CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 22, 2014 03:41 PM UTC
34 Comments
I would hope the Gardner had something better to do than listen to Wadhams on the radio. I understand Wadhams may want to be seen as relevant, but he is not. Former State Party Chairman, with the emphasis on former.
Wadhams has forgotten more about politics than you'll ever know, AC. Colorado Republicans have been on the losing side side since they veered hard right. Dick couldn't prevent that. He deals in the real world; you and your ilk deal in the world you tell each other exists despite evidence to the contrary.
This is why I can't believe AC is a paid troll. This has got to be freelance stupidity.
Jason,
Do you admit that a candidate can be against the Personhood Amendment and still be pro-life?
@dwyer — pro-life is not a synonym of anti-choice. As BC put it very eloquently, progressives are just as pro-life as any personhood supporter. We just believe that pro-life means don't stop caring for the person after they are born.
The Republican definition of 'pro-life' is the mother doesn't have a choice but to carry any pregnacy to term regardless of circumstances. And once born, deal with it because you're on your own sucker! And the death penalty is okey-dokey by us.
+100, Davie. Spot on!
Concur… I am very pro-life….but a womans' right to make the decision to carry or abort a fetus is HER, I repeat, HER decision. No one else has that right…period.
Up until what time is the question?
The court in Roe v. Wade recognizes at some point the woman loses that right, even before the kid is a teenager.
You already know the answer to that question. It has been a part of the law for a long time. Not even a nice try.
Progressives are pro anything if it means spending other people's money.
It is their nature.
Pro-life is not a political platform it is a religious belief as to when life begins.
Point 1: that makes Dubya one hell-of-a-Progressive.
Point 2: sell that idea to Rove. (apparently he's a Progressive, too. Who'd have thunk?)
The AC's readjustment made him mildly less of an asshole, but no more intelligent.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/full-text-rnc-anti-abortion-plank
Who knew? Apparently there are these things called 'political parties' that have 'platforms' and one can even look them up.
AC – from TNTSNBM:
Jobs, jobs, jobs?
Bam.
Hey, don't feel bad. Pueblo Dems heard 17 resolutions, approved maybe half of them – I don't recall but one or two having any relevance to jobs. Other issues that I do support, but not jobs. Just saying.
From the same article: (I like Jerry personally, but he comes up with some doozies every now and then…)
Oil
Sonnenberg told the crowd that he is backing a ballot initiative that was filed last Thursday to deny state severance taxes to cities or counties that ban fracking.
If the initiative gets 18,000 signatures on petitions within a deadline, it would go on the ballot in November.
He said that populations that do not support fracking should not share in the economic benefits.
Given his concern for economic benefits (his county has benefitted dramatically from the state renewable portfolio standard overwhelming supported by Front Range voters) I'll anxiously await for my soon-to-be state senator to promote a harmonization of our state severance taxes with our surrounding states. You know, in the interest of "economic benefit".
@JS
Let me see if I can clarify before drowning in a sematic political pool. Do you agree that a candidate can be against the Personhood Amendment and still call himself/herself pro-life? A position others would call anti-choice?
If you accept the scientific definition of abortion, it doesn't occur until after implantation, so the destruction of fertilized eggs, prior to implantation, doesn't constitute an abortion. So depending on your definition, you could be against personhood but still opposed to all abortion, even for rape. There are different ways you could be anti-choice and anti-personhood, depending on the definitions.
Right.
RE: There are different ways you could be anti-choice and anti-personhood, depending on the definitions. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/55832/did-gardner-hear-wadhams-radio-warnings-about-the-toxicity-of-personhood-to-state-wide-candidates#comment-543760
I predict that Gardner will use all of them.
A candidate who has consistently been in favor of personhood for years and as recently as June 2013 co-sponsored legislation on the federal level supporting personhood cannot run away from a key issue just to win a statewide race. He has not evolved; he is deliberately attempting to lie to the people of CO in order to win an election. Evolution is looking at Udall’s record on GLBT issues going way back to votes in the House of Representatives. He has been consistent and his record supports his belief that no one should be discriminated against due to sexual orientation. Society as a whole has evolved on gay marriage. Gardner is a small time player and learning that this is the big leagues. This will get people to the polls. Very unwise and a politically transparent move.
Pro life means that you believe life begins at conception.
People that do not believe life begins at conception are not pro life as that term is used in the field.
The pro-Abortion crowd argues that Abortion is OK until the unborn child is delivered or can live outside of the womb.
Both views tend to view their positions as absolutes.
The courts have, since Roe v. Wade, taken the view that at some time of development, around the 6th or 7th month, the child in utero was protected from Abortion and before that time they are not.
As technology has evolved since Roe v. Wade, and the human features of the fetus become detectable earlier in the pregnancy, more seem to view the argument for protecting the fetus at an earlier stage in the pregnancy and states have ennacted legislation pushing further back in the pregnancy the time at which the fetus deserves protection.
@AC
A contraire, this statement is incorrect:
The courts have, since Roe v. Wade, taken the view that at some time of development, around the 6th or 7th month, the child in utero was protected from Abortion and before that time they are not. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/55832/did-gardner-hear-wadhams-radio-warnings-about-the-toxicity-of-personhood-to-state-wide-candidates#comment-543692
Roe v. Wade divided pregnancy into three parts. During the first trimester, the woman's right to abortion was absolute; during the second trimester, the STATE could regulate abortion because of the STATE'S interest in the developing life; in the third trimester, the STATE could prohibit abortion, as long as provisions allowed for abortions if the life or health of the mother was endangered. Not all states choose to prohibit abortion in the third trimester.
Who the hell are you…Daniel Webster? You don't get to define that term. Pro-life means you are in favor of respecting the sanctity of life and the care of living beings. Which would include caring for children AFTER they are born.
You have already lost this race. I am very much looking forward to the public humiliation and crushing defeat you and my ol' pal Cory are going to experience in November. Until then, this is going to be a fun time at the penny arcade.
Like fish in a barrel.
To a party that claims itself to be about 'small government' forcing a position that is contrary to what 70% of the electorate have shown they are against, and which would–in policy effect–make this
equal to this
for purposes of ethics, criminal law, foreign and domestic policy. << This is the 'Personhood' provision. One can see why it is in fact 'convenient' for Cory to 'evolve' on this issue quickly, as soon as he has the nomination sewn up. Throwing up
Fladen, I mean flack about his grand tippy toe toward 'moderation.'Yet, there it is right smack in the Republican POLITICAL Platform
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.
So, all of those Personhood Supporters will now stand strong behind Garnder? So, they're okay with him sacrificing the lives of all those unborn babies to further his political aspirations?
According to the conversation Michael Bowman had with the elderly woman, Curmie, they don't think he really means it…and they are OK with that… "Go ahead and lie through your teeth Cory Boy, (wink, wink), we have your back."
And who else are they going to vote for? On the other hand whose votes is he going to gain?
I don't see this as doing him any good. He will be asked specific questions as to just how moderate his position has become and his answers will not fool anyone that he has become more moderate. What will he say if asked if there should be exceptions for rape and incest? What will he say if asked if he thinks all abortion with no exceptions should be against the law?
I think he'll say "look over there" which will tell everyone with middle of the road views, the kind who helped defeat personhood 3 to 1 last time, that he's for everything personhood represents even if he doesn't want to claim he supports the amendment. His voting record, including very recently, will tell everyone that he always votes against moderation on this issue.
PERSONHOOD = FAIL
ha ha
I was going to make a joke about this, but then realized this is not funny.
If someone is posting using their own SSN, that is stupid and could lead to identify theft. If this is a "made up" SSN, it could really be someone else's SSN. If this is the SSN of someone who has died, that, too, could cause ID problems.
@dwyer – a quick Google search answers your question.
@MB
I clicked on "a quick google search" and it brought me to JonBenet Ramey's facebook page. What was that all about? I didn't search for a SNN number.
Go down to the second post on that thread. You'll find your answer (the meme on the pastor)
@MB,
I am going to just pass on this.