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%
March 22, 2009 02:31 AM UTC
4 Comments
It’s just another “slip of the tongue” with no significance, like the Special Olympics remark.
Main Entry: unsustainable
Part of Speech: adj
Definition: not able to be maintained or supported in the future, esp. without causing damage or depletion of a resource
Yep, there are many words to describe the horrible situation we’re in at Guantanamo. But I think Obama’s use of Unsustainable is purposely non-inflammatory, and correct.
His point that the Bush Administration bungled even the release review process for the prisoners should be no big surprise.
I’ll wait to hear the entire interview tonight on 60 minutes before getting my undies in a twist 😉
but it’s easily undone. Here’s hoping.
Quick disclaimer: I edited the diary while you were posting this.
Thanks for explaining the shifting diary underneath my reply. I wondered how I missed half the post the first time!
But, even reading the NYT editorial, it just reinforces my opinion that Obama is being pragmatic in trying to keep the focus on fixing the problems (all the problems, not just Guantanamo) without making them any worse. The NYT was about 90% supportive of his approach. Their bottomline issue was to have a full accounting of the Bush errors (something I support — by historians, not tribunals).
But I understand Obama’s reluctance to have a steady drip of news for the next year over the criminal acts of the Bush administration distracting and very possibly defeating his primary mission to put the train back on the tracks.
I think the stakes are so high and the margin for error is so slender, that as great as the Bush Administration’s crimes may be, we need to hold off on his day of reckoning for now.