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%
March 07, 2006 09:00 AM UTC
16 Comments
From Bill Winter’s Campaign Newsletter dated 03/03/06:
March 3, 2006 – Campaign News Flash
“Race for 6th CD Changes Dramatically with Entrance of Challenger in Republican Primary Against Tom Tancredo
Republican strategist and 6th Republican congressional candidate Juan Botero, blasted Tancredo as a “one-trick pony that is obsessed with the issue of immigration,” Botero said his opponent “has neglected many of the other issues in his district and that’s what makes him one of the worst legislators of our time.” See full stories below.”
I know that Coloradopols has hinted that he may get on the ballot – but why is there no other coverage or mention of this? Is he a non-existent challenger. It does look like he will have to move into the 6th CD which never looks great at the last minute, but a more moderate rep could spell trouble for TT. Is this truly a David versus Goliath and therefore a non-story?
This was covered here and in the Denver newspapers. But Botero may not even get on the ballot, in which case none of this matters.
fyi you don’t have to live in a district to be elected to Congress as its representative.
I thought that you could get onto the ballot with only 1000 signatures, regardless of the caucus. Is that correct?
Druid, the rule for designation by petition states that any office greater than county office requires the lesser of 1000 signatures or a number of signatures equal to 30% of the votes cast in the primary election.
From Americblog.com:
When the polls start to really suck and an election is looming, the White House has a strategy: start a war. Bush/Cheney rolled out their “all options are on the table” talking points for Iraq in 2002. Look where that got us. They ran an incompetent war and showed their weakness. Now, they are adopting the same failed strategy…again. This time, it’s Iran…and this time, it’s clearly part for political gain. This crowd is dangerous. Very dangerous.
Bush on Iraq, March 13, 2002:
And so one of the — what the Vice President is doing is he’s reminding people about this danger, and that we need to work in concert to confront this danger. Again, all options are on the table, and — but one thing I will not allow is a nation such as Iraq to threaten our very future by developing weapons of mass destruction.
Cheney on Iran, March 7, 2006:
“For our part, the United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime,” Cheney said in a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee.
“And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
Just watch all GOPers start to line up behind the drumbeat. It’s an election year, after all.
STOP THE MADNESS. COLORADANS CAN TAKE THE LEAD! NO WAR WITH IRAN.
THIS IS THE MOST CRAVEN, HYPOCRITICAL, MANIPULATIVE, INTELLECTUALLY LAZY PRESIDENT IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE!
President Bush claims to support a woman?s right to an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or serious health risks. But today, for the second time in two weeks, Scott McClellan repeatedly refused to say whether Bush opposes South Dakota?s new abortion ban, which includes no explicit exceptions for victims of rape or incest.
McClellan justified his stonewall by saying the administration doesn?t comment on ?state laws.? A partial excerpt:
MCCLELLAN: The state law, as you know, bans abortions in all instances with the exception of the life of the mother.
QUESTION: And not rape and incest. And so, therefore, he must disagree with it, doesn?t he? Doesn?t he, Scott?
MCCLELLAN: The president has a strong record of working to build a culture of life, and that?s what he will continue to do.
QUESTION: I know, but you?re not answering my question. You?re dodging it.
MCCLELLAN: No, I?m telling you that it?s a state law.
QUESTION: Is he opposed to abortion laws that forbid it for rape and incest; isn?t that true, Scott? That?s what you said.
MCCLELLAN: Let me respond. Look at the president?s record when it comes to defending the sanctity of life. It is a very strong record.
His views when it comes to pro-life issues are very clearly spelled out. We also have stated repeatedly that state legislatures, when they pass laws, those are state matters.
Actually, when it?s politically convenient, the Bush administration does give its opinion on state laws. An example:
QUESTION: Does the Bush administration still believe it?s wrong for Oregon and other parties to permit physician-assisted suicide for the terminally ill?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes.
This is a classic case of Bush wanting to have it both ways. He wants to convince moderates that he?s opposed to the law and convince his base that he?s supportive of South Dakota?s efforts.
Golly, Sirhan Robin can still cut and paste. Too bad he can’t think. You still planning to beat up Marines, stupid one? Please, Please, let me watch when you try that!
Oh, by the way, Sirhan, the next time you ask me to cite a posting of yours that proves you hate America, the one denouncing American fighting men and women for “sucking the tit of the taxpayer” will do nicely. You’re nothing but a pimp living off Medicare and Medicaid funds and you dare to revile brave men and women whose shoes you aren’t fit to shine, let alone walk a mile in.
I’ll bet that Sir Robin also writes lesson plans for Jay Bennish
Hey D&C, here’s some new information on Bennish for you; see if it changes your mind:
1) The course syllabus (PDF) (thanks, RMN) starts with the course title: Accelerated World Geography. That means ‘honors class’ at some schools. The syllabus is signed by all parents and approved by the school; some extracts:
In other words, the course was about analyzing issues from a deeper perspective and from alternate views. Additionally, the syllabus says that for extra credit, you can submit papers based on news and analysis articles; it gives a list of websites, including CATO, Heritage, and PNAC as appropriate sources (among others from all sides…)
The other new tidbit comes courtesy of Bennish’s appearance today on the Today Show (transcript courtesy of “They Get Letters”). Bennish provides some context for his lecture (which we heard only 20 minutes from a 50 minute lecture): the recording was made the day after the State of the Union speech; students, including the student who taped the session, requested and initiated the discussion into the SOTU. Bennish then related the SOTU to the way the rest of the world watched it (he said the SOTU would have more impact on some people than the speeches of their own leaders). That is where the portion of the class that people have heard originates.
The method Bennish uses is the Socratic method of teaching; introducing cognative dissonance and encouraging students to involve themselves in a debate on the topic. The tape clearly shows the student involved in such a discussion. I see no problem with the way Bennish is teaching this advanced class, and in fact I applaud him for being a teacher who is obviously of a caliber to teach an advanced class to advanced students.
The Hitler comment was waaaay out of line,
That said, looking at the sylabus I think perhaps his lecture is defensible. As a lawyer I would be okay making the argument for him. My best teachers/profs were those that provoked us.
There is of course the whole teahcer/subordinate student argument to be made against the way he presented his arguments. I think there is some merit to that.
Let me also say that I think the student involved was looking to bust this guy. These 20 minutes of audio were just the most useful to his cause. This kid was looking for this fight. You think he’s read any David Horowitz by chance?
Yeah PR, you applaud him as long as his tirades fit YOUR anti Bush/pro liberal agenda.
If he was promoting the benefits of white supremacy, or maybe how abortion is one of the biggest killer of babies, would you speak so highly of him?
Come on now….. this is the 10th grade for chrisakes.
The guy is trying to spread his liberalism to a captive audience. If he is so nuetral on the subject why did he not go on the Mike Rosen Show? Or the Sean Hannidy Show.
And why did the producers of the Today show refuse to let the kid and his parents debate the teacher on tv?
A fear of Godwin…
Hitler and the Nazis have become the stereotypical bad guy against which all comparisons are automatically judged ludicrous. Ask yourself, though – what origin and whos techniques are closest to that of the so-called Mighty Wurlitzer of the GOP?
And when it comes to nationalist superiority, the only thing that separates Bush’s speeches from Hitler’s is the hyperbole that we have put between them; Bennish could have used Mussolini (advantage – he didn’t massacre his people…), or any Soviet-era leader (minus the God part). His sin, then, wasn’t the comparison of speech themes – themes common among all leaders trying to rally a country to a leader and his policies, and rampant when leaders are trying to acquire or maintain powers they should not have – no, his sin was to use the bogey man of Hitler.
You liberals are so funny justifying an obvious bias. Would you be so eager to defend a conservative teacher who compared John Kerry to Hitler?
Ade,
Actually, Mrs. Bill CLinton would be a better fit than John F. Kerry. “Now, I’m not saying that Mrs. Bill Clinton and Hitler are exactly the same. Obviously, they are not. OK. But there are some eerie similarities to the tones that they use”.