U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) 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
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 31, 2006 07:18 PM UTC
18 Comments
Looks like statewide democratic candidates are doing better and better. NB republicans: buying time on KOA and Limbaugh doesn’t bring in the unaffiliated voters. Just so you know.
John Salazar for buying Republicans’ stupid rhetoric on inheritance taxes — and using their position and language to tout his stand on the so-called “death tax” — a tax which has never hurt one single family farm.
As if on cue, it ran right after a Club for Growth ad attacking Jay Fawcett for not wanting to eliminate Paris Hilton’s favorite tax cut.
Why would a dem in a safe seat run an ad that bolsters Republican talking points and (probably) hurts his party peers at every level? And if someone thinks this is not stupid, please let me know, I have some watches for sale.
Let me throw in my 2 cents here, you tell me if it’s worth a watch.
First, Salazar’s seat is so safe because of his moderate-to-conservative stands on issues like gun control, eminent domain, and the estate tax. There are 18,000 more republicans than dems in the CD-3 and enough of them support Salazar because they know he represents their real western slope values.
Second, I would contend your stance that the estate tax never hurt any farming families. It is true that there is not an epidemic of farmers losing their land, but at the same time these are not the families of Marblehead and Newport out east. Many of them are struggling to make ends meet, and it is unfair to burden hard-working farmers with a tax meant for east coast millionaries.
Lastly, I agree that Salazar’s use of the term “death tax” merely engrains the conservative frame on this issue a little deeper, but at the same time that means that this is one less talking point the Republicans can use against him. Also, I’m sure that if Fawcett really doesn’t support the inheritance tax he can find some talking points of his own, and if he can’t support his position, why is he taking it in the first place?
So, no, I don’t think the Congressman is being stupid. I think he is being smart and a good representative to his district. He is a farmer and rancher before anything else, and he knows what it’s like being at the paying end of this tax as well as the legislating end.
Do I get a watch?
Than he is about Jay Fawcett.
Read their voting records and you can see that although they sometimes do something right for the environment and such, they always cave into the corporations.
And after Ken voted for torture and to suspend habeus corpus, I sent him a fax. I told him that no matter what good he has done, he is like a child molester, nothing else matters except that. Also that I would do my damndest to unseat him.
Lord, my blood boils just writing this, thinking how that man sold us out, ending over 400 years of habeus corpus. Poof, RIP US Constitution.
First of all does anyone remember hearing Ken Salazar say “elect me I’ll be a liberal rubber stamp!” Doesn’t sound familiar. I seem to remember hearing moderate, law and order quite a lot but not liberal reactinary. Second, the law does NOT suspend the writ of habeus corpus for American citizens. It merely clarifies that non-citizens do not have the right to habeus corpus. Essential considering non-citizen non-residents have never had any rights under the Constitution.
I’m not sure I agree with your analysis of the law. It doesn’t really matter though, because the first challenge of this law will get it overturned by the Sup. Ct.
P.S. The Constitution says “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
While they may have an argument about public safety, it doesn’t say a damn thing about citizens v. non-citizens. The reason there is no citizenship requirement is simple. If there was, the government could simply revoke your citizenship due to “treason” or some such thing, and then you would be denied Habeas Corpus. The right to petition the federal government about your illegal detention by a state, the military, or anyone else, is one of our most fundamental rights. Note: Habeas Corpus is worthless if your detention is legal… so why deny it to anyone?
the court ignores the part of the law saying legal challenges to the law are without standing. (One of the prettier tautological arguments I have ever seen.)
Point out to me where it says that non citizens dont have rights under the constitution.
Are you governed by the French Constitution? When was the last time you claimed rights under the Magna Carta? How about stoned a woman based on the Sharia laws of Saudi Arabia? It’s a little thing called sovereignty. It’s good, we like it here. Ours is here theirs is there.
But keep on posting as if you know what you are talking about.
If I’m in France, I am covered by the French Constitution. Not in America, but that’s not the issue. If I’m taken into custody by French authorities, I’m covered by the French Constitution.
I think others have pointed out — correctly — that Constitutional rights are granted regardless of citizenship. But just to REALLY drive the nail in ol’ westslopedem’s coffin, here’s a little something from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) on Legal Permanent Residents (that is, citizens of OTHER COUNTRIES who live in the U.S. with what is colloquially called a “green card”). Under westslopedem’s argument, they are not citizens, and thus, they would have no rights. Let’s see what the CIS says:
RIGHTS
As a Permanent Resident you have most of the rights of a United States Citizen but there are some exceptions.
Exceptions
-Some jobs will be limited to United States Citizens because of security concerns.
-You may not vote in elections limited to United States Citizens.
Read it yourself: http://www.uscis.gov…
And by the way, westslopedem, here’s a fun fact: American women in Saudi Arabia — EVEN female U.S. diplomats at our Embassy there — cannot drive in Saudi Arabia. Why? Because — here comes the kicker! — just like foreigners in the U.S. are subject to U.S. law (with ALL of its rights and protections, as well as restrictions), U.S. citizens are subject to the laws of the countries we visit (we just happen to have a much, much better legal system than most!).
I think others have pointed out — correctly — that Constitutional rights are granted regardless of citizenship. But just to REALLY drive the nail in ol’ westslopedem’s coffin, here’s a little something from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) on Legal Permanent Residents (that is, citizens of OTHER COUNTRIES who live in the U.S. with what is colloquially called a “green card”). Under westslopedem’s argument, they are not citizens, and thus, they would have no rights. Let’s see what the CIS says:
RIGHTS
As a Permanent Resident you have most of the rights of a United States Citizen but there are some exceptions.
Exceptions
-Some jobs will be limited to United States Citizens because of security concerns.
-You may not vote in elections limited to United States Citizens.
Read it yourself: http://www.uscis.gov…
And by the way, westslopedem, here’s a fun fact: American women in Saudi Arabia — EVEN female U.S. diplomats at our Embassy there — cannot drive in Saudi Arabia. Why? Because — here comes the kicker! — just like foreigners in the U.S. are subject to U.S. law (with ALL of its rights and protections, as well as restrictions), U.S. citizens are subject to the laws of the countries we visit (we just happen to have a much, much better legal system than most!).
The one that says, if the Preznit can get you out of the country, then you have no rights.
SO technically you’re right: it’s only non-citizens who have their Constitutional rights violated – within the country.
But if they rendition a US Citizen, the new law also provides that no U.S. court can hear any petition from a prisoner held outside of the country (like, say, in Gitmo). So make sure you get your lawyer to file a petition FAST if you’re rounded up, ’cause once you’re outside the borders of the country, you’re screwed.
And you are incorrect; the Constitution *does* protect non-citizens. And specifically, the provisions about criminal prosecutions and detained persons handling are worded in terms like “accused” and “detained”, not in terms of “citizens”.
Why would anyone have expected either Salazar brother to act like a diehard liberal in congress?
I dont think anyone expected them to be anything other than what they are. I sure didnt. But that expectation belies the point that they voted to do away with one the most fundamental aspects of our rights. A right that predates the formation of this country.
Calling the expectation that habeas corpus remain as one of the most fundamental rights this country has is not a diehard liberal stance. I would say that it is, or at least should be, a non partisan issue, which every single american should stand behind.
The brothers Salazar did not run on a liberal platform, I agree. But protecting our constitutional rights is neither liberal nor conservative.
Anyone standing on American soil, or for that matter, aboard an American flagged ship or airliner has rights. Citizenship is not a variable. (It certainly gets warped in a military venue, but that’s a different discussion.)
There was a letter in The Snooze today from some goose stepping cretin that pointed out that we are at war (we are?) and therefore we don’t need no stinkin’ Habeus Corpus.
I shudder.