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%
January 19, 2009 08:16 PM UTC
24 Comments
as usual…
It appears that Balmer’s supporters blew it. Does that disqualify him for minority leader? He broke no laws.
Tim Geithner, on the other hand, neglected to pay his taxes, lied on his income tax form and employed an illegal immigrant. He broke several laws.
http://voices.kansascity.com/n…
Why aren’t you hammering him?
you don’t bother me.
how is the impropriety relevant to the job in question? I, personally, am sick and tired of all of this moral theater permeating our political discourse. The sins of politicians don’t interest me in and of themselves, nor do I think it is wise of us to treat public office as a prize that should be given to those who behave themselves and withheld from those who don’t. Public office should be given, always, to whoever reason and evidence suggest is likely to do the best job in that office, period.
That’s why no one is really interested in “punishing” Tim Geithner by tanking his appointment: They all recognize him as being eminently qualified to do the job, and are eager to have someone heading up Treasury who fits that description.
Whether Balmer would benefit from a similar analysis is a question I won’t address. But the issue is not just a matter of a comparison of sins. It is a matter of “all things considered.” With all due respect, the error you make is similar to the one you make in regard to TABOR, on the thread addressing it’s relative merits: You consider one variable in isolation, and base a judgment on that variable alone. That doesn’t work. You have to consider all variables simultaneously, how they interact, and base judgments on a complete systematic analysis.
It’s not enough to say, “but that guy over there did bad things, so why are you picking on this guy over here?” You have to simultaneously consider: What are the merits of the individual, independent of their sins? How do their sins relate to the job they are performing or will perform? And, all things considered, what action best serves the interest of the electorate?
I think he purposefully tried to avoid paying taxes. Especially when he was busted for 2 years of it – and didn’t come clean on the years before that.
With that said, he may still be the best pick for the treasury. But I think he bears close supervision.
Rule Set 1: Applies to most people, such as yourself, who have no one to make excuses for them or deflect the glare of the IRS if a material misstatement in your tax filings is uncovered. These people are forced to pay up, with penalties and interest, regardless of their excuses or intentions.
Rule Set 2: Applies to the political class, selected to administer agencies such as the Treasury, which is charged with enforcing the tax code. If someone has curried political favor and is tapped to run such an agency, he just needs to come clean (if someone actually points out the infraction), and everything is good to go.
are under far more scrutiny than “most people,” that their transgressions are both more public and more severely punished, and that these tendencies contribute to dissuading many highly talented people from subjecting themselves to the costs of public service.
I guess the Clinton ethic continues to permeate our society.
That is, ethics don’t count.
And if you don’t think the same ethic doesn’t spread to private business, look at what’s happened on Wall Street since Clinton.
So now we let Geithner become treasury secretary. Next time a private employer refuses to hire or retain a tax cheat, what kind of court case will the employer have?
If you don’t think someone who cheated on his taxes won’t cheat on his political and public bosses, won’t lie and set bad examples for our country, I’ve got to wonder what makes you so forgiving.
can you point to who conducted their public duty with honor?
Your crack about “Clinton ethics” rings hollow when Bush’s top appointees are going to have to spend the rest of their lives avoiding travel to countries that prosecute treaties we’ve signed.
Did Geithner make a mistake on his taxes and then fix it? Yes. Did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, Libby, Addington, Yoo, Scholtzman and the rest break laws left and right, making a mockery of the notion of honor, ethics or simple truth-telling? Comparing the two transgressions displays a deep, offensive immorality.
Enron and all the other morally-corrupted Bush cronies were all Clinton’s fault…of course if you go back a few years you might see that clearly Ronald Reagan and Ollie North are to blame. Or maybe it was G. Gordon Liddy?
Sheesh…
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
pretty much applies here as well. It’s the same basic analysis.
But some arguments particular to this issue:
Failure to prosecute isn’t legal precedent, and in fact prosecutorial discretion is a cornerstone of our criminal justice (and regulatory) system. So how the Geithner case is disposed of has no effect whatsoever on any similar case involving an employer who chooses not to hire a tax cheat. The Geithner case would not, and could not, be brought up.
Ethics counts, to the extent that it counts. But we have inflated it into a litmus test that bears little resemblance to actual human behavior. On the spectrum of ethical violations, some fairly pedestrian fudging on taxes is far from the pole that bears such indiscretions as “mastermind of genocide,” and probably well within the area where the majority of fairly law-abiding and decent people are clustered. What next? Anyone who ever got a speeding ticket is forever disqualified from public office? Jay-walking?
As I suggested in that other post, we are best off when we basically assume that people will act as people act, and design our institutions so that when they do so, they also incidentally advance the public interest. Laws and punishment are, in fact, just such institutions. But when they are too draconian, and too inflexible, they pass their optimal performance, and begin to become increasingly dysfunctional.
This isn’t to say that there’s no place for promoting integrity and personal responsibility, but all in appropriate measure, and all with a realistic congruence to how humans actually behave. Otherwise, it becomes just so much noise that almost everyone disregards, which is, to some extent, exactly what is happening in this country.
We need to save our outrage for truly outrageous behavior. Geithner’s foibles just aren’t quite there, in my opinion.
Complete coincidence that I watched the episode last night (season six, last episode) where Santos wows the deadlocked convention by his speech. The issue of another candidates wife’s depression came to light and Santos was being told to make hay with that. And to do some quid pro quo vote trading.
He essentially said I am not going to use the guy’s wife’s MI for his gain. No one is perfect. And I’m not going to trade votes for jobs. But vote for me if you think I’m the right person for the job. (Wild cheering!)
And, as they say, the rest is (fictional) history.
Life is imitating art: Obama, like Santos, has reached out and brought his political enemies into the fold. And is it my imagination, or does Obama “look” just a little bit like Jed Barlett?
Great scene.
a box of chocolates?
when he moves to, say, Wisconsin to restart his political career again, he can leave this whole sordid mess off his resumГ©, same as he did when he moved here from North Carolina.
But he’ll probably get amnesia again.
he can’t disappear into a swamp in Centennial … have to settle for a frozen wetland.
Won’t regulate their neck-snapping witchdoctery.
Money.
Zakhem/Atherton was the top GOP Law Firm in Colorado. In the past six months they have been sued in federal court, been the subject of a grand jury investigation and now this. I don’t think Zakhem/Atherton will still be operating in 2010.