U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

50%

40%↑

30%

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 26, 2006 12:15 AM UTC

Colorado Pols Online Debate: CD-5

  • 5 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Last week we asked all six Republican candidates for congress in CD-5 to submit two questions (total) for the rest of their opponents to answer. We then collected those questions and distributed them back to the candidates, and you can read their questions and answers below.

Two candidates – Doug Lamborn and Lionel Rivera – did not respond to our requests, so to reward the candidates who did, we thought we’d run a little contest. Read the questions and answers below, then vote on which candidate you found most impressive based on their answers. The winner will receive a free small button ad on Colorado Pols for the week leading up to the primary.

Let’s get started…

(NOTE: Candidates did not answer their own questions, so each question will have answers from only three candidates)

1. What programs would you cut from the federal government to save taxpayer dollars and begin to pay down our national debt?

Bentley Rayburn: I have already proposed the elimination of the Department of Commerce and think that we need to look for other programs that should be culled.  Think tanks like the CATO Institute and the Heritage Foundation have done a lot of work identifying wasteful programs and they deserve serious consideration.

Duncan Bremer:

  • DARE ($1B)
  • Subspecies protection under the Endangered Species Act
  • Davis-Bacon Act requirement for paying artificially high wages on federal projects
  • National Endowment for the Arts
  • National Endowment for the Humanities
  • Cost of living increases on entitlement programs, particularly Social Security, should be divided into means-tested and non-means-tested, with those meeting the means test getting a higher cost of living increase than those who do not.
  • Farm subsidy programs
  • Ethanol tax exemption subsidy
  • John Anderson: My first priority would be to stop tax dollars from being paid to anyone who is in this country illegally, in jail, or wanted on a warrant for any criminal offense.  When I was the Sheriff for El Paso County, I initiated a program that intercepted over $1.5M going to inmates in jail that were not entitled to recieve (e.g., SSI, Worker’s comp, Unemployment).  This is a multi-million, if not multi-billion dollar fraud that happens every day in America.  I would introduce legislation requiring anyone receiving a check from the federal government to appear in person at least every four months to prove they are who they say they are, that they are lawful citizens, and that they are truly entitled to that payment.

    2. What is your position on legal reform?

    Bentley Rayburn: I am an enthusiastic supporter of tort reform. It would do wonders to encourage innovation in science and health care fields and the savings to our health care system would be phenomenal.

    John Anderson: I support tort reform.

    Duncan Bremer: I support tort reform, limiting non-economic damages, attorney’s fees in class actions, attorney’s fees in “private attorneys general” type acts that permit “public interest law firms” to feed at taxpayer expense, suing the federal government and private partied, instead of the elected representatives being able to direct the agenda. E.g. the Boulder Biodiversity Center suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (or threatening to sue) to list the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse or to prevent its delisting.

    3. If you were unable to vote for yourself in the August Primary, which candidate would you vote for?

    Duncan Bremer: Jeff Crank

    Bentley Rayburn: Is it too late to write in Newt Gingrich?

    Jeff Crank: Duncan Bremer because he is a man of integrity and has chosen to talk about issues and run a positive campaign.

     

    4. Since three of the core believes of the Republican Party are; less government intrusions in our lives, more individual responsibility and more individual freedom, how can you support Constitutional Amendments that promote social issues (e.g., the Defense of Marriage or Pro-Life Amendments) that only force more government intrusion into our lives, and lessen individual responsibility and weaken individual freedom?

     
    Bentley Rayburn: Whoever wrote this question is unfit for office.  Government’s first job is to protect its citizens, especially its most vulnerable.  We have laws against murder because a civilized society does not live by the laws of the jungle, where only the strong survive.  Individual freedom is an ideal that we want to protect and expand, but never when you are abusing that freedom to take the life of another.  Protecting innocent life is fundamental, merciful, and right.  That child deserves our protection and the more than 40 million souls that have perished since Roe v Wade remain a stain on the soul of this otherwise great nation.  Abortion remains the tool of those who wish to avoid individual responsibility for the decisions they have made.  That they would kill another merely to live a life of greater convenience is the greatest tragedy imaginable.  Again, the author of this question shows a shocking disregard for the meanings of responsibility and freedom.

    Regarding the defense of marriage, I would have preferred that government remained entirely out of the institution of marriage.  Unfortunately, the two are hopelessly entwined through laws, regulations, tax codes, etc.  The very least that government can do in return, is to protect this precious institution from activist judges and from those extremist interest groups whose ongoing battle against morality in any form has now led them to this assault on marriage.

    Jeff Crank: Constitutional amendments should not be taken lightly – but when those on the left attack such institutions as traditional marriage and use judicial activism to advance their cause, the legislative branch of government has an obligation to step in.  On the pro-life amendment if someone says they are pro-life, I don’t understand then, why you wouldn’t do everything possible to protect “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” if you believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided.

    Duncan Bremer:

  • Government has a role in holding society together. Conservatives generally believe that values are important. Therefore, government involvement in values should be clear and should uphold traditional values that underpin society.
  • Marriage is the most basic unit of society. Those like me, who believe that God created us all and created us as social creatures, and gave us the Bible as revelation of his desire for us, believe that he set up marriage between one man and one woman as the standard for sexual relationships.
  • Since government has gotten involved in this relationship, it is important for government to recognize the special nature of this one-man-one-woman life-long relationship as the standard, and hopefully support it wherever government is involved. Other relationships are important as well, such as parent-child, and well recognized by government. But the marriage relationship is the fundamental unit of society.
  • The marriage relationship is under attack from many quarters, especially from divorce and people living together without the commitment of marriage. Such facts make it so much more important for the government and other social institutions to uphold marriage as the standard.
  • Protecting life and especially life of those who are incapable of protecting themselves is a traditional government function. We have passionate differences about what life should be protected.
  • Some courts have taken it upon themselves to resolve these issues in spite of the fact that legislatures and the people are better suited to deal with such a range of opinions as we have. The issues should be dealt with at the state level by legislation through the normal channels. The courts, both state and federal should not appoint themselves super legislatures but respect the will of the people. It is because of the arrogance of some courts overruling the express will of the people as expressed in their legislation and constitutions that we are forced to consider constitutional amendments.
  • The proposed amendments do not force more government intrusion into our lives. The amendments protect against or override arrogant court (especially federal court) assumption of unauthorized authority into the deliberate legislative process at the state level as reserved to the states in the 10th Amendment.
  • 5.  What personal experiences have prepared you to be a leader on the international stage in the War against Radical Islamic Jihadist and the current military crisis in the Middle East?

      John Anderson: I have over thirty years law enforcement experience with extensive domain expertise in both domestic and international terrorism.  I am the only candidate in this race employed full-time as a homeland security and defense subject matter expert and hold security clearances at the highest levels in government.  The corporation I work for is the largest defense contractor in the world with a global reach into 56 countries and 48 states.  I have worked extensively with the FBI, designated by the President, as the lead federal agency for terrorism and am actively engaged with both NORAD and USNORTHCOM.

     
    Duncan Bremer:

  • My family of origin was constantly engaged in discussions about international business and international relations. This led my brother L. Paul Bremer into the Foreign Service, where he had a distinguished career. It led me to be constantly watching, discussing and reading about foreign affairs, and led me to travel internationally as a young man.
  • In 1986 President Reagan appointed my brother Ambassador At Large for Counter-Terrorism. His job description was to get the nations of the world to cooperate against international terrorism, to isolate states that support terrorism, and to share information on terrorism and counter-terrorism activities. He is recognized as one of the world’s authorities on terrorism. I have been following international terrorism ever since, and have had many discussions with him and other counter-terrorism experts.
  • From 1995 through 2002 I participated in regular emergency management training, exercises and incidents, including actual local terrorism incidents, as an elected official. I also participated in actual emergency mitigation planning, disaster management, and recovery. I know from first hand experience as well as second hand sources what is required to deal with terrorism at the local level and to deal with our local, state and national resources in a terrorism emergency.
  • As an architect and land use planner I have dealt with many practical aspects of security issues.
  • In my dealings with energy policy I have an understanding of resiliency of our energy systems.
  • After 9/11/01 I was involved in local risk assessment, target identification, mitigation planning and implementation to deal with the risk of terrorism in our District. 
  • In 1967 I took my first trip to the Middle East and worked on an archeological expedition in Turkey. For many years I have personally supported missionaries living and working in Islamic countries.
  • Since the early days of Operation Iraqi Freedom, when my brother told me President Bush asked him to be the Civil Administrator of Iraq, I have been learning all I could about Iraq, Islamic religion, and especially the fundamentals of Islam that give Radical Islamic Jihadists their ideological power.
  • I have visited Iraq and the Middle East, met with regional leaders, including three heads of state and their deputies, cabinet members and leading businessmen, and top military leaders of our nation and others. I have listened to their personal views on our efforts in Iraq and the War on Terror.
  • My three sons are in the military. I have followed their training and careers and that of many other military personnel, including many former Air Force Academy cadets, not ranking officers with key responsibilities in the War on Terror. I have a personal stake in getting the best information available and having the context in which to evaluate it. I have a personal stake in making the best decisions about the War on Terror, because my family is intimately involved, and will be affected.
  • In short, I have a long history of involvement and personal experience with terrorism and a high personal information level and stake in issues of dealing with Islamic Fundamentalist Jihad and international terrorism.
  • Jeff Crank: Being a member of Congress does not mean that you are a leader on the international stage.  It means that you are, under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, to raise and maintain an Army and a Navy.  I am the only candidate in the race that has legislative experience drafting defense authorization bills and working with the Armed Services Committee and the Appropriations Committee to fund the military through the legislative process.  We are not trying to be elected Secretary of State.

    6.  What qualifications do you have that will enable you to deal with the problems faced in the American educational system?

    Jeff Crank: First and foremost, I am a parent. That means that I have a vested interest in the educational system working for all of us. The federal government should not play a role in K-12 education – that should be left to state and local governments.  A member of Congress can, however, use the bully pulpit of the office to advance school choice, vouchers, and free-market reforms in K-12 education.

    John Anderson: I am a product of public education K-12 in the 5th Congressional Distict, a graduate of Pikes Peak Community College, Regis College and hold an MBA from Regis University.  I taught for several years at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (UCCS) in the Graduate School of Public Affairs and for Penn State University.  I also have a daughter attending public school in District 20 and her mother and I are actively involved in her education and interact with her teachers and the school principal on an on-going basis.  Many of my supporters are school teachers and I am very supportive of their issues and concerns.

    Duncan Bremer:
     

  • I am probably the most overeducated candidate in this race, with the equivalent of two PhD’s. So I have seen a lot of the American educational system. My wife does have a Ph.D.
  •  

  • My wife and I have educated our children in a variety of government schools and private schools.
  •  

  • We were pioneers by schooling our sons at home through the high school years.
  •  

  • As an elected official for 8 years I interacted with local school boards and administrators, and parents regarding their schools on all sorts of issues from school finance, to curriculum, to freedom of speech, special needs students, the arts, athletics, building location, land use, expansion planning and joint projects.
  •  

  • I have created and taught educational programs for students from pre-school to professional architects and engineers.
  •  

  • In my career as an architect I discovered I have special skills in helping people with diverse interests come together to create solutions that work.
     
  • I am on the Board of Directors of Qualistar Early Learning, the premier early childhood education quality assessment and improvement organization in the country, which is demonstrating improvement in the quality of early childhood education in Colorado.
  •  

  • In my career as a business lawyer, I discovered I have special skills to help people with diverse interests come together to create solutions that work.
  •  

  • In my career as an elected public official, I have used my skills to help people with diverse interest come together to create solutions that work.
  •  

  • I have demonstrated my ability to cooperatively develop public policy for major government programs including welfare reform, workforce development, child welfare, child support enforcement and community corrections.
  • 7. Aside from political campaigns and issues, how have you contributed to your community through volunteering?

    Bentley Rayburn: Working as an elder in my church, serving on the boards of charities and Christian organizations, as well as work with local charitable groups.

     
    Jeff Crank:I am a volunteer with my church (Sunrise) as well as volunteer with Boy Scouts, Angel tree program and various other community service organizations.

    John Anderson: I have been actively involved in not-for-profit organizations for several decades in the 5th Congressional District.  I have served on the Board of Directors for a half dozen organizations, and have been actively involved in various fundraising activities both while serving as Sheriff for El Paso County and after retiring (the most recent was as the 2005 Chairman of the American Heart Association Heart Walk).

     
    8. Have you signed the attached Integrity Pledge proposed by Duncan Bremer?  Why or why not?

     
    Jeff Crank: Yes.  It is important to be truthful in a political campaign.  We can have differences but there has been too much misrepresentation and lying during this campaign.  I thank Duncan for his pledge.

    John Anderson: Yes, I believed it was the ethic thing to do and believe the tax loop-hole that 527 operate under should be closed.

    Bentley Rayburn: No.  My campaign already acts with integrity and we do it because that is what we require of ourselves.  Signing some pledge makes it look like you’re doing things right because you have to, rather than because you want to.

    Now that the “Online Debate” is over, it’s time to cast your vote for the winner.

    Comments

    5 thoughts on “Colorado Pols Online Debate: CD-5

      1. if that was law I would still be married to a lying, cheating, scumbag that likes to screw her boss, and I never would have met my wife of the past 25 years.
        I could go for a law that penalizes lying and cheating  though. Maybe cutting off or sewing shut certain body parts for different offenses?

        1. My man you never cease to make me spew coffee all over my keyboard and monitor. You are one funny guy. I like that sewing bit. You doing comedy now instead of ridding your hog? We don’t agree on much but I really appreciate your sense of humor. I’m with you on this one, too many cheating girlfriends, too many lying dates. You go my man!

    Leave a Comment

    Recent Comments


    Posts about

    Donald Trump
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Rep. Lauren Boebert
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Rep. Gabe Evans
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Colorado House
    SEE MORE

    Posts about

    Colorado Senate
    SEE MORE

    43 readers online now

    Newsletter

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