U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
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) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
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
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 18, 2011 11:20 PM UTC
139 Comments
…at the Denver Democrats Executive Committee meeting: he said he’s fine with creationism in church and the home, but that evolution is fine for the schools. That said, this hasn’t been the best-managed message, to say the least.
His answer the other night was equally clear….
Merely acceptable? Would that mean creationism along side it as science is fine too? Because, I’m sorry, I really do believe that the assault on science is one of the most serious dangers Americans face. I’m glad I’m not a Denver voter. Romer and a guy who can’t tell the difference between religious belief and science and the roles each should play? That really sucks.
We’ve got enough problems without adding the issue of having what people want to believe trumping the facts.
No agendas here. No sir.
Funny cartoons. Do they belong on the front page of ColoradoPols? Hmmmm…
Um…yes?
We get it. You’re a Hancock supporter, and rather than addressing the subject, you focus on claims that we must be biased if we have an opinion about something that is bad for Hancock. You think, “I’ll keep calling them biased, and maybe I can make them stop talking about the boneheaded things that Hancock has done.”
You’re not the first one to do this, and you surely won’t be the last. This hasn’t worked before, and it won’t work now.
In every contested election the same thing happens here, from supporters of candidates on every side. You’d be better off writing something like, “Yes, this isn’t helpful for Hancock, but I still like him because of A, B and C.”
See, if you did that, then people who read these comments might think, Wow, I didn’t know that about Hancock. That makes me look at him in a different light. But instead, readers see your comment and think, Yeah, whatever.. Colorado Pols is biased! The Denver Post is biased! Westword is biased! Mad Magazine is biased! Even if your claims of bias were true (and they are not), it’s just a weak argument to begin with. There’s nothing thought-provoking about screaming “bias!”
If you really believe that this is all based on some anti-Hancock bias, then you’re missing the point about what makes this story interesting. Because it ain’t Hancock.
What makes this interesting is that a top candidate for Mayor of a liberal-heavy city has openly admitted that he believes in Creationism, which is certainly not a liberal idea. The interesting part isn’t that Hancock believes in Creationism and talks about it openly. You could replace “Hancock” with “Romer” or “Boigon” or “Mejia” or any other candidate, and it would be the same interesting story.
I guess I’m just curious if you’d give so much press to a cartoon mocking Romer’s beliefs (if he has any). Honestly.
Thing is, the attention to his “creationism problem” has been called, numerous times. At what point does it stop being about “telling an interesting story” and start being “piling on for the sake of piling on”?
I’ll be curious if, in a few weeks, the Westword (or any other publication) does a mocking cartoon of Romer, and if you’ll give it the same prime real estate on the front page of your site.
That’s all. Me thinks you doth protest too much.
You must not spend much time here. The idea of a Democrat advocating for creationism and evolution as some kind of he said/ she said difference of opinion in the realm of science is news. The fact that many Dems who have preferred Hancock over Romer have a problem with this and are willing to say so means no more than just that; this is a problem for Dems concerned about the assault on science who don’t expect the Dems they support to let them down on this very basic and vital issue.
In fact, I’m offended when the question is posed as “Do you believe in evolution?” Science isn’t a matter of belief. It should be “Do you accept the science of evolution?”. Evolution is science. Creationism is religious belief. Religious belief has no place in any science class. Nobody has to have any sinister or pro-Romer ( I can’t stand him) agenda to be disturbed by Hancock’s answers on this subject. It will affect some voters’ choices and deserves attention from an objective point of view.
I’ve said numerous times that Hancock’s creationism is a problem for me. However, I don’t think he’s “advocating for it” so much as he was “honestly answering a question about his beliefs.” And I can’t really find political fault with that. The guy goes to church. That’s not for me, but I’m not going to pass judgement on the man because he is a church-goer and I am not.
My mother goes to church. She’s a really great lady. I disagree with her on MANY faith-based things, but I don’t think she’s a moron, and I don’t think she’s incapable of being a good attorney because she believes that God created the heavens and the earth.
“The idea of a Democrat advocating for creationism and evolution as some kind of he said/ she said difference of opinion in the realm of science is news.”
Again, he didn’t “advocate” for it. He’s not campaigning on a “pro-creationism” platform. He was asked about personal beliefs, a question which probably shouldn’t have been asked in a debate BECAUSE IT HAS ZERO BEARING ON WHAT HE WOULD DO AS MAYOR.
As for ColoPols reporting on it, I have no problem with that. The science behind evolution is sound, and it isn’t the ideal answer I want from a Democratic politician. You’re right: That IS news. It’s the repeated harping on it, the continued making of political hay out of a personal belief issue that I have a problem with.
All of this said, the cartoons WERE funny. I chuckled. I chortled. I tittered. But putting it on the front page of a site which has already reported on Hancock’s statements numerous times strikes me as classless and unnecessary, more “kicking a man when he’s down” than “reporting on the actual story.” THAT is what I took umbrage with.
His shakiness on the difference between science and belief is disturbing to me. I don’t denigrate anyone’s religious beliefs but they are beliefs, not science and a clear line must be drawn. Creationism and ID are faith based and have no more place in a science class than teaching b the bible as science does. That’s all I’m saying. You can believe the bible verbatim for all I care but you can’t teach it in a science class.
10000000% about not teaching creationism in a science class. But that’s not at all what he said.
When asked very directly whether he thought creationism ought to be taught in school alongside evolution he said “yes” without a second’s hesitation. Romer had already said “no”. It wasn’t a tricky question. He claims he misunderstood but every time he opens his mouth on the subject to explain he undermines that correction and undermines his own credibility on the whole subject. This after refusing to answer a direct question about evolution. He side-stepped by answering “I believe in God”, an answer to a question he wasn’t asked. This isn’t about twisting, spinning or trickery. It’s about his own failure to just say “I support teaching only the science of evolution in our schools’ science curricula.”
What are you talking about?
The question was NOT the way you characterize it, it said nothing about “ought to be taught in school alongside evolution.”
And you’ve got your facts mixed up too when you say Romer had already said “no,” because that’s not the order they answered the questions in.
And what you say he’s failed to say is EXACTLY what he did say after the debate.
If this isn’t about twisting, spinning or whatever, at least get your facts straight before jumping to whatever conclusions you think they support.
Romer smiled and said no and then Hancock took the mic and said yes. Look at the video.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Sorry Ralphie, you are wrong, and so are you, WLJ — that is NOT what the video shows. I was there. Hancock answered first, then handed the microphone to Romer.
Regardless, when BlueCat says the question was whether creationism “ought to be taught in school alongside evolution,” that’s not what was asked.
I mean he just created his account, what, five days ago? And has only ever posted in defense of Hancock. Very suspicious…
We don’t need your shillin kind here, with your “facts” and “memory” and other bullshit. The way I remember it, Hancock said he would personally engulf West Denver in hellfire with his witchcraft if he lost the election, and who are you to tell me I’m wrong?
I should have been more clear.
the word “alongside” may not have appeared but Hancock certainly didn’t say that evolution should be taught in science classes and creationism in, say, comparative religion classes. The impression left was that they are both valid ways of teaching about the origins of life in our schools.
He has been unwilling to be unambiguous when asked unambiguous questions pertaining to the proper role of science vs belief in our public schools. He’s chosen to mince words or try to deflect as in the “I believe in God” non-answer.
I sympathize. I understand your preference for the man. But to say the concerns raised by the way he himself has addressed this are all nothing but a result of unfair spin isn’t fair or accurate. Naturally I totally disagree with any notion of you being a shill. We just disagree on this.
Which we should have been more clear about, is that (remember, we didn’t write this post), is that the Creationism thing has become a big problem for Hancock. When something you say ends up becoming a series of political cartoons, it’s crossed over from mere “statement” to something that may define his campaign, whether he likes it or not.
However, I would point out that the way to make SURE it becomes something that defines his campaign is to keep harping on it.
That’s YOU making it a defining moment.
I get what you’re saying. I’ve been a member here for a while (posting rarely – very rarely) and I’ve seen what I think is a lot of in-the-tank-edness for Chris Romer. So I wonder if you’d call so much attention to a similar gaffe from your guy. That’s all.
Guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
I’ve seen a whole lot more anybody but.
This is a dumb issue, pimped by political hacks who crave controversy, that has nothing to do with whether Hancock would be a good mayor for Denver. Even if this is what Hancock beleives, it hardly defines him and his political career.
and no one would give any more of a shit about this.
alleged bad behavior at a Romer event?
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but the self-righteousness on both sides is as entertaining as hell.
… but as a Denver voter, it tells me a lot about whether he’d be a good mayor for Denver. You know why? Because if he’s going to rely on baseless bullshit like ID instead of hard facts like evolution*, he’s probably going to exercise poor judgment in other areas as well.
God, my choice is one putz or another. Fuck me….
And there’s no doubt he is — because the Romer campaign keeps repeating it over and over! What possible reason could they have to try to give voters the wrong impression?
I mean, just because I believe that Harry Potter lives in a hidden house outside London and that The Flinstones was a documentary doesn’t mean you shouldn’t hand over the budget!
Romer’s campaign is at worst pretending that it comes more into policy than it does. But Hancock does actually believe it. Even though he said publicly for the first time at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.
That happened. It’s Hancock’s decision to believe or not. The impact that has or doesn’t have is debatable, sure. But it’s not Romer’s doing. Romer’s campaign is just keeping it at the forefront. In fact, I’m not aware of Romer ever saying it made Hancock some kind of risk because he can’t make sane decisions. I believe he went the jobs way, suggesting that a high tech company may not want to come to a city run by a man who doesn’t believe in evolution. Correct me if I missed something, please. I love information.
I kind of imagine Harry and Ginny getting a nice little shack in the county.
Some people are waiting for the last movie. 🙂
(I can totally see a cottage, just neater than mom and dad’s.)
And yeah, Go-go-gadget voters! Out of ten people we get these two. Sigh.
you’re one of the smarter polsters here. Do you think so little of me that you think I can’t reach my own conclusions?
I’ve seen the video and the transcript. Hancock said what he said, and like Newt Gingrich’s attack on the Ryan budget, all the spin in the world isn’t going to change what he said.
n/t
n/t
I wonder what the Venn Diagram would look like?
to insist it’s a wrong impression. Every time Hancock has a chance to clarify he makes it more clear that he may not recognize the difference between science and religious belief. Maybe he just isn’t finding the right words but the words he is finding do not justify accusations of unfairly twisting them.
Of course Romer keeps reminding voters of it. When your opponent gives you ammo you use it or you’re a fool. And, by the way, I would have a really hard time voting for Romer. Glad I’m not a Denver voter because I view this with sadness, not gotcha pro-Romer smugness.
school mascot election episode (2004) right here:
[Use your imagination. The election for school mascot wound up being a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche. The classic line I was trying to find was something along the lines of “all elections are always a choice between a turd sandwich and a giant douche — those are the only kind of people who ever run.”]
“According to a 2001 Gallup poll] about 45% of Americans believe that “God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”
Agree that’s really scary and makes us look like idiots to the rest of the advanced nations of the world. Probaly hurts him somewhat among Dems and there is also the matter of the pay raise vote getting lots of ad time. Just sayin’ I wouldn’t be measuring the drapes quite yet.
I don’t live in Denver & have (or at least had) no opinion on who was better. But if I did, this would be a major consideration in my vote. I want a mayor who will make decisions based on the facts, not on wishful thinking.
Hancock has a solid Progressive record in city government while Romer is seen as a flake by Progressives, the city’s largest voting block. (78% of them viewed Hancock favorably in the last RBI poll, while 4% viewed him unfavorably. Romer’s numbers were 45% & 35%, respectively.)
this narrative is designed to appeal to.
I’m thinking it’s more to cover what reubenesp wrote two minutes before you hit post. That’s not Dave.
who is sure he can grasp the entirety of a candidate’s character based on an easily digestible factoid — subsequent explanations, rebuttals and the absurdity of the attack be damned.
There’s nothing wrong with David, who lives in Boulder, being a low-information voter susceptible to an attack like this, since he ultimately can’t vote. The fact a lot of Denver voters will make their decisions based on this — well, that’s a good thing for Romer!
I think it was a stupid thing for Hancock to say and I am sure he wishes he could take it back. He said the wrong thing and any explanation of that is just going to be further pilloried as waffling.
However, when your whole platform is “my opponent said he believes in creationism, lookie here ” that makes you a pretty shitty candidate too.
If you don’t like wishful thinking, then you don’t like Romer. The man has wish butterflies flying out of his ass most of the time. I’ve worked with him in the legislature and he’s a bully looking for a pulpit.
I don’t want creationism taught in schools, but I would rather have a Mayor with a strong sense of religion than one who doesn’t.
Not bad.
I don’t know the racial or ethnic make up of probably 95% of this blog community but I wonder if there is a cultural blind spot at play in this discussion.
Quick disclaimer. As my name implies, I don’t have a dog in this fight. Also, none of what follows is meant to argue against the point that, as a candidate in a major race, this was a completely clumsy and potentially destructive answer to the question.
That said, I think Hancock answered this question from a personal perspective based in his community rather than from a policy one. (Which is why it was incredibly clumsy and stupid.)
As one of the polls cited above makes clear, there are a lot of people who believe in creationism. Whether they believe in the kind of (Capital C) Creationism that is getting pushed in political circles is a whole other question. If I asked a number of people in my extended family this question, even the liberal ones might say yes. It’s not that they believe all that goofy stuff in the Panda book or that they believe Adam and Eve had a pet dinosaur. They simply believe in a creator God.
And, while I am not African American, I would say that the very generalized (read: yes, there are exceptions but speaking broadly about the community) place of the church in the African American community is at least as central and fairly traditional as it is in my family. And many people tend to answer off the cuff from a naive “fair is fair, all sides should be heard” perspective.
A candidate for major in a major American city shouldn’t but he did.
So, I tend to believe that his backtracking is a more accurate refelction of what he would do as mayor. And that his immediate answer had more to do with his personal cultural location.
And I still think it was a poorly thought out answer. I just think it is worth pointing out that a) not all people who believe in a Creator God believe in a 6,000 year old earth where Adam and Eve wandered around with dinosaurs and b) sharing a belief in a Creator God that is common in your community and even wanting to have that perspective reflected in school is not the same as saying that you would push for that policy.
once as a general question (I can see your argument for this – I believe I posted that it was honest, brave, and stupid at the time) and once as a specific question about Intelligent Design being taught in schools. I appreciate what you’re saying, but it’s a bit beyond “flub” (Hancock’s word, not yours) to me with the second asking.
As to the poll, I’m fairly certain I already got in a fight about many of these. First of all, the numbers are declining rapidly. Second, Denver ranks low on the religious beliefs scale. All of Colorado in fact. Most of us have a faith, we just don’t take it as seriously as they do other places. So it may be fine to a third of the population (most recent poll) nationwide, but this is a local race.
Further, you always have to wonder about which backtrack, which time, and about which issue. He always “mans up” after each flub, but often runs back to the original position. So is it the second take, or the fourth that you believe reflects how he’ll govern in this case?
Just to make my intentions clear: At this point I’m not supporting anyone and probably won’t. They both suck! And I can’t see myself ever voting Romer for anything. I also don’t think this is a big deal by itself. I see it as a symptom of Hancock’s larger problem. That’s why I’m not doing well with the excuses for him. How many things get to be excused?
.
Well, if the “place” is this blog, folks here take their religious beliefs pretty darn seriously.
DavidThi goes so far as to dress his religious beliefs up to look like scientific conclusions.
.
As those who have read my posts have probably figured out, I also have no ‘dog in this fight.’ And I agree with your overall premise, I think it is more nuanced, as to belief and how people identify with their own. I consider myself optimistically agnostic (which is to say I think there is more to it than this).
As a somewhat literary person, I think most of our belief systems are analogy. Or at least approximations. So I don’t take the poll to mean that everyone in that 40%+ believes in a
(Although I think a surprising number do…)
I enjoy reading the Tao myself (and such on and so forth) but I don’t really think ‘pre-material-world’ was an uncarved block. (Great analogy though…)
I lean toward thinking there is something more, but I admit I don’t really know. I’m OK with that. I also don’t think it matters so much what I believe as what I do, (and I’m pretty sure that’s what various sages thought they were teaching us…)
People can probably have a similar belief as mine and answer ‘yes’ to such a question, perhaps, depending on all the particulars.
But most importantly to this discussion, it certainly was a clumsy and stupid answer–and incorrect. Science should be taught in school. Doubt is OK, and it’s part of science–but it has to be presented in proportion to how it actually exists within the scientific community or it quickly becomes problematic.
A made up myth–however sacred its origin’s to the most popular, or well-connected religions–should not be taught, repackaged or otherwise, in public school. It’s practically malpractice to teach it in private schools IMO. It’s not like churches are hard to find…
Denver is a big city (in its own little way) and I like to think–with its various exceptions–that Colorado is a modern state. We’re not Utah.
Will it hurt him in Denver? I don’t know, not really my purview.
My neck of the woods probably help turn a few folks out, I mean if they’re still around next week, but as Pols likes to remind us we’re small potatoes. At least we’re not Idaho.
Belief, after all is about faith and faith is a matter of personal conscience. Some who accept the science of evolution believe it is the means through which the creator works. That doesn’t change the fact that it is just that, their belief, and that particular view has no place in a science class.
Evolution is what science classes should teach. Students can take that information and reconcile it or not with whatever faith they profess on their own time. But religious belief should not be part of any science curriculum. Ever. Period. And intelligent, educated citizens need to be aware of the difference. It is impossible to teach scientific method while teaching creationism or ID as science.
.
The Christian Bible starts with a book out of the Jewish Pentateuch, Genesis.
An apparently intentional misreading of that book is the basis for the “teaching” that the Earth is only 4,000 or 6,000 years old.
I know one or two Jews. It was their scripture first.
None of them seems to believe the stuff about dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden.
Is this maybe an indication that the “Creationism” belief is an error ?
Me, I believe in Todd’s Creator God. I am a creationist. But the idea that the six days of creation were 24-hour days, that’s not just silly, it replaces the primacy of God with the primacy of one’s local preacher.
Embracing what you know to be untrue as fundamental Truth is a way of proving loyalty and fealty to a false teacher.
And, to Billy Graham and his ilk, that seems to be what’s really important.
.
Not someone who believes we were created by God. Many scientists believe that; it just doesn’t have a place in their scientific study, other than that’s what some of them are trying to find out (that is, how God created us.)
Creationism is a belief that a higher power, a supreme being, created the universe and the earth.
As you know creationists represent a broad spectrum of people. People from the beginning of time have believed in creationism. If a native american ran for office and held to the belief that the Great Creator broght forth animals and man, and this should be taught in school, would you be incensed?
I didn’t hear Hancock say he wanted ID taught in DPS science classes. I also didn’t hear him say that students should learn that the earth was created in six days and dinosaurs lived in Eden.
Did you?
TOTALLY. No snark. Again, I believe I said that right after this (the second) flub. If he’s talking about philosophy, great. That’s where I learned about Christianity. (In spite of being raised by the Christian side of my family.)
But he didn’t. He released a statement about misspeaking and related it to science class. This is him correcting himself. So I dunno, which way did he thunk it? Can you say for sure, or are you taking his campaign’s word for it?
Which one’s real!!
Every time I wander down this path I’m reminded of his education views. Not curriculum related views (per se), more general. I don’t like them. If you do, that may be a way to steer the conversation. Just a thought.
The excuses aren’t helping, imo.
Misstatements and flubbed follow ups leaving us both wondering what is up.
I didn’t see the statement where he related it to science class, except the one that said,
Shoulda said that first. Shuda, coulda, woulda…
I find it interesting that the loudest critics here either, 1) don’t live in Denver, 2) aren’t religious, and 3) think the Mayor has control over what DPS students are taught.
Such are campaigns though. Step one – find mud. Step two – throw mud. Step three – repeat.
do you mind answering a few questions for me?
Who did you like in the general election?
Who did you like the day after?
Who do you like now?
Me getting a feel for the crowd. For the sake of fairness I went Mejia, Hancock, fuck ’em (not based on evolution, or the lack thereof).
I went Linkhart in the general because I am a firm believer that progress and results come from communities and collaboration. I thought Linkhart reflected those values the best (plus he is great on the policy stuff).
The day after, Hancock. Mostly for the same reasons as above. I’ve heard people argue that the two candidates are basically the same – I disagree 100%. They may have similar policy beliefs, but it is more about their leadership styles – and Hancock’s is better than Romer’s, IMHO.
I’m still for Hancock. Dissapointed about this creationism gaffe, but doesn’t take away from his accomplishments nor diminish his leadership.
I have a follow up, that I probably could argue, but promise not to! (I’m also declaring it off limits for anyone else since I’m asking for opinions.)
Did Linkhart’s endorsement do anything for you one way or the other? Or was it more like good to know, you know?
To be honest, endorsements mean very little to me most of the time. What I did find interesting and disappointing was Mejia endorsing Romer. But it made no difference to me.
Thanks again. And since I’m more or less out for now (or forever, boogada, boogada, RAPTURE!), have a nice weekend!
First, sorry, you’re wrong about creationism. Even if there are dictionary definitions that corroborate what you say, the connotation in a political blog, and in discussions about ID in school, is that a creationist is one who rejects evolution. As others have pointed out, accepting evolution doesn’t mean rejecting the theory of a creator.
Now, maybe Hancock, when he answered in the affirmative when asked point blank if he supports ID being taught in public schools, meant it had a place in social studies. I haven’t seen any statements that actually clarified what he meant, exactly, when he readily answered the question “yes.” (Backtracking isn’t an explanation.) So I’m left to go with what my experience with this debate tells me.
I’m not getting into a debate about whether creationism means one thing or the context means another – it’s a waste of time. I’ve read your thoughts about religion here and you and I come from a very different place.
I’m more concerned about what Hancock or Romer is going to do in areas where they actually have power as Mayor. Hancock answering ‘yes’ to the question is as relevant as Romer answering ‘no’.
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not defending a stupid answer. A politician running for Denver Mayor should know better. The presumption I take issue with is Hancock will make all his policy decisions through a religious filter and therefore can’t be trusted to do the job.
That’s a bit of a broad brush; I don’t think anyone makes ALL their decisions through a religious filter. I just prefer that candidates make NO decisions that way. (Which isn’t the same a praying for guidance, which I’m all for.)
So, clarifying that he won’t make all of his decisions through a religious filter, I think it’s safe to presume that some will. Why do you have a problem with that?
is that Hancock is stupid because he believes what he does, and that this belief will influence his job as Mayor.
The presumption I do agree with is that certain voters:
Regarding what you said above, if someone prays for guidance, they’re using a religious filter in making their political decision.
So, clarifying that Hancock’s belief in creationism won’t influence all of his decisions if elected Mayor, why do you have a problem with his beliefs?
…. I don’t believe he’s stupid. I’m at a loss to explain why smart people end up rejecting verifiable facts in favor of internal beliefs, but it’s pretty common. (I called ID “stupid shit,” but that’s not the same as calling Hancock “stupid.”)
And no, simply praying for guidance isn’t a “filter.” It’s just praying for guidance. A filter is applying dogma to the decision making process. For example, believing so much in a literal interpretation of Genesis that you reject science, and then believe it has a place in the science curriculum.
As to the last, I think I made it clear when I said:
I favor policy decisions based on the available evidence and good judgment. Personal philosophy/religion plays a role in guidance, but in some people it become ideological.
I don’t want to vote for any ideologues. They tend to cling to policies based on the purity of their visions and aren’t pragmatic. See the current tea party for an example.
Personally, I’m not convinced he won’t make the better mayor of the two candidates because of this. But it gives me serious pause.
I mean that.
I’m going to give you the final word on this because I’ve blown off too much time debating this and I’m willing to bet 99.9% of the readers here are ignoring us. So, unless you want to go for the posting record (which, I’m afraid we may have to have the beej in on the conversation to achieve), I’m done.
You didn’t say Hancock was stupid, someone else insinuated it. I think he was stupid making the remark. But, as I’ve said, it has little if any relevance to future job.
I don’t vote for ideologues either. they scare me. Personally, I see Romer’s fascination with money and ego come closer to ideologue than anything Hancock has done or said.
But, with that, I’m off to battle the elements.
You do your namesake well, as usual.
The feeling is mutual. You may feel like you’re wasting time here, but I can assure that it benefits anyone who reads your opinions.
I’m agnostic (not atheist) so I come from a different angle on this. I don’t care if a candidate believes in God. There are questions not yet answered and placing God in context with those unknowns is fine.
But when someone says they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, or they call ID a scientific theory, then they are placing wishful thinking in front of clear facts. And that’s a major problem because we need a mayor who works from the facts, not from wishful thinking.
With that said, this is not the only measure by which people should cast their votes. The real bottom line is which one will do a better job running the city and insuring it will thrive in the future.
they believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, or they call ID a scientific theory
Who are you talking about? No one anywhere near the Denver mayor’s race has said either of those.
When Hancock was asked this question, it was a personal belief question, not a policy question.
STILL wondering if any of Romer’s gaffes will end up on the front page of COPols. The site has chosen its candidate, just as it chose Bennet over Romanoff last year.
Post it.
What do you want us to post about Romer? As far as we know, he hasn’t publicly said or done anything controversial since the campaign began. It’s not like we’re hiding something that is otherwise obvious.
I make decisions based on what I believe, regardless of the facts.
He didn’t, of course, actually say that, but that’s what he’s done.
When? Where?
Can you name one decision that Hancock has made which was shaped by his belief that the world was created by a God?
I’m not really religious, and I don’t personally believe in a higher power that created the earth… but that shouldn’t keep me from elected office, nor should Hancock’s beliefs — PERSONAL beliefs, which he doesn’t push on anyone — keep him from elected office.
to believe a creation myth that flies in the face of facts. He’s been to the museum. He’s seen the exhibit (a very good one). He’s rejected it. He’s got his own “facts”.
No matter how I chase that thought, I just don’t see how it leads to anything good.
I get it that you may prefer Hancock over Romer – that is, after all, the only choice remaining. But in my mind, belief in Creationism is a rejection of critical thinking.
YMMV.
of Michael Hancock has been on display for several years now in the city council.
I’m not going to be swayed on things he’s ACTUALLY accomplished because he believes in a creator.
Talk about a lack of critical thinking. Taking established track records and tainting them because he admitted his personal beliefs is a little bit absurd.
Not fair to evaluate a candidate on the basis of their personal beliefs (as if there were any other kind).
I just find it more informative to look at the man’s body of work than whether or not he goes to church and believes in God.
Guess looking at a candidate’s record is off limits. Heady times we’re livin’ in.
Everytime this comes up, you jump in and say it’s irrelevant. That because it’s a personal belief, it can’t be challenged or critically evaluated. Bullshit. A lot of crap goes down in this country in the name of fundamentalist Christianity. And a lot of it starts with Creationism in the classroom.
And don’t paint me as trashing Hancock because he goes to church and believes in God. That’s a cheap-shit way to deflect, no more. Believing in God doesn’t require one to turn off their brain.
If you want to make the case that Hancock is better than Romer, or if you want to extoll Hancock’s record, go right ahead. So far, I haven’t seen it.
Believe that Hancock is a fundamentalist christian, or even APPROACHING the insanity of the tea party ideologues, I’d recommend that you get your head examined. Soon.
YOu’re right, Creationism in the classroom isn’t how it should be. Once he said “yes” to a stupid question, and then you turn off YOUR brain and refuse any further evidence. You can’t please everyone, and you’re proof positive of that.
A better clarification from Hancock’s camp would have been: “I believe that DPS students ought to be allowed to take courses in comparative religion to learn about the wide range of faiths as cultural phenomena. However, as intelligent design is not science, I believe it has no place in biology class. I regret the confusion on this issue, and regret that our politics has degenerated into oversimplified yes and no questions, thirty second soundbites, and negative ads. As mayor I will not allow false dichotomies or cynical politics as usual to influence the important decisions that affect Denver’s residents, businesses, and quality of life.”
But if he had, most people would have said he was boring, or lecturing, or would have dismissed it out of hand because he’d already said “yes” in a prior answer.
Somebody who believes that what’s written in the bible actually occurred. Creationism is one example.
And Hancock wasn’t talking about a comparative religion class. We both know that.
If you want to make the case that Hancock is better than Romer, or if you want to extoll Hancock’s record, go right ahead. So far, I haven’t seen you do it.
Here’s what he actually said:
How is that ambiguous?
So now I’ll ask you, are you going off of the first, second, third, or fourth time he’s spoken about this? And why are you sticking with that time? Looking forward to your answer. No one else has responded at all. 🙁
Ambiguous is generous.
to my direct question to RedGreen.
I think belief in a personal sky-god is borderline delusional. Politicians who say God helps run their campaigns sound batshit crazy to me. So Hancock’s beliefs, whatever they are, don’t seem any weirder to me than those of most politicians. But I guess I’m not the target audience for any of this nonsense.
I see this as extreme. I am then wondering what else is extreme about his thought process.
Belive what you want, but when you run for office, be prepared to know that a good number of people will have issue with creationism. That is what I believe.
I’ll repeat what I wrote above. Creationism is a belief that a supreme being created the universe. It is not extreme, and if you set aside your stereotypes you’d find many well respected scientists and politicians who believe this.
I don’t know if Obama believes that a supreme being created the universe, but he has faith in a god. One of the basic foundation of all world religions and most of the minor ones, is creationism.
What in Hancock’s past shows that he is extreme in his thought process or tries to implement radical ideas based on religion?
that your definition of creationism isn’t the right one for this discussion.
Not to be a dick about it, but I want to make sure anyone who sees your opinion has a chance to see mine.
Creationism is that you believe man was created by God exactly how we are today. That there was no evolutionary process. That to me, and numerous voters on this thread, does not make sense.
I believe in God, i believe God began the process of evolution.
Sarah Palin and Michael Hancock are the same in my book right now.
Whether that is true or not doesn’t matter. It is what i believe as voter. And that is the issue that Michael has created for no good reason.
Best argument for demogauging ever!
Not to be simplistic, but if a diner loves our Jerk seasoning, they come back. If they don’t like it, they don’t come back. It doesn’t matter if i think the jerk is the best in the world, there is nothing I can do to change the mind of the person who doesn’t like it.
It’s been a tried and true method in politics for centuries!
That doesn’t mean I can’t call it out for what it is.
I misspelled it. It’s demagoguery.
A simple search reveals there isn’t one view of creationism out there that encompasses all.
You stated,
Well, guess what? That makes you a Thiestic Evolutionist – a category of creationism. It’s okay. It’s what I think too.
Pols said it best below,
Unfortunately, based off your assumptions that Hancock is the equivalent of Palin, you’re not looking at his body of work and instead basing your vote on one comment.
That’s why this matters. It’s similar to how candidates for the state legislature get asked about their opinions on Iraq or Afghanistan; there’s NOTHING they can actually do on either issue, but some voters want to know in order to see if their beliefs and opinions are compatible.
Is it more important to look at Hancock’s body of work in the City Council than to consider this one statement? Yes — but how many voters are actually going to do that? Hancock’s statement provides a snapshot of him as a candidate for Mayor that is easily explainable and understandable (and, thus, easily harmful).
People can argue all day about whether this should matter in a Mayoral race, but that’s an academic argument. At Colorado Pols, we try to focus more on what might matter, or what will matter, when it comes to political campaigns. This hurts Hancock. It absolutely does. Come Election Day, it really isn’t relevant whether it should matter.
Two front-paged stories about this, nothing about the candidates’ actual records. People who come to Pols to learn about issues are sorely disappointed when elections roll around and it’s all just horserace stuff or a favored candidate’s press releases.
Hancock’s stupid for supporting the teaching of intelligent design, even if only for eight seconds, but most people still talking about this issue seem to have already made up their minds about which candidate they support and are just using this as ammunition against the other side. Can’t wait until this election is over.
This isn’t Wikipedia. We’re a political opinion blog. We focus on politics, not policy. “People who come to Pols to learn about issues” shouldn’t come to Pols to learn about issues. We chose a long time ago to focus on the horse race and not the issues, and we’ve always stayed on that path. It’s not like we’re discussing issues for some people and not for others — we don’t do it at all.
it’s just sometimes some issues accidentally get discussed on this blog, even if the intention is just to say “look at that stupid issue with the braces and the glasses.” It’s sometimes enjoyable.
“Is it more important to look at Hancock’s body of work in the City Council than to consider this one statement? Yes — but how many voters are actually going to do that? ”
What’s a good way to ENSURE that nobody looks at his body of work? Keep hitting them over the head with the same drivel about his personal beliefs, all while pretending it matters whether the mayor of Denver goes to church.
Good times. Vote not on record or accomplishments, but on faith. Yay us.
considering the way people here seem to keep pushing this story. This feels like arguing over whether Obama wears a flag pin.
I don’t care one way or the other between these two candidates, but Pols is never very subtle about the candidates it supports (Obama, Garnett, Bennet, Romer, etc.)
entitled, The Facts.
Fact: stupid is as stupid does.
It’s shit like this that, at least once an election cycle, makes me spend way too much time blogging on this site.
WTF??!!
Even stranger since it goes out of its way to defend the ad that the campaign decided to pull later that day.
And you know that. The question was “Should creationism or Intelligent Design be taught in Denver Public Schools?” and Hancock answered “Yes.”
Nobody is questioning Hancock’s faith or religion. They are questioning that statement.
And then you take that a step further and claim he wants creationism taught in science class, when he specifically came out AGAINST teaching it in science class.
You love Romer. I got it. We get it. I guess I just don’t see why it’s necessary to pile on for the sake of piling on, adding on for the sake of adding on, etc.
And I would hope that if Romer is the future mayor of our great city, that he’d have something more substantial to talk about than Michael Hancock’s yes/no answer in a debate, and he’d have something besides lies with which to fill his ads.
Anyway, I asked RedGreen above what Romer has done other than say that the evolution thing could be bad for recruiting science based businesses. CoPols is not Romer’s campaign, whatever you think of their agenda. I’m not aware of any posters on this thread working for Romer’s campaign. Please feel free to source Romer continuing to talk about this. Please. I hate to miss things.
And a small point about the dreaded ad: I’m pretty sure everything in it is technically true, not lies, but votes and public statements. It’s the way the facts are presented that make the ad deceptive. There’s a difference, imo. In this case the difference makes you sound like an unreasonable Hancock cheerleader stamping your little foot. While I’m relived you probably aren’t a high school girl, I’m not sure why you’re bothering posting at all.
Way to call a kettle black, pot.
You must not be on the e-mail list. See Car31’s comment regarding today’s campaign e-mail above.
Will you forward it to me? I only read that as something to do with dancing. It’s hard to construct a whole email from that. 😀
No matter where you stand on Romer vs Hancock the fact is, it’s Hancock’s fault he handed this to the Romer camp and the fact that the Romer camp is using it is just politics. They would be fools not to use it. They are in the business of getting Romer elected. if Romer commits a gaffe the Hancock camp will use it. See how that works? Especially when it’s Dems against Dems.
I honestly don’t see where all this Romer loving bias is on the part of ColPols. Please go back to the early days of the multi-candidate free for all and follow through to present. I don’t think you’ll find much evidence that ColPols has been cheerleading for Romer.
As far as pointing out things like name rec, money, etc. that’s the job of a political blog. Sorry your hero put his foot in it but he did. You don’t have to be in Romer’s pocket to take note of that. And if you think what we blather about here has enough influence with the general voter to make or break anybody, you’re deluded. You think we’re a bunch of king makers? Not exactly. Last I heard Hancock was still a little bit ahead in polls. In spite of ColPols awesome power.
Ugh. I guess I’ll try — AGAIN — to explain the issue I have.
Hancock put his foot in it. Agreed. I’m not thrilled about his personal beliefs. I’ve not once — NOT ONCE — said that Romer should just leave it alone. Of course he won’t. And shouldn’t.
My problem isn’t that ColoradoPols published a story about the gaffe. That’s the job of the website, in my opinion, to share information when it happens. I have no problem with that.
The problem I have with ColoradoPols is the consistent, continued whacking over the head with the story. My god, the story happened last week, and not only is the website publishing a pile-on story about cartoons (!?!?!?!?!) — which, I know, wasn’t written by the editors of the site — but the editors promote it to the front page. A story about a political cartoon! Absurd!
And all of this while completely IGNORING the story about Romer’s attack ad, about the very odd phone call from Governor Hickenlooper which, oddly enough, preceded Romer’s announcement that he was not continuing to run the ad. THAT isn’t a story? But a frigging political cartoon IS?
Really?
You’re right that pointing out things like name rec and money is the job of a political blog. So is pointing out a Democratic governor calling a Democratic candidate for Mayor and, apparently, asking him to stop running a misleading campaign ad. Am I wrong? How is THAT not the job of a political blog?
I’d really like to know.
But I’m calling bullshit on you. And I don’t even live over there or care who is mayor.
BC said, “it’s Hancock’s fault he handed this to the Romer camp and the fact that the Romer camp is using it is just politics.”
In your haste to shoot the messenger, you totally failed to address that point.
Good people sometimes make lousy candidates. See Buescher, B.
Call bullshit all you want. Then re-read what I wrote.
Here’s what I wrote about Hancock: “Hancock put his foot in it. Agreed. I’m not thrilled about his personal beliefs. I’ve not once — NOT ONCE — said that Romer should just leave it alone. Of course he won’t. And shouldn’t.”
Sure seems like I addressed Hancock’s fault in the matter, AND that I’m actually okay with Romer using it. It is, after all, just politics.
What you and BC and everyone else seems to be missing is the question I’ve asked REPEATEDLY about why ColoradoPols doesn’t run the story about Hickenlooper calling Romer to have him take down the ad, but DOES run a “story” about a political cartoon.
So I’ll ask. Again. Shouting into the void once more: If there is no pro-Romer bias on the part of the editors of this site, why is a complete and utter NON-STORY of a fucking CARTOON in a newspaper promoted to the front of the site, while an ACTUAL STORY about an ACTUAL GOVERNOR calling an ACTUAL CANDIDATE about removing his FACTUALLY INCORRECT AD not warrant the same treatment?
Perhaps you should take a reading comprehension course, Ralph. Not only did I not attack the messenger, I absolutely responded to the point BC made on the matter.
But hey, at least you let us know for the 10,000th time that you don’t care about the election. Special.
Could someone answer the question in bold above? Please? Pretty please? Even saying “Well, Tobias, we’re totally in the tank for Romer, so we won’t run any story that might paint him in an unfavorable light,” is superior to complete and utter silence.
If you want a diary about something, write one following the rules and you might get it front paged, as this one was. End of story.
So no answer then?
K, great. Thank you guys.
By the way, I have a diary up which follows the rules.
Also: I know the diary wasn’t written by CoPols. It was promoted by CoPols. I’m curious why an article about a political cartoon mocking a week-old event is front page news, but an article about an event that just happened isn’t front page news. Can anyone answer that? It’s just what I’ve been asking for since this article was posted. Doesn’t seem like I’m asking too much.
I don’t even care that my article wasn’t promoted! I really don’t. I am simply curious why a non-story warrants it, and an actual story doesn’t.
ColoradoPols: your home for week old non-stories and puff pieces about Chris Romer. That’s certainly better than “Politics, News and Inside Information.”
I didn’t read this as being about the cartoon, so much as I read it about being further evidence that Hancock’s position is costing him politically.
You can reach (or jump to) your own conclusions about why Pols promoted it. Personally, I think it’s time for you to just let it go, especially since there haven’t been any more front page diaries about it.
Someone answers with something that actually makes sense. Thank you, Aristotle.
That point, I can actually see, and if you look at it a certain way, it makes a lot of sense to promote the article with that in mind.
Still doesn’t answer why CoPols won’t touch the Romer attack ad/Hickenlooper phone call story with a ten foot pole, but I guess I’ll take what I can get.
beside the Post blog talk about that? You know they try to avoid stories that are only covered there as much as they can, given the threat of lawsuit.
Are elected by all of us. If you think you can do a better job as editor, run in the next FPE election.
a middle school newspaper class student should run. At least they’d know the difference between an actual story and a non-story.
I have found this thread to be very entertaining. I come here for entertainment, not to change the world.
And I’m not trying to change the world. I’m trying to get an answer to a question.
…that you’re the one who keeps the thread alive.
Just sayin’
Yes, how suspicious that someone would want an answer to a question. You’re a regular Sherlock Holmes, aren’t ya?
your primary criticism seems to be that ColPols is keeping this issue alive, hitting Hancock and potential voters over the head with it etc., the only reason it is such a long thread stretching all the way into today, Sunday May 22, is because you are pretty much single handedly keeping it going with your unwillingness to accept that those who disagree with you on this aren’t being won over and aren’t willing to say “Eureka, Tobias is right and I’ve been wrong all along”. I disagree that you have a suspicious ulterior motive, such as being an anti-Hancock mole, but if you really wish that the hitting over the head stuff would end, you could have ended it days ago.
Tell you what. I’ll help you out. If you respond to this I’ll just let it be and maybe the thread will finally die an overdue natural death.
STILL wondering why the justification isn’t there to run an actually relevant story. I’m not sure how you’ve missed this central complaint, but you’ve missed it. Completely.
As for me singlehandedly keeping the thread alive, it takes more than one to tango. You’ve been in on it too. Me suspicious.
They you alone get to decide what’s relevant.
Does Romer win automatically if his opponent is Raputured? Are there rules about this?
have been raptured before the first round. Her votes were counted, so will anyone’s who disappears on Saturday. He would have had to ascend to heaven before ballots were printed — so bad timing.