President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 06, 2007 07:11 PM UTC
50 Comments
The President of the El Paso County Democrats Club wants to go “Pol Pot” on everybody that believes in vouchers….that’s all I can think of that’s more extreme than a place in hell.
It’s that sort of closed-mindedness (represented by members of both parties) that is keeping anything good from being accomplished in this state
I think it’s disgraceful that a committee chairman with cancer was dumped by his party leaders because he said what they all think and say in private.
He should have been allowed to lead his committee and speak for his party because he sounds and acts just like his leaders, right up to Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi.
You are who you elect.
It is you (and your brethren) trying to stamp out free speech that you disagree with that is the outrage. This is the United States, not some Middle Eastern country where one group can label some speech “outrageous” and therefore it shouldn’t be said. You disagree, fine. You want to put political pressure on an individual… I’m less happy about that, but what can I do. You want anyone and everyone to stop expressing their opinions about the issue??? That is about as un-American as it gets.
What you’re stating makes no sense at all. Of course I believe in free speech. It doesn’t mean there aren’t serious consequences for childish remarks. Mr. Merrifield is demonstrating a narrow-minded and hateful perspective and he’s not competent to be hold office. Our elected officials should be leaders, not individuals who participate in this sort of really vile speech. By the way – I am even-handed in my criticism. I believe that conservatives like Doug Bruce participate in this sort of behaviour and I condemn it with him too.
To argue against what he said would require an argument about vouchers. Instead, you are arguing about how he said it. That is an argument against speech. When you use words like “inappropriate” and “outrage” you are indicating that his speech should be condemned and that he should be removed from office as a consequence.
You specifically say “Our elected officials should be leaders, not individuals who participate in this sort of really vile speech.” “Vile speech” is speech nonetheless. You want someone punished for their “vile speech.”
Your Orwellian attitude seems to be indicative of many of the people who think like you. You say, “Of course I believe in free speech. It doesn’t mean there aren’t serious consequences for childish remarks.” You want “serious consequences” (punishment) for “childish remarks” (speech). Get it? Probably not.
In short, condemn all you want. But until the discussion moves to the merits of his statement (whether vouchers are indeed a horrible idea) as opposed to the FORM of his statement, you are trying to suppress free speech. If people like you had their way, in the future everyone would have to be careful in what they say and how they word it. That is NOT a free society.
You are trying to condemn someone else who agrees because they said something about the original remarks being “too nice.” This is called freedom. It is how America is supposed to work. Disagree all you want, but don’t try to stifle other peoples words.
Perhaps I wasn’t clear… I am in no way wanting to limit Merrifield’s ability or freedom to say what he wants. I absolutely AM holding him accountable to the very poor choice he made about how he communicates his attitude towards individuals who support our public Colorado charter schools. I am HAPPY to speak to the “substance” and content of his position but in no way will I let his outrageous manner of presenting his position slide.
Consider what would happen if Dobson made a statement that “people who support banning prayer in schools will burn in hell.” (He never said that btw – it’s just an example). Now are you honestly saying that you would only want to talk about banning prayer in schools and not criticize Dobson for his use of inflammatory nomenclature to deliver his point?
I would point out what an extremist he was and then address the merits. I would not suggest, that he should step down. To be fair, the comparison isn’t the same because he isn’t elected. If he was elected, I might suggest he should step down because he supports forcing prayer in school. I would NOT suggest he step down because he used the words “burn in hell.”
Let me give you an example. Consider a Democrat who said that they disagreed with Republicans on most issues. Now consider a Democrat who said that Republicans deserve a special place in hell for their support of war, torture, etc. You really believe that an elected official should not hold office if they said the latter of the two?
There are two ways of looking at this. The first is at the merits of what the Democrat said. In other words, do Republicans really support war and torture and if so are war and torture good things to support. The second is to look at the words chosen to express the point. In that case, the second is clearly more inflammatory.
The point is, they are saying the same thing with different words. If your beef is with the words, as opposed to the meaning, you are opposed to certain words being said. Being opposed to certain words being said is being opposed to free speech. Being opposed to free speech is un-American.
My beef is with both and the two are not mutually exclusive. People in general and politicians specifically should be held accountable for what they say and how they say it.
My ongoing criticism with Merrifield is with the content of his message (charter schools don’t work) and with the method by which he delivered his message (inflammatory speech).
And what someone says and does when they think no one is looking is highly indicative of what they truly think. Merrifield was video-taped a couple years ago stealing yard signs from his opponent when he thought no one was looking and now he is caught again making ridiculous statements when he thought no one but Sue Windels would see them.
Very enlightening to see his true colors.
You said, “I am in no way wanting to limit Merrifield’s ability or freedom to say what he wants.” Yet you want to punish him for saying what he wanted. Do you not see the contradiction there?
People should be allowed to say WHATEVER they want however they must recognize that their words can and do have consequences. Sometimes people deliver their message in glorious and wonderful terms and they’re rewarded when people respond positively to the content and the delivery of their message. In the same way, when someone delivers their content vindictively and with bitterness they shouldn’t be surprised when people react negatively.
In my opinion, there’s a difference in what constitutes a limit in free speech. Saying something inflammatory and getting punished with a resignation isn’t limiting free speech. Saying something against the government and getting visited in the middle of the night by men in black masks who proceed to shoot you and your family is limiting free speech. Sure, all speech has consequences; one may or may not be appropiate given the situation the other is never appropiate under any situation.
That is the best way I can think of to explain why I don’t think that GOPundit is contradicting him (or her?)self.
Do the people in the black masks have to from the government for it to be limiting your free speech? I, for one, don’t think so. I think if it limits speech, it limits speech, regardless of who is doing it.
don’t like what someone says, voice my complaint, and that person loses position/prestige, I’m denying their first amemendment rights? Is that your position Winston?
That is why I didn’t say that. What I said is that you would be impinging on their free speech. The First Amendment only applies when it is the state doing something. If you do the same thing, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. That doesn’t mean you aren’t denying them free speech. Get it? Probably not. No one seems to. I didn’t think it was that hard of a concept. If you do something to make others fearful of speaking, you are limiting their ability to speak. There isn’t anything complicated about it.
is that I should not use my right to free speech if I think the result will be the impinging on anothers free speech? How does revealing Micheal Merrifields intemperate remarks a threat to him? And wasn’t Merrifield using his bully pulpit as the Chairman on the House Education Commitee to limit debate on school reform?
I would think that a person holding power in government trying to squelch arguments he doesn’t agree with much more troubling than revealing that same persons animus towards the opposite side of the debate.
Once again, that isn’t what I said. Here, let me make it ultra-clear. Like my first post in this thread said: You guys think what he said is an outrage. I think what you are saying is an outrage. Your bullying tactics are inappropriate. Your speech is more offensive, to me, than his. Does that mean you should stop saying it? Only if you want to have an honest discussion about the merits of the education system. But if not, please keep bullying and crying. Now quit trying to put words in my mouth.
trying to pin you down on this I’m a bully? Sorry, I’m not copping a plea to that charge. Every question I have asked directly related to your previous postings. From reading what you wrote in this thread, you seem to think that our outrage makes us criminals.
“Do the people in the black masks have to from the government for it to be limiting your free speech? I, for one, don’t think so. I think if it limits speech, it limits speech, regardless of who is doing it.”
That by using our right to voice our opinion we are violating another persons rights. That because YOU DON’T AGREE WITH US, we should be silent about those things that outrage us. That won’t happen.
What Representative Merrifield said was not the words of someone you want in charge of education policy in Colorado, or anywhere else for that matter. They were the words of someone who would be totally unwilling to listen to anyone who’s point of view did not agree with him completely.
You want to talk the merits of charter schools and other alternatives to a public education system that is failing to educate our future? I would love to see such a debate in the State Capitol. It won’t happen as long as Micheal Merrifield has his way. And that is the true source of our outrage.
Is that you and a GOPpundit are trying to push some idea that your position is above board and Merrifield, by his opposition, has crossed a line.
Im going to disregard the easy opening you (un)knowingly offered with this quip, “What Representative Merrifield said was not the words of someone you want in charge of education policy in Colorado, or anywhere else for that matter.” And segue right into these two: “They were the words of someone who would be totally unwilling to listen to anyone who’s point of view did not agree with him completely.“—-“You want to talk the merits of charter schools and other alternatives to a public education system that is failing to educate our future?”
Clearly, you care just as much for public education as it exists today as Merrifield does for vouchers. You dont want a debate, you want your position implemented, opposition be damned.
to read the last part of the paragraph about the failing public eductation system, I WANT the debate, on the Statehouse floor, with public comment. If you want to defend the public education system, you’ll have to do better than just attack those who care about how our children are being educated.
The part that I quoted? Look at what you wrote, above and now. You have no desire to have civil debate. You want a fallacious argument where you lob ad homs rather than debate the issues.
No, the part you edited to change the meaning of what I said.
What did I edit? I took the whole sentence and bolded part for emphasis. I changed nothing. I took to of your statements, which are clearly contradictory, and pointed out your obstinate position that public education is all bad no matter what.
But I feel that I should point out (although it probably won’t do any good) that I never said that either of you are doing anything criminal, nor that you should stop doing it. The black masks statement was in response to GOP saying something about people in black masks in his previous post… so please don’t take it out of context. Last, the point I am trying to make is not that you should be silent, but rather that you are doing the same thing that Merrifield did. You are trying to silence him. I want neither one of you silenced. You want him silenced but want to continue to spout your over the top attacks. See the hypocrisy? Probably not. Regardless, even if you take something else out of context or put more words in my mouth, I am done wasting energy on this thread.
When exactly did I say that Merrifield did not have the right to say what he said? When did I ever say that he should be silent? YOU are the one putting those words in my mouth because at no time have I ever advocated someone should not have the right to say what they feel, that is the position you have taken on this debate. Both GOPundit and I reacted to Merrifields statements and you did not defend them, you attacked our right to react. And that is the difference.
And have a delayed post at that. To answer your question, as you know constitutionally, yes, it has to be the government for it to be limiting free speech. And since MM is a government official, in my opinion, he did more to limit free speech than did his critics. An elected official handing our declarations of who has a place in hell and who doesn’t can be viewed as the government trying to limit speech as well as the government infringing on the seperation of church and state. Of course that senario would have had more teeth if a Republican had said the same thing about someone who didn’t believe in school vouchers, but that’s beside the point.
Since the constitution protects free speech infringments committed by the government, us complaining about it isn’t limiting free speech. Even if someone other than the government came in with black masks, it wouldn’t be limiting free speech-it would be illegal for a ton of other reasons, and rightfully so, but from a legal standpoint, not nessicarily limiting free speech
Of course you do not like Doug Bruce, you say that like it is supposed to surprise us? So basically you are an establishment Colorado Springs republican. You are far from moderate in your criticism.
Narrow minded and hateful huh? Do you think homosexuals should have the right to marry?
I think you’ll find that the level of competency associated with holding an elected office is far lower than you seem to think it is.
It’s very clear that Merrifield’s comments about Eric Christen and Sandy Shakes are being misconstrued by political opportunists. I am not happy with Merrifield’s attitude toward Sandy Shakes, nor his arrogant demeanor on a number of other occasions; but I must admit that having to think too much about Eric Christen would piss me off, too. I’m ready to forgive and move on. I think most of Merrifield’s district, who voted in favor of recalling Christen by about 75% a few months ago, will understand as well in the end.
Winston,
Your assertion that GOPundit is stifling free speech is ludicrous. What are we engaging in right now? Merrifield has every right to say what he wants, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be held accountable for those words. With freedom comes responsibility, especially for elected officials. If Merrifield is abusing his position, we should be allowed to criticize him, to not do so would be to stifle our right to free speech.
I didn’t say he was succeeding at stifling speech, I said he was trying to. Making people fear what they put in their private emails stifles important free speech. Fear to speak, or as the legal world calls it a “chilling effect” is indeed unconstitutional if created by the state. Admittedly, GOPundit is not the state (probably, but who knows). But the effect could be the same. It is not ludicrous.
Incidentally, nothing I say or do would put any fear into you that you should stop criticizing him. therefore, I am by no means “stifling” your speech by saying it is un-American. I am just pointing out that it is fascist leaning speech.
over Ted Haggard’s personal pick of Kyle Fisk. I have to wonder now why Ted picked Kyle.
If voters don’t like Mike, they’ll let him know next time out.
Sandy Shakes and Eric Christen were recalled from office for destroying the camaraderie of the D-11 school board and trying to push vouchers, abstinence, and every other kind of bullshit that does not work.
Christen the racist.
Christen the crook.
Shakes the incompetent.
Steve Shucksters all.
If anything, Merrifield was too nice. Any Republicans willing to fund every student at the maximum and same level no matter the wealth of their school district raise your hands.
If you believe that MM was too nice in his remarks please let me know what you think would be an even better statement. I’m curious whether that was an off-hand remark or you really think something more judgemental is in order.
Our own governor thinks charter schools are a good idea… along with Barak Obama and Hilary Clinton. So how far left of them is Merrifield… and how far left of Merrifield are you?
“…and you will find.”
You do not understand that HD 18 is VERY left.
Actually Druid – I used to live in HD18 and I currently office there so I can judge what it’s like… And according to the numbers it’s 30-35% registered R and 30-35% registered D which – by most people’s standards – isn’t “VERY left.”
practically Sweden. They don’t tax your office at 110%?
That was actually pretty funny Zapp. 🙂 Nah… but it FEELS like 110%!
Actually HD17 which is (mostly) north of HD18 has nearly identical registration numbers. A few more Republicans and the unaffiliated lean a little more to the middle… but the point is that everyone’s idea that there’s 8 Republicans to every 2 Dems in El Paso County just ain’t so.
All I know is that ever since his first re-election campaign he has kicked the hell out of anyone who has been put up against him.
You have got to give him credit for that. He actually talks to people, knocks on their doors, and is a genuine guy. And for once Dems, flaming liberals, and lefty moderates, actually have representation in El Paso. Why is that such a bad thing? C’mon throw us a bone here! 😉
This is from the Longmont newspaper a few weeks ago:
You may not like it but Merrifield represents his constituency. Just like your Briargate zombies howl for vouchers.
You can get on here and flame Merrifield and Morse all you want, (and I know that is your sole purpose to be on here) but they are totally in line with what people in Manitou and the Westside think when it comes to charter schools.
So send out your mailers with this quote about charter schools plastered all over them, and watch as Merrifield’s victory margin grows. ;-D
Druid why are so afraid to just admit that what Merrifield said was stupid. You know, all politicians eventually do or say something they regret. It’s not the end of the world and most smart politicians apologize and then get on with their lives.
When Merrifield doesn’t apologize for the statement and actually defends it later by stating it’s the “truth” he only brings more criticism down on himself.
And then when the president of the El Paso County Dems says “he was far too nice in his e-mail” the effect is that moderate individuals are completely turned off. Civility and a little humility goes a long way.
I never said it wasn’t. First law of politics, do not put anything in an email that you would not want on the front page of the newspaper.
Will it kill his political career? Hell no. And if you think it will dream on.
Do you live in Manitou or on the Westside of the Springs Druid?
I live on the Westside and can tell you Merrifield does not represent me or my neighbors.
He is a flaming liberal staunchly in the pockets of the teachers union.
There are probably a few ex-hippy types in Manitou that agree with him but that is because they are so out of touch with reality from the dope they smoke that they don’t know any better.
My folks had a shop in Manitou for over 20 years. I saw the ones that would vote for that nutjob. But it surely isn’t everyone.
For the most part, the people of the Westside are not flaming liberals like you make them out to be. If they were I surely wouldn’t live here.
And where do you get off calling the people of Briargate “zombies”? There are far more people in Briargate than Manitou or the Westside. Just because you think competition should not be allowed in schools and some people do, doesn’t mean that said people are zombies.
Merrifield has one thing on his mind.
Union money.
If he is so against choice, I wonder what his opinion is on abortion?
Can you say two faced?
in fact I do live on the Westside, born and raised. When I claim that he represents his constituents I think the margins of his latest wins speaks for itself.
With all due respect Gecko, I do not think it is much of a surprise that you do not agree with Michael Merrifield on a lot of things. You, however, are not the typical Westisider, or Manitouan, in any sense of the word. That is not meant as an insult by the way.
His opinion on abortion, is not two faced at all. I have no idea what you are referring to? Can you give me an example?
Flaming liberals? Huh? Because the majority of folks in D11 and D12 are against vouchers that makes them “flaming liberals”. I don’t think so.
Conservatives have a lock on the County Commission seats, they have all but TWO state senate and state house seats, and a total lock on the CS city council and they freak out that “flaming liberals” have a whole TWO seats of representation. And if they do not agree with the charter schools, and GOD FORBID, that they have just as strong opinions about something as say, Dave Schultheis, then they get called a nut job.
Why do I make the extreme over-generalization of Briargate “zombies”? Because of places like FoF, New Life Church, you figure it out. Even you have to admit that CS is WAY more evangelical that it ever used to be. It has gone from being a fiscally conservative and libertarian town, to a town of homophobia, and extreme evangelism. IMO, that sucks.
And Merrifield, like it or not, gave us flaming liberals, hope that we may actually be able to have a say in our state government as well.
He has only Union money on his mind. Whatever man.
Has Merrifield ever done anything that you agree with?
If you have never made “intemperate remarks” about anyone IN PRIVATE, you have a righteous complaint about Merrifield’s remarks. If you have, then you are a hypocrite.
Incidents like this will only have a long-term detrimental effect on our state house. Our legislators should have strong opinions about issues – isn’t that why we vote for the ones we like? Are you going to vote for someone open to ideas you don’t want to see enacted?
Do you think the elected “Privatizers, Charterizers and Voucherizers” never say things about the “teachers unionizers” in private? Would some of you be even a fraction as outraged if such an exchange came to light?
It would be one thing if Merrifield said this on the floor of the House or in a committee meeting. He didn’t. He said it in a private email to another legislator. If you feel like Merrifield should be forced out of General Assembly over this, you really don’t appreciate free speech.
I’m not an elected official. And if I were, I would understand the political ramifications of blasting a group of my constituency.
And yet you guys to pretend like this is a Free Speech issue. It’s not. No one has said that Merrifield not be allowed to speak his mind. We are saying that he must be held accountable for what he says. That’s the corrollary to the First Amendment. Yes, you can say whatever it is you wish, but you are responsible for those words.
elected officials you agree with “accountable” (if that’s what this is) when they say things like this about their (and your) opponents.
Besides, the analogy holds. You can’t engage in one type of behavior and then criticize anyone else for doing the same. Remember when Jesus said, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? That is what this is all about.
I’ll say this much – if Merrifield were in the executive branch heading up the charter program and he said this, then it would definitely be cause for calling for his resignation. It’s one thing to be a legislator and to oppose some program covered by your committee assignment (happens all the time, in every legislative body) and another to be in charge of a program whose very existence you oppose. Sort of like that twit Bush put in charge of the federal family planning office who opposed all forms of contraception. (That guy was force to resign for allegedly bilking Medicaid, if I recall correctly.
So I don’t hold “elected officials ‘I’ agree with “accountable” (if that’s what this is) when they say things like this about their (and ‘my’) opponents”
Wow, I’m really glad that you can read my mind. That makes it really easy for both of us huh?
Please stop projecting, and understand that an official, entrusted with public education in the state of Colorado, should realize the political folly of damning those in favor of charter schools and vouchers to hell. If we take him to task for his terrible words, well, that’s nobody’s fault but his own.
Just kidding. But we’ll see if anything comes to light with the Colorado Confidential open records request. We’ll see what people have to say then.
The real reason that MM had to resign is that he thumbed his nose at members of his own party (Peter Groff and Tarrance Carroll) in the e-mail. Had he simply complained and vented about the school choice people in whatever terms, his caucus would have told him to be more careful and he might have had to apologize, though I doubt it. The fact is that although the news reports don’t say much about it, he took a swipe in the e-mail at the Dems who are charter school supporters. That was really bad form and one that caused members of his Dem caucus to insist that he be punished. The point is that the Right wingnuts were upset, but the Dem leadership really would not have cared about that if MM hadn’t slammed his own–a big political lesson there.