U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(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) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 17, 2009 05:18 PM UTC

Polis, Colorado Republicans Vote Against War Funding

  • 33 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

From the Colorado Independent:

Talk about strange bedfellows. Tuesday night, liberal Democrat Jared Polis joined Colorado’s two Republicans – U.S. Reps. Mike Coffman and Doug Lamborn – voting against the $106 billion Iraq-Afghanistan war funding bill, which narrowly passed the House of Representatives on a 226-202 vote with strong Democratic support. The remainder of the state’s House members, all four Democrats, voted for the bill.

Polis was among 32 anti-war House Democrats voting against the bill, down from 51 who opposed it when it was first introduced last month. Democratic leaders needed to sway some of their anti-war colleagues because of nearly solid opposition from House Republicans, including some who lambasted Democrats last year for “failing to fund our troops in harm’s way” by voting against a similar supplemental bill.

“Nothing has changed,” said a Polis spokeswoman, who pointed to a statement Polis released last month.

“Unfortunately, the positive aspects of this bill cannot hide its underlying premise – funding a misguided war in Iraq and Afghanistan – a policy that I believe must be changed,” Polis said when he first voted against the war funding bill. “At its heart, this bill is about increasing and prolonging U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan, which I do not support.”

There are two very distinct stories here, the first being Jared Polis’ vote–consistent with previous votes and statements, he’s no less opposed to the war now than he was when he was a candidate. The liberal grassroots lobbied hard against this year’s supplemental war funding bill, so his vote will cheer the ActBlue crowd–unlike a lot of other Democrats who will now face pressure from the same contingent for voting yes. The anti-war left hasn’t changed its view with the new Democratic president, and neither has Polis. You can give them credit for consistency even if you don’t completely agree.

More interesting in our view are the votes against war funding from Republicans–who claim their opposition was based on an IMF appropriation tacked on to the bill for loans to poor countries, conveniently forgetting how their own supplemental war funding bills during the Bush administration were larded up beyond all recognition to entice Democrats. Obviously they think they’re being clever, but it’s not difficult to paint Mike Coffman as a partisan hypocrite–on his signature issue–for voting “against the troops” just like the GOP did to Democrats. As for Doug Lamborn? There’s maybe half a dozen people outside of his immediate family who don’t already think he’s a complete craven, and that includes the El Paso County voters who will re-elect him next year with no quibbles–dead girl/live boy problems being about the only thing that could possibly change that.

Both Colorado Republican congressmen appear to have voted as part of a concerted GOP strategy to oppose President Obama’s ’emergency’ war funding, but we think they’ve outsmarted themselves: it’s too easy to demonstrate, no matter what they say, that if Bush had been president they would have voted for this bill. Which just plain looks bad, on general principles–regardless of how you feel about the particular issue. Worst case? It could be the only thing people remember…

In short, we’d say the underlying difference between Polis’ vote, and Coffman and Lamborn’s, is much more noteworthy than the fact that they happened to have voted the same way.

Tweet
Share

Comments

33 thoughts on “Polis, Colorado Republicans Vote Against War Funding”

  1. and I will cry like a little baby. Because he continues to take a strong principled stand on issue after issue. This is amazing.

    The Obama administration made it clear that they were going to cut out any Dems who voted against this. Jared could have pulled a Mark Udall and given a rationalization for voting for it.

    But instead he voted against a bill that will pass anyways and one that will hurt his standing with the Obama administration. Because he is following what he promised when he campaigned.

    Kudos.

    1. Polis is in a very safe liberal Dem, anti-war district.  Let’s face it, openly gay candidates aren’t viable in any other kind at this point in time, though I’m sure that will change.  

      Reps in situations like that normally enjoy greater latitude in voting against their leadership on bills that are going to pass anyway without being subject to dire consequences. So, while it’s nice that Polis is being true to the principles he campaigned on here, you are kind of overdoing the degree of courage required, Dave. Not exactly the stuff of “amazing” heroics.  

      1. And that is more than a little refreshing.

        And he’s also in one of the safest districts in Congress. And that’s also a fact.

        It would be quite interesting to see how he votes if he becomes a US Senator, which I think is in his future.  

          1. to be sort of insightful. I mean, it got me thinking…will he be this consistent when he’s outside of one of the safest districts in all of the US House? It’s easy to do right when you have no worries of repercussions. I truly do like the guy and admire him. I think he’s done a pretty damned fine job so far, too. But your comment really did get me wondering if he would remain this true to his values if he was representing the whole state where every vote would be scrutinized and used for or against him in a re-election.

            Unlike David, I happen to think Udall is doing a pretty damned good job and has been fairly consistent with prior votes that he cast in the House. Not sure why he still gets bashed by David. Did he not show up for an interview? 🙂

            2. He has been pretty consistent as far as I can tell.  Not as liberal as maybe I would prefer, but usually on the right side of important issues and generally with good reasons for what he does.

            3. Is that in his last 2 years as a rep he had a grand total of one meeting where it was open to the public and pre-announced. He basically ran away from his constituents.

              This is a representative democracy. If you won’t talk to your constituents and instead choose to be a bubble boy like G.W. Bush, then I think you should find another line of work.

              I’ll agree his votes tend to be ones I like. But I want a representative, not a benovelent dictator.

              2. I was just messing with you, by the way. I truly didn’t mean it in any way insulting.

                Back to Udall–I would like to see him have more face time with constituents, too. If there is one area that I would mark “needs improvement” it is most definitely that one. He needs to be more accessible. I should also add that I have called his office more than a few times to express an opinion or concern about a vote and they have been outstanding so no complaints on that end of his voter outreach.

                1. I think it is fair points all around. And I know that I put talking to the public as an absolute responsibility of an elected official while many others do not. I think my mom influences me a lot on that as she views that as a key obligation of holding office.

        2. I’d bet Polis is more likely to go for Governor rather than Senator.  Even though I think he’s doing a great job, he’s more the “executive” type than the “legislative”.  

          1. It may just be wishful thinking though because I think he would make an excellent Governor.

            Jared is enjoying being a legislator, and he’s doing a hell of a job at it. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if we saw him running for either office.

            I also wouldn’t be surprised if he ran for President some day in the distant future too.

          2. With the way he responded it was clear that he is looking at his future as being in the house, and definitely not governor. Things can change, but I think his plans at the moment are clearly to move up to leadership in the house.

            1. not only is Jared a fine representative, but wouldn’t it be something to have the speaker of the house be from Colorado, albeit Boulder?

              I think it would be pretty cool, and is definitely possible for him.

      2. If you’re in a safe district you’re supposed to make those votes that the people might find objectionable but the party needs. It’s reps like Markey who are given a pass on most everything because she faces a competitive race.

        1. If a Dem district is both safe and very strongly liberal and the leadership has the votes to spare why not allow the lawmaker to go a little rogue and please the district voters on a particular vote without dire repercussions. Have you heard of any dire repercussions so far for Polis?

          In either case, safe or competitive, no reason for leadership to get its undies in a bunch over a rep pleasing constituents once they have the votes to pass.  So still say, good for Polis but hardly a case of courage above and beyond.

  2. There’s maybe half a dozen people outside of his immediate family who don’t already think he’s a complete craven

    Hehehehe.  

  3. was based on the insertion of a $5 billion line item for the UST to extend credit to the International Monetary Fund. With the neo-isolationist rhetoric the GOP leadership’s been using, it seems like the vote was a sop to the old school John Bircher and Robert Taft-esque paleoconservatives. I think that’s a very strange reason to whip an entire caucus against a war funding bill, because the public at large isn’t going to connect with that as a legitimate rationale for voting against funding troops deployed overseas.

    After all is said and done, the IMF bashing will just look like a fig leaf rationale for sheer partisan obstructionism. And it reinforces the view that the GOP’s war drum banging and bloody shirt waving during W’s terms made their wars an agenda of a political party, rather than a policy serving the national interest. A self-inflicted wound, in my book.  

      1. Not very many House Republicans have the right to say anything about “cut and run” in the future, since they just implicitly endorsed withdrawing from Iraq. In fact, you can count on one hand the number of House Republicans who can even open their mouths on the subject of foreign policy with the expectation that their opinion may matter.  

        1. KSM (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed) that he pretty much just made up “confessions about BL’s  whereabouts (and it’s not as if we caught the guy based on his intel which lends credibility to KSM claim) coupled with disclosures that the next most water boarded detainee, Abu Zubaida, was far from number 3 in BL’s organization, not really a major player, are fast puncturing the last best argument from the right that if you oppose torture you hate America and want the terrorists to win.  

          Also, so far no evidence either that torture stopped a single incident ticking time bomb style.  The idea that waterboarding played any role in stopping a west coast 9/11 style hit easily debunked by time line of events.

          Oh and wasn’t it Bush/Cheney who released all those Gitmo detainees who have allegedly returned to terrorist activity? Didn’t they turn those guys over to our buddies in Saudi Arabia, etc.  You know, our Arab ally states where there was never ANY talk of a freedom agenda or suggestion that they give their people democracy?  Of course Darth and GW did a great job keeping those evil Uighurs locked up tight.  You know, the ones who are now thrilled to be in Bermuda and whose plans revolve around learning to drive, bowl, enjoying their new homes on the beach, etc?

          Keeping their mouths shut on national security and anti-terror issues would seem the way to go. Unless they want to open them to say how wrong they were.  Not that there aren’t plenty of Dems who need to do the same.  Nope. Spineless gullible pols on both sides of the aisle not exactly covered in glory post 9/11. Spineless gullible Americans either.

  4. I thought voting against war supplementals meant you didn’t support the troops.  Obviously Polis is just the sort we were warned about, but what’s wrong with the Republicans that they hate the troops?  I am sure that is Exactly what we were told the last time a supplemental came around.  What changed?

    1. but telling a tasteless joke about the Palin family is also somehow tied up with whether or not one supports our troops.  You’ll have to ask Sarah Palin just how that is but I definitely remember her bringing the troops into it while accepting the Letterman apology.

  5. He doesn’t mouth platitudes about how much he wants to wind down the war while voting yes every single time to keep it going.

    What an upgrade our new CD 2 congressman is from the past.  We actually have someone who is smart and committed to progressive positions and doesn’t stab his supporters in back whenever he gets the chance.

    1. .

      It might be progressive, too, but I want to emphasize that inertia on this issue – stay the course – is NOT conservative.  Or smart.

      .

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

40 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!