U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(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) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 17, 2010 09:26 PM UTC
43 Comments
Here Obama is keeping the Patriot Act in place and killing terrorists left and right … and Norton’s making wacko statements like that?
The average American isn’t that stupid. Norton’s statement is like the GOP members “apologizing” to British Petroleum.
.
I think the Norton “War on Islam” video was probably poll-tested and improved her positives a lot more than her negatives.
.
Largely because Ken Buck won his CD by about 3 to 1 over Norton and it would therefore be dumb to campaign with her. He should campaign with Ken Buck.
Seriously on a moral level you are certainly right. Norton’s notion of a war on Islam as opposed to terrorism show how shallow she is as a candidate and how pitiful she is as a person.
That said, wasn’t Robert Byrd a card carrying member of the KKK?
Let’s hope Colorado has higher standards than West Virginia.
I think Norton long ago lost credibility and now that she is down 10 points in the polls she is saying stuff that should keep her from going out in public if she had any sense of shame.
Damn, got kinda low pretty quick even in this environment. And I am pretty certain Betsy Markey won’t defend, for example, everything Pres. Obama has said in his career—though if she wants to win she may just do exactly that…except with her votes on healthcare and cap/trade it really won’t matter anymore what she SAYS
Norton is getting uninvited to events because people don’t care for her even before she disclosed her bigotry. King was scheduled to talk at the tea party event and at Gardner’s event, but if you look at the list of Speakers for the Tea Party event, Ken Buck is speaking, Norton is not. I think they have made it pretty clear they are largely behind Buck and northern Colorado is enemy territory for Norton.
What makes Norton a bigot? Because she is a Christian? Because she does not support Obama’s plans for the middle east?
They’re only comparable statements if you want to compare blacks to terrorists. Favoring blacks is a whole lot better than favoring terrorists. Racist? Yes. Dangerous? No. Norton’s claim is much more serious than Gardner’s. However, if you look at Obama’s record on Guantanamo Bay and his administration’s policy of reading Miranda rights to non-citizens, Norton has a point. It’s just not a point that Americans care a whole lot about right now with the economy in the toilet.
Norton has a point that some of Obama’s policies are dumb. Miranda rights to the non-US citizen Xmas day bomber is nuts.
That said, inferring the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are religious wars against Islam is dangerous and demonstrates Norton is a total whack job.
“If you are not a United States citizen, you may contact your country’s consulate prior to any questioning.”
This statement above is part of Mirandizing suspects according to Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California law. Yeah, STATE LAW.
But hey, call it “his administration’s policy” if you want.
most terrorists are not apprehended in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, or California.
or Kevin James ?
It’s state law, not “his administration’s policy.” Stop telling lies.
and I don’t think it matters regardless.
what other states do every day. I see what you’re saying.
probably don’t have the lives of thousands of soldiers who could be in imminent danger of attack on their hands.
Give me a fucking break. It is the height of irony that you and your ilk pretend to care about the “lives of thousands of soldiers”
Take that shit somewhere else.
Well I’m sorry for caring about our soldiers who are putting their lives on the line for us every day. I suppose you think our soldiers are just murdering monsters or some such nonsense. I don’t agree that supporting our troops is s***, and I certainly won’t take my support for our troops somewhere else.
Bush and Cheney sent thousands of our soldiers to their deaths in Iraq for absolutely no reason except their dreams of controlling the regions oil. Hussein had been successfully contained with no American bloodshed for many years. Iraq had no connection with 9/11.
The terrorists came pretty much exclusively from the countries who are supposedly our allies in the region and the funding for their training as well as for the whole Madrassa system that educates kids to hate us came from the Saudis, the ones Bush holds hands with.
Sending people to bleed for Halliburton is not my idea of supporting the troops. Al Frankin went to entertain them, even though he didn’t agree with the war because he honors them whether the idiots who sent them do or not. Rightie talking heads like Limbaugh didn’t break a nail for them.
We have always honored the troops and known that they believe that they are fighting to protect us. Unfortunately that was never the case in Iraq. Not their call, not their fault. No American needed to die there to protect us. No American is safer because our government sent them to fight a completely unnecessary war of choice to fulfill their dreams of hegemony in the region and, when that didn’t pan out, billions in war profiteering for their companies to be covered by the little people and their children and grandchildren.
But that doesn’t detract from the troops’ honor. All the dishonor belongs to the neocons and the private contractors who took our billions and gave the troops and the Iraqis garbage in return and to the pols, especially the ones who knew better, especially the Dems who knew better, for rolling over out of political cowardice to let it happen. And to us for letting them scare us into suubmission.
Supporting the troops means you don’t send them to bleed without a very compelling life or death reason and a well thought out plan. It means once you do send them you provide them with the best and don’t let war profiteers screw them. It means you give them and their families the best of care and benefits during and after their service. It means you don’t shortchange them, saying you can’t afford to do better, while making huge tax breaks to the rich the top priority.
Now go lecture somebody about how to support the troops who is as clueless as you are.
I get so sick and tired of idiots who claim that anyone who opposes their viewpoint isn’t “supporting the troops.”
Fidel didn’t say that “supporting our troops is s***.” He said that your hypocritical attempted defense of your position by a resort to a “support our troops” type argument is a load of s***. In fact, it’s total b***s***.
and I care.
And because ” I support the troops” and you don’t believe I really sincerely “support the troops”, then that means you don’t “support the troops”.
Loser.
for insinuating that I don’t support the troops in the first place.
Here’s the deal with your debating skills — you need to get some…
Superficial, trite defense:
Imputing evil motives on your opponent:
Assuming an attack on you to be an attack on heroes:
Phoney indignation:
You apparently are well capable of deeper thought. Turn off the radio for awhile and widen your perspective.
Yeah, I’m probably 30 years your elder, so feel free to let me know there’s nothing I or anyone else can teach you here.
You could be out there helping them instead of sitting on your ass in Fort Collins with a teaching assistantship.
You’re the right age.
I’m just sayin’.
I did do an internship at Sandia National Labs one summer. Why aren’t you over there then?
Next question?
An internship at Sandia. How patriotic. How many IEDs did you run into in Albuquerque?
There are plenty of young males who have jobs in America who don’t have to fight. We have a great, all volunteer army and don’t need a draft.
I admire those who are brave enough and tough enough to fight. I have no problem admitting that I have no desire to get shot at or blown up. I’m more the brainy nerd type than the macho soldier type.
We have not had a draft in my lifetime.
Which would have made you draft eligible in 1968. That was the basis of my comment. I apologize for my error. Your comment about the soldiers made me mad and I should have double checked before posting. Again. I am sorry.
I got confused, bjw. Again, I am sorry. But I read your “macho soldier” comment again, and I need to say, it made me angry all over again.
There were a hell of a lot of “brainy nerd types” who got drafted, in my lifetime and never came home again. I don’t think they had a desire to get shot at or blown up.
Being a “brainy nerd type” is not incompatible with also being a brave soldier. Hell, the army depends on them.
As for me, I had an “honorable out”…medical….from the draft. I am a coward. I was glad I never had to make a decision about being drafted or serving.
I don’t know why you’re getting angry with me if you admit you were a coward though. I’m glad that I don’t have to worry about a draft too. I’m not saying there aren’t great soldiers who are “brainy nerd types”, it’s just not something I would choose do to given the choice. If drafted, I would serve.
I showed up for my draft physical as ordered and flunked. They didn’t tell me why, they just mailed me a 4-F.
The two states you describe ceased being mutually exclusive, if the ever were, a long time ago.
Been there done that – you’re welcome.
As I seem to remember there are international laws/treaties that give certain rights at certain times but I seem to remember they attach later in the process.
I think they deal with allowing access by counsular officials, not prohibiting questioning.
Do I misrecall things?
Not kidding.
That’s just plain untrue.
Is that we are in a war of ideas. When their ideas appeal to individuals, then you have a couple of people decide to execute a terrorist attack. And there is no way you will stop all of them.
But if our ideas do well enough that, even if someone is not in agreement, they’re compelling enough that they don’t decide to go kill people, then we stop that act.
Yes we need soldier, police, and others. But unlike WWII, this war cannot be won at the point of a gun. The strategic battle is won when alienated Muslim youth decide on their own to strive within the system rather than to attack it violently.
If Salzman thinks these statements are comparable then he must logically beleive two things:
1.) African Americans are terrorists
And
2.) Only white people are citizens
This sort of logic is what results from people who are trying to stretch the truth.