President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

60%

40%

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
January 11, 2011 08:49 PM UTC

Even More Threats Against Democrats

  • 30 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

7NEWS reported last night, at the end of their story on the recent threats against the offices and staff of Sen. Michael Bennet:

Another Colorado man — Jesse Michael Arispe, 20 — was also indicted last week for sending a July 2010 letter “containing a threat to the life of, and to inflict bodily harm on, the President of the United States,” according to court records.

Arispe was being held in Weld County Jail on unrelated state kidnapping and rape charges when he sent the letter threatening the president, according to court records. He previously threatened to blow up Greeley government offices and federal buildings, the Greeley Tribune reported.

A third man, Donald Edward Hatten, of El Paso County, was charged by criminal complaint last week for threats against the president. Hatten has not yet appeared in court, Walsh said in the statement.

The second case, reported on in better detail by the AP, is a man who walked into the Colorado Springs FBI office last week and announced his plans to travel to Washington DC and carry out his threats–like the threats against Sen. Bennet reported yesterday, we’re talking about someone who is more pitiable and deranged than dangerous. You don’t know about the real threats until it’s too late, because they actually carry them out instead of marching into the FBI office to talk about it.

Since the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and attendees of her “Congress on Your Corner” event in Tucson Saturday, many commentators have cited a rhetorical difference between Democrats and Republicans in the last couple of years, and a tendency on the part of Republicans, in their zeal to win back power in the recent midterm elections, to employ “eliminationist” rhetoric against Democrats. Eliminationist rhetoric is defined as characterizing one’s political opponents as an implacable enemy who fundamentally opposes one’s basic values, and who must be destroyed. It ranges from quite subtle and fairly benign rhetoric to more extreme examples, such as Senate candidate Sharron Angle of Nevada’s talk of “Second Amendment remedies” being taken up by citizens–should the elections fail to provide a lawful one.

In addition to whipping up the kind of furor that inspires perfectly sane citizens to show up at rallies with their firearms and, no question, builds urgency for your get-out-the-vote efforts, there seems to be a permissive, enabling effect on the already crazy. There are all kinds of citizens out there absorbing these messages, and some of them don’t understand, in the absence of anything to spell it out for them, that you’re speaking metaphorically with the rifle targets “surveyor’s marks.”

But there’s another question that seems to be much more uncomfortable than whether there are impressionable crazies in our midst. The question is, tragic moments that put everyone on the defensive notwithstanding–how much of this rhetoric is completely serious? Ask yourself that next time Tom Tancredo says President Obama is a bigger threat to America than nuclear war, or Dave Schultheis says Obama is “flying the U.S. plane into the ground” 9/11-style. Or Jane Norton says that Democrats care more about terrorists than American citizens.

Do they–from Schultheis to Tancredo to Sharron Angle–do they mean what they say? Do they really believe it? If they do, this is really not about a few deranged “lone nuts.” It’s something much worse, and the nuts acting out the rhetoric are a red flag that had better not be missed.

Tweet
Share

Comments

30 thoughts on “Even More Threats Against Democrats”

  1. and some are just deeply cynical.  I’d put wacko Angle in the first category and Tanc in the second. Either way, they make progress on any important issues almost impossible because our system requires compromise to forge legislation and you can’t very well compromise with enemies who hate America, are satanic baby killers and care more about terrorists than about Americans, can you?

                1. with Robert DeNiro playing the part of a State Senator that hates Mexicans and travels to the border “on patrol”.  He kills a pregnant Mexican woman and her husband crossing the border.  Stating, “If the kid is born here it is as American as I am.”

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M…

                  I couldn’t help but wonder who they were mocking, if anyone.

                  The film also stars Jessica Alba, Don Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Steven Seagal and Lindsay Lohan, Cheech Marin and Jeff Fahey.

      2. I do think he believes he’s doing a public service and working for the common good, but I don’t think he takes himself literally. There are too many interviews out there where he steps back and analyzes his own actions and comes up with some variation of “Yes, I said something extreme, but I was just angry that I seemed to be the only one at all concerned about X issue.”

        Of course, I think it’s probably more evil to spout racism knowing you’re full of beans than to do so out of ignorance. He takes advantage of his perceived authority, charisma, and speaking skills to tell particular elements of society exactly what they want to hear.

        On the flip side, he’s always very nice in person and was known for an extremely responsive constituent services organization during his congressional terms. He also seems to genuinely care about education. Even ideologues aren’t pure good or pure evil.

  2. Looks like I was misled, Loughner was an independent voter with crazy leftist beliefs, not a true registered Dem. I apologize for spreading a false internet rumor.

    Let’s stop talking about rumors.

    http://michellemalkin.com/2011…

    The Tucson massacre ghouls who are now trying to criminalize conservatism have forced our hand.

    They need to be reminded. You need to be reminded.

    Confront them. Don’t be cowed into silence.

    And don’t let the media whitewash the sins of the hypocritical Left in their naked attempt to suppress the law-abiding, constitutionally-protected, peaceful, vigorous political speech of the Right.

    They want to play tu quo que in the middle of a national tragedy? They asked for it. They got it.

    Read on. It’s all just Republicans spreading hate, is it?

    WRONG.

    1. Because she’s been nothing short of a saint during these past few vitriolic years. That’s definitely where we should be pointing our moral compass. This would be like if I posted a Randi Rhodes rant.

      1. Some one disagrees with you so you don’t even bother to read their post/ Yep that is some enlightened discussion. If all of you are only interested in saying the same thing why bother having this board at all. I came here thinking it was to hear different points of view on Colorado politics. I am thinking I am in the wrong place. Too bad. I know we need such a place and I do enjoy the Friday Videos.

        2. replete with different points of view. The stupid ones are vigorously challenged. Is that a problem for you…or are you really looking for a site that doesn’t allow debate?

           

          1. I’m happy to debate with those who present different points of view.  I just don’t see any  point in engaging with trolls who take their talking points straight off the master list, rinse, repeat.  

            Since I know exactly what GOPer is going to say about any given thing without wasting time reading and since the Beej is too massively ignorant to be worth a nano-second of my time, my New Years resolution is that as soon as I can tell it’s one of their posts,  I won’t waste my time or aggravate myself needlessly without any possibility of learning anything.

            On the other hand,  Barron X, LB,  Dave and others may aggravate the hell out of me but you certainly can’t always predict exactly what any of them is going to say in all cases. So reading their posts, even when that puts me in danger of having my head explode, is always instructive and engaging with them isn’t pointless.

            Being aggravated is an unavoidable part of discourse since none of us will always agree even with those we like the best and agree with most often but there is no reason to waste my time on completely worthless engagement.  For the same reason, I don’t tune in to Rush since it is completely unnecessary. One can so easily know exactly what he’s going to say in the wake of the Arizona tragedy or anything else.  His more outrageous statements are reported anyway. Why not avoid what is both repulsive and avoidable at the cost of absolutely nothing of value?

    6. This is not a critique of conservatism. The Glenn Becks, the Sarah Palins, the Sharron Angles, the Rush Limbaughs are not preaching conservative philosophy.

      The political rhetoric that is being criticized has little to do with conservativism. Palin, et al. have spent the last couple of years mainstreaming and legitimizing the rhetoric of anti-government militia.

      Congratulations, “GOPwarrior.” If it’s even accurate to say you have a belief system, you don’t even know what it is–or where it comes from. To piss and moan that “conservatism” is under attack completely misses the point.  

      1. Rush Limbaugh: Stupid Asshole

        Glenn Beck: In more dire need of a blowjob than any other man in history

        Sharron Angle: Stupid Bitch

        Sarah Palin: Only useful in a “Wet and Wild” video with the sound off

        We all know they are idiots, on the R side we ignore them

        Any Questions?

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

62 readers online now

Newsletter

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