President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 01, 2006 08:20 PM UTC

HD-23: Is Ramey Johnson race-baiting?

  • by: Stagarite

(This diary notes the emergence of another Republican political committee: “Progress Colorado.” – promoted by Colorado Pols)

GOP candidate Ramey Johnson is practicing wink-and-a-nod racial politics in Lakewood and Golden. A mailing produced by the Committee to Elect Ramey Johnson pairs images of smiling white people and a dangerous-looking brown person. The accompanying bullet points are the usual Tancredoisms. This from a a self-described “honest, ethical candidate who runs clean campaigns.”

Ramey Johnson’s latest mailing has a disturbing racial undercurrent about it. On one side of the 9” x 6” we get a photo of a smiling, very blond Ramey sitting beside a grinning blond guy in a polo shirt. Superimposed on the photo is Ramey’s slogan: “She’s on our side!” But who’s on the other side? Flip the card over and there’s a photo of a young Hispanic man handcuffed by a uniformed Border Patrol officer. The bullet points are standard GOP boilerplate including proposals that courts in other states have already said violate the 14th Amendment. Unfortunately, politics is oftentimes more about images than ascertainable truths.  Ramey’s latest campaign flier contains an insidious pairing of images—on one side smiling white people on the other side a dangerous brown person—with Ramey leaving no doubt about whose side she’s on.

Unfortunately, this isn’t the first unethical mailing produced by the Johnson campaign. In response to complaints about negative mailings by the GOP-funded Trailhead group, Ramey produced a flier attempting to shift responsibility for the negative campaigning onto the very candidate the Trailhead mailings attacked. Then Ramey said she didn’t want Trailhead’s help. Nevertheless, the attacks on Gwyn Green continued, but the name of the smear group changed. Now it calls itself “Progress Colorado,” but the mailing address—303 E. 17th Ave, Denver—is the same as the one used by the discredited Trailhead group.


83 thoughts on “HD-23: Is Ramey Johnson race-baiting?

  1. My stomach is absolutely churnig!
    This kind of blatant abuse of racial imagery is beyond distasteful! It borders on the type of thing that is put out by those white supremesist groups.  Only they wrap them around rocks and leave them in your driveway.  I can’t believe Ramey has the gaul to send this garbage into our homes.
    If you are brown, you are a criminal.
    Nice, Ramey, real nice.
    I think I will go light a candle and pray for your soul, because there is a special place in hell for people like you.

    1.   The color contrast between the dark evil doer and the fair-skinned, blonde-haired candidate standing next to the fair skinned, blonde-haired man would please the Fuhrer if it were going out under the Nazi Party logo instead of the Trailhead Foundation. 

      1. What the hell does Willie Horton have to do with anything?  You have got to be an overpaid defense attorney.  Who else defends rapists & murderers like you do?

        More to the point, did the Trailhead group put it out as you so carelessly argued?  Or did Ramey herself put it out?  It really doesn’t matter, but stop being so intellectually lazy.

        You should start looking at your own party:

        “Democrats.  Wouldn’t let Blacks into public schools in the ’50’s.  Won’t let them out today.”

        1. Tell the truth Moonraker. They joined the GOP after LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, didn’t they?

          (I realize that you people don’t actually believe your own talking points, that you use words to elicit conduct rather than tell the truth, but at least make the effort to float more sophisticated misinformation when you’re among smart people.)

          1. but it wasn’t because Democrats were banging down his door to do it.  A higher % of them voted against it than Republicans.  Obviously, anyone who voted ‘no’ was in the wrong.

            And those people standing in front of the school doors?  Elected Democrats.  Same party that stands on the other side of those doors today.

            Blacks primarily moved away from the GOP due to Nixon’s ‘Southern strategy.’  I’m not proud of it, but at least I can get my history straight.

              1. Deception and destruction are the tactics of the reactionary reich wing, not honesty and admission.  They’ve taken on the role of cult and given up the role of responsible leadership.  A sad end to a once-great party…

        2.   Candidates are rarely stupid enough to put out a racially disparaging lit piece with their fingerprints on it (George Allen, perhaps, being an exception to that general rule).  And if Ramey Johnson did send this out with her name on it, she’s not fit to serve in office because she’s stupid.
            The nasty stuff that goes out (and racial stuff like this is about as nasty as you can get) is generally the province of Trailhead, not the candidate’s committee.  In all fairness, Clear Creek also get some low punches in on behalf of Dems at times, but I can’t imagine them playing the race card.
            As for Willie Horton, the late Lee Atwater (to whom you probably pray at night) on his deathbed, apologized to Michael Dukakis for running such reprehensible campaign commercials as Willie Horton.  You still don’t see anything wrong with that commercial?

          1. Trailhead wagon boss Pete Coors is a resident of HD23. If Ramey Johnson attempted to stop the 527 slime as she said she did but the slimeapult kept going, then it shows that she’s powerless to control the excesses of her own party even in her own district.

    2. Ramey’s email address is: She can
      also be reached at 303-579-6927 and 303-232-1567.

      Here’s a minor point for those who dig irony. One of Ramey’s bullet points is, “Expect that all government business be conducted in English.” But elsewhere the flier refers to “immigrants…and there [sic] families.” The Committee to Elect Ramey Johnson needs to brush up on _their_ English.

      I really hope Ramey’s tactics hurt her more than help her. One of the things we saw in the Virginia Senate race is that Allen picked up a couple percentage points once he started telegraphing his Dirty South propensities.

        1. Allen’s not considered the ‘racist’ in the VA senate race anymore.  Not by a longshot.  2 partisan ex-teamates accuse him of using the N-word.  No one can corroborate it.

          Meanwhile, all of Mr. Webb’s childhood friends acknowledge that he used it.  He never used it in a derogatory fashion – that’s just the culture of the area he grew up in…. Except when he drove through Watts and pointing guns at the Blacks while in his ROTC uniform.

          1.   There’s areport out last Friday that Larry Sabato, a political science prof at U. Va., corroborated that Senator Macaca used “the racial epithet.”  Is Sabato affiliated with the Webb campaign?

            1. Are he and G. Allen buddies?  They hang out a lot?  On the contrary, Dick Wadhams told the press a few months ago that Sabato is an idiot and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  They got into a huge public fight.

              So Larry Sabato’s not exactly a disinterested party.  Nonetheless, I can’t imagine how Sabato could even make a credible allegation.

              1. First of all, Allen’s accusors are hardly partisan. The guy who originally came out with it has donated to multiple republican campaigns. I have not seen anything about your allegations surrounding Webb, but didnt Allen wear a confederate flag lapel pin in his high school senior photo? I guess that goes to the culture he grew up in, in California.

                I laughed out loud at this line: “On the contrary, Dick Wadhams told the press a few months ago that Sabato is an idiot and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” That was an absolute gem. So because Wadhams called Sabato an idiot, Sabato must know nothing right? And why does it only have to be a disinterested party that is making the accusation? If only disinterested parties made allegations than your whole line about Ritter is out the window.

          2. Including three corroborating that Allen, after a night of hunting, deposited a deer head into a black family’s mailbox as a racially-motivated prank.

            Of course, the additional point is that Allen is a liar in addition to being a racist by denying that he ever used the ‘N’ word.

      1.   Wow, a fool as well as a bigot!  Alan (or Moonraker), I stand corrected.  This is the second time in the past week, I apologize. 
          I’m just shocked that a candidate could be so stupid…..

        1. dude?  I think it would be safe to say we should be careful about throwing serious accusations of people until you’ve seen the proof.  Can’t someone scan that onto this site?

          In general, I don’t think that a piece talking about illegal immigration or the real issues that ensue is, in itself, racist.

          Furthermore, the party that you all pay homage too was against immigration reform.  Fine.  But then they read some polls and decide they are going to lead the pack.

          I’m not sure what’s worse, being racist and advocating for racist policies.  OR, just pretending to be racist because it’s politically expedient.

          Either way, your beloved party is out there putting a lot of anti-illegal immigrant propaganda up in support of your candidates.

      2. I cannot believe that this blog site is allowing the publishing of bad phone numbers.  One of those numbers is Ramey’s daughters’ cell number.  You guys are classless crap and especially Stagarite.  I’m sure lawyers are already calling Colorado Pols.

  2. First, I’m not sure you can call Ramey’s mailings “unethical.”  I know why you would, but…  You could say “in bad taste” or even “racist” (although I disagree), but there’s nothing unethical about it.

    To be fair, I haven’t seen the piece.  But if it is in reference to lax border security, I’m not sure the pics are that far off.  98% of those that cross the Mexican border illegally do happen to have ‘brown’ skin.  And 80% of Coloradans are white.

    1. “You could say ‘in bad taste or even ‘racist’ (although I disagree), but there’s nothing unethical about it.”

      Is your claim that the term “unethical” doesn’t cover racist conduct?

      1. I think you’re looking for ‘immoral’ perhaps.  But ‘unethical’ doesn’t make any sense.  Again, I haven’t seen the piece so I can’t definitively comment.

        Ethics are usually the application of morals to a particular set of principles in context.  Morals deal with human action (and interaction) itself.

        I didn’t mean to make this into a big deal, but “unethical” is important enough to be used correctly (or not).  You’re starting to make me sound like the usual Ivory Tower types who carouse this site.

    2. Hey, guys, most of the illegal immigrants from Mexico and South America have brown skins. Get over it.

      If Dems weren’t soft on illegal immigration, this wouldn’t be an issue.

      The racists are the Dems who are crying racists, which is what they do when they have nothing better to say.

      1. Thank christ our republican senate passed a bill allowing for the creation of a big fence that stretches across the southern US border. I mean what better way to combat illegal immigration. Maybe we could fund immigration services better. Lets be real. There is no way were are going to get rid of all hispanic illegal immigrants in this country. That will never happen. Maybe if we didnt have Tom Tancredo who only presses the issue because he will never allow any sort of resolution out of the way, we might see progress. Dems are not weak on the issue. Republicans want a pipe dream and will settle for nothing less. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

        “The racists are the Dems who are crying racists, which is what they do when they have nothing better to say.”

        What exactly does that mean? When actively racist politicians use racial slurs and race baiting as a way to appeal to the lowest common denominator and use logical fallacies like appealing to fear, what should the dems do? Sit on their hands? Your response it the typical “liberals are reactionary and cant fight so they use names” response. Maybe if race wasnt being drummed up by the republicans it wouldnt be an issue.

        1. One way the dishonest employers of illegals can handicap their opponents is to charge racism whenver a supporter of secure borders puts a picture of an illegal immigrant from Mexico on a piece of campaign literature.

          Get real, as they say.

          All the racists are doing is stirring up the illegal immigrants by crying “racist.”

          When will the racist supporters of illegal immigration realize what racists they are?

          1.   Are you saying that there are no white immigrants coming into this country illegally?  Use one of them! 
              It was my same criticism of the Willie Horton ads.  Lee Atwater and Daddy Bush easily could have run that same commercial with a mean-looking white criminal coming through the revolving door and made the point:  that Dukakis was soft on crime. 
              But why stop there when you can get double the benefit for the same advertising dollar:  get your message out that Dukakis is soft on crime AND at the same time, energize the racist element in the GOP.
              Moonraker correctly mentioned that when the ’64 civil rights bill passed, a large portion of the GOP voted for it.  They were good senators like Jacob Javits, Clifford Case, George Aiken, and I’m not certain about this, but I think even Prescott Bush (Shrub’s Grandpa). 
              Regrettably, that entire wing of the GOP is dead now.  What’s left:  Lincoln Chafee (depending on how Rhode Island goes next month) and on a good day, Arlen Specter.
              The parties did a role reversal in the late 60’s.  Dems got rid of most of the George Wallace people and GOP inherited them (Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Jesse Helms, George Allen). 
              Sure, Wallace lingered around a few more years but most of his ilk had left to join Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

        2.   The 700-mile fence is going up to protect us from another 9/11, correct?  How many of the 9/11 terrorists swam the Rio Grande to get into this country?  How many of them crossed the desert to enter Arizona? 
            The fence may not be a bad idea for security, but why are we not building it on the northern border as well?
            Could it be that it’s going up along the southern border to keep us from being in contact with brown skinned people.  We wouldn’t need a fence along the northern border where there the people are white.

          1. Republicans can count better than Dems, I guess.

            Most of the illegals are coming from Mexico.

            So we’re building the wall on the Mexican border.

            I know that’s hard to understand.

            Some day you’ll get it.

            1. But when the fence is put up under the auspices of protecting our homeland from terrorist not from some ridiculous illusory threat of illegal workers coming to take our jobs, the idea that we are about to spend billions of dollars for something that can be defeated by wire cutters or a ladder is absolutley ludicrous.

                1. Illegals take tough jobs for below market wages. If they weren’t around, those jobs would pay more and Americans would do them. Don’t buy Bush’s lies about this.

                    1. is to lower taxes for everyone! And by everyone I mean people worth $1 million or more…

            2.   Is that how the Shrub has balanced the federal budget?  And speaking of the Republican budget balancing act, John McCain addressed the British Conservative Party this weekend at their annual conference.  I guess he trashed Shrub (not explicitly by name but it was clear to whom he was referring).

    3. Under the leadership of Tom Tancredo and his little buddy moonie, and others, that we are just a few short steps away from politicians openly endorsing full blown racism and beimg proud of it. “Yeah we hate all people that arent of european descent and dont subscribe to Christian ideology what are you going to do about it?”

      1. The racists aren’t the opponents of illegal immitation.

        The racists are the supporters of illegal immigrants and the virtual enslavement of illegals in low-paying jobs without protection under our labor laws.

        Tom Tancredo’s not the racist, Ken Salazar is.

        1. Skeptic,

          As a general rule I have appreciated your input, even though I don’t often agree with your comments. Seriously, Ken Salazar — as racist?  This one is over the top….even for you.

          Perhaps we could put together a Marshall plan for Mexico so they can have opportunities at home with no need to emigrate. What do you suppose we could have done with the $$ spent on Iraq if we’d have had a coherent plan for the North America’s?

          hese kinds of posts make me almost ill.  There are many, many good immigrants — both legal and illegal.  There are bad apples in every barrel — and our own race is no exception. 

          We might want to start getting use to the fact that our race will likely be a minority if not in my lifetime, at least my childrens.

          1. Salazar isn’t a blatant racist, but he supports the Bush administration’s near racist policy of welcoming illegal immigrants and allowing employers to abuse them.

            So what do you call him?

            I don’t like the term racist and only use it to show those who call their opponents racists how silly and out of line they are. If Dems don’t want to be called racists, they’d better figure out how to win elections without calling their opponents racists.

            Because the accusation can be thrown back at you.

            If you want to play dirty, two can play.

            1. How is someone accusing someone else of being racist, a racist? Lets say you make a campaign stop for a group that is racist (meaning that they hold that other races are inferior to theirs and they advocate wiping out an entire religion). Lets say at this stop you join in an impromptu version of “Dixie” (Oh, I wish I were in the land of cotton; old times there are not forgotten). All the while the area is decked out confederate flag memorabilia. Your speech uses slurs like “barbarians at the gates” and other sometimes subtle sometimes overt racial epithats. Are you not therefore a racist? And if someone calls you out on it how then are they a racist?

              As far as Bush’s plan is concerned what do you suggest? I dont agree with it either, but Tancredo’s is not only stupid because it is completely unfeasible, but it is stupid for its totally xenophobic and racist undertones. Illegal immigrants fill in that little niche in our society that our own citizens refuse to fill, and surpirsingly they get paid pretty well to do it. The article I linked to recently discusses their pay. So, if you agree with Tancredo’s plan, I have yet to see you say that you do, that is your right. If you could offer some other insight I would be happier to read it.

            2. If immigrants come here legally under a guest worker program, wouldn’t they be protected from abuse by the same laws that protect American workers?

              1. But that really comes down to how the law is drafted (specific language in the bill), how it is implemented by the individual states and fed, or if the states were to take it upon themselves to enact some sort of legislation stronger than that implemented by the fed how it was written, and finally how the courts interpeted the law (long sentence, my apologies).

      2. That’s a hard one: I don’t WANT to believe he is, even though he uses terms like “barbarians at the gate” to describe Mexican immigrants – illegal AND legal! – and even though he proudly held up an “America is Full” t-shirt at one rally and sang Dixie and spoke from a Confederate-flagged podium at another rally and sent a letter to the Pope condemning not just radical Islam but ALL Islam.

        But one thing cannot be denied: he uses all the “code words” that full-blown racists today like to use when they want to appear respectable: stuff like “radical multiculturalism.” There is no denying that groups like the National Vanguard – a slick (but not quite slick enough) repackaging of Nazis – just love Tom Tancredo. Why do they like HIM so much and not equally strong anti-illegal-immigrant politicians like James Sensenbrenner? What is it about Tancredo that gets them all hot and excited?

          1. Man you sure got us with that one! I guess that makes him a tolerant guy. Oh wait a second! I see what you did there! You are trying to say that Murtha is a terrorist lover! Or that terrorist’s love Murtha because he has seen the forest for the trees in Iraq, and realizes that Bush and Co. have screwed the pooch.

      3. Now you’re attacking me for being racist?  Why, because your friend is illiterate?  I said I haven’t seen the piece.  But, IF the piece has to do with border security with Mexico, it would be really strange (and disingenuous) to show whites as illegals and Hispanics (“brown skin”) standing up to them.

        Yes, that scenario surley happens, but it is atypical.  Regardless of where you are on the issue, I hope we can all agree, going forward, that most illegal immigrants coming in from our southern border are Hispanic.  And most US citizens are white.  I hope I’m not offending anyone with that assertion.

          1. I’m against all racism, and that’s why I lash out when I see people being falsely accused of racism. When politicians cry racism, they’re being racist.

              1. Robert Byrd, Sen. Allen and his opponent Webb apparently all were racists at one time in their lives and probably harbor racist feelings to this day.

                But to call Tancredo a racist is playing the racist card, and that is being racist.

                Why is that being racist? Because the accuser is taking advantage of minorities fears and hatreds of racists, and they are using the existence of various races in their poltical attacks on opponents who are not racist.

                Johnson is no racist. To say that a candidate can only run pictures of white Protestant Males to make a point is racist. A candidate should be able to run pictures of anyone who helps make a political point without being called a racist, otherwise that candidate is being denied the right to make a legitimate point. The point is that Ritter and other slick Willies failed to do their jobs by not enforcing the laws and they should be held accountable. If a candidate promises to enact laws that protect our borders and require the enforcement of those laws, that is not racist, and making the promise is not racist.

                But charging the candidate who makes those promises racist is racism as far as I’m concerned. If you disagree, ok, but look for more people to attack the racists who are callling innocent people racists.

                Calling someone a racist is the tactic of small minds and small people most of the time. There are better ways to win elections and advance your cause.

                If someone’s a blatant racist, that’s different, but this thread is about someone who is doing nothing wrong or racist, and the thread in itself is racist, imho.

                1. You used the term racist (3 in title; 21 in the post) too many times in that post to create any sort of understanding. Here is what I believe, if you think Tom Tancredo is anything but xenophobic, jingoistic, or racist than you are so far out in left field there is no hope. Using racial epithets, to me, is racist. I dont care what the term used is, if it denegrates another race than that is racist. And Tom Tancredo does that and has done that on multiple occasions.

                  “Because the accuser is taking advantage of minorities fears and hatreds of racists, and they are using the existence of various races in their poltical attacks on opponents who are not racist.”

                  When I read that line I thought to myself “self, that is exactly what Tom Tancredo is doing except he is taking advantage of the majority’s (in his district) fears and hatred of mexicans, and he is using the existence of a non-WASP group (mexicans) to cast aspersions on his enemies (just about any thinking person in the US).” If that is not racist, I do not know what is.

                  1.   Any competent demagogue can do what Tom “Back to My Basement” Tancredo does with Latinos.  You start by identifying a vague fear amongst some in populace based upon racial, ethnic or religious stereotyping and prejudice (they’re coming here illegally, they won’t speak American, and they’re taking our jobs), find some “facts” that can be manipulated to back up that fear (or flat out invent facts, such as the Nazis declaring that Communists or the Jews burned down the Reichstag), and then whip up those who are obsessed with that fear into a frenzy (or as Karl Rove puts it, “energizing our base”). 
                      Tancredo is doing to Latinos exactly what George Wallace and Strom Thurmond did to African-Americans 40 years ago.
                      What’s amazing is the hypocrisy of this Republican Party.  It use to be that the Dems were the party of high hypocrisy. 
                      Not any more.  You see Tancredo ranting about illegals working in this country illegally, and then he’s got a bunch of them working down in his basement.  You got Mark Foley declaring himself the leader of the cause of protecting children from sexual exploitation, and then he’s hitting on teenaged boys on the Internet.
                      It took the Democrats 40 years to piss off the American electorate (1954 to 1994).  It took the GOP only 12 years to do the same thing.  What efficiency……… 

            1. When politicians cry racism, they’re either telling the truth, or exploiting the voters.  The latter doesn’t imply racism, just questionable tactics – especially in a district that doesn’t have enough minorities to swing the vote.  (I might agree with you were this the MD Senate race or TX-23 House race…)

              Ramey’s piece as described contains policy points that have already been deemed unconstitutional; to me, that puts Johnson in the unenviable position of defending herself on that which she is promoting most highly in her campaign: her honesty and integrity.  And it throws into doubt her mail piece, too.  I can think of any number of lighter-skinned Hispanics that could have been used on the reverse of the flyer, or perhaps some variety could have been added to the front.  It’s insensitive, and that’s as far as I’ll go on the imagery.

        1. I certainly wouldn’t call that piece racist.  She actually goes farther than most other candidates on both sides of the aisle in saying that most illegal immigrants have good intentions.

          I would call it a bad piece though.  Country club look on the front – then a serious issue piece on the back.

          And I don’t like the idea of rewarding anyone for obeying the law/ not breaking the law.

          But to call this piece racist is just silly and naive.

          1. But it would have been smarter for her to be pictured with people of color on the front side. That would have deflected this line of criticism.

            Either that, or show a Caucasian male being arrested by the Border Patrol, but that would have been kinda confusing.

    1. I see the flyer includes the proposal to require proof of citizenship at the polls. That was struck down when other states proposed it, right?

      If she knows that such a proposal is unconstitutional and she’s putting it in her campaign lit, then she’s being dishonest because she has to know that it would be a waste of taxpayer time and money to even so much as debate it, let alone passs it, hope Gov. Ritter signs it into law and if he does, have the state defend the inevitible challenge which, of course, it will lose.

      Sounds unethical to me.

      1. It is more than a myth. It is an outright lie. It is a propaganda tool that helps perpetuate the idea that illegals are actually inclined to vote and that they vote democrat. If that were true than Kerry would be in the white house and every state including ours would be dem from top to bottom. It is a ridiculous assertion and people like her are adding fuel to the xenophobic fire.

      2. But surely you could come up with a better argument than that.  A lot of good laws were initially struck down by courts and a lot of bad laws were initially upheld.

        A Gov. Ritter would do whatever is politically expedient.  Or he would just tell both sides yes.  If he is one thing, he is consistent.

        As for checking ID, it’s simply the right thing to do, regardless of how much or how little it happens.  I don’t know what the perfect answer is, but why is it that Dems consistently do not want to know or do not care who is actually voting? 

        1. That’s all I can figure, because the places that would be affected the most by honest elections are heavily Dem, and they’re afraid honest elections would cost them fraudulent votes.

          Democrats have always profited form fraud more than Repubs. They’d like to continue that tradition, because they have no plan to run on. They’re just anti-Bush.

          1. Care to back that up with a source? And your post makes no sense. An area that is heavily democratic is ripe with fraud from democrats. I think that would be counterintuitive, but, hey, thats just me.

            As far as their platform is concerned maybe you just havent looked over any campaign sites to see what their issues are. Just because some of their positions are anti-bush does not mean they have no platform. Of course, we do see a lot of republicans beating their usual drum that dems are bad and want to cut and run. The race escapes me at the moment, but recently a republican congressional candidate accused his opponent of wanting to cut and run from Iraq. Here is the irony (stupidity). She is an Iraq war veteran who lost both her legs there. The only thing worse he could have said is that when it comes to defense she doesnt have a leg to stand on.

            Moonie: Have you ever heard of a poll tax? Do you realize that many people may not have a driver’s license, but are eligible to vote? Do you realize that the courts have recently struck down attempts to institute those such provisions. I actually linked to it in a diary that I started so I am sure that it shouldnt be to hard to find and read. I believe the case was in Georgia an area filled with dems.

            1. He peddled it in a diary the other week, and he’s peddling it here.  Normally I like at least looking at what A.S. has to say, but this is complete crap.

              As you point out, “have you ever heard of a poll tax?”  Democrats want the same thing for our voting system as the Founding Fathers wanted for our democracy: protection of the rights of the citizenry.  If it disenfranchises people who should be able to vote, it’s not the right system.

        2. don’t want to exclude people who should be allowed to vote.

          Maybe in your world everyone can afford to pay for a voter ID card, and can easily prove their citizenship.  Apparently it’s not easy, though – even for the daughters of Republican politicians.

          1. I suspect having a photo I.D. would not satisfy some of the more affluent members of the GOP who are security conscious about voting.  In order to make sure that only qualified voters can cast ballots, they would probably like to require that the voter produce an American Express at the polling place……..

        3. and proof of citizenship. For most of us that proof is our birth certificates and I would have been disenfranchised for years if I was required to have it since my parents, who are pretty organized, misplaced it. I finally got a certified copy several years ago when I needed my passport.

          For the record, I think showing ID is a good idea. When I first started voting I found it odd that I didn’t have to prove I was who I said I was, but then again the honor system seemed to work – I never showed up at the polls to be told that I already voted.

          But the point wasn’t whether this is good or bad law; what matters is that it’s been declared unconstitutional and that IS the law, whether you like it or not. But it’s probably not something many people are aware of, so it seems to me that she is guilty of unethical campaigning on two counts – she’s campaigning against a non-existent problem (unless someone can post a credible link to a news story showing any voting by non-citizens), and for selling an unconstitutional solution to that non-existent problem.

  3. Ramey, my whole family stands behind you!  There are people out there that know you are not a racist.  The other side, of course, can not come up with anything else constructive and, of course, they have to turn this into a racism topic.  It is no more a racist topic than water or healthcare.  Keep up the good work Ramey! 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

39 readers online now


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