U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

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) Somebody

90%

10%

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

50%

40%↑

30%

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
October 03, 2006 03:30 PM UTC

Tuesday Open Thread

  • 32 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Let’s do this thing.

Comments

32 thoughts on “Tuesday Open Thread

    1. …I’m going to upgrade Doug from “Stupendous” to “Wonderfultastic!!” Note the two exclamation points.

      This upgrade should put the naysayers in their place.

  1. My opinion is:
    In what should remind every thinking adult of Richard Nixon’s infamous statement, “I am not a crook,” Rowland came out with her own version of that statement in Nancy Lofholm’s article in last Sunday’s Denver Post. DenverPost. In proving that she is lost in her own wacko world, Rowland believes that people will buy her self-serving spin in saying, “People who know me know I’m not extreme.”  Yes, Janet, I’m sure the people in the extremist circle you run in, like Josh Penry and Shari Bjorklund, do not think you are an extremist.  But the rest of the real world does know how extreme and intolerant your philosophy is. 

    I’m sure, Janet, your circle of extremists find nothing wrong with your view that separation of church and state is not in our constitution.  Ignoring the establishment clause of our Bill of Rights, forgetting all the case law our courts have given us on the issue, overlooking all the death and conflict throughout history that non-separation governments have brought on humanity and disregarding the fact that our founding fathers established a democracy and NOT a theocracy, Janet Rowland states when asked about our separation of church and state, “It’s not in the Constitution. We should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.”  That is indeed extreme, Rowland.  I do have “freedom FROM religion” by not having to submit to your hateful philosophy or having to submit to any Grand Inquisitor. 

    Rowland further exposes her wacko extremist philosophy by saying creationism should be taught in our schools.  Americans have consistently rejected that extremist view.  When the wackos have attempted to impose their extremist views, Americans like those in Pennsylvania and Kansas have quickly remedied the situation by giving the boot to those public officials who advocate that extremism.  Colorado and Mesa County should do the same with Rowland.  While I am sure that Mullah Omar is somewhere applauding the efforts of people like Rowland, it is a position that she will NEVER be allowed to impose on Americans.  Madrassas and theocracy will not ever become the norm in America.

    Rowland touts her skills at being a “family therapist”.  Yet, in that same DP article she says the child she raised is “estranged” from her family.  Guess that shows how good her “family therapist” skills are, huh? 

    Rowland has said, “‘Forty or 50 years ago, people would be outraged that we were talking about gay marriage.”  rowland 40/50  Gee, Janet, 40 or 50 years ago people would have been outraged that you got engaged to a divorced man after knowing him for only 30 days.  150 years ago there were people outraged that others would oppose slavery.  87 years ago there were people who were outraged that women would want the right to vote.  50 years ago there were people who were outraged that anyone who wanted to could sit at the front of the bus.  In my life time I have seen intolerant people who advocated segregation and opposed equal voting rights for all Americans.  That is why I know how dangerous people like Rowland are to our American way of life.  50 years from now, people will look back at Rowland’s ideology coprolite and say how much it stinks.

    Rowland finally gave a little clarification for the reason she had to apologize for her bestiality rant.  In the DP article, Rowland states, “I apologized because it was not my intent to hurt anyone.”  She does not apologize for the content of her rant.  I know it can be difficult for some of us who are not gay to understand everything gays and lesbians have to go through.  But like all Americans, I believe they just want the same rights that all of us enjoy.  By not apologizing for the content of her remarks, I believe Rowland confirms the contentions made by Rabbi Dr. Larry Denmark when he wrote in the Ft. Collins Coloradoan:
    Fort Collins Coloradoan
    “….the historical implications of comparing homosexuals to animals are not lost on American Jews. Hitler compared Jews to animals and vermin as part of the de-humanizing program to prepare the German mind set for the extermination of the Jews. When we arrived at the concentration camps, we found our homosexual brothers and sisters already there.  Rowland’s statements are repulsive and dangerous. We should all reject them. These are not misstatements. These are windows into deeply held beliefs. Do not collaborate with apologist spin.”

    Like Mr. Denmark, many of us saw through the “apologist spin” that the Beauprez camp put out in announcing their choice of Beauprez’s running mate.  It is my belief that BWB chose Ms. Bestiality to pay an indulgence to his theocratic base.

    Regardless of the spin, we still see and oppose the dangers that extremists like Janet Rowland and Josh Penry pose.  They are both an embarrassment to Colorado.

        1. ‘Scat’ is the term used by most field researchers, and it is the basis for most food habits study.  Washing the fecal matter from scat reveals the hair, bones, teeth, whatnot, of the prey.  Perhaps appropriate for this context.

    1. Agree with you and find your comments, this and ones in the past, well written.

      A few weeks ago I went off on Sybil/Ruthie for speaking about the family of a candidate and think your comments about Rowland’s estranged child is over the top.

      I don’t agree with negative ads but know they are necessary to win.  I will never agree with attacks on a candidate’s family, or with comments like the one you made.

      Rowland typifies what is wrong with the Republican party, as you point out, but her family and all candidates’ families should be off limits.  Attack the candidate, not the family.

      1. Also reminds me of when the CRANK campaign charged a LAMBORN son with sign removal during that primary.  The son was found innocent the day of the election, but Crank certainly made hey for a good four days in that final push.  I objected then, as I also do now.  Oh yes, I read the same statement about “estranged”, but I’d never use that as a campaign arrow.

  2. A Colorado man accused a Secret Service agent today of arresting him on trumped-up allegations of assaulting Vice President Dick Cheney after he told Cheney the administration’s policies in Iraq were “reprehensible.”

    Steven Howards said the agent arrested him in June a few minutes after he had confronted Cheney in the resort town of Beaver Creek, where Cheney was attending a conference.

    Howards said he saw Cheney in a crowd, shaking hands and posing for photos. He said walked to within 3 feet of Cheney and told him, “I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible,” and then left.

    Howards said he may have touched Cheney on the elbow or shoulder, like others in the crowd.

    Minutes later, when he was returning through the area with another son, Secret Service agent Virgil D. “Gus” Reichle Jr. questioned him, handcuffed him and told him he would be charged with assaulting the vice president, Howards said.

    When Reichle took him to the Eagle County jail, however, he told deputies to issue him a summons on a state charge of harassment, Howards said. Howards said the harassment charge was dropped less than a month later at the request of the district attorney.

    Howards planned to file a lawsuit in federal court today. A copy of the suit was provided to The Associated Press.

    Spokesmen for the Secret Service in Denver and White House in Washington did not immediately return calls.

    In the lawsuit, Howards, 54, claims Reichle violated his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

    “It’s such a blatant attempt to suppress a right to free speech. Such a traumatic event for my son, I couldn’t just let it pass,” Howards told the AP Monday night, before the suit was filed.

    The lawsuit asks for money for attorneys fees and damages that include loss of enjoyment of life.

  3. First, I am not a member of the “Beauprez crowd” any more than you are an apologist for a Democratic candidate for public office who would have been too right-of-center for his party just six years ago.  Don’t play “more progressive than thou” with me.

    I am merely passing on the comments one hears at national law enforcement conferences.  Colorado, rightly or wrongly, is perceived as a place where prosecutions are conducted through media circuses. 

    I don’t want to upset you, but that is just the way it is, and as the Colorado DAs association has not taken measures to call out those who do (hanging together, once again), you can see where it gets the reputation.

      1. that California is a much larger state, with many media centers.  You can get away with it in a crowd.  Besides, Hunter hired everyone as consultants, so he spread it around.

  4. Both Ways Bob tanked on the Colorado Bar Association debate this evening. He’s another D.C. politician who didn’t answer a single question straight forward, but rather pandered and used rhetorical zingers such Bush has, “shoot it straight,” hold me accountable, etc etc etc.”

    1.   I only watched the first half hour of the debate, but did Both Ways get any questions about his selection of Janet “Beastiality Rant” Rowland as his running mate?  If so, how did he answer?

      1. but the debate reminded every one of that Sprint Mobile commercial where Ritter would draw his gun and slap Beauprez up side the head over and over before BWB could formulate a thought.

  5. Bill Ritter is getting killed in this debate!

    Bill Ritter just announced to the world that he is in favor of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants.  I applaud him for standing by his values.

    Unfortunately for Ritter, a vast majority of Coloradans count illegal immigration as the biggest issue facing them and wholeheartedly disagree with him.  He and Val Vigil stand alone in their zeal on this issue.  Really alone.  (chirp, chirp, chirp).

    Meanwhile, Beauprez and Snufelupagus both beat Ritter down on his coddling of immigrant felons.

    It was like Tyson vs. Spinks.  Ritter played the part of Spinks.  Oh the humanity!!

      1. Ballots start dropping next week.  You may be right in the end.  There’s still time though.  Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that the debate treated Ritter like a baby treats a diaper.

              1. with your hurtful words.  Aren’t you the same guy who calls people ‘mean’ if they even cast a doubt on another’s character?  You took Andy here to the woodshed because he questioned someone’s progressiveness.

                I’m not sure if you’re a hypocrite or just poor at humor.  I think (most of) my posts are thoughtful and well-stated.  They may be anathema to everyone else here, but I’m truly surprised you would say they lack credibility.  Maybe they’re unethical too? (as your friend from the Ramey diary likes to say)

                Yes, I usually toe the Beauprez line, if you will, but how is that different than you saying how great Bill Ritter is?  Because there are more of you?  Your party typically eschews the “Might makes right” psychology.

                1. Dont even try to act like you are the lone republican on this site. You are trying to cry foul because you make vitriolic comments that you are then called out on? I am sure that you do think that your posts are thoughtful and well stated. That doesnt mean that other people cant call you out on posts they dont agree with or say that they dont have credibility. Your post history, truthful or not, leads me to discount much of what you say, because of the way that it is presented.

                  My party does not have the might, currently. So trying to play the oppressed republican is a really lame ploy into shaming someone who doesnt agree with you. Your posts come across like fox news commentary, using the question mark as some sort beaulaying (sp?) device for protection against attack

                2. If you paid attention to my posts you’d see that I’m not very enthusiastic about Ritter, and that I am also unregistered despite being quite liberal. Of course you’re usually engaged in half a dozen arguments at any given time, so I’ll let it slide. Anyway, BWB is even less impressive, so Ritter has my vote. (It takes a demonstrably superior Republican to earn my vote, but I do vote that way at times.)

                  You’ve been caught in a lie (see link below) and if you aren’t associated with either the Beauprez campaign or Trailhead you sure post like you are. I guess I’ll just ask you point blank – Are you actively working for the Beauprez campaign, any Republican 527, or a Republican party organization that campaigns on behalf of Republican candidates? Or any other conceivable politically active organization? Or are you ike me – interested in politics but completely unaffiliated with any organization (not counting your voter registration)?

                  http://coloradopols….

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

67 readers online now

Newsletter

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