CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
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*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
January 05, 2010 05:46 PM UTC
83 Comments
Making irrational statements like President Obama believes the rights of terrorists are more important than my life is utter nonsense. She is trying to win the election based on fear with an underlyng message that we, the voters, elected an individual to the office of President in 2008 who doesn’t care about us. Without saying it directly, her message to the majority of Colorado voters is we are stupid because we elected, from her perspective, an individual who loves those who are trying to destroy us. Her message is just plain nuts.
Ms. Norton still needs to answer the question about whether she believes in Dominion theology. Her church does and since she attends that church presumably she believes in Dominion theology. The voters should know one way or the other. Dominion theology calls for the repeal of all our civil laws and to replace them with laws based on Biblical principles. If she believes in Dominion theology, then she should let the voters of Colorado know that and exactly how and which biblical principles and biblically based laws she wants to enact as a United States senator.
for continuing to raise this question. Right wing Levitican ideology burns under the surface (and bubbles out into the open more and more often) of the actions of many electeds in Washington . We must not send another so-called Republican to join the ranks of those who truly hate the very foundation this country is built on.
Whether she believes in dominion theology or that Obama cares more about the rights of terrorists than me, Bennet takes PAC money so they are equivalent.
what her theology is . . . doesn’t she?
The Vineyard strikes me as a little extreme.
Reminds me
A politician “answering” a question with statements about something else is nothing new in politics. They all do it.
to question the loyalty and patriotism of Democrats.
Saying Obama cares more about terrorists’ rights than the rights of citizens is a lie and Norton knows it. It’s purely for the Tea Partiers, and I hope the Dems ask her over and over again during the campaign if that’s what she really believes, because it is definitely not in the mainstream.
Is when you ask him a question, he understands it and answers it. I may not agree with his answer, but at least it’s clear he is actually listening.
And while gertie is right that answering a different question is all too common, I also think it is disrespectful toward the voters.
It seems that Lt. Gov. Norton has forgotten / never known / willingly forgot that the people involved in the “Captain Underpants” bombing attempt were released from Gitmo back to Saudi Arabia under the previous administration. I think that arrangement continues to provoke the question of what exactly is our relationship with Saudi Arabia?
I really don’t remember Norton from Owens’ time but must confess that she is a lazy candidate so far.
Obama should rectify that horrible mistake and not release any more animals from GITMO?
rectify Bush’s “mistake” of releasing one to Saudi Arabia?
Have you met, or interviewed any people held at Guantanamo? How do you so casually refer to them as animals?
I think he’s doing some things in a misguided attempt to pacify people that won’t be pacified at the expense of keeping us safe.
Things like trying KSM in a civilian trial in NYC.
I would have disagreed, like I disagree with what you just said, but I would have recognized how someone might come to that conclusion.
But that’s not what she said. You don’t think that she was pandering just a weeee bit? Sort of like the “focus your energy into something positive” instead of saying “Obama isn’t an arab or a muslim”.
Also, Jane’s very non-confrontational in person, and I think her response to the moron birther was to say something like ‘we need to find positive ways to channel that kind of energy’ or something like that.
I know Jane, I’ve worked with her on some projects, and I’m elated she’s in the race.
But you and I both know that if she’d corrected the moron birther, the Tea Partiers would have been sent into a rage–even more of a rage actually, given their initial response to having the field cleared for her.
I think it’s not so much being non-confrontational as much as not wanting to alienate the birthers.
…in more than a few heated meetings she was in also, I can tell you that I totally disagree with you.
It does absolutely nothing for her credibility as a candidate to be spouting off this kind of rhetoric, and to stop short of correcting the people who still think Obama wasn’t born here or is a secret muslim.
So far, from Jane Norton, we have the following opinion of Obama:
1. Loves terrorists
2. May be a muslim, but you should be channeling that “energy” into something positive.
Not hers.
She didn’t say he loves terrorists. She said he’s making a political decision at the expense of the American citizenry, which basically sums up his entire first year on a whole range of issues.
To summarize, she said:
Obama admin = Terrorists’ rights > Citizens’ rights
That’s utter bullshit and you know it.
If citizens are endangered by a misguided decision to give terrorists rights they don’t deserve, including their right to live, wouldn’t that make the statement true?
Terrorists do not deserve protection under the civilian court system here in the US. We have an established and effective and legal system for military tribunals.
the terrorists have already won by making us fear our own political, legal, and governmental structures.
So you’re saying that the terrorists have already won, that we have to get our revenge on them somehow, and we’re too afraid to try to do it publicly.
No. Especially given the last administration’s desire to drastically change those rights as they were previously thought of.
I think statements like Norton’s are what’s wrong with political discourse in this country. If she had just spelled it out, as you did quite well I might say, then it would have made sense. Instead, it’s just another easily consumable talking point for the Tea Partiers to hear and cheer about–damn the truth.
During the Bush administration the shoe bomber and Moussaoui were dealt with in criminal court. And besides, the guy was concerned about Fed interference in local matters. Last time I checked the military and its courts are federal. This was all non sequitur pandering and intentional innuendo from beginning to end. The woman is a gutless wonder.
I don’t recall Dem candidates at the senatorial level ever giving similar credibility to theories such as that 9/11 was an inside job and Bush/Cheney was responsible. Don’t ever remember such a degree of pandering by senatorial candidates to organizations like MoveOn. So spare me the Dems are just as bad crap.
Dems may be bad enough and we have our share of safe CD extremists saying wacky things but must bow to the GOP in matters of pandering to crazies at the highest levels. There’s just no contest.
potentially change that? I don’t see you in any way being sympathetic to Dominion gov, but maybe I misread….
We are in a war of ideas more than anything else. If we are no better than our opponents in the eyes of the world, we lose. Trying KSM in a court of law is gigantic – it shows that we are a nation of laws where we lay this out in public before a judge.
8th century ideas that are inflexible and justifiably punishable by death, according to the militant faction that inhabits GITMO, vs. freedom.
It’s going to cost $200 million per year to let this animal (yes, SR. He’s an animal and should have already been put down like a sick dog, IMO) put Bush on trial (gee, what a surprise that lefties think this is so cute) and force the divulging of all kinds of secrets that will aid other animals in killing more American civilians.
What’s not to like?
A military tribunal would have been much more appropriate.
It’s not “vs. Freedom” if we have star chambers passing judgement on people. I too want freedom to win – but that requires we go to trail. Freedom doesn’t win if KSM is incarcerated by a military tribunal, freedom wins if the rule of law and due process hold for everyone.
It’s the law. It’s established and Constitutionally affirmed law.
This is a giant fucking publicity stunt by Holder, and the joke is on us.
How’d you like to be living in NYC for this debacle?
They’re proud to say that they’re not afraid of these bozos. I think New Yorkers deserve a public trial more than anyone.
Every New Yorker I know said they have no problem with it. The crime occurred there, and the trial should be there.
and will tell you that I find it hilarious the consternation being drummed up outside of NYC on behalf of New Yorkers. Their attitude will be bring it on, bitches!!
the trials of the shoe bomber and Moussaoui? For all the same reasons? And you think we would still be the United States of America if we just decided to put people down like sick dogs at the pleasure of…who exactly, in the absence of any process or rule of law would make the decision?
Was listening to Rep. Joe Rice’s interview on Colorado Matters yesterday and he was explaining how the whole concept of gathering evidence is foreign to the Iraqi police forces. Under Saddam they’d just gather up the usual suspects, the people on his undesirable list, extract a confession by whatever means and be done with it. No need to collect evidence, take fingerprints or anything like that. Sounds like your kind of system.
Oh and frothing at the mouth, speaking of sick dogs, doesn’t become you.
I don’t think we had the revised military tribunals set up for either Moussaoui or Reid. There was no option at that point.
Pretty lame, LB. Especially since both prosecutions, along with many others, were successful and the sky didn’t fall, nor have there been any other dire consequences such as you righties are now predicting. Justice being served has been the only notable consequence. Really nothing much to froth about, eh?
If we are not prepared to publicly accuse and try someone in one of our own courts, then the terrorists have already won.
The arguments that secrets might somehow be divulged, or that a trial might provide a forum for KSM to “put Bush on trial are specious irrelevant. Either publicly prove KSM is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or let him go. THAT is the essence of the United States–and of the Constitution.
that unlike Hitler (who was an animal) Churchill lead Britain through the darkest hours and days of World War II to victory without turning to the supernatural or racial theories (“animals”) and all the while preserving English civil liberties.
We don’t have to become them to win the fight against terroris.
What would he do?
Please don’t start with the ‘racial’ stuff. Militant Islam needs to be called out for what it is, and radical Muslims would tell you flat out that they feel justified in using the sword to spread Islam.
I reject that, as it doesn’t allow for difference of opinion or culture. They don’t get to kill me because I personally reject the teachings of the Koran.
And IMO, the radicals are animals. Sorry, but I won’t back down from that. Look at the way women are treated even in places like Saudi Arabia. Throwing acid on girls for attending school in Afghanistan. Stoning of women for “adultery”. I just don’t see anything else similar in the modern world.
Thank goodness the truly backward Muslims are a tiny, tiny percentage of Muslims worldwide. But it’s still a large number.
considering he interned tens of thousands of innocent Japanese citizens during WWII. I’m hoping we are a little better than that, ten years into the 21st century.
The World War II internment camps were wrong headed but nothing like you are suggesting we do. We aren’t going to win the war on terrorism by becoming like the terrorists. That kind of behavior may have an emotional appeal and a certain feeling of satisfaction but such behavior makes us one of them.
German spies caught in the US during WWII were executed after having….military tribunals.
it’s know as the Ex Parte Quirin Decision.
LB, tell me – why do most Repub conservative turn into sniveling candyasses the moment they realize they might have to sacrifice something to win the “War on Terror?”
Remember this quote from an email circulating after Richard Reid was sentenced? –
“We are not afraid of any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is all too much war talk here. And I say that to everyone with the utmost respect.
“Here in this court , where we deal with individuals as individuals, and care for individuals as individuals, as human beings we reach out for justice, you are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. Whether it is the officers of government who do it or your attorney who does it, or that happens to be your view, you are a terrorist.
“And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not treat with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.
“So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You’re no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.”
Grow some backbone – there’s a price to be paid for our freedoms. If the population in general isn’t willing to risk anything to fight this war, why should we fight it?
SO the current military tribunal system doesn’t give terrorists their “day in court”?
That would also mean that Obama, Holder and the Dems are “sniveling” and “candyass” for using the tribunal system on certain terrorists, right?
What’s up with the insults? This was a pretty lively yet civil discussion to that point. I don’t get it.
What does it have to do with backbone that I think it’s a bad idea to use a civilian court system instead of, again…
fully established, legal, humane, and more appropriate military tribunals?
These terrorists have pledged allegiance to a movement that has vowed the destruction of the west. It’s totally appropriate to treat them as enemy combatants.
I don’t consider you the typical Repub conservative idiot..but you seem to have some insight into their weenie-ness, and I was asking a sincere question.
But, to the point, the German saboteurs who were tried were members of a military unit, who were tried as spies for (trying) to take part in espionage activities in the US. They even came ashore in German Uniforms, just in case they were caught in the process of infiltration.
And, certain members of A-Q ARE going to be tried in the military tribunal system, just not KSM. He’s a damn terrorist, he’s NOT a soldier or combatant….so he gets his ass drug into Federal court, and tried appropriately.
What separates a trained German unit and a trained AQ unit?
The Germans probably wore uniforms so they’d be protected under Geneva rules.
Judge William Young, January 30, 2003
Exactly so. If the Cheney/Bush administration had not turned into sniveling candy asses and urged all of us to follow suit, we wouldn’t have been terrorized into violating our own sacred rule of law by using torture, black hole prisons, extraordinary rendition, suspending habeas corpus and on and on and on.
We would not now be facing the difficulty of having to figure out how to deal with the mess created by the simple fact that no legitimate American court, military or civilian, can admit evidence tainted by torture
We didn’t use torture to convict Timothy McVeigh or to discover others who might be involved even though there was surely at least a potential danger that another such attack was on the way. We didn’t torture the Nazis we successfully tried and convicted in the wake of WWII.
Resorting to the illegalities and constitutional violations of Cheney/Bush was never a show of toughness and courage. It was always the worst kind of sniveling cowardice; granting the terrorists the victory of seeing us cower to the point of throwing away our sacred heritage with both hands for a desperate grab at security for any price. The Obama administration is left with the almost impossible task of dealing with the complete breakdown of everything our constitution demands engendered by the Cheney/Bush abject surrender of everything we stand for in the world to terror.
because I never suggested what you are attributing to me. I never suggested we become like the terrorists–thus my point about FDR and his version of a “containment” camp.
I will state that an internment camp was no picnic for the thousands that were forced to leave their jobs, their homes and their communities while being imprisoned in the US version of a concentration camp. There is absolutely nothing civil about what happened to them–it was a complete and utter breakdown the Constitution and a violation of their human rights.
My comment was not a criticism of yours, I can assure you.
I just wanted to be sure. 🙂
But he did what he needed to do to keep us safe, his caring about our standing in the world be damned.
Now, do I think anyone needs to be interned? Certainly not. But do I think that people who set out to intentionally butcher civilians deserve to be treated like US Citizens in an auto-theft trial? Absolutely not.
Why is Obama using military tribunals for some suspects and not for others?
There was no good reason for it in terms of evidence (not a single Japanese-American was ever found to have committed treason) and no foundation for it in law. It is one of the most shameful events in our government’s history.
So please don’t use this as an excuse. Being horribly wrong once is not a reason to be wrong again.
ps – The 442nd in WWII was the most highly decorated regiment in the America army. It was composed solely of Japanese-Americans.
Everyone knows it was wrong, and everyone knows that pretty much everyone interned was a proud American and not a Japanese spy.
And of course the Japanese in the US military fought like hell.
The point was that even though it was misguided, FDR (who probably nearly everyone on this board would hold up as a God of Democrats) acted outrageously, but only out of a desire to protect the homeland.
I’m saying that Obama and Holder are acting outrageously in the other direction because they’re more concerned about how they look to the rest of the world than they are in using an established, legal, humane way of dealing with animals that want to kill innocent American citizens.
We can admire the great accomplishments of FDR and consider his internment decision deplorable at the same time. There will be no Democratic version of your St. Reagan. Part of the whole herding cats thing often used to characterize Dems is that we have an unfortunate habit of resisting the urge to create an unquestioned godlike leader for ourselves and invest that leader with worshipful blind trust and devotion. We don’t see patriotism in that light.
The result is that we can never quite achieve a GOP degree of lock step cohesiveness but we aren’t willing to go the lobotomy route in order to achieve it. Lockstep is too close to goose step for our liking.
I can imagine Colonel Chivington saying something similar,
just before he turned his cannons on the old men, women, and children at Sand Creek.
You said earlier “militant Islam needs to be called out for what it is”. The same is true for “militant Christianity”…which is actually an incredible oxymoron.
You DO know we try people for murder in court, right? Ted Bundy was tried in court. David Berkowitz was tried in court. Timothy McVeigh was tried in court.
I heard they also set out to intentionally butcher civilians. What’s different about them?
Hmmm, hmm, trying to think, what’s different about them…
Last execution carried out from a trial in NYC?
They are seeking the death penalty. Why seek it if you do everything you can to make sure it isn’t going to happen?
Also, way to taint the jury pool by having the President announce that ‘when’ they are convicted they’ll be brought to justice.
WTF happens if KSM is acquitted?
You think the American justice system (or the New York justice system?) is so broken that it can’t find an apparently guilty man guilty. And to protect against the possibility that those weak-wristed liberals in New York (who hardly even deserve to be victims of such a crime, considering what pussies they are about it), we should kill him first.
David Berkowitz also killed a bunch of innocent people in New York. He was caught, he was given a trial, he confessed, he’s in jail, and the people of New York are no longer terrorized. Would it make you feel better if he were dead? What other purpose would that serve?
That’s nonsensical to compare these people and their day in court to an auto-theft trial. It was clever but it’s nonsensical.
As for where they are going to try this guy, I was not aware a final decision had been made on this yet. If he is tried in a civilian court, I’m fine with it. He’s never going to see the light of day no matter where he’s tried and you know it.
If we become like the terrorists then we have lost. Because even if we win, the terrorist approach will have won.
In the case of some terrorists, we’ve already lost because Obama is utilizing the tribunal system?
is exactly why Pols needs to revamp this blog. c’mon dead guvs, this blog software is 5 years out of date. nobody knows who the F is responding to whom when the comment threads get tangled up.
Laughing Boy, my question on Dominion theology was for you:
Not that we’ll ever get a truthful answer if it’s “yes” but would Jane’s “yes” answer to the Dominion questions posed above change your support for her? You don’t strike me as the kind of guy into that kind of bullshit.
But she keeps her religion to herself. Where it belongs.
What about Catholic politicians? I don’t remember anyone asking Pelosi if she really believes she’s going to hell if she masturbates.
Eeeewww. Sorry, everyone.
whether a Catholic candidate believed that act would lead to that punishment.
I cared whether they would try to legislate based on that belief. Dominionists are ready to legislate ona whole bunch of Biblical reference. IS that ok with you, LB?
Than Harry Reid and his Moromonism?
I could care less. I’ve spent a lot of time around Jane and she’s never said a single religious thing to me. At all. She doesn’t strike me as someone who makes a big deal out of tying her personal faith to governance.
Now, if she starts evangelizing on the campaign trail, she loses my vote.
and yes, after reading Under the Banner of Heaven…..
You too? I read that book and am permanently freaked out now.
ANd maybe it’s not different.
Your endorsement is enough for me so far.
So she can expect your vote?
Who are you going to vote for in the Governors race?
i’m not against R’s in general, but let me put it this way: she’s meeting with the loonie fringe right and sympathetically nodding and smiling when they say things like “But he’s a Musssslllliimmmm” in a really whiny voice. That kind of shit doesn’t play with me. If the left’s version of that is Bennet sitting with a group of dreadlock-sporting, Che tee shirt-wearing, redwood tree-sitting protesters and they’re saying things like, “But Dick Cheney is a faaassscciisst” in an equally whiny voice, I’m going with Bennet.
Far as gov, McI’s porn stache alone is enough to scare the hell out of me. I’ll wait to see which lucky D gets the slot before making a call. As I’ve said elsewhere a few times, the only current CO politician that impressed me in a public engagement was Andy R. He shared the stage with Ritter, Joan F-G and other big names and to me stood way out above the rest.
While eliminating the Dept of Ed may be a good thing, there is no way that is going to happen anytime in her lifetime. SO saying it just to stir things up, well, makes her look foolish.
She might as well say she supports the creation of a time machine so someone could go back in time and avoid [fill in bad thing of choice]
As fr Gov – depends on who is on the ballot.
The D candidate for Guv will be Hick, Salazar, Romanoff, or Perlmutter. I’d take any of them over McInnis.
The question was
“Who are you going to vote for in the Governors race? (sic)”
I don’t know who is going to be in the race, so who I vote for depends on who is on the ballot. Oh, wait…. I have an idea. I’ll just commit to Mike Miles now, as a write in if I have to.
md
I hope Republicans really buy that line. The rest of us will just give them a blank stare and then continue on with the adult conversation in another room.
or simply moving them to a different prison?
As far as I know the Bush-Cheney administration released a bunch of people and sent them back to Yemen.
Look at how well that worked out.
it is going to be as easy as clubbing baby seals to deal with them.
The tea baggers might hate him with the passion of racists but the mainstream voter not so much. Big mistake by Norton to stake out the far right extremist issues as her talking points.
…when unemployment is at 10% in November and his approval ratings are even worse than they are now.
This election is going to be a referendum on Obama and that’s why the Dems are in so much trouble.
🙂
Just unbelievable disappointment. Quite a few on the left and an enormous amount in the middle feel the same way.
How could one guy make all these different factions feel like he lied to them?
but nobody will know until November 2012, will they? the D’s will lose seats this year but will still keep power in both chambers
unrealistic expectations, so it is hard to see how he could be so universally misunderstood.
The fact that the right wing tea baggers apparently are approaching mainstream should bother more than just Democrats.
So Norton thinks handling a case in criminal court, the process honored from the earliest days of our country, rather than using the special military court system established specifically to give the government greater powers in recent years, means “the federal government is encroaching”? And, of course, she took a question about local vs federal courts and gave an answer about criminal vs military courts.
Does she really not realize her logic is exactly backwards, or does she not care as long as she is trying to score political points….or, is she just teabagger crazy?
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…
The GOP is likely to take the North Dakota seat. If Jane Norton, Ken Buck or Tom Wiens defeats Michael Bemnet or Andrew Romanoff the Democrats might just be very close to losing their Senate Majority. Colorado may well be the State that decides who runs the US Senate. Plus where else do you have such exciting primaries on both sides?