CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 01, 2006 04:44 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

One week until primary.


52 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread

  1. …if Radovich-Piper slept last night.  Or was she up thinking of a coherent response to Lamm’s ad.  I here she’s great with volunteers though.

  2. I saw both of Herb Rubenstein’s ads on Good Morning America today. Both ads are great. The mud slinging ad is hilarious. Theo ther ad stating his strong opposition to the War In Iraq is stark and powerful

  3. I saw both of Herb Rubenstein’s ads on Good Morning America today. Both ads are great. The mud slinging ad is hilarious. The other ad stating his strong opposition to the War In Iraq is stark and powerful

  4. Colorado Pols has adjusted the CD5 line with Lamborn and Crank tied and Rivera a point ahead. IMHO…the line really should be either Lamborn and Crank tied with Rivera a point behind or all three with the same odds.

    Jeff Crank has a lot of local folks who are paying for a whole lot of TV and radio time. Rivera never answered initial attacks and is sinking fast; Lamborn’s campaign manager and his brother at the Christian Coalition are tanking the campaign… they have volunteers leaving like rats off a sinking ship.

    Rivera is trending down; name ID won’t carry the election.
    Lamborn is tanking down due to negative campaign tactics.
    Crank trending up as a strong and positive conservative.

    Jeff Crank will win by a narrow margin.

    “State Sen. Doug Lamborn’s campaign denied any connection to the [Colorado Christian Coalition] mailing, but several campaign staffers told reporters they quit over the incident.” – PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN

    1. Not to mention that Lamborn’s admission to taking gambling money yesterday at Focus on the Family is hurting him badly with social conservatives as noted in the gazette this morning.  His logic is the same that sunk Ralph Reed in his recent election and the logic that Jack Abramoff used to defend making his millions off of casinos to fight the expansion of gambling.  Lamborn has become so careless and desperate in his race for Congress that he is willing to compromise his beliefs to win.  That is exactly what we don’t need in Washington. 

      1. Lamborn got the money BECAUSE HE OPPOSES EXPANSION OF GAMBLING, just like the dude who contributed it.

        Guys – get off the blog and back to campaigning. 

        1. First off I’m way too old, grumpy, and sour to be campaigning but thanks for the advice. Second… of course the guy who owns the bloody casino doesn’t want expansion of gambling in Colorado… it would take business away from him! Lamborn should have returned the donation from the casino… along with all the money he is receiving from anti-military interests outside Colorado.

        2. Your name fits your inane post perfectly. Of course the dude that gave the contribution opposes gambling expansion–what better way to keep all the industry $$$ for yourself?

          Does Lamborn think anybody buys such a lame, bullshit line of reasoning? Didn’t work for Ralph Reed and it ain’t working here, either.

  5. From Square State:


    Yesterday we learn that Ed voted in the extreme minority against using DNA to track down rapists. 

    Now we learn that Ed voted in the extreme minority against protecting kids from having to be in the same room with some monster who raped them.

    I’m sorry folks, but there’s one way to look at this record:  Wrong.

    Absolutely, totally wrong.

    1. Anyone else you’d like to offend with your voting record Ed?  You voted AGAINST legal rights for straight AND gay domestic partners.  You voted FOR vouchers.  You voted AGAINST solving sexual assault cases using DNA.  AND, you voted to force little kids to sit in court with someone who raped them! 

      1. Anything to make the teachers union more responsible for its own performance is a great idea.
        I don’t know about the rest of what you say as he is not in my district.

    2. Were you and two others the only ones who upheld the constitution this time?

      Your vote was wrong Ed.

      Just like the vote on using DNA to find rapists.

      1. To buy into Ed’s claim that the DNA bill was unconstitutional, you have to buy into the idea that the other 97 legislators thought it was ok to violate the constitution.

        That bucket ain’t holding any water. 

        1. I don’t suppose there’s any similarity there…

          What surprised me the most about this whole statute of limitations conversation is that forgery doesn’t have statutory limit.

          DNA is strong evidence, but it’s not infallible.  Creating a bill that waives the statute under one circumstance (but not others) does have some potential legal issues.  I haven’t seen Ed’s crowd justifying very well yet, but I can see where there might be an issue.

      2. from Vince Todd’s original post on Monday’s Open Thread in response to the DNA vote:

        “The bill in question was then, and is now, just bad policy.  It sought to  change the statute of limitations for prosecuting certain crimes retroactively. If that is what it did, it violates the ex post facto prohibitions of both the United States and Colorado Constitutions.

        It also authorizes prosecution indeifnately if certain crimes are “reported” within ten years of the alleged occurrence  and genetic testing plays any part in the claimed identification. So, someone walks  into a police station and says, with no explanation for the delay, “I was raped nine and one half years ago and here is a sheet from the bed.”  That allegation is now blessed in that a prosecution can be commenced from now to the end of time under Colorado statute. None of that means that there is any real chance of a conviction or that the alleged victim is well served by a  prosecution. Nor does it speak well for a society that there are an increasing  number of allegations in which a person may be called upon to reconstructed what happened a decade  or more after the alleged event. Where were you and who was with you  on July 31, 1996?

        Three Senators, Ed Perlmutter included, believed that the  bill violated  the Constitution and was just bad policy. They did not vote in haste, nor did  they permit the fact that some would spin the vote as a vote supporting rapists  to deter them from what they believed their oaths required.”

        1. Penfield Tate and Bill Thiebaut are arguably two of the most thoughtful and liberal members to have ever served in the General Assembly.  They both are lawyers and both known as vigorous defenders of the Constitution (Colorado and US) and the Bill of Rights.

          They did not cast their votes without good cause.

          The tactics being used on these issues are pretty typical of the Republican party.  Spin a conscience vote or an educated public policy vote, as ‘soft on crime’ or some other BS.

          Karl Rove would be proud.

          1. … it’s apparently the case that Ed Perlmutter, Penfield Tate and Bill Thiebaut were the only legislators in Colorado who support the state constitution.

            They are heroes for their votes against putting rapists behind bars. 

            97-3.  97 constitution-haters, 3 heroes. 

            Or at least that’s what Ed’s supporters would like you to believe.

            It’s nonsense, but it’s apparently the only answer they’ve got.

        2. The bill did nothing retroactively, and as a result, the complaint that it is unconstitutional is simply wrong. 

          According to a Rocky article from 2002 (entitled “DNA CRACKS CASES; COLORADO LAW BRINGS LIFE TO COLD INVESTIGATIONS,” 6/13/02), the law that Ed opposed applied to cases dating back to July 1, 1991, which was ten years prior to the enactment date of the law.

          Applying it from 1991 forward was apparently done for the express purpose of maintaining its constitionality, does nothing retroactively and prevents the ex post facto problem from coming into play.

          As such, Ed’s unconstitutional argument doesn’t hold any water. 

          To boil it down, if you committed a rape after July 1, 1991, and they have DNA evidence, you are on the hook for the rest of your natural born life under the law Ed opposed.  You can be charged and you can be convicted for the crime you committed.  So yes, it does allow prosecution indefinitely, the same way murder can be prosecuted indefinitely, the same way treason can be prosecuted indefinitely and the same way forgery can be prosecuted indefinitely. 

          It doesn’t mandate prosecution.  It doesn’t mandate even being charged.  What it does do is allow police to pursue rapists so they can solve cases and put rapists behind bars.

          In the absence of that law, if you’re a rapist who committed a rape on July 1, 1991 and you manage to evade being caught by July 1, 2001, you are home free, and still on the streets.

          And once again, it’s important to point out that during testimony on this bill, Lakewood police pointed to a rape case that they had solved using DNA evidence.  They couldn’t charge the rapist, however, because the statute of limitations had expired.  They had to charge him for another crime, forgery, which had no statute of limitations. 

          So, if he doesn’t commit forgery, a rapist is still on the streets and the cops can’t arrest him for it.

          At the end of the day, 97 legislators voted to put guys like him behind bars. 

          Three voted to let him get away with a vile crime.

          1. Your reply helps clarify the issue.  I reposted Vince Todd’s comments (I really hope he isn’t upset I did so) to see if someone could argue well in response.  I did not see any thought out reply to his original post.

            Appreciate it.

        3. …to a young lady who was raped 10 years ago and attacker is still on the streets of Denver.  De Facto is a bunch of B.S. too.  Sexual Assault was illegal 10 years ago as well as today.  We’re not prosecuting someone for a crime that wasn’t a crime when they did it.

          How does Ed explain his vote that didn’t allow children from testifying by circuit TV?  Why wouldn’t you want to protect children, let alone children who are vitims of sexual assaults?  Can you imagine forcing an 8 year old to sit 10 feet from his/her attacker?  No excuse.

          If Democrats are serious about winning in November, they cannot elect someone with these kinds of votes in their record.  I’m shocked by these votes.

        4. This doesn’t appear to be an isolated vote. Lamm released a statement this morning that says Ed also voted against a law that would have protected kids from facing their molesters in court…

          He’s going to need a better explanation than it was “just bad policy” on this one.

          1. I like both candidates a great deal.

            Despite my affection for Ed, though, I have no idea what was going through his head when he voted this way. And now a second one involving kids?

            I vehemently disagree with him on it, and I’m more than a little mad about it.

    3. The statute to permit children under 12, upon specific order of Court, to testify by closed circuit television, (SB96-174) then codified at § 18-3-413.5, Colorado Revised Statutes, was so questionable under what the United States Supreme Court said in Maryland v. Craig was required, that it appears that no one used it. In the years between its passage and being repealed and reenacted in another form in 2005, there is no published appellate decision in Colorado that even cites the statute as being used.

      So, is Peggy talking about window dressing, statutes which sound good but no prosecutor or judge will even risk using? Ask her campaign to show a single published case where the statute she says Ed should have voted for was used and upheld?

      Is this any different that Ken Gordon’s vote against mandating the Pledge of
      Allegiance in the schools? Ken told everyone that it was unconstitutional, it
      passed, Governor Owens signed it and David Lane sued the state of Colorado. The Attorney General finally consented to a preliminary injunction and delayed trial to allow the General Assembly to come back the following year and pass a constitutional law. How much less would it have cost if legislators had listened to Ken Gordon and their oaths of office?

      You should applaud Ed for standing by his principles and opposing bad laws when his legal training tells him they won’t work and are unconstitutional, rather than rewarding Peggy’s propaganda machine. We need a responsible representative, not some who trades on fear. (Isn’t that what Bush and the Republicans did to get us into this mess?)

    4.   Are you sure that Every Way Ed did not later learn that his initial votes were mistakes and then remedy the situation by voting the other way of these issss?  (Like he did on domestic partnership legislation for gays and lesbians.) 
        Flexibility is a beautiful thing in a politician; ask Flip Flop Kerry about voting for the $89 billion before voting against it.

  6. Early voting indicates Lamborn has developed a large enough lead to be declared the winner in the CD-5 Republican primary.

    Doug would like to express his best wishes to the other Republican candidates, and ask them to concede as quickly as possible so the public will not have to bear large election costs.

    Now we can see what kind of people Crank and Rivera really are. Are they conservatives who want to save taxpayers’ money by conceding? Or are they tax and spend liberals who don’t mind wasting taxpayers hard-earned pay in an election that has already been decided?

    1. is so I get to keep enjoying yours posts until November. You make politics bearable. (I loved your post about fair voting. That was the best.)

  7. Anti-military intersts???? You mean the Club for Growth?

    You are so silly…. Stick to bashing Lamborn for the Christian Coalition piece (charges that Crank has refused to apologize for) and the substansial donation ($500) from gambling issues…

  8. Hey, do organizations’ pollsters deliberately call their supporters at times most convenient for them, and call their opponents at times most inconvenient?  Somebody tried to poll me on the various gay rights referenda last night at twenty to ten, and I have a feeling this organization wasn’t in agreement with reactionary little me.

  9. In 1999 the California Supreme Court, in People v. Frazer the court held that a statute expanding the statute of limitation did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and California Constitutions.

    1. … the bill wouldn’t have violated ex post facto anyway because it applied the bill from June 1, 1991.  As a result, there was no retroactivity that to bring ex post facto into play in the first place.

      The whole unconstitutional thing is just a really lame attempt by Ed’s gang to muddle a very clear issue.

  10. According to a report from a Democratic study panel to Democratic leaders Pelosi and Reid:

    There is not a single non-deployed Army Brigade Combat Team in the United States that is ready to deploy.

    The bottom line is that our Army currently has no ready, strategic reserve. Not since the Vietnam era and its aftermath has the Army’s readiness been so degraded.

    Thanks, Dubya!

    More, from a copy of the letter hosted at Raw Story:

    Restoring the Army’s readiness requires additional funding, but, inexplicably, the administration is underfunding the Army. It has not requested funding adequate to support the roles and missions envisioned for the Army by the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, nor has it provided adequate funding to support the operational demands being placed on the Army today. Remarkably, the Office of Management and Budget recently cut the Army’s request for FY06 supplemental appropriations by $4.9 Billion, undermining the Army’s efforts to “get well” after substantial equipment degradation and losses in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. We believe this constitutes a serious failure of civilian stewardship of the military.

    1. Cpl. Baucus was the nephew of Senator Baucus. 

      —–Original Message—–
      From: DL NEWs
      Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:00 PM
      Subject: DoD Identifies Marine Casualty

      No. 733-06 August 01, 2006

      DoD Identifies Marine Casualty

      The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

      Cpl. Phillip E. Baucus, 28, of Wolf Creek, Mont., died July 29 while conducting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq. He was assigned to 3rd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Twentynine Palms, Calif.
        Media with questions about this Marine can call the Twentynine Palms public affairs office at (760) 830-5476.

  11. i’m sure the perlmutter campagin is happy with this news….

    with peggys attack ad which forgets to mentions ed’s real record on reproductive rights and women’s isssues…

    such as……….

    HB02-1114 which requires registered sex offenders dealing with secondary campuses in anyway to register with the campus, and requires campus cops to make that info available to the public

    In no way does this man support rapists…did everyone forget he has 3 daughters?

  12. Is there any truth to the rumor Holtzman will petition to run as independent on November ballot? I thought that he could not do that as he ran first as Republican and when is the time needed to collect petitions? can he reuse those from before? Does Gigi make call?
    I think this guy is being funded by some Dems they really don’t want a race despite assurances by all their guy is going to win. Holzman knows he won’t win a general just hurt BB more than he already has.
    Interestingly enough he stated he would not do that but support BB when he withdrew. just another one of his lies–rather be both ways than an out and out liar. In my opinon he knows he is finished in CO and wants to go to another state and say I ran for Gov of Co.spinning it to his advantage there. He may even run as an indepedent or just even try as conservate dem depending on state like back in Pa.

    1. Hey idiot, Holtzman’s not in the race anymore. You can bash him all you want and it won’t make any difference since he isn’t a candidate. Beauprez on the other hand IS still a candidate and it’s going to hurt him if Republicans start bashing him again.


    The REPUBLICAN Bush administration may have broken over two dozen federal laws and regulations — some of them multiple times — according to an unreleased report from the House Judiciary Committee Democrats.

    “The misconduct I have found is not only serious, but widespread,” reads a draft summary of the report by Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI):

    The laws implicated by thIS REPUBLICAN Administration’s actions include federal laws against making false statements to congresS; federal laws and international treaties prohibiting torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment; federal laws concerning retaliating against witnesses and other government employees; Executive Orders concerning leaking and other misuse of intelligence; federal regulations and ethical requirements governing conflicts of interest; the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act; communications privacy laws; the National Security Act; and the Fourth Amendment.
    The document, an update to the Democrats’ December 2005 report, “A Constitution in Crisis,” will be released later this week, according to knowledgeable sources. It is several hundred pages long, with over a thousand footnotes.

    In earlier days such a report would be easily ignored. But with the looming possibility of Democrats taking control of the House of Representatives in November, Conyers’ charges pose a potentially serious threat to the Bush administration. After all, it takes only a simple majority vote in the House to impeach a sitting president.

    God Bless America. IMPEACH!!!!!!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

48 readers online now


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