We know state Representative Joe Miklosi has chutzpah (silent c). It takes some serious cojones to announce to the world that you would move wherever the court draws the 6th Congressional district. Now it appears Miklosi is claiming to know how the court will draw the 6th CD. In Miklosi's most recent fundraising plea, he makes some claims about the ultimate nature of the district he is chasing.

How else to explain this line?

"I am running for Congress in Colorado’s soon-to-be-formed, competitive, 6th Congressional District because I want to restore job growth and economic growth so every Coloradan can achieve their unique version of the American Dream."

Considering in 2010 Mike Coffman won 66-31, it would take a pretty dramatic gerrymander to make that district competitive. Is Miklosi privy to the court's decision despite the fact that the court hasn't ruled or even heard the case yet?

Or is he just delusional? As Miklosi has no relationship with the constituents in CD6, as he represents Denver, and he has no real legislative accomplishments to claim as his own, what makes him think he stands a chance? After all, it's not like Miklosi is a Bob Greenlee who can make an otherwise safe district suddenly competitive based on their role as a community leader and accomplished individual. Nor can Miklosi self-fund like Greenlee did in 1998 in CD2.

No, it's just Miklosi trying to spin donors in the hopes they might drop a few dollars in his campaign kitty for what is sure to be a useless, quixotic campaign. In that spirit, liberal donors — donate away!

The best part of the email? The signature:

Joe Miklosi
Colorado State Representative
Democratic Candidate for Congress – Soon-to-be-formed 6th Congressional District

As the district can't be formed until at least October, when the court hears the case, this is a pretty ridiculous tag line. 

Looks like it will be another easy coast to re-election for Mike Coffman. Unless Joe Miklosi knows something that the rest of the world doesn’t.

If you were hoping to ascertain Senator Michael Bennet's position on the swarm of major issues involved in the debt ceiling debate, you were sadly disappointed when you read an email on the subject from Colorado's junior Senator last week.

Because instead of taking a position on the debt ceiling, entitlement reform, the McConnell Plan, or the Obama luxury jet tax hike plan, Bennet sent an email from Washington to Colorado asking Coloradans to sign a petition urging Washington to act on a debt crisis.

Never mind what, how, or why — Senator Bennet just wants action.

Michael Bennet, you're a joke…if you want action, call a meeting, introduce a bill, reach across the aisle, take a position. Simply put, do something that a U.S. Senator does instead of playing the part of Johnny Thumb Up My Crack.

Bennet, clearly, is posturing…hiding is actually the more accurate term. The Democrats are paralyzed by fear and instead of acting on the nation's debt crisis, they are obfuscating…calling for action even as they refuse to act.

This preposterous email from Bennet is a prime example of what is wrong with Washington politicians. Check out how he begins his email:

"Beginning with the Founders, Americans have met great challenges through hard-work, inclusiveness, and courage. These challenges are overcome only when the leaders of the day have the courage to transcend short-term incentives and political imperatives to do something of greater importance. These American attributes enabled us to end the Civil War, overcome the Great Depression, and march toward civil rights. They have empowered us to accomplish smaller, yet still important things such as working together in the 1980s to protect and preserve Social Security."

Thankfully the Founders didn't have an email list they could blast with a cop-out, otherwise we may never have had a Constitution. It is the pinnacle of DC hypocrisy to not act, but rather encourage your political supporters to pester your opponents to act instead. 

Bennet ends his email saying "let’s make sure Washington hears Colorado’s voice loud and clear." That's your job, Michael. How about you start doing it?

Last week an explosive revelation hit the pages of the New York Times. A book on Obama's mother by New York Times journalist Janny Scott finds that Obama completely made up the story about his mother's struggle with insurance companies over her cancer treatment.

Obama told the American people his mother's insurance company refused to cover the cancer treatments, calling the cancer a pre-existing condition, when he was desperately trying to become President and then again while trying to shove Obamacare through Congress.

He used the story to play on people's heart strings. Who would oppose a bill that would have supposedly saved Obama's mother from fighting the insurance companies until her dying day?

Turns out it was all a lie. His mother's cancer treatments were paid by the insurance company. What his mother did struggle with was disability insurance, something completely unrelated to health insurance coverage. From the New York Times book review:

In her book, published in May by Riverhead Books, Ms. Scott writes that Mr. Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, had an employer-provided health insurance policy that paid her hospital bills directly, leaving her “to pay only the deductible and any uncovered expenses, which, she said, came to several hundred dollars a month.”  

…Disability insurance, which primarily replaces wages lost to illness, was never at issue in the legislative debate over the Affordable Care Act.

We highly doubt Obama would apologize to the American people for duping them to pass legislation. Obama has never been known for his modesty or honesty. 

We can only hope it comes up in a Presidential debate next year when not only will Obama have to address it, but his Republican opponent won't let him soft-peddle an excuse like a fawning press corps would. 

Imagine if Tom Tancredo completely made up a story of an illegal immigrant killing his mother in order to pass an illegal immigration bill. Do you think that might be a story?

How bad have things got for President Obama's re-election chances in Colorado? His own allies are down on his chances at re-election and publicly knocking down his campaign's pretense of confidence. Governor Hickenlooper told Politico today that Obama will "have a hard time" winning Colorado in 2012 over voter dissatisfaction with the economy.

Speaking to one half of Politico's 2012 team, Burns and Haberman, at the National Governors Association meeting in Salt Lake City, he said:

"It depends on who his opponent [is]. I think it'd be a very close battle. He'd have a hard time.

There's such dissatisfaction over people who have been out of work, not just for a few months but for over a year and a half or two years."

Hick is the ultimate expedient. A weather vein. And his political judgment — his nose for finding the mainstream mindset of Colorado politics — has been awfully good. So when Hick starts scurrying off the ship, Obama's got problems.  

Obama's top strategist, David Axelrod, has said Colorado is a must-win for Obama.

Colorado political analyst, Floyd Ciruli, explained to Fox News this week how key Colorado is to Obama:

"The winning of a state like Colorado is going to be absolutely critical and will be to some extent a metaphor for the entire country. If you can't win in particular the Unaffiliated voter in Colorado, that independent voter, you probably can't carry a whole host of states in this country."

Hickenlooper's downgrading of Obama is big news and will play a large role in setting early expectations and the narrative surrounding the race for the Big Prize in the Centennial State.

The debt ceiling debate has dominated national news headlines for a few days now, most notably with Barack Obama telling Majority Leader Eric Cantor that he was bluffing before walking out of negotiations yesterday.   

It's a tough issue for conservatives who are in no mood to rack up more debt on the national credit card, but also are aware of potentially devastating consequences if they don't raise the limit.

Considering the difficult decision, we wanted to hear the views from leading Colorado conservatives on whether Congress should raise the debt ceiling if sufficient cuts in government programs are extracted from the White House.    

There is one school of thought, enunciated most clearly by Michele Bachmann in a recent TV ad running in Iowa, that the debt ceiling shouldn't be raised no matter what.  

Others have said that if adequate long term cuts can be achieved courtesy of the leverage that the debt ceiling vote gives, then a yes vote is the responsible one. So we posed the question to a few conservative luminaries here in Colorado, and received intriguing feedback.

The state Senate GOP caucus has also weighed in on the debate. You can find their open letter to Colorado's Congressional delegation after the jump.

We will update this post as responses come in. 

The question posed was: Would you personally support the increase of the debt ceiling if, as part of the deal, Republicans are able to win $2 Trillion in bona fide deficit reduction in entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and discretionary spending?

David Harsanyi: "Sure. Unless as "part of the deal" you mean giving in to Obama's irresponsible and seemingly pathological need to include tax increases. Like the majority of Americans, my preference is not to raise the debt ceiling. But it’s unrealistic to believe that will happen."

Mike Rosen: "If you're talking about a ten year deal, no.  $2 trillion over ten years isn't enough. That's only an average of $200 billion a year. By 2021, that'll be a drop in the bucket. $4 trillion is a minimum starting point.  Moreover, I'm skeptical about any promises from Obama and the Democrats about social spending cuts 10 years out. That's not the way the congressional budget process works. I'd also have to see what the Democrats want in tax increases."

Jason Worley: "2 trillion, of course I'd favor an increase if there was REAL savings. That is a no brainer. I seriously doubt that the Dems will swallow that pill though. The other question is two trillion over how long? 5 years yeah, 10 years, not so much."

Ken Clark: “If the cuts are over five years then we have cut 400 billion a year and we now only have an annual deficit of just over 1.2 trillion dollars, so after five years we have a debt of 19 trillion dollars. If the cuts are over ten years, then we have cut 200 billion a year and have an annual deficit of 1.4 trillion dollars, so after ten years our debt is 28 trillion. What have we really won? By not raising the deb ceiling we are forcing the government to live within its means. That has to happen at some point as the numbers glaringly point out, so the question remains, when are we really going to do something to avoid the impending catastrophe? I say we do it now and take the pain now, the longer we wait the more painful it will be. Do not raise the debt ceiling.”

Sarah Anderson: “Frankly, the best thing for this country would be to “default” (which we all known won’t be as bad as the President keeps claiming, we’ve already passed one deadline and survived just fine). We cannot compromise with raising the debt ceiling, because it just delays the inevitable…something we’ve been doing for decades now. We must come to terms with the spending problem America has, address it now and absolutely, under no circumstances, raise the debt ceiling.”

Perry Buck: “Personally I do not like deals – what sounds good sometimes does not happen in the end. I would support a $2 trillion bona fide deficit reduction program first before I could support any debt increase. Might be impossible that way but I do not trust government much right now.”

Ken Buck: “No, the US has $14.3 trillion of debt and a $1.5 trillion annual deficit. It is too late to start a discussion about $2 trillion of long term cuts. Congress has to do their job and pass a budget and the administration has to live within the amounts allocated by Congress. It makes more sense to me to tell the President that next year the executive branch can spend $3 trillion dollars instead of $3.5 trillion. In 2013 the executive can spend $3.0 trillion, and so on until there is a balanced budget. Require the President to submit a budget within the allocated amount and only raise the debt limit each year to cover the allocated amount. If the administration runs out of money then all non-essential services must be suspended.

The primary reason I can’t support the strategy being adopted in Washington is because we can’t rely on DC politicians for promises of long term cuts; see Graham-Rudman and Paygo. Whatever short term plan is adopted it is clear that this country needs a balanced budget amendment so we do not face this problem again. May God bless America.”

After we hear back from our full list of conservative luminaries, we’ll weigh on this issue. But we thought it was important to first give our readers a sense of conservative opinion in Colorado on the issue.

Image: renjith krishnan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Open Letter to the Colorado Congressional Delegation

Senator Michael Bennett

Senator Mark Udall

Rep. Diana DeGette

Rep. Ed Perlmutter

Rep. Cory Gardner

Rep. Mike Coffman

Rep. Scott Tipton

Rep. Doug Lamborn

Rep. Jared Polis

From: Colorado Senate Republicans

Re: Raising the Federal Debt Ceiling

Fellow Lawmakers:

Congress is facing a decision that will affect all Coloradans, indeed, all Americans, for possibly decades to come. The issue is a simple one – how to raise the federal debt ceiling without simultaneously fueling more unsustainable, unfunded growth in government.

Back in May, President Obama insisted on a “clean debt ceiling bill,” one that did not include spending cuts. Republicans in Congress insist there must be some credible attack on excessive spending, which must include entitlement reform. Now Obama is insisting that tax increases must be part of any bipartisan deal.

We believe the call for more taxes to balance the budget is a cop-out: The federal government has a spending problem, not a revenue problem, and the American people understand that.

We believe the top priority – what Americans of all political persuasions want to see – is for Congress to end its addiction to deficit spending by adopting significant cuts in the 2012 budget and substantial reductions in the out-year budgets as well. Congress must do that in a way that spurs economic growth instead of suffocating it-and that means not raising taxes.

We share the public’s view that the upcoming vote on raising the debt ceiling is the best chance Congress will have to adopt meaningful spending reductions. It would be the height of folly to continue the business-as-usual practice of raising the debt ceiling without simultaneously addressing deficit spending.

Whatever “deal” needs to be struck in this matter, there is one principle that must be a honored in that deal: Congress must not raise taxes in the middle of the worst recession in more than 50 years. The last thing Coloradans need is a tax increase.

In Colorado we balance the budget each year because the state constitution requires it. We do not finance annual expenditures — or “public investments” — by borrowing against our children’s future. It is likely that Congress needs a similar constitutional mandate.

We are at a historic crossroads. Either Congress will face its addiction to deficit spending and reverse course, or it will continue on the irresponsible path of dumping insurmountable debt on our children and grandchildren. Continuing on that path is unacceptable to the people of Colorado.

We therefore urge you to vote for a spending reduction plan that is bold and honest, which is free of accounting gimmicks, and which does not raise taxes.

Sincerely,

Mike Kopp

Senate Minority Leader

Senate District 22

Bill Cadman

Assistant Minority Leader

Senate District 10

Mark Scheffel

Senate Republican Caucus Chair

Senate District 4

Scott Renfroe

Senate Minority Whip

Senate District 13

Greg Brophy

Senate District 1

Kevin Grantham

Senate District 2

Ted Harvey

Senate District 30

Kent Lambert

Senate District 9

Kevin Lundberg

Senate District 15

Shawn Mitchell

Senate District 23

Keith King

Senate District 12

Steve King

Senate District 7

Ellen Roberts

Senate District 6

Nancy Spence

Senate District 27

Jean White

Senate District 8

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar gave an interview to Westword yesterday where he said his renewable energy policy was "on steroids."

We couldn't have thought of a better metaphor for Barack Obama and Ken Salazar's New Energy Economy, writ national.

Steroids create artificial short-lived growth in muscle mass. But a well known side effects of steroids is pronounced shrinkage in other, uh, vital organs. According to www.drugfree.org:

"Side effects (of steroid use) specific to men can include testicular atrophy or the shrinking of the testicles, reduced sperm count, infertility, baldness, and the development of breasts."

Nice going, Ken.

The trade off…big biceps in the short term, but shrunk down and shriveled out "parts" in the places it matters most…a perfect metaphor for the renewable energy industry if ever there was one!  

In the case of Salazar's juiced-out New Energy Economy, the photo ops (like Mark McGuire's biceps) are big and bold, but the number of jobs and the amount of energy resulting from all this sound and fury is…how to say this…shriveled.  

Looking at the last numbers produced by the Department of Energy on subsidies and power generation by the solar industry displays the, um, diminished capacity of the 'roided out renewable energy field. In 2008, with subsidies of almost $25 per megawatt hour the solar industry created a piddling 1 million megawatt hours of electricity. By comparison, the coal industry created 1,946 times as much electricity at a subsidy of only 44 cents per megawatt hour.  

Even with all those government 'roids, "green" job creation has lagged behind the economy by a significant margin, with the liberal Brookings Institution, using a very wide definition of the "green" economy, finding only 3.4 percent growth since 2003, compared to the 4.2 percent growth of the economy as a whole.  

Salazar's own braggadocio about a hulking commitment to a national renewable program revolved around the unveiling of a series of projects that couldn't even generate enough power to keep the lights on in the southern portion of Colorado. One coal or natural gas power plant would exceed in one EZ Swoop the amount of power created from all the national programs that Salazar wind-bagged about yesterday.

Even people who live in areas which Salazar wants to jack up with government steroids, like the San Luis Valley where an industrial solar project was proposed for a 20,000 acre plot on federal land, don't like it. Take it from an enviro testifying against the proposal:

"Not only will the lands on which these projects occur be affected, but they will mandate the construction of expensive new transmission lines not addressed in the PEIS, further unnecessarily degrading our open space.  

And who will pay for these expensive boondoggles? The electric ratepayers."

Or how about another San Luis Valley resident who recognizes the shrunken capacity of this boondoggle to actually do anything for energy prices or jobs:

"And so, the way it's set up right now, all of the profits from our solar farms here, in the Valley, are going out of the Valley, back to New York or somewhere; that, there is not a dime of it here, other than the one-and-a-half employees that they have created.  

So, if we're going to do this here in the Valley, we need to figure out some way that Valley people can benefit from this. It's not helping our energy costs one dime. My utilities keep going up, even though we have got solar farms here."

Ken Salazar's steroid celebration is the latest gaffe from the Administration's leading gaffe machine. For our part, we can't wait til Salazar, like the loins of Barry Bonds, just shrivels away.

Image: photostock / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Unlike it's sexy cousin Redistricting, legislative reapportionment doesn't get nearly as much attention or scrutiny. It's unfortunate, because the legislature not only has a large impact on our daily lives, but party affiliation matters much more in these races than in the state-wide and Congressional races. Unlike the higher-profile elections, legislative candidates are generally not well known and 527s can have a significant impact on voter perception (if you didn't realize this by now).

As today's news that a lawyer-lobbyist is set to challenge Rep. Ramirez (Westminister), it underscores the importance of the reapportionment process. Sitting legislators can very easily lose their seat if their district gets skewed enough. Similarly, a challenger filed paperwork to run against Rep. Libby Szabo (Arvada), but apparently thought better of it. Aside from a few exceptions, Ryan Call has been very successful at getting potential candidates to hold off on declaring a run–lest a district be drawn AROUND them.

The next few weeks will be pivotal to Jeffco, Arapahoe and Adams counties, as well as a few unfinished districts north of Denver. The bulk of legislative districts come from the metro area. If you live in any of these areas, make sure you stay up to speed on how the Senate and House districts are likely to shake out. You can find maps, sign up to email updates, or sign-up to testify here.

WINNERS:

1) Douglas County: Highlands Ranch will now fall into two HD's. Speaker McNulty may not like giving up part of his district, but he's gotta love a new safe-seat in the House.

2) Reapportionment Commission Chairman Mario Carrera (U): Despite having some leftward leanings, he has shown himself to be mostly impartial–a good trait for the tie-breaking vote. In fact, he's done a stellar job alternately ticking off and pleasing Dems and the GOP alike.

3) Jeffco: The Jeffco GOP Chairman Don Ytterberg's plan to outster Democrats altogether is nearing completion. Minority Leader Mike Kopp's district has no where to grow but north, costing Betty Boyd some of her district. On the House side, things are bright (see below), as the low-growth and more liberal suburbs of Lakewood and Wheat Ridge will be consolidated in some form. There will be turf wars next year between Andy Kerr, Max “Tax” Tyler, and/or Sue Schafer. Let the fireworks begin!

4) Larimer-Weld: Because of its high growth in the last decade, Weld will get an additional House seat. The maps drawn this week should give the GOP all 3 seats.  Granted, the Weld maps came at the price of preserving a 2-2 split in Larimer–the upside is that the 2 Larimer Dem seats are still competitive. At the end of the day, the GOP House had a two seat swing in Larimer and Weld: from 3-3 to 5-2 (with added Weld HD). If the Larimer GOP can draft a Diggs Brown or other big local name to run for Sen. Bacon's seat, it could be a game-changer and the Larimer-Weld SD's would be 4-0 GOP advantage.

LOSERS:

1) Sen. Linda Newell: She had a tough fight on her hands next year anyway, but if population shifts are any indicator, it will be tougher than she thought. Her district needs to gain voters, unfortunately for her Ted Harvey's adjacent ultra-conservative district needs to shed voters.

2) Reps. Max Tyler/Sue Schafer: Jeffco will lose a House Seat and given that all population growth has occured in the southern portion of the county, somethings gotta give in HD 23 and 24. Jeffco will not be drawn until at least next week (see above), but all indications point towards a merger of 2 of the 3 Democrat HD's in Jeffco. Somewhere, Speaker McNulty is smiling.

3) Commission Vice-Chair Wellington Webb: If you needed proof Webb is a has-been, look no further than his performance week in and week out at hearings. While every other member (yes, even Sen. Morgan Carroll) has at least attempted to learn about districts outside Denver-proper, Webb has made no such effort. If only he'd have bothered to look at a Colorado map before the commission convened, things would be much smoother.

4) Denver/Boulder Dems: They are in the running for the biggest losers in the whole process. While Republicans have no reason to care what districts look like (does it matter in counties with 20% GOP voters?), Denver will lose a House seat, as will Boulder. On the Senate side, Grandpa Heath's district will need to grow–costing Sen. Nicholson precious votes (she won by 600 votes, with a 5,000 vote advantage in Boulder Co.). Thankfully the cess-pool that is the Denver-Boulder corridor will lose some of its influence.

SISTER-KISSERS

1) Western Slope: Not much will change on the Western Slope in terms of party advantage, but the major district-line shifts may give the GOP a more competitive seat in HD 61, currently represented by perhaps the weirdest legislator in decades, Roger Wilson. His district will pick up Delta County, and lose part of Gunnison Co. which should help the GOP.

2) El Paso: For a county that grew considerably and is one of the most conservative in the nation, it didn't gain much. It will likely have a 6-1 GOP advantage in the House and aside from term-limited “Per Diem” Morse's seat, a 4-1 Senate edge. They gained part of a Senate seat, that also runs through Teller, Park and Fremont Counties. Since all the HD's are now completely within El Paso, it wasn't able to pick up a seat. The good news? With safe-seats everywhere else in the county, the GOP can really hone in on Pete Lee and Morse's successor.

3) San Luis Valley/Southern Colorado: On the House side, the Democrats will retain a 3-0 advantage, including Sally Pace's, Ed Vigil's and Wes McKinley's seats. The Senate side will create a bit of a race for Kevin Grantham, losing Fremont and gaining Alamosa. However he also was able to pick up more favorable parts of Pueblo Co so it's pretty much a draw.

The AP's Kristen Wyatt reports this morning via Twitter that freshman Representative Robert Ramirez (R-Westminster) has earned himself a challenger even before the new legislative lines are drawn. The challenger, lawyer-lobbyist Tracy Kraft-Tharp, announced despite the fact she doesn't know if she'll even legally be allowed to run for the seat, as district lines haven't been set yet. State legislators, by law, must live in the district they represent.

Kraft-Tharp, who also sits on the Democrat State Central Committee for Jefferson County, is an opponent of SB 191, the bipartisan education reform bill that passed the Legislature in 2010. On Facebook in March she complained that the cost of implementing the reform wasn't worth it. Why spend money on reform when you can just throw more money at a broken system?

You can be sure the lobbyists for the CEA will be lining her campaign chest with plenty of financial padding.

A couple of other positions/statements Kraft-Tharp has locked herself into via her Facebook account:

• Public employees don't serve taxpayers, they just get paid by them.
• Supports Obamacare. Can't understand why everyone else doesn't, or what the word "compromise" means.
• Says Obamacare hasn't raised insurance rates. 
• Loves the Liberal Loon Carol Hedges and believes economic growth won't help the budget deficit. (Despite the fact that tax revenues are expected to grow $685 million next year from economic growth)

As a lawyer-lobbyist she comes from a long line of Democrats with that ignoble notation in front of their name from state Senator Pat Steadman to most notoriously, twice failed US Senate candidate, Tom Strickland. Outside safe districts like Steadmans’ it hasn't proven to be a winning moniker. 

Ramirez was elected by the thinnest of margins, beating incumbent Democrat Rep. Debbie Benefield by 197 votes in 2010. By all accounts, Ramirez won his seat through outright dogged determination, walking his district three or four times, according to our sources.

This marks the first announcement of a state legislative candidate challenging a sitting incumbent in a swing district. The fact that the announcement is of a lawyer-lobbyist who has decided to run before even knowing if she would legally qualify, is not a good sign for Democrats. It is simply another example of a case of an affliction which has hit the Democrat Party in Colorado recently — give me an elected office, any office. I don't care who I have to represent to get it.

(Photo via Facebook)

With the Legislature and school out for summer, and everyone working hard to get their bodies ready for the beach, or lake, we thought it was a good time to bring back one of our most popular series: Hot or Not?

Last time our informal analysis led us to conclude that in the Hot or Not battle between liberals and conservatives, conservatives won by a long shot. 

Let's look at some new pairings and see where the ideological war stacks up this time. 

Michele Bachmann vs Hillary Clinton: In the battle of female Presidential primary contenders, one has a faithful husband. Wonder why?

Rick Santorum vs Joe Biden: Our Presidential primary non-contender has a way prettier mouth to stick his foot in.

Marco Rubio vs Alan Grayson: One's the best looking Member of Congress and one looks like a guy that has to inform you he is now living in the neighborhood thanks to Meghan's law. We'll let you figure out which is which. 

Bill Owens vs Bill Ritter: Calling taxes “fees” isn’t hot Mr. Ritter.

Nancy Spence vs Nancy Pelosi: Colorado air ages you better than Botox.

John Elway vs John Hickenlooper: When it comes to scrambling away from big issues, Hick is fleet of foot. But hot he's not, while the right-winged right-wing is. 

Jill Repella vs Morgan Carroll: Liberals plead no contest.

Aaron Schock vs Jerry Nadler: Does it get any clearer than this?

Jane Norton vs Cary Kennedy: Norton by two high heels.

Ken Buck vs Ken Salazar: In the famous cowboy gear race, it's boots over hat. And that's no Weld County bullshit.

Pete Coors vs Tim Gill: Our rich guy's hotter than yours is!  

Abraham Lincoln vs Michael Johnston: Go ahead liberals, we dare you to say that the Hunky Johnston is hotter than the Man Who Saved the Union.  

So it looks like, again according to an informal analysis, that conservatives top liberals in the looks department a second time. Better luck next time progressives.