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

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

55%↑

45%↓

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%↑

40%↑

20%↓

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
July 13, 2010 09:37 PM UTC

Speaker Carroll: McInnis Must Withdraw

  • 139 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

In a press release delivered a few minutes ago, Colorado Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll became the first high-profile elected official to call for GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis to withdraw from the race, in the wake of revelations of widespread plagiarism in water history essays he wrote for the Hasan Foundation. We’re watching for this call to be joined by a multitude of others, possibly from both parties, shortly.

Full release after the jump: says Speaker Carroll, “Whether he plagiarized a Colorado Supreme Court Justice intentionally or paid someone to do so it doesn’t matter: he took sole credit for the work and he is solely to blame. I am appalled at this cynical act of dishonesty. Coloradans deserve honesty and integrity from their leaders. They deserve transparency and accountability from their government. Coloradans deserve better than Scott McInnis.”


Speaker Terrance Carroll Demands McInnis Withdraw Immediately

Plagiarism revelations raise fundamental questions about McInnis’ fitness to serve

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday July 13, 2010

CONTACT: Ellen Dumm, 303 810-4370, ellen@strongcolorado.org

DENVER: Speaker of the Colorado House Terrance Carroll today called for  former congressman Scott McInnis to immediately withdraw as a candidate for governor, following revelations that McInnis plagiarized significant portions of articles he authored on Colorado water.

Speaker Terrance Carroll will hold a press availability today, July 13 from 1:45 to 2:00 p.m. in the courtyard of The Tabor Center, Northwest corner of 17th and Larimer.

“The Denver Post’s story made it quite clear that Scott McInnis lacks the integrity to hold the office of Governor. It would be difficult for him to create any public trust, which is critical for this position,” said Speaker Carroll.

McInnis was paid $300,000 over two years to write 12 articles for the Hasan Family Foundation. The Denver post article showed large portions of text identical or nearly to an article written by Colorado Supreme Court Justice Greg Hobbs.

“Whether he plagiarized a Colorado Supreme Court Justice intentionally or paid someone to do so it doesn’t matter: he took sole credit for the work and he is solely to blame. I am appalled at this cynical act of dishonesty.”

“Coloradans deserve honesty and integrity from their leaders. They deserve transparency and accountability from their government. Coloradans deserve better than Scott McInnis. The right thing for McInnis would be to withdraw from this race. Can Coloradans trust McInnis? I don’t think so. How can he serve as a role model after having committed an offense we tell our kids they can never, ever commit in school or in their profession,” said Carroll.

###

Comments

139 thoughts on “Speaker Carroll: McInnis Must Withdraw

  1. Do most Dems really want McInnis to withdraw? Wouldn’t it be better to keep the wounded horse in the race than bring in a new pony that may look more shiny and have a better shot at the hickenhorse?

    1. that McInnis will base any of his decisions on Democratic calls for his resignation. So it doesn’t really matter if the answer to your question is “yes” or “no.” This will become more serious when Republicans do this, and I hope they hold off because the longer they waffle on it, the worse their whole party looks. Expect it to keep registered ‘pubs at home in November.

      But, just to speculate on what the Dem leaders would like to see, I think they want Scooter to hang on for a few more days and not withdraw immediately. That would ensure that this stays in the papers and increases the chances that the damage will be more severe and lasting, especially if the GOP waffles in the manner I just described.

        1. Firstly. Ari’s claim only goes back a week, were you kicking his ass for months before his uprising? PS Ari, sorry but I didn’t see all your “knocking down” action last week. Ya gotta link?

          What’s this King Shabazz thing about anyway?

          So he testified to the people and called on them to rise up and do a beat down on whitey, aka cracker, peckerwood. Interesting though that Gibson and Shabazz racial laiden multi media rants hit at the same time, yet were treated so differently. I suspect both need medication.

          OK, so that’s not realy Mel Gibson in the dragon hood, but it could be

            1. I clicked here http://coloradopols.com/showCo… but I could witness only that you and BJ did battle.

              You maintained your unprincipled ground and made claims about the economic rebound. BJ stood his ground and used factual examples to support his assertions.

              Back to topic, its nice to see Scott McInnis addressing this fellowship issues head on. Never bet against accountability.

              1. Scott McInnis gets caught red handed for stealing the work of someone else and tries to lay the blame elsewhere and that is accountability ?  

                Huh ?

              2. Libby, you addressed this comment to the wrong person.

                Man oh man… beej using factual examples. My face is starting to hurt from laughing. He hasn’t once cited a verifiable fact in any of his posts to me.

                Did you ever check out that carbon monoxide leak? Or do the fumes really make you feel nice?

                  1. I have not done it.  But it could be done.  ALl the posts are recorded – look them up. Find one where you cited a verifiable fact.  You win.

                    Oh, but it would be hard. So just round it off.

                    1. Whether it had been verified or not, your statement was false. Worse, you keep defending your false statement by insisting that something which is irrelevant to its truth or falsehood is proof that it’s true. It’s just one more example (in a non-stop avanalanche of examples) of your inability to grasp the most simple elements of logical argumentation.

                    2. Please don’t call me “buddy” or “brother” which they way you do it are poor euphemisms for “ass hat” or “jerk weed.”

                      I didn’t make the claim that you never posted any verifiable fact.  But you said it’s not verifiable- and you were wrong: it clearly is verifiable.

                      See, it’s how I can determine the area bounded by a curve. I can do the math- but even before doing any calculation, I can know that the calculation is in fact verifiable.

                      ass hat.

                  2. Do you even know what you’re saying? Hint: you’re not disputing what I allege, you’re just saying it can’t be verified. If you think you’re being clever, then I feel for the people who find themselves at the same party as you.

                    As MADCO says, you can go back through all your posts to me and find one with a verifiable fact – in which case you would be right and I would be wrong. I always apologize to people when I’m wrong. But until you show me this, I stand by my claim.

                    1. that you don’t know what the word “verifiable” means. The words “verified” and verifiable” are not synonymous, as you seem to believe. You wrote that something wasn’t verifiable, and are arguing the correctness of your statement because it hasn’t yet been verified.

                      Websters defines “verifiable” as “capable of being verified,” and defines “verify” as “to establish the truth, accuracy, or reality of.” In other words, it doesn’t mean that it has to be known to be true to be verifiable, just that it’s truth (or, by implication, its non-truth) has to be something capable of being established.

                      Arguably, once an attempt has been made to verify something, and it proves impossible to establish its truth (or its falsehood is established instead), it is no longer verifiable, since its truth cannot be established. But when the word “verifiable” is used prior to the act of verification, and someone wants to refute the truth of the statement, the correct response would be “that has not yet been verified,” not “that’s not verifiable.”

                      For instance, a claim about my ability to beat superintelligent extraterrestrials at chess would not be verifiable, because we have no superhuman extraterrestrials available against whom to test it. It would be verifiable if we had such superintelligent extraterrestrials at our disposal, unless and until it turned out that I was unable to beat them at chess. My claim that you consistently misrepresent your empty assertions as logical arguments is verifiable, because we can easily find a range of acceptable definitions of “logical argument,” and can easily demonstrate that your empty assertions don’t fit into it. In the latter example, verification would demonstrate that the verifiable claim was in fact veritable. See how it works?

                    2. Your response to an explanation of why your statement is bullshit is that you stand by your statement. No refutation of the proof of its stupidity, just a declaration of your commitment to your own stupidity. I’m sure we’re all impressed.

                    3. Since you can mimic the tones and words of condescension, you must have some hidden qualities none of us have yet discerned. Otherwise, how could you act condescending? Right?

                      Beej, Beej, Beej, the rest of the world isn’t as shallow and stupid as you! That’s where your strategy, brilliant as you think it is, falls down.

          1. silly little question as to the different treatment between Shabazz’s and Gibson’s racially charged rants:

            Ask 100 people who King Shabazz is and then ask 100 people who Mel Gibson is.  I would guess that 90-95% would know Gibson while 1-2% would know Shabazz.  More people care about Gibson than care about Shabazz.

            Were Denzel Washington to have gone on a tirade (as many times as has Gibson) it would be even bigger news than Gibson doing it becasue Washington is a bigger star at this point.

            Your “White Man’s Burden” routine isn’t selling in this instance.  

            1. We have a difficult time seeing our cultural influences/dynamics when we’re in that fish bowl. It takes independent/intelligent thought to find the truth.

              Thank you.

          2. Or are you juxtaposing Black Panthers with the Klan because Speaker Carroll is black and it’s somehow relevant in your twisted little mind?

            The thread is about Carroll.  Bjob’s sig line is about Shabazz.  Got the difference?

            Way to pee on a thread, little man.

        2. I thought Republicans were always going on and on about humorless liberals? 🙂

          OTOH, it’s another example of your hypocrisy on the matter, given what YOU’RE signature line used to be.

            1. I’m talking about how you used to post Steve’s lines in an attempt to humiliate him. You’re butthurt because you took my sig line as an attempt to humiliate you. THUS – you’re hypocrisy, because you can’t take what you dish out.

              Our record: Aristotle 74, bjwilson83 0.

      1. With Scott out of the race its just that much easier to win for Hickenlooper.  Maes has no shot against Hick at all.  Hick v Maes is a dream scenario for Dems because that means the independents and middle of the road Republicans will flock to Hickenlooper and stay away from how right wing crazy Maes is.  Scott will survive.  He took responsibility, said that it was his fault and is trying to make it right.  People make mistakes, it’s how they handle it afterward that reveals a person’s character.  McInnis owned up and is trying to make it right, that is the appropriate response to a mistake and the type of responsible leader Colorado needs.

        1. He passed off somebody else’s work as his own and cashed a check for $300k. Are you sure you’re OK with that?

          Also, McInnis hasn’t owned up, has he? He’s trying to pin it all on his “research assistant”. He’s ducking and dodging all over the place and won’t give a straight answer.

          1. If you do it with a gun and a note as just some guy- not good.

            If you get yourself made president of the bank and then rob it blind and turn it over to the FDIC as you leave the country – apparently all good.

    2. 1. McInnis wins the primary.

      2. McInnis withdraws after winning.

      I think Dan Maes suddenly has a very real chance of winning. The only way McInnis has a strong chance is if he announces now he’ll resign the day after the primary – and I’m not sure even that would work.

      1. .

        In the Constitution Party, as I understand it, if these sort of revelations came out regarding BIG BEN GOSS, the Conservative in the Guv’s race, the Exec Committee could kick him out of the party, making him ineligible to stand as a candidate.

        I’m alluding to the GOP kicking both candidates, McInnis and Maes, out of the party.

        Sound too imperious ?  Can you recall what happened in the 2008 Senate race, with Wadhams clearing the decks for Shaffer ?

        .

        1. That was a year before the election, and behind the scenes. This is playing out in the headlines after primary ballots have already gone to the printers. Totally different scenarios.

        1. If not for the McInnis buffoooery, the headlines would be all Buck-credo all the time.

          Really- the President is a bigger threat than the Taliban or AlQueda?  SO we should let the Tali-queda win in AfPak?

      2. Today’s Denver Post editorial headlines:

        “Maes’ fines are a big deal.  Though the GOP candidate has addressed campaign finance violations, they raise questions over whether he can govern.”

        Say hello to Governor Hickenlooper.

        1. You say potahto – I say freakin’ asshat who should not be allowed to manage his kids’ piggy bank, let alone any piece of the state budget.

    3. I wouldn’t come out with any statement at this point.  Why give Rs a chance to grasp at the excuse that this is all being blown out of proportion by Dems? Let Rs handle it all by themselves for a while according to the old let them keep shoveling rule. Boy, the classic ColPol righties (am excluding Barron, LB and others who think for themselves) sure are quiet today.

      1. and he is doing it knowing that anything a Democrat recommends forces them to do the exact opposite.  By calling for a McInnis withdrawal, Carroll is actually baiting the Repubs to defend him.

        This is the kind of diabolical semantics that was played out in The Princess Bride over the goblets of poisoned wine.

          1. because we don’t know what other statements or writings he has had poorly researched and not edited.  This is a big deal Lib because it calls into question all of his past work.  It is kind of like Floyd Landis get caught doping in the Tour de France.  Once caught it calls into question all his other wins.  It is like an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that keeps spreading and spreading until everyone is covered in tar balls.  And you want to defend the pollution of our political discourse and don’t consider plagiarism that was vouched for a serious infraction of standards of civic behavior?  I could almost feel sympathetic to your desperate attempt to spin the situation as significant if it wasn’t for the fact that if it was a Democrat you would be off the walls with outrage.  Funny how you people have no backbone or conviction in your positions.

            1. Find some other proof that this was not just a one time, honest mistake (should have not happened granted) then you can talk about your conspiracy theory.  I’m sure you have never ever made a mistake but most humans do and to see them take responsibility for it is refreshing.  He acknowledged that this was a mistake not like “parking tickets”

              1. As a lawyer, Scooter has not only attended college where, as David points out, plagiarism is clearly explained to students that those guilty of it will be expelled; but is also aware of the rules of ethics that all attorneys must adhere to, and would know that this is unacceptable.

                We know four confirmed and undisputed facts about this paper.

                One, he was paid handsomely to conduct research and submit this paper to the Hasan Foundation.

                Two, this paper bears only his name as author.

                Three, this paper contains a significant number of unsourced (that is, plagiarized) passages.

                Four, Scooter employed a research assistant with the drafting of this paper.

                These four facts lead us to a choice of two, and only two, possible conclusions.

                One, Scooter wrote the paper himself, as his sole authorship indicates, and therefore is guilty of plagiarism.

                Two, Scooter allowed his research assistant to write all or part of this paper, without giving him any credit, and so is guilty of fraud.

                No attorney, especially one of Scooter’s experience, can credibly claim that either scenario is an honest mistake. We don’t need any additional proof. The fact that we can reach only these two possible conclusions from the available evidence (again, all parties agree that the four facts are true) is all the proof we need.

                In conclusion, there’s nothing “refreshing” about his taking responsibility because he only did so after all this was published by the state’s largest newspaper. People do this all the time when the evidence is so overwhelming that they can’t possibly deny it.

                Further, it’s also not refreshing because he hasn’t taken full responsibility and let his poor research assistant off the hook. Because even if the second possible conclusion is true, it’s still solely Scooter’s responsibility since he took full credit for the paper.

                If this is the official spin out of the McInnis camp, you guys are toast.

        1. hypothetically, how would you be reacting if the McInnis campaign denied everything and turned onto the defensive instead of the apologetic?

      1. he was called the whipping boy and used in place of the prince so that the prince didn’t have to be accountable for his actions.

        How is the researcher any different from the whipping boy?

        1. McInnis did for his 300K was to take credit for whatever his “researcher” handed him? And Rs complain that the unemployed are lazy but people like McInnis should never under any circumstances, no matter how high the deficit goes, give up their fat tax breaks while doing nothing for 300K. Yeah, it’s all good.

          1. Every politician has a team of people/staff helping put together their works.  Just as any Congressman does not completely write the law themselves.  Rather, they have a team of researchers and staff members help compile it. A lot of college professors do the same.

      2. The Huffpo “apology” is pathetic.  Apparently Scooter apologized privately to Justice Hobbs, but has no immediate plans for a public apology.  Has Scooter also apologized to the Hasan Foundation?  The story isn’t clear.

        Also from the Huffington Post:

        Whole sections of McInnis’ “Musings On Water” about the history of Colorado water rights were identical to a 1984 piece that Hobbs wrote. McInnis’ essays were accompanied by a 2005 letter stating the essays were original.

        1. I would not have taken it from Ward Churchill.  Especially since he did not simply write about water, but blaming 9/11 entirely on the American people.  As well as lying about his ethnicity.  Hell no.

      3. But responsibility and ownership of the mistake yes.  A bit of character is showing through.  The mistake should not have happened but the response to it tells us a lot about how Scott would govern and that is by taking personal responsibility and accountability.  Scott is doing his best to make it right and that should be respected

        1. Lying — certifying as sole author of an original work

          Cheating — plagiarism

          Stealing — taking $300k under false pretenses

          Blaming the ghostwriter isn’t an “honest mistake” or “taking responsibility”.

          But you’re right — McInnis’ stock answer of “I don’t know” is how he’s responded to most of the questions he’s been asked:  

          “How will you balance the budget?”  

          “What more will you cut if you roll back state revenues even further?”

          “How much and to whom did you make all these charitable contributions to?”

          “How will you create jobs, jobs, jobs?”

          The Hasan Foundation is realy pissed, and they have the money to keep this issue going for decades.

  2. .

    This is calculated to lock the opposition into selecting a candidate who is unelectable.  

    It is an attempt to foreclose the Vacancy Committee from putting on the ballot a candidate who ordinary folks could vote for.  

    Carroll want Maes as the GOP candidate, because he’s worried that a solid conservative would mop the floor with Hick..

      1. .

        the one good thing about a McInnis candidacy was that, finally, for the first time, the Constitution Party would have a legit shot to come in SECOND in a statewide race.

        If a solid conservative is appointed to the ballot to represent the GOP, ACP goes back to 3rd or 4th.  

        .

      1. I don’t know if there’s any such thing as a “solid conservative” anymore. I don’t count teabaggers as such; they’re hard right anarchists. But if we’re generous enough to extend the definition to include them, there isn’t one in this state with the charisma to overtake Hick. Given his solid middle of the road record, and undeniable popularity across the political spectrum, anyone hoping to beat him will have to bring it in the departments of charm, wit, smarts, and not adhering to batshit crazy ideas. Every prominent ‘pub not named Scott McInnis is short on the first three and excessive in the fourth. (And Scott himself was lacking in all these things.)

                1. His views are out there, to be sure.

                  But he’s extremely well-informed.

                  And he has a great sense of humor.

                  You can disagree with him all you want.  But there’s no grounds for hating him.  None at all.

                  1. “Disagree” would have been a better choice.

                    For me.

                    I’ve seen some Polsters who might have hated him from time to time, beyond disagreement.

                    I’ve stood up for Barron when he’s taken some unpopular positions that I thought he was justified to do so.

                    “He’s alright by me!”

                    1. .

                      obviously, what we have in common is wanting what’s best for the larger community.

                      We just have different ideas about the particulars, and how to get there.  

                      My one don’t-give-an-inch issue is abortion, but I understand and respect the good intentions behind those here who hold different positions on this wedge issue.  

                      I think you’re flat out wrong.  

                      I might even support something contrary to the Constitution (“Right to Life” comes from the Declaration of Independence, I know) if it would advance my position, though it actually supports “personhood.”

                      But I know we both are looking for the most just and loving solution.  

                      Tough to hate you when I know you have a good heart.

                      .

                    2. And when we get to the point where that is workable, the consensus will shift so that people will wonder how it was ever allowed.

                      But we are not there yet. With the way our culture presently operates it remains a necessary procedure for many. And a big part of the problem is people fight over access to abortion instead of putting their efforts into sex education and birth control.

                    1. There are those of us who doubt the whole propaganda pitch that every single human egg contains an immortal soul that will perish in utter agony unless the woman is forced to submit to the will of the state.  Talk about voodoo spirituality.  If it is an immortal soul than how can it perish?

                      What if each egg is just a DNA shell and any one of them can house the spirit of the soul that will become the womans child?  What if it is the same soul and it is just waiting for the woman to decide which egg will be selected to be her child.  Each egg then has the potential for a unique personality or sex but it is the same soul.

                      Your mumbo jumbo belief that every egg contains an immortal soul is just your conception of this reality.  You have no proof where the spirit comes from and you push voodoo beliefs because your mind can’t expand to consider other possibilities.  Don’t expect to receive kid glove treatment from those who understand your limited abilities to comprehend things outside your mental comfort zone.

                    2. .

                      my brand of VooDoo Mumbo Jumbo ascribes personhood to the union of sperm and egg, not an unfertilized egg.  Not sure but I think my dogma says that a soul becomes part of that God-created life at that time.  

                      I have deluded myself into thinking that I have considered other possibilities.  I’ve read Kierkegaard, Spinoza an good ol’ Henri Poincare on this subject, among others, and engaged in apologetics and scruples (the other kind) and maybe even ? dianetics ? (what’s that ?) examining the apophatic didactic.  

                      But I do like my mental comfort zone, tru dat.

                      .

                    3. breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7

                      My son was high school friends with the young Marine Larry Harris who was killed in Afghanistan when he stepped on a land mine while carrying a comrade to safety and his body was torn apart.  Governor Ritter ordered flags to flown at half mast today for his memorial service.  My son was very upset that the Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church are sending hecklers to the service and he asked me why they do it.  The only thing I could tell him is that they believe ideological dogma over everything else and they are convinced that their views are righteous and unassailable and can never be questioned.  You and Fred Phelps are the same.

                    4. Unless you are actually Fred Phelps, we don’t see where someone was trying to reveal your real name.

                    5. I’m always surprised by your sense of humor Barron.

                      My son said that the Westboro fanatics were not visible at the Harris memorial service yesterday.  He said the service was packed and he thought a about meeting Larry in 8th grade summer school and the good times they had hanging out together.  It is a mystery of life that such a good kid should be gone so soon.

                    6. Wouldn’t you?  I knew my son was a living person before he was born.  I also had a miscarriage at 12 weeks, and I never felt like I was housing a living person during that pregnancy.

                      My experiences led me to the conclusion that the embryo/fetus/baby becomes a person sometime during the pregnancy, and I have no idea when that time is.  This led me to the conclusion that I could never have an abortion, because if I guessed wrong, I would have committed infanticide.  I don’t believe abortion should be illegal, though, for the same reason; if a woman has an abortion before the embryo/fetus/baby becomes a person, then she has not committed infanticide.

                      I realize this isn’t a nuanced or sophisticated position and I gleefully admit that I have never read Kierkegaard or Spinoza, and have never heard of Henri Poincare.  It’s good enough for me, though.

                    7. that an immortal soul perishes in utter agony if it doesn’t see the light of day.

                      The solution is to criminalize a health care procedure and make women wards of the state.  All will be goodness and light if women are brought to a bended knee and forced to carry a fetus to term regardless of her physical, psychological or economic abilities to do so.

                      If you take as an article of faith which the eggmendment is based on that an immortal soul enters into the egg at the moment of conception and has legal status then what are you going to do to prevent an unattached fertilized egg from being flushed down the toilet?  Are we going to require all ovulating women to pee in a separate bucket and then develop the technology to detect the pulsating egg in the liquid and be able to extract and nurture it in a petri dish so that we can save this immortal soul from perishing in utter agony.

                      My wife endured two miscarriages before our son was born and they were a terrible times in our family but my son who is now in his twenties is honest and kind a joy to be around.  A woman will produce many eggs in her lifetime but only a special few will ever become fertilized.  By the laws of nature not all of the fertilized eggs will be fully developed.  Sometimes it is physical flaws in the egg and sometimes it is an inability to ready by the woman but the very next egg will still have all the essential DNA encoding and if that next egg is the one that is fully developed then it is guaranteed to have a personality and who is to say that it isn’t the same soul as the one that was going to inhabit the undeveloped fertilized.

                      It turns out that God is a woman and she and she alone will decide which one of those fertilized eggs with become her beautiful child.  Any attempts to impose demands and deadlines on when a woman is ready to carry and be responsible for a child without her consent is not only unworkable but impossible because you can’t dictate to God what to do.  You never will be able to and you are delusional to think that criminalization of a medical procedure will instantly solve the problem of unwanted pregnancies.

                    8. As I said, I wouldn’t have an abortion, but I don’t think it should be criminalized.  I’m sure you know that, since I said it quite clearly, so I and assume you were speaking to someone else.

                      I don’t think criminalizing abortion would be appropriate from a moral or practical perspective.  Providing everyone access to affordable health care (contraception and prenatal care) and jobs would do a lot more to reduce the number of abortions than criminalizing the procedure.

                      I also believe that, if an aborted baby had a soul when it was aborted, God in its mercy will provide for that soul.  God may give that soul another body with which to experence life, or God may bring that baby into heaven, or God may do something else entirely that we cannot even conceive of.  I knew a priest once who said he had a vision, and his vision was that babies who were aborted, miscarried, or stillborn are waiting to greet their mothers in heaven with nothing but love and compassion for the pain their mothers experienced.  OK, I’m cynical enough to put that in the categories of rainbows-coming-out-of-unicorns’-asses, but I do believe that “heaven” exists as a place of boundless love, compassion, and acceptance, so what the hell.  Maybe it’s true.

                      And I think McInnis must withdraw.  Just though I’d throw a bone to the topic of this thread.

                       

                    9. I was trying for a fusion of musings and end up with it being a bit confusing.

                      I never met this priest you talk about but I had this image of God holding them in his heart along with those who were martyred or tortured or died because they lacked the basics of food and water to live.

                    10. .

                      probly not me.

                      God ?  Has He discussed this with you ?  

                      yourself, and your friends and family ?

                      society at large ?  

                      the whole Catholic Guilt thing comes from trying to please everybody, and coming up short, I think.  Doesn’t sound like what God wants for me, or for you.  

                      It’s up to each of us to work out our own “salvation,” if you will, or figger out how to cope with the challenges that can beat us down.  

                      I feel pretty strongly that personhood happens at conception, so I try to act consistent with that.  Consistency might require me trying to force you to adhere to what I believe, no ?

                      But I would not suggest that your personal morality requires you to agree with mine.  

                      Henri was pretty hot stuff as a mathematician before the advent of calculators, back when I was learning algebra.  He had this triangle thing that yielded factorial multiplier thingys.  But he is best known today for his proof of the existence of God.  

                      .

                    11. that all energy was borrowed and some day must be returned.  Ultimately we all face that transition moment when the carnal being dissolves like a dust devil without any wind.

                      I don’t know what lies beyond death but in this world I would rather spend my time helping the born and those who struggle with being the vulnerable in my family and my community.  It is foolish to think that I can control another person but I know that I can assist them with their struggles to be better people.

                      This is why I consider Republican economic policy to be anti-Christian because it promotes the welfare of the rich and ignores the suffering of the poor.  It is a policy where they step of Lazarus to give tax breaks to the rich.  If you are going to be a disciple then you need to pay attention to the single mom who decides to carry her unwanted pregnancy to term but can only afford to feed her kids Ramen Noodles and Saltine Crackers.  The emphasis on trying to control another human being at the expense of really helping someone in need is not only baffling to me but not disciple worthy.

                1. then two days later he tried to get all nuanced- and still got it wrong.

                  Buckcredo is a disaster waiting to happen.  Luckiest man in COlorado right now- but for this McInnis and Mae hooha the news would be all Buckcredo all the time.

                    1. Not enough for Tancredo to be elected to the Senate.

                      But there are plenty of Tanc supporters here.   Not me, not a statewide majority, but more than one or two for sure.

    1. unless Maes also withdrew.  There has to be a  vacancy for a vacancy committee to act.  I agree the space beween Maes’ ears seems vacant, but don’t think that meets the technical requirements of the law.  

        1. But if there is no candidate, a vacancy committee can name a candidate.  But here we have two candidates.  If Scooter withdraws, it would be unconscionable to try to put a candidate on the primary b allot who was n ot entitled to be there.  If both withdraw, die, whateveer, then a vacancy exists. Party rules are interwoven with the laws because ballots have to be printed by certain deadlines, etc.

          Since it’s almost time to mail out ballots, I doubt if a committee could act even if they both withdrew, though a vacancy would then exist after the primary and a vacancy committee could nominate someone for the general election.

          1. At this point, if Scooter withdrew prior to or on the day of the primary, his votes would be voided. End result: Maes wins primary, moves on to general.

            If he stays on and wins primary, then withdraws: vacancy committee replaces him on general ballot. Maes would not be eligible for vacancy committee because the law forbids a primary loser from running in the general.

            site: CRS 1-4-1001 & 1002

  3. The Dems strategy should be strong condemnation of McInnis, absent a call for withdrawal (at least at this time)

    This story has legs, so the best thing the Dems can do let McInnis twist slowly in the wind. Don’t cut him down by asking for his withdrawal.  

      1. But you can make a strong statement condemning McInnis’s behavior as unacceptable without calling for his withdrawal. I say let him twist slowly in the wind (because its only going to get worse), and let Republicans call for his withdrawal. When that happens, McInnis’s gubernatorial ambitions are done as well as any political future.

        Remember, Nixon resigned only after he could no longer ignore the calls from his own party. Barry Goldwater flat out told him if he didn’t resign, he would vote to convict him at trial in the Senate and remove him from office.

        Nixon got the message.  

  4. He’s not involved with this race at all (unless his name is being floated for Lt. Gov of course), but he’s a prominent democrat so the statement will get some press, pushing the story more.  It also gives Speaker Carroll more publicity for whatever he’s interested in for the future.

    Meanwhile Hick can keep running his positive message campaign without getting his hands dirty in this.

    If this stays in the press for more than a few cycles, it could really hurt McInnis to the point that someone might ask him if he would like to do something else with his time instead of running for Governor and he’ll end up running some political organization.  

    I can’t see how Maes would really be much of a challenger, and Hick would walk in much easier.

  5. if McInnis withdrawls, that’s going to leave many McInnis supporters left out and unsure of whether they should go and support Maes or simply not vote at all.  Many people back McInnis for the fact that he has experience in politics – Maes has little of.  

    1. That is a great thing for Co Dems right now. let the indies/moderates who are polling against the dems right now stay home. I’ll take that

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

72 readers online now

Newsletter

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