Reps. Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert (R).
The Hill reports on legislation reauthorizing federal enforcement efforts against human trafficking that passed the U.S. House yesterday by a lopsided 401-20 vote, with the teensy minority against nonetheless including two Republican members from Colorado:
The legislation, titled the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act, passed in a 401-20 vote, with all opposition coming from Republicans. Eight Republicans and one Democrat did not vote.
Gaetz, who is currently under investigation by the Department of Justice for sex trafficking allegations involving a minor, was among the Republicans who opposed the bill that aims to bolster programs including shelters, mental health care, education and job training for victims of human trafficking.
Gaetz was joined by GOP Reps. Brian Babin (Texas), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Lauren Boebert (Colo.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Andrew Clyde (Ga.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), Andy Harris (Md.), Jody Hice (Ga.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Mary Miller (Ill.), Troy Nehls (Texas), Ralph Norman (S.C.), Scott Perry (Pa.), Chip Roy (Texas) and Van Taylor (Texas).
Plenty of fringe right usual suspects on this list, and as readers know Rep. Lauren Boebert takes pride in being the lone or extreme minority vote against what seems like perfectly sensible and even uncontroversial policy, like stopping scams against senior citizens. It’s somewhat less common for Rep. Ken Buck to join Boebert and the “Qaucus” in these outlier votes, so everyone is naturally curious:
Buck, who often explains his nay votes on Twitter, has not mentioned the human trafficking bill. His last tweet trolled VP Harris for saying the word “woman.” https://t.co/1mOvtqAa4K
— Kyle Clark (@KyleClark) July 27, 2022
Rep. Matt Gaetz, whose vote against the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act was seized upon due to Gaetz being personally under investigation for the crime of sex trafficking (of humans) across state lines, doesn’t have much sense of shame when it comes to casting votes that raise glaringly obvious questions about his sordid personal life. But we would genuinely like to know what former prosecutor Buck, who despite his predilection for spouting off like a crazy old uncle exhibits occasional flashes of conscience, was thinking when he decided to vote with Matt Gaetz against this particular piece of legislation.
There are merely bad votes, and there are votes that stink to high heaven. Here we have the latter.
I hope Boobert's opponent, Democrat Adam Frisch, gets on teevee and radio all over the 3rd District with ads highlighting her stupid voting. Some, such as the one above, would surprise even her rabid supporters.
This is a renewal bill – the actual law has been in place since 2000. The optics here are truly horrible.
I can’t help wondering what she thought she was voting against. Did she misunderstand (not hard to believe) and think this bill would permit trafficking? Otherwise, I’m just lost. And who’s Buck trying to please? Does he know someone who does this? His Dem opponent would probably like to know.
I think Buckie is going to say he fell asleep at the wheel.
Not a good look, either.
As a trafficker, wouldn't GatsZ have a conflict of interest?
Well, yeah, and…
Buck is QAnon curious.
Is there any other organization besides American Muckrakers going after Boobert? If not why? I have lived here for 2 years and can't believe the Democratic party ignores rural CO so effectively…..sad low energy.
I'd rather elect Brittany Petersen and Yadira Caraveo in the swing seats than waste my money trimming 5 points off Two gun Tootsie's margin, Sanie.
Yeah and thats great for metro Denver and I understand the tactic but strategically where is the D party effort for the state as a whole?
"Where is the D party effort for the state as a whole?"
Treading water, ColoradoSane.
Right now, the D Party is in triage mode. People like DeGette, Neguese, and Crow need no assistance. Candidates like those in CD 3, 4, and 5 are probably lost and will need to fend for themselves. First priority is keeping CD 7 and then hopefully winning CD 8.
Come late September and early October, if there are signs of life in Adam Frisch's candidacy and the D Party has some extra cash, they can certainly throw some his way. But not unless CD 7 and CD 8 are secured first.
You know Brittany has $1.3 million to her opponents $0.5 million. Can’t we share the love and do more than 1 thing at a time? Polling for Brittany shows her stomping Aadland. Your reply and attitude shows why all of Colorado will have to wait for help to fight the nazi’s off.
Perhaps you could share that polling…………
Appreciate the replies.
70% Petterson
30% Aadland
Source BIGLINE up there in the right hand of this page.
CD-08 a toss up. CD-07 not.
Big line isn't polling, it's more like betting odds. In short, it's saying Aadland has a 30 per cent chance to win. Which is why I sent money to Pettersen.
She doesn't need money. Hmmm
Cook has CD-07 Petterson D+4 so you would be wasting your money on a sure bet.
CD-03 R+4
https://www.cookpolitical.com/ratings/house-race-ratings
As I see it American Muckrakers important because no one else is gonna effectively attack. Especially fellow anti-nazis here in Colorado.
Bimbobert will be removed in only one or two ways:
1. Redistricting in 2031, or
2. A DEMOCRATIC wave election in which she has a serious, well-funded opponent (in much the same way that Marilyn Musgrave was taken out in 2008).
Until then, I’m afraid that the good folks in CD 3 are stuck with her.
V. …C'mon, man.
The attitude you just expressed is the very reason we still have Reppy le Pew Pew, and are likely to keep her.
Rural Colorado United has been effective against Boebert. They should have bought radio time, though, as Gertie wrote.
On your other comment below, I agree that in general the state Democratic party does not help rural candidates. We could never get any help against Ken Buck when I lived in CD4, for example. Ike McCorkle isn’t getting much help now. City Dems wrote off the red rural counties long ago.
As for the PACs, they’d rather burn 4 million promoting Ron Hanks against Joe O’Dea than actually help a Democrat against a Republican in rural Colorado. So the Fox network spin, broadcasting 24/7 in every restaurant and bar, is uncontested.
You Dems have to prioritize, and think strategically.
What's more important, bumping the Dem percentage of the vote in HD 4 up by a couple points? Or keeping the State Senate in Dem control for two more years?
I'm not a Democrat, I vote anti authoritarian….specifically against christian nationalist party of draft dodgers. Trump is the best friend of democrat party ever driving people like me left.
I asked on Tuesday and kwtree responded with a story of a county organization acting up to make certain people knew about the Democrats in their midst. To repeat myself:
There was quite a bit more to that post than a “county organization acting up” – multi-county coordinated candidate forums and canvassing drives, to name two- but I’m used to your dismissiveness by now.
That local plan to “grow the pockets of blue and gnaw into the Republican dominance” was a grassroots CD4 effort. Dems on the western slope have their own grassroots efforts. There is a state Democratic “rural initiative”, which is probably what you’re looking for. It doesn’t have the massive money behind it that theBlueprint did. It is a coalition of grassroots Dem and liberal groups. It sponsors events and forums, and you should join the August 22 zoom event , or join the FB group, if you want to know what the “plan” is.
In case it isn’t obvious, in my opinion, the “blueprint” to make rural Colorado purple, ( probably never blue), will require just these kinds of grassroots groups working in concert, rather than a cadre of millionaires with a Plan.
Not trying to be dismissive, just succinct — and writing from memory rather than excerpting your account.
Grassroots efforts are crucial … but I don't know many able to sustain themselves for multiple election cycles without SOME sort of external support. Millionaires alone can't do it, either. The state party can't do it alone. Individual candidates don't seem likely to suddenly create an upset election that will then sustain itself for multiple cycles.
Thanks for the info……ugh