CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%↑

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams

55%↑

45%↓

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 24, 2011 06:36 PM UTC

Welcome Hancock Creationism Hit Piece Recipients!

  • 101 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The video you’re looking for is here. FOX 31’s Eli Stokols reports on that postcard you got:

Arriving in voters’ mailboxes this week, along with their ballots for the June 7 runoff, is the attack Michael Hancock’s campaign had been bracing for — a mailer highlighting the mayoral candidate’s missteps on questions of science and evolution.

The mailer isn’t coming from Chris Romer’s campaign, but a political action committee.

On one side of the glossy flier, from a group called “Citizens for Accountability”, it shows a dinosaur skeleton alongside the words: “Don’t let science become extinct in Denver Public Schools.”

…Copies of the mailer were also available at a debate Monday night, although it wasn’t clear who brought them.

At that debate, Hancock acknowledged making mistakes on multiple questions related to evolution but said it’s wrong for Romer to continue “playing politics” with them in light of his answers clarifying his beliefs. [Pols emphasis]

Shorter Michael Hancock: “any ad quoting what I said about evolution is a falsehood.”

We suppose it is the correct political play for Hancock to continue to assert that he “clarified” his original comments on the issue, but it’s also the correct political play to continue to attack Hancock for his original comments. Let’s not forget: Hancock responded very clearly, and unequivocally, to a question that was not at all vague or difficult to interpret. Once again:

QUESTION: “Do you believe Creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?”

Hancock’s answer: “Yes.”

Hancock can try over and over and over to “clarify” that statement, but he said it. He said it clearly. And he said it on video. It is completely disingenuous to insist that attacking Hancock for this statement is wrong “because he has since clarified his position.” If you accept that premise, you accept the real meaning behind those words, “Michael Hancock realized that he made a terrible mistake in answering that question in the manner in which he did, and now he would like to backtrack a bit in hopes that you will forget about what he originally said.”

Folks, if our likening of the response of Hancock and his multiple pro-creationism gaffes with Republican running punchline Newt Gingrich’s “Ryan Plan” foibles upsets you, maybe rankles your progressive tail feathers and fires you up to start a fresh flamewar over it–which you’re free to do in our forum, make no mistake–we certainly do understand. All we ask before you launch into the latest tirade about our evident bias, cronyism, and “fascist handmaidenship,” is that you first honestly answer one very simple and straightforward question:

Would you be trying so hard to rationalize this if a Republican had said it?

Comments

101 thoughts on “Welcome Hancock Creationism Hit Piece Recipients!

  1. And it is not one that is easily undone. I like the guy but I think he has sunk his campaign with this.

    Truthfully, if I had a vote, I’d still go for Hancock over Romer but there’s no way you can ignore that this is going to impact Democratic voters, in particular.  

    1. to vote for Hancock. And frankly, this mailer, along with Romer’s actual ads, helped push me over. I know a few Denver Dems who are doing the same.

      1. It disgusts me to see Dems stoop to this level of mud-slinging. Both of their campaigns have disappointed me in how they are handling these things. Hancock’s commercial saying he was running a clean campaign was laudible, however, his some of his supporter’s behaviors have not been. Romer’s campaign has been opportunistic, damning Hancock for things that we all know were either taken out of context, or regretted later.  

        So disappointed in my fellow Dems on this one. I am glad I don’t have to vote in this race.  

        1. I refuse to believe Hancock doesn’t believe in evolution. There is no way he could have gotten as far as he has as a Dem if that were true. My only concern, and again, I have no vote in Denver, is how he got as far as he did in politics without crafting stump answers on such basic Democratic issues. Romer knows how to answer these questions, obviously. Will it make a difference in how they govern? Who knows. Joe Biden is a gaff-machine, and somehow, he’s getting by okay.

          1. … in all honesty, when would an issue like this have come up before now?

            Keep in mind that minorities continue to be solidly Democratic, and that they also tend to be a bit more socially conservative. I don’t know how much of Hancock’s success to date is based on support from the African American community, but if it’s a large part, I’m not so sure creationism would have been a great hindrance. But again, I’m also not sure if it’s ever come up in his career before.

        2. I’m pissed at the Romer campaign (but I always knew I would be anyway), and now I’m pissed at you Nancy for lumping the rest of us in with that soulless, habitually lying,  cupcake addicted, slimeball.

          At long last,  have you no shame Ms. Cronk?

          1. Less than 2/3 of Denver voters voted for them. And since they were the biggest backed by the politically active, it’s unlikely that they are supported too much outside of that particular voting bloc.

            If anyone is going to be mad at voters, be mad that so few of us bother. Be mad at the big name endorsements. My neighborhood didn’t have a single Romer or Hancock sign (literally within at least five blocks of my house). We didn’t ask for this.

            Hell, I just told MtSherman that one reason I’ll probably under vote the race is because I just don’t want any responsibility. Hands washed. Or I’ll write in Mejia and save that little bit of light in my soul.

  2. Just come out and do it. It’s the final step for Colorado Pols.

    Romer lies about his ad, lies about the call from Hickenlooper, nothing even approaches the front page.

    Romer runs another anti-Hancock ad, Westword runs an anti-Hancock cartoon, and both stories are given top billing on the site.

    Seriously. Just come out and endorse Romer. At least then you’d APPEAR honest.

    1. And, like MOTR and Ari, if I could vote in Denver I’d still vote for Hancock, although I’d do so wishing we could just keep Vidal. He seems to be doing a g very nice job.  But you haven’t answered the question.  Would you be so intent on insisting that there is nothing to see here if a Repub had made these same staements?

      1. that “there’s nothing to see here.” I’m arguing that there are skeletons in both closets, but the only thing COPols seems to be covering is this one gaffe… over and over and over, with NOTHING on the other side.

        I hate that Hancock answered the question this way. I really do. I don’t share his beliefs on this matter in the slightest. Honestly, I blame his campaign staff. How they let this happen the first time, let alone a couple times after, is simply baffling to me.

        A buddy of mine and I were discussing it, and the ONLY thing we can figure is that he’s trying to placate Denver’s faith-based community and earn a few swing votes. Not everyone in Denver proper is a Dem, regardless of how much Dems want to believe otherwise. I don’t believe for a second that Hancock is interested in teaching intelligent design in science class instead of evolution. For one thing, he’s never said that. I would love to see him clarify his answers on this matter, though. Obama he ain’t.

        But let’s face it: I’m as in-the-tank for Hancock as Pols is for Romer… I’m just not afraid to say it out loud.

        1. Pols has had a long string of accusations of one-sided coverage in the past. I’m sure it will in the future. If venting your spleen about it makes you feel better, vent away. Just expect nothing to show for it.

          You can, as always write your own diary if you know anything new (the link provided by “pay your taxes!” below is a good starting point), and if it’s well written, doesn’t violate the posting rules, and (most important) has good commentary regarding the significance and relevance of the news, I will promote it. It has to be a pretty big deal, though – personally, I’m not all about the horse race and the behind-the-scenes stuff because that tends to bore me.

    2. Get out of your funke. (Sorry.) ColoradoPols is pointing out Hancock’s self-inflicted problems here – I love the Newtish “any quote of me is a falsehood” response by Hancock; that’s worse than his original answer to the creationism issue as far as I’m concerned.

      But ColoradoPols has also pointed out the rich irony of some shadow group of pro-Romer supporters calling themselves “Citizens for Accountability” while refusing to disclose who they are. Some accountability there, yessir!

      Frankly, I think Hancock is an idiot and Romer is a mean-spirited hothead who makes his philandering father look good by comparison. Makes me wish the UFO guy had won.

      1. may be a mean-spirited hothead, he’s also a hungry out-of-work investment banker looking to strike gold.  As for his philandering father…

        1. We agree the departure of these staffers is a significant story and deserves a front page post. Please note that it’s not the only story from the weekend that we haven’t posted on, and there is the “New Diary” button which every registered user of the site has access to. For whatever reason, nobody complaining about our lack of attention has written one either.

          If someone would like to and it’s qualitatively up to standard, we’ll be happy to promote it. If we don’t see one we’ll try to post ourselves shortly, we have several items to get to today.

              1. I posted a diary last week detailing the phone call from Gov. Hickenlooper to Romer about the negative ad. It got zero traction and didn’t even catch a whiff of the front page.

                I don’t care about the promotion for me. Would just be nice to have a story on the front page that tells the other side of the pro-Romer story once in a while.

                1. I read it. The only original content was a silly imagining of how the alleged conversation went. Not front page worthy. (Nothing wrong with that – many of my past diaries weren’t either, and I sometimes choose to keep the ones I write now off in the sidebar for that reason.) I’ve also had diaries that got zero attention, too.

                  I can’t speak for anyone else, but as an FPE, I found the original story lacking anyway – another blog posted a rumor, and a few other news sites repeated it in brief. It lacked the meat I need when I write diaries. I’m going to guess that the lack in interest was a measurement that most of the Pols readers felt the same way about that story. OTOH, the diaries I promoted yesterday (about the legal challenge to TABOR and the first diary written about McInnis) covered news I thought was significant and worthy.

                    1. Keep in mind that these are my standards. IMO Pols and the other elected FPE’s (not naming names) can be pretty subjective. I’ve seen them promote some silly stuff and ignore worthy diaries in the past. And truth be told, I’m certainly capable of being subjective myself.

      1. Maybe in a comment here? Agree that it’s surprising that it didn’t get front page treatment here. If Tobias complains about this particular  example of lack of attention to a very big story, Tobias really has something this time.  

  3. …but we each should make our own decision based on faith – he would be considered an idiot and couldn’t even win in Colorado Springs.

    But bring up evolution, which is every bit as proven as the fact the world is round, and suddenly people say well that is a matter of faith. Sorry, no.

    I don’t think we should vote for people who think the world is flat in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. And I don’t think we should vote for people who believe in creationism/I.D. in spite of equally clear evidence to the contrary.

    1. For instance, I voted for anti-choice Ritter because Governor isn’t a legislating position, we had enough Dems in the Assembly to be sure he wasn’t going to be presented with anti-choice leg to sign and he promised he wasn’t going to be making anything to do with restricting choice a priority. At all.  He was very clear on this when he appeared to meet with Dems in my HD.  

      I was OK with voting for Ken Salazar for Senate even though he personally  thinks abortion is wrong because he supports choice, the idea that this is a personal decision, a formula common to many Catholic candidates, including John Kerry who I also voted for.

      The truth is, making education the biggest issue in this mayoral, not school board, race was phony from the start. It’s been used as a political football in gaining support of various factions and unions. So the question for me, if I were a Denver voter with these choices, would boil down to who I felt would be the one with the least negative impact as mayor, given what mayors impact the most.

      1. I would normally agree with you, but Hancock has also advocated for mayoral oversight of DPS and adding a cabinet level position to do this.  His personal beliefs wouldn’t matter if he wasn’t also arguing for more control of the school.s It is the combination of the two positions that have made me decide to vote for Romer over Hancock.  

        http://www.edreformnow.org/FIN…  

        1. Lots of very thoughtful voters will come to different conclusions in this race. While you and I would probably make different final choices ( I can’t vote. Maybe being a denverite would change my view) I respect your decision and it certainly is one made in recognition of the world not being entirely black and white in all matters.

      2. There is more to the Mayor’s job than legislation. An even bigger role perhaps, is being a mouthpiece and figure-head for the city. The Mayor can call a press conference on a moment’s notice, can attract huge crowds if he/she wants to, and can influence policy and other office-holdders like no one else. Colorado’s education priorities are a disgrace, and the Mayor of Denver is in the perfect position to trumpet pro-education values. That is, if he really cares about our kids.  

        1. being mayor?  Second, I doubt that Hancock is going to be calling any press conferences demanding the teaching of creationism. Third, sorry what I thought to be relatively mild comments made your head explode. Really.  

        1. Plenty of pols profess religious faith all the time.  In fact Christian faith is a pretty hard and fast requirement for the presidency.  No surprise it was easier electing our first African American president than it will be electing a first self professed atheist or a faith professing Jew.  Forget Muslim altogether for quite a while.

          It just seems to me, even as one of those quite disturbed by Hancock’s lack of willingness to give unambiguous answers to questions about the primacy of science over belief in public schools, that along the way we have lost sight of a few things. Doesn’t it feel like this has been given a much greater proportion of focus than the economic and city building and managing issues that usually take center stage in mayoral races?

          I’m not saying that a mayor’s stand on education issues is irrelevant but so many other issues are involved and so many of them are much more closely aligned with a mayor’s immediate sphere of power and influence.

          I don’t fault anyone who plans to vote for Romer primarily because of this one issue. We all have our deal or no deal issues. But I do think we’ve become a little bit overly stuck on this one thing largely because the candidates have encouraged it.  They probably have much more similar economic and other views where sound bite distinctions are harder to make and have seen the public school reform debate as one of the few places to draw clear distinctions and reach voters at a gut level. This is kind of an unintended offshoot of the debate on reform, courtesy of Hancock putting his foot in it several times.

          Before Hancock said what he said, I’m pretty sure neither was planning on running on evolution vs creationism/ID. And I honestly don’t think that Hancock is running on creationism/ID in spite of his remarks, do you?

          Does Hancock’s unsophisticated, child like statements on belief give me pause? You bet.  But Romer gives me pause on a number of counts, not the least important of which is his apparent lack of the diplomatic skills and certain degree of charm and likeablity needed to bring people together in a collaborative way to get things done. I will be neither crushed nor thrilled regardless of which of these candidates wins.

            1. Those of us who struggle in Denver always appreciate those of you who don’t live in Denver and don’t have to suffer the consequences of  the election, and don’t have a “street view”…don’t hesitate to jump right in and try and influence stuff.

              I know a lot of people who live in JeffCo and Boulder and Cherry Creek…still consider Denver, “the ghetto” and its citizens pretty dumb….

              I am not accusing you all of those attitudes….of course.

              1. We are also informed more than most since many of us work in the system.  Whether you agree with what everyone believes is up for graps, but influencing?  Nah.  No one here has EVER changed my mind about a candidate.

  4. …and I don’t want some asshole whose highest attribute is apparently — based on his campaign so far — that he’s not as bad as the creationist. I knew I should have voted for Peckman.

    1. Because from what I can see, that is his primary qualification.  As you can tell, I’m not a fan.  

      I’m lukewarm at best on Hancock, having met him a few times, but this creationist nonsense makes me want to not vote for either one.  

      1. lawmakers should never go to an EO after a single Senate term. Ri. dic. ul. ous.

        This kind of thing is something we should be watching. Just sayin’. For two reasons.

        @Bill – Good summary of the whole race, on either side, “At least I’m not as bad as the Investment Banker/developer’s whore/Penry endorsed/Tancredo endorsed… etc.

        Boo run-off candidates! Boo!

        1. elected to his one senate term if his dad hadn’t been governor.  

          What did he accomplish while in the state senate?  Very little, and nothing of significance.  

          Sorry, but both candidates, and their campaigns, just turn me off.

          1. Think about it. Think about what you’re saying and consider how you probably felt about that attitude in ’08.

            And anyway, you can’t really say that that’s the only reason Romer made it. There’s a certain amount of logic, sure. But Coleman never had a shot, only took away from Mello, who also would’ve had a hard time with any primary. That carpetbagger ran his ass off (it grew back); hands were shaken, babies were kissed.

            Of course both candidates suck. That’s why I said “boo!” to them.

  5. Considering the mayor can’t decide what’s taught in schools, and Hancock said no such thing.

    I’ve said before, as a holder of a degree in paleoanthropology, that anti-evolution statements are about as offensive to me as bible-based condemnations of my otherwise moral behavior, but this isn’t really an issue germane to the mayor’s race.

    Still, why does Hancock repeatedly say stupid shit that he then has to take back as soon as it trips off his tongue?  That’s a concerning issue that is relevant to the Mayor’s race.

    1. You are saying the MAYOR of the city has no influence what so ever on what can be taught?  he cannot influence the rounds of school board elections by being the mayor and pushing people who align with his views?

      Come on folks, if Romer was stupid enough to claim what Hancock Claimed you hancockers would be all over him.

      It’s nice to see someone go after him on this and am glad he’s being held accountable over stupid things he’s said.

      We will see how Denver will vote in just a few days won’t we?  I know my ballot was just sent back with a vote for Romer.  

  6. On Monday they both said DPS was an important issue for the Mayor.

    Hancock then went on to reverse his answer on school vouchers (his answer “not yet”) to say no. Then he tried to explain that “no” and “not yet” are the same thing.  Bullshit.  No means no and not yet means maybe in the future, ask me again later (after I am elected).

    I always thought Romer was the mendacious one, but Hancock has “clarified” so many clear statements that I think he has wrestled that title away from Romer even if he doesn’t win the election.

  7. I mean, evolution goes forward, not backward, right? So how did Chris Romer come from Roy Romer?

    (Please don’t hit me if you’re a bio major, paleontologist, or even a philosopher who wants to conk me with a stone tablet engraved with “Sons are worse than their fathers.”)

    1. “Every time Chris or his secret campaign concoct another false attack against me, we’ll post the facts on our “Clear the Air” page and send you an email to let you know.”

      This is exactly what I’m talking about. Hancock is a hypocrite and a liar. At least Romer is honest about being a scumbag.

      1. Romer’s spokeswoman said today that the campaign has no idea who runs the PAC that sent out the flyer. As if Colorado (and especially Denver) is a big enough political community that ANYONE doesn’t know who EVERYONE is.

        Pfft. That’s less than honest.

        So was Romer’s “Aw, shucks, Hickenlooper just called me to say I love you hello and check in” nonsense. Give me a break.

        But sure. Three words in the middle of a sentence is the exact same as running a VERY deceptive campaign ad.  

        1. considering this:

          “I haven’t seen the mailer,” said Romer’s spokeswoman, Laura Chapin. “The campaign isn’t involved with it at all.”

          While the Romer campaign denies any coordination with the political action committee, the treasurer for “Citizens for Accountability”, Peter C. DeCamillis, is a close friend of Zach Knaus, Romer’s second campaign spokesperson who is still working, in a reduced role, for the campaign.

          Yeah, no one knows anything. Nothing secret or coordinated going on here. Nothing to see here, people. Move right along.  

          1. Seriously? That’s possibly the dumbest reasoning I’ve ever seen. By that logic everyone would be responsible for everything.

            And since Hancock doesn’t take responsibility for his own paid staff, I’m finding it hard to listen to him complain about anyone’s bad behavior anyway. But Romer’s responsible because a friend of one of his staff is involved in some way with a 527? Give me a break.

            1. Like I said, nothing to see here. Nothing at all. Time to take puppy for a walk because there’s clearly nothing to this at all.  

              1. Next election maybe we can force fights to the death in order to work with campaigns at all. All your politically active friends dead, or you can’t play. 🙁

                Sure would be quiet around here, but at least then we’d “know.”

                Seriously, working with no proof must be super fun. Can’t debate nothing. So you must be right!

                1. No, no, no, droll. It’s you that is the politically astute one. I bow to your superiority in recognizing that politicians and campaigns never coordinate with each other. Because that’s something we’ve never seen before in politics like even recently in 2010, right? Oh wait…well, never mind. Examples would only be time consuming and who needs those, right? 🙂

                  1. how Carroll, T. gaffed on Hancock with all his close ties to the Bennet, now Romer campaign “machine”?

                    A mole in Hancock’s campaign! Son of a bitch! Terrance did that shit on purpose!!!

                    Everyone in Denver politics knows everyone else. Hancock and Boigon served on the Council, Boigon and Mejia worked together at DPP. DPP recently worked on a conference with a group that has Knaus as a board member. Coincidence???

                    If all you have is a friend of a friend in a relatively small town, among two Democrats no less, you have shit. Can’t prove it, don’t say it. Hancock done said it. Hancock is a hypocrite and liar. Didn’t I say that somewhere before?

                    Prove me wrong. Oh, that’s right. You KNOW it! Proof enough for me, oh wise one. Proof. enough.

                    1. I’ll consider that. Where’s your super groovy diary about guilt by association?

                      Then I’ll write one connecting Cher and Elvis by movie co-stars. If I can use TV expect a George Clooney reference!

        2. I see that you totally know, but don’t see anything other than the smoke you’re blowing up your own ass.

          Put up or shut up. Claims that can’t be substantiated are “negative” campaigning at best. Defamation at worst.

          Further, other than calling Romer a scumbag, I’m not talking about him. Prove that Hancock’s shit isn’t full of negativity and supposition.

          And once again, deceptive and false aren’t the same things. Romer didn’t lie in his one ad. He just presented fact in a way that is deceptive. For instance, Hancock did vote for a pay raise for Council members, himself at the time, even though he’ll only see it if he’s elected mayor – the vote did happen. I’ve asked before for someone to point out the actual lie, not how unfair it is, but the lie in that ad. To no avail.

          Meanwhile, making random shit up is lying. You don’t “know” that Romer is behind any 527. You think it. So saying you know is a lie. Hancock is saying he knows it.

          1. to the deceptive (at best) campaign ad. Know how I know Romer was behind that one? Because it said “Paid for by Romer for Mayor” at the bottom of the screen.

            Didn’t bother discussing that, eh droll?

            Didn’t bother discussing the Hickenlooper phone call to Romer, Romer saying it had nothing to do with the campaign ad, but the ad came down the next day either, did ya?

            Maybe you’ve got too much smoke up your own ass.

            1. I did respond to the “negative” campaign ad. I can’t discuss the Hickenlooper phone call because you’re making up a conversation. You don’t know what they discussed. Hick’s office didn’t say what you’re saying.

              You still haven’t come up with proof of Romer’s involvement in the PAC. No proof makes Hancock a liar when he says Romer is behind it.

              Read the whole thread again and tell me what I haven’t responded to. I’ll be happy to do so. In the meantime, respond to me.

              1. Someone above said there are no coincidences in politics. But there’s a call from the Governor who HATES negative advertising to a mayoral candidate who is running a negative ad, and the next day the ad comes down, but it’s all a coincidence. And the sitting governor — not exactly a guy with nothing to do — has time to call a candidate and shoot the shit. Got it.

                If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it ain’t a chicken.

                You’re right. There’s absolutely NO proof of this. Makes perfect sense that a candidate would stop running TV ads right before election day. That’s always how it happens.

                Keep those hits coming though, droll. You’re great for a laugh.

                    1. creationism?

                      Turnabout: It’s fair play.

                      Although, I am glad to see you admit you have no proof of any bullshit you’re spouting here. It’s the first step.

                    2. I’m not sure creationism is an “instinct” like leaving a burning building, but whatever.

                      Romer can do no wrong. Hickenlooper really DID just call to shoot the shit. And an ad from a PAC that is incredibly negative (and made an appearance at the debate last week) came from a group so separate from Romer’s campaign, that they have no idea who could have possibly written such a thing.

                      A-OK.

                      You’re stretchy.

                    3. Oh, no I didn’t! SNAP, bitches!

                      There’s something wrong in your little head. Serious question: Do you think this is helping your candidate? Until late last night I was undecided. You could tell because of how I’m always saying how both candidates suck. Your posts had a lot of influence on my final decision. Good for you. I’m sure Hancock is really proud of you.

                      And yes, I do think all my scumbag peeps are innocent and blameless. Read, then post. Apparently start with your own previous posts. Awkward.

                    4. Really?

                      And you insult the intelligence of others? You get funnier all the time.

                    5. Ask yourself how I was able to mock your sophisticated joke with a “your mom” joke.

                      Could you, just this one time, please address my comment?

                      Anyway, most middle aged bloggers who can’t deal with me and my whole factiness thing go for droll’s a troll. You clearly enjoy the random group-think regardless of facts. You want to fit in.

                      And seriously, keep the MSU thing going. Make stupid, immature jokes. Romer will thank you. Think of the credibility you’re earning!

                    6. You raised the bar just so high. I mean “your mom” jokes? How could I ever compete with such a rapier wit?

                      And which joke, exactly, were you responding to with the “your mom” joke, droll? Because in the post you responded to, there was no joke.

                      I also didn’t call you a troll.

                      Oh, I’m also not middle aged.

                      OH, and I’m not trying to fit in. Last I checked, I’m the only one calling Colorado Pols out on the total bullshit of ignoring Romer’s fuck ups while celebrating Hancock’s. It seems to be you who’s going with the flow.

                      But whatever. Hope you don’t bomb me again with another “your mom” joke! I don’t think I could handle such truthiness from someone who is clearly a comedic genius!

      2. not denying you’re a scumbag, and being honest about your being a scumbag . . . Honesty is one stinging criticism you’ll NEVER sucessfully be able to pin on Cupcakes.

  8. Put aside all this schoolyard bullshit and consider the issue I think will help me decide who to vote for (having previously voted for Meija, and advised his campaign on Vet issues)….

    What is either candidate going to do once they’re in charge of the city? Are they generally going to keep it the same (Hancock) or are they going to “change” things (Romer)?

    I personally give a crap if Hancock believes that Jesus rode a dinosaur or if the Strip Clubs or Casinos are in Romer’s pocket. It all goes out the door once they get into office, and when reality sets in.

    So, (personally) I believe Hancock will keep the status quo, be cozy with the city workers and other infrastructure, and tentatively try and change a minor amount of things, because that’s what his mentor (Webb) will tell him to do.

    I also believe that if Romer is in the Mayor’s office, he will try and re-arrange the deck chairs on Day One, but when he tries to make major policy changes the press and other groups will be on his ass, and he’ll waffle and stop. Or at least delay.

    So, do I want someone that thinks the status quo is generally ok, or someone that might change a few things but probably fail. That’s my dilemma….

    1. unless it’s FasTracks related. So you do need to find out where vets sit on the priority scale.

      Hancock would have a serious budget issue. Half the current shortfall is public safety. He promised them all raises. That cash has to come from somewhere. I doubt it’s something visible and unfortunately vets are invisible. 🙁

      Romer is focusing on education reform (like Hancock) that focuses on education staying public (unlike Hancock) (To be fair, both support charter schools, Hancock just supports them more). So he’s more likely to hack out the shortfall and immediately re-organize to pay for education projects. But he unequivocally said that he will not support a tax to support education. Romer’s only saving grace here is that he seems to have learned to think in private, while getting advice, instead of out loud, on camera. OK, great. But that means you have to worry about the unknown quantities that Romer may surround himself with. Life would be easier for you if Romer would make a Mejia decision.

      That’s just my take. Doesn’t really help you at all… If you are able to get some kind of actual response from either campaign, you’ll let us know, right?

  9. I don’t live — or vote — in Denver, but as a retired public school educator, I am disturbed by both mayoral candidates believing they have any business running the Denver Public Schools.  This is why we have locally elected school boards and superintendents.  Either Mr. Romer or Mr. Hancock will have their hands full running the City and County of Denver.  Isn’t being mayor enough of a job without trying to dictate how the school system should be run, or what should be taught in science classes?  

      1. This person is definitely a Republican. But yes, one who can make some good sense. They’re an endangered species, so let’s not spook this one…

    1. But campaigning as a capable administrator who can keep potholes filled and streets plowed is so boring.

      And not much fodder for da Pols, eh?

      1. three times in person. No one sponsoring a debate has considered it worth asking. So I asked the candidates and got this response from both, ” .”

        It’s not fodder for Pols. It’s also presumably not a thought that’s gone through either candidates’ head. So uh, whatever Vidal is doing?

    1. “I don’t know who’s running the ad, at all. I’m completely blameless. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to actively NOT refute the ad, and call my good buddy Governor Hickenlooper, with whom I speak on a regular basis about nothing. Might talk to him about the Rockies tonight, or whether he thinks we’ll have an NFL season. Seriously everyone, we’re THAT close.”

      -Chris Romer, King Coincidence

      Here comes drool to tell us all again how we don’t have proof. Just circumstantial evidence that adds up to Romer being a fuckhead.

      Poor drool. Always missing out on the joke because he’s BECOME the joke.

  10. noting that the major Denver paper had declared this flier to be “leaning deceptive”.  I mean, since they’re endorsing Romer you wouldn’t expect any rationalizing out of them, right?

    Guess you just haven’t gotten to it yet.

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

84 readers online now

Newsletter

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