President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(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%
April 06, 2009 10:00 PM UTC
16 Comments
I thought the days of Republicans comparing Democrats to our enemies were over.
If you want to call it a “witch hunt” or whatever, that’s fine, but enough with the Democrats = terrorists rhetoric for crying out loud. The 2000s are almost over, can we please move on from that crap? Thank you.
Or was. He represented SE Denver in the state house during the 90’s, then ran against DeGette in the primary for CD1 when Pat Schroeder retired.
and thanks for the correction. I just assumed he was an R since he’s representing Coffman.
But still, the fact of the matter is that he’s representing Coffman. So maybe it wasn’t a Republican saying it, but it’s still the lawyer of a Republican congressman saying it.
Perhaps I should have been clearer with my point: everyone needs to stop comparing their opponents to terrorists for political gain. End of story.
and he’s quite progressive. That’s why Coffman hired him.
Each lawyer, or firm, chooses its own balance between being a hired gun, and representing people and issues it cares about. Within the somewhat peculiar (and surprisingly stringent) moral universe of the legal profession, it is considered a moral good to represent those with whom you disagree, because, so the plattitude goes, it serves the system by guaranteeing all access to legal counsel.
Having said that, I think it’s reasonable for a progressive Democrat to represent Coffman if they feel strongly that the particular issue is bogus or being exploited unethically for political gain. And, as much as I detest Coffman, I’m not sure that this issue isn’t just a little bit in one or the other of those categories.
I still prefer to win on the merits of offering the better policies. But, sometimes, you have to play a different game….
…I believe he was part of the failed litigation which tried to have the amendmment declared unconstitutional. So, he apparently has a particular axe to grind about Amend. 41 and the ethics commission.
Here’s my take on lawyers, after two years of law school and a few decades of being a social observer:
The conventional wisdom is a blunt instrument which ignores the real diversity of people in the profession, and the draconian ethical standards that are imposed on them.
But, the legal profession is thrives as a parasitic collector of transaction costs, those unfortunate (though often inevitable) costs which get in the way of productive activities and exchanges,
and a lot of lawyers have personalities that are very similar to fingernails on chalk boards.
Friednash was the attorney for the plaintiffs seeking the injunction, which was eventually tossed by the Supreme Court. But the original lawsuit, which seeks to have the whole thing declared unconstitutional, is still in the hopper, last I heard.
He should be feel to represent anyone, and any issue, he chooses.
Friednash also called it a witch hunt.
When Schroeder announced she would not run for reelection, Friednash announced. However a personal issue had him drop out, okay, it was an affair scandal (can you say Monkey Business?)
After he got out, DeGette and Tim Sandos got in. DeGette beat Sandos in the primary.
Frankly, Friednash would have been a good Congressman. Also, his opposition to Amendment 41 continues to endear him to me. Colorado Ethics Watch is a joke. Since they are not subject to the ethics rules they claim to support it is easy for them to only point fingers.
Roger,
Interesting info about Friednash not running. From what I have read about his background, I agree with your statement that he would have been a good Congressman. Did he try to run again, or for another office?
What happened with his Monday Business scandal? Did that stop him from running again?
The ethics commission conducts all its substantive discussions in executive session; they NEVER talk about anything really important in public. Today’s agenda mentions that executive session will be held to discuss complaints AND two pending advisory opinions.
I would look first thing in the morning on the IEC site.
…doesn’t seem particularly ethical