Category Archives: Republican

Musgrave must go!

by Diego Del Campo

musgrave

Will it happen again? Two times now, I’ve anticipated, no expected the voters in the 4th congressional district to give hate-monger Marilyn Musgrave the boot—and twice I’ve been disappointed that she’s been able to convince voters she’s worthy enough to keep her gerry-mandered seat.

Maybe gerry-mandered isn’t the word, since the CD-4 has been traditionally held by a Republican for a very long time. Before Musgrave, a certain person named Bob Schaffer held that seat, and before him, it was Wayne Allard, and before Allard, the seat has held by none other than former CU president himself, Hank Brown. The seat was redrawn after the 2000 census, and parts of Arapahoe and Adams counties were cut out, making ultra-conservative Weld county that most powerful county in that district.

Stan Matsunaka couldn’t unseat Musgrave in 2004 in a race that, surprise, turned really ugly, really fast. The most memorable part of that campaign, at least for me, was the third-party ad that showed a Musgrave doppelganger pick-pocketing soldiers in the frontlines. The ad was supposed to illustrate how Musgrave had voted against the troops by voting against giving them better armor. Instead, the ad made national headlines for the degree of callousness of the ad, and Musgrave squeaked out a six-percentage point victory.

Angie Paccione didn’t fare any better in what otherwise was the Democratic tsunami of 2006. Again, the race turned ugly really quick with Musgrave doing what she does best: demonizing her challengers. In the homestretch of the campaign, Musgrave cut ads making Paccione look like a shady criminal. Musgrave squeaked out another slim victory.

I’m hoping against hope that 2008 is the year that Musgrave finally gets kicked out of Congress. In her 2004 race, Musgrave lamented that she had a “bull’s eye” on her back for being the chief sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment—a proposal that would’ve enshrined discrimination in the Constitution for the first time since the three-fifths compromise—and “pleaded” with donors to help her fight the “homosexual agenda.”

This time, I think (hope) Betsy Markey can pull it off. A poll in August had Markey with a seven-point lead over Musgrave. No doubt the race has tightened since then, but I was surprised to hear last week that the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee had pulled out ad buys it had reserved to protect Musgrave. Meanwhile, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is unusually cash-flush in this decidedly bad year for Republicans, and has been helping Markey with ads:

Throughout the race, Musgrave has resorted to her old, one-tick pony (here), and notice the semantic difference between “approve” and “authorize”:

But, this time, Markey didn’t let up, and fought back, with out lowering to Musgrave’s standards:

In the end, in less than 24 hours actually, we should know whether or not Musgrave can pull out another win, or if Markey proves that third time’s the charm.

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Colorado, Republican

Early Voting Going Nationwide?

By Matt Knipple

            I decided to concentrate my most recent blog on voting, in particular early voting.  After going out and performing exit polls on the many people that showed up it got me thinking about the rest of the states and how popular or unpopular early voting is.  To my surprise, as pointed out by this CNN article, early voting isn’t even in every state and in some states that it does occur in, you must have a valid reason to not show up to the polls and may have to get signatures from notaries and so on to prove you cannot make the election date to vote.  Here is a video showing people lining up to register and cast an absentee ballot in Ohio.  It was contested by Republicans saying that people may be performing voter fraud:

            In my opinion early voting should be mandated in all the states in America.  I feel as if people were able to cast mail-in ballots and go to the polls throughout the week prior to actual election day, there would be a much higher turnout at the polls and more people would be encouraged to vote. 

            If you click on this link, it takes you to an interactive map of all the states that have early polls and all that do not.  To my surprise, only 25 states have early polling with data available, six states have early polling with no data available, and the rest of the states do not have early polling.  In Colorado, early voting data shows, as of October 31, that 365,054 in-person ballots have been cast and 1,112,782 mail-in ballots have been cast.  That means a total of 1,477,836 have voted so far, which is roughly 30% of Colorado’s entire population, which also means an even higher percentage of actual voters have turned out since the entire population of Colorado will not and cannot vote. 

            Here is another video talking about the early voting going on in Ohio (you may have to watch a commercial at the beginning that sponsor’s the video, sorry).

            After watching these videos and reading the article, it amazes me why some states do not have early voting.  It seems like it would benefit all of the states and the United States as a whole, to have early voting to get more people out.  In states like New York, it would really benefit them as they have a huge, dense population that it seems pretty unrealistic to get all of those people out to vote on one day.  It would be much more efficient to have early voting and it would give America a clearer answer as to who people wanted as a President because more people, in my opinion, would be inclined to vote.

5 Comments

Filed under Colorado, Democratic Party, McCain, Obama, Republican, Swing States, Voter Demographics, Women Voters, youth vote

Let’s cut the bull crap and get down to business!

November 1, 2008

By: Melissa Keller

Coloradans have turned in their TV remotes for more useful forms of information since their local television has been taken over by negative political ads. For those watching local news, it’s difficult to decide on who their congressional representative shall be this year when all there is to see are scandals and lies displayed by both parties.

Marilyn Musgrave has been the current congressional representative for District 4 since 2002; so when first time runner Betsy Markey challenged her return to congress it was inevitable that a cat fight wasn’t too far from the picture.

It began when Musgrave noticed her district moving more and more left with each year of being in office, and now that almost 90% of newly registered voters are democrat she’ll do just about anything to keep her seat. Musgrave began this cat fight when she argued that Markey was unfit for office by releasing an ad about her firm wrongly receiving federal contracts while Markey worked for Ken Salazar. In the ad, it blatantly showed Betsy behind jail bars hinting to the idea that she’s a criminal heading straight for prison.

It was obvious that this ad in return upset many loyal democrats who weren’t afraid to fight back. In an interview with Markey, she explained that the GOP statements were “outright lies” and that she would get to the bottom of this. Markey eventually filed a complaint with the Larimer County District Attorney’s office in mid September for airing false statements about her. It is illegal for a politician to knowingly display false statements about their opponent in a political campaign.

In their first local debate on October 9th, Musgrave continued to bring up allegations of Markey’s misuse of power with her company; but when her statements didn’t have much evidence to back them up, she quickly changed her tactics towards Markey’s inconsistent responses about her ownership with the company versus when she ended it.

But trust me, it didn’t stop there.

Musgrave was soon the next to file a complaint against Markey for allegedly telling falsehoods in a recent local commercial. This particular ad misled voters to believe that Musgrave allowed lobbyists to “wine and dine” her and that the Republican candidate sponsored a bill that would have benefited her family by lowering taxes on capital gains from investments in coins and precious metals.

“Musgrave’s personal financial disclosure said her husband in 2007 had between $15,001 and $50,000 in gains from his precious metal investments. The bill Musgrave co-sponsored would have lowered their family tax liability between $2,000 and $6,500.”

Markey’s campaign spokesman, Ben Marter, reacted to the complaint by saying, “Why is Musgrave spending her time disputing an ad that has been documented and proven to be true?”

This wasn’t the first time Musgrave reacted strongly to Markey’s actions. Back in August, things got pretty chaotic when Musgrave responded to Markey’s rejection to a radio debate by making her intern dress as a duck in reference to Markey “ducking” out of the debate.

Although this campaign has been a tiring one with its misled statements about scandals and corrupt politics, it’s always nice to know that our local candidates would rather go out of their way to back stab each other instead of focusing on the real issues that America faces today. I don’t blame Coloradans for being sick of the current negative ads circulating through the news that it wouldn’t surprise me if many of them vowed to refrain from watching television altogether until the election is over, I know I have.

5 Comments

Filed under Colorado, Democratic Party, Media, Negative Campaigning, Republican

Whats Next for the Republican Party?

By Lance Thibert

Regardless of how the presidential race ends up, the Republican party will come out of 2008 damaged to the core and internally divided. Even if McCain wins his squeaker by rolling snakes eyes in Pennsylvania, the damage the friction in the Republican party is already done. It was starkly evident in the primaries, with Rudy and McCain as the moderates, and Romney and Huckabee as the conservatives. The conservative wing of the party lost out, and has been pouting ever since, driving down enthusiasm for McCain and depression his turnout. Some think they got what they wanted in Sarah Palin, but she drives away more than she brings in. The recent reports of Palin “going rouge” and acting like a “diva” are driven by sources from within McCain’s own campaign.

Fighting over the RNC chairmanship has already begun, with Mitt Romney looking to pull a Howard Dean and seize the chair for himself. (don’t you just love politics?)

And that’s not the worst of it. Congressional Republicans are in a world of hurt, being hit in their strongholds by democratic challengers. Both Moderate and Conservative GOP senators are being hit hard. The GOP will lose many of it’s moderate incumbents, like Sunnunu in New Hampshire. The GOP recruits this cycle have been weak, often far too conservative in a Democratic year. Case in point, the Colorado senate race. Super-conservative Bob Schaffer will lose to Mark Udall, and Schaffer’s rival for the GOP nomination, McInnis, now says he would have won if they had given him the nod.

“Frankly I have more difficulties with the right wing of my party then I do with taking on a Democrat. Udall was not the biggest threat I faced in the election. My biggest threat was getting through the primary. Both parties have a pretty radical element to them.” -McInnis

The Question is who will control the Republican party? Will the right wing simply seize control of the party mechanics? It’s possible, but their recruits will probably continue to be weak. The two GOP favorites for a run for Colorado governorship in 2010 are Bob Beauprez (again) or, get this, Tom Tancredo. With Beauprez’s dismal result and Tancredo’s utter wingnut status, neither have a real shot. The point is, if the Republicans turn to the right, they will probably get Goldwatered again and again. If the Republicans turn to the center, they will suffer a drop in enthusiasm, fundraising, ground troops, and turnout. However, such a move might bring back states like Colorado, Virginia, New Hampshire and Iowa. The Blue Dog Democrat tactic of fitting the candidate to his/her district is working, even if that candidate is pro-gun, pro-life, and pro-war. In essence, the Democrats have expanded the tent of their party, while the Republicans have been busy purging all those who aren’t pure conservatives (“liberal” is never used more often as an insult than in republican primaries).

Who  will take over the Republican party after 2008? Only time will tell, but one thing Republicans can look forward to is the probability of infighting within the Democratic party. If Obama can keep things together, and run a unified government (I’m not sure anyone in American politics is capable of this anymore) then things look bleak for the GOP, However, that isn’t likely.

Also, just for the sheer irony of it:

4 Comments

Filed under Colorado, McCain, Republican

Candidate vs. Opponent

by Nathan Pitman

Please read twice. The first time do not click on ANY links. the second time click on ALL links.

It seems incredible that in this day and age people continue to advocate for things which are going to put the rest of the country at a disadvantage.

Here we are in the 21st century, and we  have a presidential contender arguing that (1)we should not be helping where help is needed. This same candidate argues that (2)“activist judges” and (3) strong diplomatic actions and not threats are needed to quell messy situations. What is he thinking!

The economy is gone to hell and left a hand-basket of coal. (1) People in the U.S. are suffering and yet he rails against them as if they are at fault. The economic problems have hit some pocketbooks more than others yet the candidate’s opponent wants to give other people the government’s helping hand.The candidate knows that this economic crisis will determine the outcome of the election and yet his opponent attacks every plan he comes up with. It seems downright un-American and a travesty to boot. These attacks portray him as out of touch with real Americans when the opposite is true, just look at his running mate, a “from back home” type of populist if there ever was one.

The opponent said in the last debate that he would (2) not appoint activist judges, are you kidding me? Of course he didn’t come right out and say he would. He did hint that he would only appoint judges that ruled in a certain way. I would like to point out that some Supreme Court justices do not base their decisions on precedent or in a sound legal basis. The last thing this country needs is more activist judges, especially on the supreme court. The two candidates have come down on differing sides of the living constitution issue. In reality there is only one side which is correct.

The candidate understands that sometimes it is important to use (3) diplomacy and sometimes it is important to use force. The key is knowing which time to use which.  The opponent and his running mate think that they should waste little time before using force in a dangerous country to save lives. Is this the proper use of force or diplomacy?

And finally remember one of these two won’t even admit to fund raising, by a TERRORIST for his campaign!

All this shows that the candidate, is in no way the best man for the job. He is wrong on three of the most important decisions facing the country. The candidate is wrong (1) for wanting to help corporations through this troubled times and not the common person. The candidate is wrong on (2) activist judges. he advocates putting judges on the bench that will legislate from the bench by overruling past precedent specifically in the case of Roe v. Wade. Finally the candidate is wrong on the issue of (3) diplomacy. He takes no forceful stand on genocide in Darfur, arguably the worst human tragedy of the 21st century.

It is hard to see how the candidate reconciles his various stances on these issues when often he has been (3) considered a hawk on military affairs. He even advocates staying in Iraq through the foreseeable future. Yet he thinks that we should not sit down “without preconditions” to speak with our enemies. (2) The candidate refuses to take a firm stand on the type of judges. While he has claimed he will require no litmus test for Supreme Court Justices he will not nominate anyone who disagrees with his views on the Roe v. Wade. (1) The candidate wants to give even more money, cut taxes, and further deregulate large corporate interests; meanwhile he refuses to lower taxes on the middle class.

A final thought…

2 Comments

Filed under Democratic Party, McCain, Negative Campaigning, Obama, Republican, Uncategorized

What a heck happened with CD-7

by Leonid Balaban

Colorado CD-7 map

When Colorado 7th Congressional District (CD-7) was created after census in the year 2000, it was drawn up by courts in such a way that there was no clear advantage for either major political party. In fact, at the time when the first ever contest was held in that district in 2002, the party affiliation was almost evenly split between Democrats, Republicans and Independents. In that midterm election, Republican Bob Beauprez beat his Democratic challenger Mike Feeley by the slimmest margin of 122 votes out of over 172 thousand votes that were cast during that election day. In 2004, Beauprez

Bob Beauprez

ran already as an incumbent and his winning margin was a lot bigger than in his first contest. He beat his Democratic opponent Dave Thomas 55% to 43%, even though John Kerry beat President Bush in that district 51% to 48%. It is worth noting that the voter turnout in CD-7 during that election was almost 247 thousand, an increase of over 30%.

Yet, in 2006, Congressman Beauprez decided to run for the Governor of Colorado against the former Denver District attorney Bill Ritter. Initially, the district was still considered a lean-Republican, especially considering the fact that Republican Rick O’Donnell sailed through the primaries of his party without a real challenge, while Democrat Ed Perlmutter had a tough primary fight with 2 other contenders. However, the overall political environment was different from two years ago. Congressional Republicans were embroiled in multiple corruption scandals. The American electorate was generally unhappy with the Republican party and with the direction of the country as a whole. In fact, according to Real Clear Politics, as the 2006 midterm elections were approaching, Democrats were preferred over Republicans by an average of 11.5%, when it came to the general preference of control over Congress. Ironically, that was almost exactly the margin by which Perlmutter

Ed Perlmutter

Ed Perlmutter

beat O’Donnell, with the final result showing 54.9% for the Democrat and 42.1% for the Republican. Thus, we can see that this district has swung almost 180 degrees from the Republican control to the Democratic control.

Fast forwarding to 2008 Congressional race, this district is now listed as safe-Democratic by CQ politics. Perlmutter’s opponent, John Lerew, is virtually an unknown in the world of politics and is given 50-1 odds of winning this race. So what was before considered a balanced seat, is now trending heavily Democrat. Some attribute this to the increase of the Hispanic population in Commerce City and Aurora in Adams County, as well as a slight leftward lean in the Jefferson County portion of the seat. Others believe that the Democratic wave which began in 2006 is continuing in 2008 is the most contributing factor that causes this district to lean left on the political scale.

Could this Congressional seat become competitive, as it once was? Perhaps, but if the population change was in fact the most decisive factor, then this district might be in the Democratic hands for quite some time.

6 Comments

Filed under Colorado, Democratic Party, Republican, Uncategorized, Voter Demographics

“That one”… (you know, the black one)

A Polemical Essay by: That Girl

I’ll say this: I don’t think John McCain is racist. But he sure knows how to hang with the worst of them.

With a Bear Market currently mauling a little china shop known as the Global Financial System and McCain’s less than spectacular performance in demonstrating the urgency of the economic meltdown (outside of suspending his campaign for a few hours while negotiating alternative debate dates -> a stunt that smelled more like a steaming pile of politics than the cool breeze of “Maverick” it was intended to ostentate), it seems the McCain campaign feels it has little choice but to pander to the lowest common denominator of their party by resorting to tar-slinging tactics (read: mud-slinging with a racist adhesive).

The past few days have seen a noticeable shift in political maneuvering from the McCain camp with concerted attempts to not only link Obama with domestic terrorists:

… but allude to foreign terrorist alliances by virtue of his middle name:

… which has been conspicuously added to both Palin’s:

… and McCain’s introductions of late:

Add to this tack a solid Southern Dixiecrat base still smarting over that whole Civil War thing:

Comparative Analysis -> These maps demonstrate correlate divisions between Red/Blue states of the 2004 Election Cycle and the Secessionist/Unionist states of the Civil War...

Comparative Analysis -> These maps demonstrate correlate divisions between Red/Blue states of the 2004 Election Cycle and the Secessionist/Unionist states of the Civil War. Coincidence?

… and it’s not exactly surprising that hatred toward a black presidential candidate would rear its head so ugly and quick in America…

**********

By now, we’re all more than likely aware of the incendiary campaign rhetoric and subsequent malicious comments produced by angry Republican mob participants over the course of the previous few days…

(Listen for “treason” @ 0:31 seconds):

(… and “kill him” @ 0:13 seconds):

… and McCain’s lukewarm attempt at backpedaling:

“[Senator Obama] is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared about as President of the United States,” he said, before adding: “If I didn’t think I would be one heck of a better president I wouldn’t be running.”

… as the McCain camp signaled its refusal to alter its strategy by actually defending these bigots:

“Barack Obama’s assault on our supporters is insulting and unsurprising.

[snip]

“It is clear that [he] just doesn’t understand regular people and the issues they care about. He dismisses hardworking middle class Americans as clinging to guns and religion, while at the same time attacking average Americans at McCain rallies who are angry at Washington, Wall Street and the status quo.” (emphasis mine)

What.

This seeming lack of concern on the part of the Republican campaign for the historically proven consequences of such rhetoric and obtuse approval is nothing short of inexcusable and frankly, boggles the mind.

These supporters aren’t “regular people”. They are the most unhinged elements of our society. They can’t be “angry at… the status quo”. They are the status quo: white, bible thumping social conservatives spoiled on eight long years of flaunting moral superiority like an American badge of entitlement, pointing to “traitors of the war” while requiring the greatest restriction of civil rights since that guy McCarthy invented his own “ism” -> all in the name of waging a righteous Crusade to “democratize” “terrorist” nations.

So, while these particular Republican supporters may also be frustrated by “business as usual” in Washington and on Wall Street, make no mistake: if they’re pissed, at the end of the day, it’s because their brass-balled, hegemonic endorsements are shriveling like so many raisins in the sun.

The problem with the Republican ticket is this: the position of the Presidentcy of the United States, at all times, (but especially times like these) requires a greater moral compass than those currently demonstrated by either the Republican presidential or vice presidential nominees in practicing their “Win at all costs” campaign philosophy. Worse, by activating, harboring, and comforting the most unacceptably radical elements of our society by political means, the Republican Party has effectively condemned all social progress made since the Civil War in advancing Equality, Opportunity and all those other novel concepts given lip service by the GOP when speaking of the Constitution.

Is John McCain racist? I don’t believe so. But he walks a perilous line:

John McCain and Sarah Palin, you are playing with fire, and you know it. You are unleashing the monster of American hatred and prejudice, to the peril of all of us. You are doing this in wartime. You are doing this as our economy collapses. You are doing this in a country with a history of assassinations.

… when [your supporters] scream out “Terrorist” or “Kill him,” history will hold you responsible for all that follows.

7 Comments

Filed under Democratic Party, McCain, Media, Negative Campaigning, Obama, Palin, Republican, Uncategorized, Vice-President