the War in Iraq started (March 2003) and that Schaffer was no longer in Congress by the time Casey Howard went over there.
So what votes on veterans’ appropriations showed that Schaffer voted against billions in funds for veterans? It certainly wasn’t any “against” Iraqi veterans.
Where did Afghanistan come into this? It wasn’t even mentioned, so how did it all of a sudden become relevant to this particular political ad?
If the majority of voters did anything but accept 527 ads at face value–or at least with only a mild skepticism–then 527s would not use TV advertising.
That’s why voters keep seeing negative attack ads every election cycle.
Finally, a group not afraid to take the gloves off and hold Schaffer accountable. Makes me want to donate to them.
https://secure.ga3.org/03/vote…
…but they get that unfair tag because they target those politicians who hate the troops, and (like it or not) that’s the Republican Party.
They’ve gone after Dems as well.
They were just conservative Dems in the sights. And we all know conservatives of any stripe hate everyone but rich white guys.
they’re rich white guys from Hollywood! 🙂
Rep. Udall is a good man. He listens to people. He’s open to reasonable compromise.
He cares about the troops in Iraq.
This campaign will get nastier.
We need more 527’s supporting him.
Thank you to our men and women in uniform. Without your sacrifices, we would not be able to enjoy the freedom that we do.
Schaffer hides behind his campaign manager AND his kids.
VoteVets points out that Schaffer does not support the troops. Schaffer counters that 3 of his kids are headed for the military.
Ok…
That doesn’t mean Schaffer supports the military in his votes, it just means he’s sticking it to his kids as well as all others in the military.
Here you go and use “critical thinking” to note that the charge was not answered! The nerve!
Of course, 90% of the electorate wouldn’t know critical thinking if it bit them on the touchscreen voting machine.
According to South Park, it’s 25%.
…who thinks “Slavery gets sh*t done?”
Dad sticking it to him (and every other vet in the process).
Will that ring well, considering dems are blocking drilling and gas is so expensive?
Shaffer going to bat for more drilling almost seems like a positive these days, and the era of blaming “big oil” seems over to me.
If it were criticizing him for a domestic project, but Bob went to Northern Iraq against the will of the State Department. They didn’t want any foreign companies brokering deals with any local governments because they feared doing so might undo some of the work that the military had done.
How about blaming “big farm”. They’re much more highly subsidized and have higher profit margins than the oil companies.
Food profits have SKYROCKETED on the backs of hard working Americans like Sir Robin and I!!!
🙂
We are in the end times, my friends!
Farm price supports have no logic, screw all of us, and cause starvation in the 3rd world.
But… the way Senators are apportioned it means that farm state Senators have a majority.
while families struggle to pay for transportation costs and there is no anger at these mammoth corporations for milking the situation to the max. Seniors are having to decide between medicine and a tank of gas and jericho is trumpeting how Big Oil is being embraced for wanting to desecrate every last wilderness in this country. I somehow doubt that voters are going to be willing to go along with magically turning the greedy oil corporations into knights in shining armor. “Screwing people at the pump and destroying the environment” sounds like something only brainwashed Republicans could swallow. Everyone else might be just a tad more cynical jericho.
Not in this country. Read some actual statistics about drilling activity in the past few years before you try to lie about it.
Exploratory and production well activity has skyrocketed, according to the Energy Information Administration ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/… ).
Drilling permits in Colorado also have soared in recent years ( http://oil-gas.state.co.us/Lib… ).
Attempting to promote reasonable environmental policies is not blocking drilling, and it has not blocked drilling. That’s a bogus talking point dispensed by the likes of Dick Wadhams and picked up by the ignorant.
I’m just giving my opinion. Read my entire post, and tell me where I’m lying and not simply giving my opinion. Come on, tell me.
I’ve heard the song and dance about increased exploration, but that’s because higher prices are driving more exploration, but Congress is only allowing leases on land where there is little to no oil.
Just because there are more “permits” doesn’t mean that they are permits on viable areas.
And yes, Congress is blocking drilling in ANWR, and other viable oil areas. Do you know what ANWR is? It’s a tundra, one third the size of England, that’s in perpetual night for on third of the year. Drilling there would take up 2000 acres, or about 3.5 square miles of a land mass the size of South Carolina!
http://www.anwr.org/features/p…
What’s reasonable about shutting off 2000 square acres of a reserve that’s 19,285,922 square acres large? When caribou popluations are larger now than before Prudhoe started?
What’s reasonable about that? And while you’re explaining that to me bmenzes, tell me how I’m a liar in my previous post. You want to call me a liar? Tell me how I lied. Tell me.
…is that no one even really knows if there is oil there, or how much!
Yes, the great Republican/conservative ANWAR smoke screen ignores this inconvenient fact.
And even at high estimates, it could only supply a few percent of very, very expensive oil to our supply.
And if you think your arguements have validity because it is dark a lot of the year, wow.
It’s unlikely anybody would drill there. The NPR-A (right next door) is thought to contain more oil than ANWR, actually has proven reserves unlike ANWR, and has been ignored by the oil companies because it’s too expensive to drill in that tundra. The drilling season is too short at that latitude and the ground gets unstable when it thaws, forcing the drillers to either refreeze it artificially or construct big oak platforms on which to place the rigs to keep them from sinking.
The whole ANWR canard is really tiresome.
I’m opposed to drilling up there but if it was really as bad as you and some others say – they sell the leases as it’s free money with no downside.
The oil companies are clearly interested in ANWR – that’s why they have their agents in Congress pushing so hard for this.
The worse it becomes for them politically. There is very little threat of environmental disaster up there, so one of three things happen.
1) There’s not oil, and ANWR becomes a dead issue
2) There’s some oil, and everyone forgets about it.
3) There’s a lot of oil, and it help American security and economy by relieving dependance on foriegn oil.
Either way, why block it? Why give Republicans a wedge issue? There are numerous other environmental stands that Dems can take that are more legitimate and less politically costly.
The dems relenting on ANWR after all these years wouldn’t be politically costly, then you don’t know politics. The voting pool isn’t just made up of GOP and independents, this is an important issue to many Democrats, and if the party relinquished, it would send many of them into a spiral of fury.
You made the blanket statement that “dems are blocking drilling,” which is false given that domestic drilling has been accelerating for a long period of time. Now, confronted with statistical fact, you’ve changed your statement to say “Congress is blocking drilling in ANWR.”
I’ll let the readers here decide how truthful your arguments are, that is, before you change them.
Why, for example, did you leave out the Department of Interior’s own assessment during the Reagan Administration that the 1002 Area, the specific region where any drilling in ANWR would take place according to the oil companies, is “the most biologically productive part” of ANWR? Instead of giving readers here an official assessment (such as this: http://arctic.fws.gov/ ) of the wildlife and ecological profile of the proposed drilling area, you linked to material from a pro-drilling group’s website. You didn’t even identify your source.
Now, how truthful is that? Answer: Not at all, either in fact or otherwise. Now, go douse your pants…they’re clearly on fire.