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
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
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
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 15, 2006 06:42 PM UTC
60 Comments
Welker when you need him. Looks like she took one out of Jim Welker’s playbook.
and should never say. This is one of them. While you may believe it, the clip of Ms. Rowland going on and on with defining just who could get married and not get married is a bit far fetched.
The first 3-5 seconds would have been enough. Instead, she just kept burying herself by going on and on.Rule of thumb…when in a hole, the easiest way to get out is to stop digging.
I have to agree with you Handy…I think the main problem was that she fed into the argument rather than framed it.
There were a variety of ways she could have tackled it…but you can’t undo what’s been done.
I do think that her “apology” is a mistake at this point.
That comment does seem to come right from the Colorado Republican playbook on Gay Marriage. I seem to remember King and Welker saying some really ridiculous comments.
Everyone wants to be a Karl Rove. And they suck at it.
Read here:
http://coloradolib.c…
Wow, that’s a crazy find! Can anyone comment on the authenticity of this survey? http://www.thetestim…
Here are some sample statements… The whole thing frames her as a wingnut with poor grammar.
Hmm, I wonder where she stands on “free speech zones” then.
We SHOULDN’T have freedom from religion? Wow.
I would attribute any decline in national pride to Abu Ghraib type stuff. But that’s me.
Someone should find out if she actually believes that their should be no separation between church and state:
“Janet Rowland – For County Comm. Dist 3: It’s not in the Constitution. We should have the freedom OF religion, not the freedom FROM religion.”
Welker may prove to be a liberal compared to Rowland.
There is more to this story than Rowland’s bestiality and incest comment regarding homosexuality.
What was Both Ways Bob Beauprez thinking?
On the whole, Coloradoans believe in respect tolerance, and compassion for others and a “live and let live” philosophy.
Rowland, in my opinion, represents the irrational side of extreme conservatism and utter intolerance!
What was Both Ways Bob thinking?
Coloradolib.com points out that Janet Rowland has some other drawbacks for Colorado voters to consider, such as her views on separation of church & state and the topic of evolution.
What was Both Ways Bob thinking?
He’s trying to gain support on the western slope and also regain some of the extremist voters he lost with the bitter primary. It won’t work, though. The Holtzman voters were going to vote for him over Ritter already, and few people even know who Janet Rowland is. I grew up on the Western Slope and I still have decently political relatives there, and none of them know who she is. He would have been better picking a moderate running mate and trying to pick up some of the moderates R’s, U’s and D’s.
however, it isn’t enough for broad appeal. I know Rowland has done some good work for Mesa county and I think choosing her isn’t as bad as what some are saying here. She is definitely conservative, but so is the west slope. I agree with Aaron that this move was meant to bring the conservatives out to the polls but it was a miscalculation on BWB’s part if he thought this would draw the moderates to his ticket.
Frankly, you are just dead wrong, particularly on social issues, the western slope is the most libertarian area of Colorado. In a poll in which I was the main coordinator which surveyed over 5,000 western slope Republicans only, the poll showed that more than 60% self-described as “pro-choice.” This was Republicans only and a very large sample. Rowland’s type of social conservatism is just the type of thing that turns these people off and causes them to punish Republicans. The west slope, just like Jefferson County is trending Democrat just because of these types of issues. Rowland won’t help on the west slope, she’ll hurt, just as she’ll hurt in the largest swing county of Colorado, Jefferson. Nice job Bob, way to pander, again, to the nuts rather than take the chance of broadening your appeal. Real smart.
Haven’t seen your poll but I do acknowledge that you would know better than I how western CO is leaning. My point, poorly made as usual, was Bob’s choice was designed to attract the conservatives but he could have chosen a better candidate.
I had the opportunity to work with Rowland on the methamphetamine problem in Colorado and the US – where she was instrumental in getting the General Assembly and Congress to address. The Meth Taskforce she designed in Mesa county was a model for the US legislation addressing the issue.
With many on this site concentrating on the negatives, I thought I would bring up a positive point in her favor.
Remember, I’m a Dem, I could care less if she crashes and burns, but I do believe that R’s and D’s alike deserve credit where credit is due.
He’s an idiot.
This brings along the “U” voters how?
Colorado “U”s are more conservative than your average undecided. So in a silly, misguided way, Both ways Bob was *sort of* on the right track getting a running mate with a proven conservative track record. However, Bob forgot that undecideds in Colorado are conservative on economic issues like federal land and taxes, not non-issues like gay marriage. Swing and a miss for Bob.
Sorry, I meant unaffiliated. Freudian slip.
Janet Rowland: “…I do not hate [gays], but I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is an alternative lifestyle. That doesn’t make it a marriage. Some people have group sex. Should we allow two men and three women to marry? Should we allow polygamy with one man and five wives? For some, beastiality is an alternative lifestyle. Do we allow a man to marry a sheep? At some point, we have to draw a line.”
This selection for a running mate is absolutely offensive. Welker in drag?
I’d say that BothWaysBob has singlehandedly just lost the race.
Comparing loving domestic partners to animal abusers is absolutely indefensible. There is no way to rework those remarks to make them palatable.
Pack it in Bob. You are toast.
Do you stay low profile and let this guy self-destruct, or do you actively campaign and make mistakes. I know Ritter has to have some flaws, but the competition from BWB makes it so hard to bring those out.
KRMA provided me with this MP3 link to Janet “Bestiality” Rowland’s bigoted rant: http://www.rmpbs.org…
There are reports this morning that Rowland also believes there is no separation of church and state. She believes in a total ban on abortions, no exceptions. She believes evolution should be removed from the curriculum of public schools unless creationism is taught with it and she believes we should have freedom of religion but not freedom from religion. Good God where do we get these people. If the above is true then her retraction yesterday of her comments about gay marriage and beastiality can’t possibly be sincere. She is one of the wing nuts. If she is going to be the one carrying the campaign in September, then Beauprez will be defined through her. Not a good idea.
Beauprez has obviously decided to stick with the extreme right of the Republican Party. Rowland actively campaigned agaisnt Ref. C and D. By nominating her, Beauprez has just slapped the Republican business community along the Front Range in the face the same way he did when he came out in support of Amend. 38 (since retracted) and Amend 88 (the “C” rollback). All that can be said is Beauprez apparently favors closing 11 out of 13 community colleges around the state and he apparently supports raising tuition at our state colleges and universities to the same level as Notre Dame, Harvard, Rice etc. which most parents can’t afford. This isn’t policy, its economic and social insanity.
This Republican is voting for Bill Ritter.
You’re not a Republican. You are a RINO.
… a badge of honor.
Of course, it’s the “new Republicans” who support the religious and neo-conservative agendas who are truly “RINOs”; all the moderates out there are the ones who can claim the legacy of Lincoln, Eisenhower, Teddy Roosevelt, and other respected Republicans in our history.
A RINO! you got TOLD! ouch, feel the burn, the disgrace. let this be a lesson to you.
You don’t beleive that anyone cares what trash like booji and his fellow “consertatives” think. They are the ultra right wing kook fringe. Roll back over and tap your sister one more time, booji!!!!! The GOP has been hijacked by this white trash element.
But don’t worry, they’ll all disappear the day after the November election. With the whipping these “real Republicans” are going to take at the polls, our friend booji and his “peter pals”, will ride off into the sunset. Kind of a GOP version of “Brokeback Mountain.”
I’d say you have some repressed anger!
It doesn’t look very repressed to me.
These guys never thought they would be on the defensive. O’Donnell’s stance on SocSec. BWB doing photo ops. in flight suits, rabid comments on state and religion. They were never planning on that ever being questioned, or if they were, that the Dems would ever be coherent enough to use it effectively. The latter remains to be seen.
The Rove/Bush/Cheney miscalculation on Iraq is broader than they ever imagined.
Remember Republican 36, you’re not a real republican until some idiot named booji says so.
By selecting a Repulsive Republican Radical (RRR) to run with him, Both Ways Bob has jumped on the anti-gay marriage band wagon.
The question is whether that band wagon will carry him to victory or ruin?
Because other states have voted 70-30 against gay marriage, his RRR handlers think they can focus voters on the gay marriage issue and take it off Bush, DeLay and Iraq.
Bigotry is their chosen road to power.
Which doesn’t seem very Christian of them.
But they forget Goldwater and McGovern, Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer. Their ill-fated runs for president taught anyone who paid attention that extremism is a loser.
Especially when it’s up against a low-key, smiling devout moderate like Bill Ritter.
All he has to say in his campaign is, “I will not try to ride hate to victory. Civil rights for all and justice for all are too important to me. I say a prayer every night for those whose hearts are full of hate.”
When this is over, BB, RRRs and the religious denominations who support them will be the big losers. And if BB’s pernicious strategy works, we’ll all be terrible losers, just as the people of Iran were in 1979.
BB wins my “Alan Keyes Award of the Month,” which goes to Republicans who make Repulsive Republican Radicals look like fools.
What the RRRs forgot first about Goldwater is that he wanted to keep the government out of your bedroom.
And yes, there are sites out there that categorize him as a RINO. “All good Christians should kick Falwell in the ass.” Somehow time has made him much less extreme.
that she regrets having spoken in public the words she believes and she really, really regrets that she wasn’t politically astute enough to keep her yap shut.
Geez … you would think the Rowland/Welker types would have secret handshakes or decoder rings so that they could identify each other without having to make the mistake of publically espousing their intolerant beliefs.
The Beauprez campaign stepped in it this time …
IIRC, Beauprez has until close of business today to prove that he’s still “Both Ways Bob”.
Is there even one, single poster – Republican or Democrat – who believes that Bob Beauprez made a GOOD choice in selecting Janet Rowland? If so, please speak up and explain why she deserves to be our Lt. Governor.
Beauprez seems like Bush: intellectually lazy, not thoroughly vetting things before making decisions. Explains his flipflop on Ref. 38, his BWB stance on Ref. C, and now his choice of a candidate who is quickly looking like she’s too flaky and lightweight even for the totally fluffy job of Lt. Governor.
And my God, can’t the lady even write a complete, grammatically correct sentence? Those poll answers were shockingly bad.
The Ritter campaign staff has to be sitting back just saying, “Man oh man, this is just TOO fun!”
Can’t wait to see BWB trying to pin the “soft on gay marriage” charge on Ritter as November approaches. That bogeyman just won’t work. People are wise to these phoney Republican “sky is falling” shenanigans. BWB’s running a tired 2004 campaign in 2006.
Out of the three – Lola was/is clearly the better choice for Lt. Gov.
I know J-Ro and I know Lola, who’s Barbara?
but I was referring to Ritter’s running mate, O’Brian.
Democrats traditionally celebrate in August and lose in November….see 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006?….Somebody better check those voting machines in Denver…
Yeah, Dwyer, once the Republicans pin the war, the deficit, Katrina, etc. on the Dems its going to be all over…
Jim Spencer, a columnist for the Denver Post, reports my sentiments exactly, regarding Beauprez’ selection of Janet Rowland as his running mate:
http://www.denverpos…
Rowland was right before. She should have stood by her words. Since when did the pervs become able to shout down any disapproval? You all want to turn opinions that would have been uncontroversial just a few decades ago into something beyond the pale, like racism. Don’t be surprised if lots of us resist this stupid gay marriage fad and our own marginalization more strongly than Rowland.
You mean, being marginalized because you refuse to accept best medical evidence that shows homosexuals aren’t doing this out of choice? At least please tell me you aren’t being marginalized because homosexuals are overwhelming the meaning of your civil marriage license.
40 years ago (just a few decades ago, in your terms), it was uncontroversial in many areas and cultures in our country that “colored folk” were inferior to whites. 30 years ago, it was still commonly accepted that domestic violence was not a law enforcement issue. And today, it is still apparently acceptable that women don’t have the same Constitutional rights as men.
Today, too, it is apparently a Good Idea to ensure that gay people cannot help in the defense of this country, even if that means going without adequate SIGINT translators. Likewise, some people think we shouldn’t grant rights equal to those of homosexuals to gay people to enter into a binding contract of mutual support. Well, pardon me for thinking about it and failing to come up with any acceptable civil reason for denying them those rights. This “fad” finds comfort in Washington’s words – “I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality.”
That last paragraph should say “equal to those of heterosexuals”
As I thought, you’d pre-emptively label me a bigot and want me to shut up just like the racists are shut up. Sodomy is a crime against nature and nature’s God. There are good philosophical and religious reasons for holding this position, but since I’m too dumb and bigoted to be reasoned with, like you I’ll waste my time elsewhere.
But I’d kind of like a counter-point to my own points, rather than a rant-and-run.
Kevin, shouldn’t you be out protesting a vet’s funeral with Rev. Phelps?
How dare he not fall in line with the politically correct liberal viewpoint. How dare he?..
He must be a KKK member. Or maybe a McCarthy follower.
Everyone knows the correct way is the liberal, pacifist, hug trees, ban oil drilling, ban turning coal into oil, hug queers, ban religion, suck out babies because it is way easier than adoption, ban vouchers, tax the shit out of everyone to pay for a multitude of social programs, way.
The bastard!
Gecko, that’s about the silliest thing you’ve posted. Sorry buddy, but you’re usually smarter than this. Or can you point out how this is the logical subtext of my post?
writings can not stand if someone like Kevin says anything not politically correct. Then you told him to join the Rev at funerals. All because he isn’t the number one fan of homosexuals.
That is just wrong.
Not everyone has to follow in the liberal, (yes I’ll say it again because it is the actual name on the Liberal’s handbook) politically correct way. We don’t all think the same way and if you guys don’t like it, so sorry.
I haven’t written here much lately because it is really getting old. Most everyone spends all their time either bashing Bush, BB, RINOs, and/or Republicans and conservatives in general. The fight against the “give the world away” lefties gets real old.
So to all of your pleasure I’ll step back, have a soda, and play with my Dacshunds.
Which means that if you post something you’re inviting replies. I don’t get how you equate Kevin’s bigoted statements as not being “the number one fan of homosexuals.” (Let me know if you’d like me to demonstrate exactly why it’s bigoted and not just politically incorrect.) And I don’t see how PR’s balanced and reasoned reply is “bashing.” You can see my response as that, but I see myself as letting a bigot have it – I wouldn’t address something like to someone who is posting something reasonable.
Well, if you really think that “bashing Bush, BB, RINOs, and/or Republicans and conservatives in general” is all that’s going on, I can’t help you out. I see very little bashing (which I define as stuff like “Bush sucks! Republicans suck! Conservatives suck!”). Now, there hasn’t been much positive to say about our friends on the right for some time, but you can thank our other friends on the right for that. After all, they’re the ones who put “Both Ways” Bob Beauprez on the ballot for Guv, they’re the ones who call fellow R’s RINOs and tear apart the GOP in this state, and they’re the ones who’ve been doing stupid things lately. If your attitude is that you’re going to take your toys and go home because the game isn’t going your way, then that’s the way it is.
what PR says as being fair and balanced. He is almost always leaning far left. If you can’t see that you have blinders on.
Middle of the Road, George, Queer Dude, and I can’t remember all the rest, all talk the same jive.
Conservatives are wrong, Liberals are right.
Take a step back, read the words being put down. Pro conservative ideals compared to liberal ideals. Conservatives are put up as bottom feeders. Bigots, hate mongers, etc.
I personally can not understand the mentality of liberals, of anyone that wants more taxes, wants to not allow vouchers, wants more and more social programs, etc. It is so foreign to me that it drives me nuts. Where is the values that our grandparents had? Pull yourself up by your boot straps, get a job, and take care of yourself and your family. ASK FOR NOTHING/EXPECT NOTHING.
It seems to me that liberals want to destroy that. They want the government to babysit the masses.
Sorry, there I go again on the take care of yourself speil.
This is what most everyone that writes here is saying anymore though. That is probably why BMR, Voyageur, Go Raiders, the Plumber, etc quit posting here. A lefty site is always a lefty site.
Am I wrong?
Only those guys know for sure why they stopped posting. And it sounds like you have trouble seeing anyone else’s perspective. I have no trouble seeing that conservatives – good, honest conservatives, which not every conservative on this blog is – want what they think is best for the world. Guess what, that’s all us lefties want, too. We just have different ideas about how best to achieve it.
Seems to me, Gecko, that all you see is your taxes and like a good Fox News fan you blame all the liberal programs for that. What about defense spending? Do you think that no-bid contracts, illogical missile defense systems, and other absurdities could be cut to the point that all our taxes are lowered. What about farm subsidies? Republicans from farm states fight tooth and nail to keep those programs going. And what about the fact that “conservatives” like Reagan and both Bushes increased government spending?
As far as Kevin’s remarks go… you seem to have trouble distinguishing between bigotry and honest, er, homophobia (for lack of better word). There are those misguided individuals who honestly believe that homosexuality is a choice, they don’t actually hate gays. But when someone comes along and calls them “pervs,” that’s hate my reptilian friend. PR’s response shows exactly what’s wrong with Kevin’s position – he used reason, logic, and kept the tone of his post respectful. My approach, on the other hand, was to give the crap Kevin was posting back to him. I won’t do this to anyone who posts with fairness and respect.
As I get older I find myself agreeing more with conservative ideas about social programs, yet the only ideas for reform from the right are crackpot privatization schemes and reforms designed to make the most money for big business at the expense of those supposedly being helped (new medicare scheme, anyone?). I never asked anything of anyone either, but I know that I won’t begrudge some unemployed, uninsured person medical attention when he wrecks his motorcycle on the highway (even if he wasn’t wearing a helmet).
Maybe your pals quit the site because too many people come on to post nonsense like Kevin’s. Really, re-read it and tell me he’s just trying to have an open, honest discussion and isn’t just trying to yank chains. And stop coming to people’s defense – Kevin’s a big boy and he can certainly stand up to big, bad liberals like PR and me.
And as long as you feel that people are just bashing conservatives, check out Car 31’s posts about Rowland. He says she was quite effective in combating the meth problem out west – really positive stuff to say about her.
The world’s far too complicated for any simple answers, Gecko. But here’s my advice to you – politics isn’t an us-vs-them game where you automatically support anyone on “your side.” Notice how no-one ever replies to Sir Robin’s posts with Kudos? That’s because, as much as some of us agree with his basic sentiments, we know he’s truly self-righteous, judgmental, etc and can’t get behind what he says. Similarly, you should think more about what’s posted here. I have not seen any fair, reasoned conservative posting yet that was “bashed” by anyone on the left. Remember, answering the argument with your side isn’t bashing.
know you are playing with your Dacshunds.
Phelps groupies protested my church on Easter Sunday two years back. I’m a victim too! I’d ask you to bend over for me, too, but that would be vulgar.
After the interview with Pete Boyles this morning I think you can honestly say this race for governor is over… Both ways bob really stepped on himself this morning. Ritter makes him look like what he is….
Does anyone know how Beauprez and Ritter are polling around the state? Of course Ritter is taking the 1st and 2nd. Beauprez gets the 4th, 5th, and 6th.
Does anyone know how they are both doing in the 3rd and the 7th?
I guess you have to judge “balance” by where you place the balance point. If I lean to the far left, then it is only reasoning that takes me there.
I’m Christian, and I don’t live under a rock; it’s not like I don’t know the arguments against homosexuality, or abortion. It’s just that I reject the decision-making that says either of those topics is ultimately something that we as a secular government must ban and condemn without remorse. Both are moral decisions based on religious doctrine.
Taxes: taxes should be sufficient to cover the government’s budget and whatever services society deems that government should provide. Right now, taxes don’t cover those services. Easy enough to understand?
Vouchers: voucher programs are almost all written to include religious schooling. I don’t believe in supporting chuches with my tax dollars. Aside from that, I believe that supporting public education instead of starving it is the better solution to education issues. Our schools are underfunded, understaffed, and our teachers underappreciated. Want to fix education? Fix our societal attitudes towards teaching.
Social programs: We learned in the Great Depression what a lack of societal concerns brings to this country. Social programs are an investment in our society. Take mental health services: without them, our mentally ill tend to go to jail, where they cost money to house, feed and control; with those services, many mentally ill people can live productive lives. It’s a win-win situation for society. Same goes for medical care – healthy people are more productive, and pro-active care is cheaper than reactive care. In my view, social programs are forward-looking. None are perfect, but then neither is the private sector.
As for babysitting, that’s why I moved away from New York State. There, the “liberals” really do want to control your life – endless railing ensuring you don’t do anything adventurous in the parks, regulating anything that can be used as a weapon (down to sporks, I think)… That stereotype isn’t valid in most of the country, though – and certainly not here.
As for my grandparents’ values, when my grandparents grew up, they could afford to provide the essentials of living on the wages of a single blue-collar job – a decent house, food on the table, and clothing for work and church. As a reasonably well-compensated computer professional, I could not afford my grandparents’ house today; my wife cannot afford to stay home, and we don’t have 6 kids to feed like my mother’s parents did. My job isn’t as secure as my grandfathers’ jobs were, and the chances of my working my way up to management without investing in myself – rather than the company making the investment in a loyal worker – are slim. Both of my grandfathers’ companies took care of them after they retired, and one of them still takes care of my grandmother long after my grandfather died.
Comparatively, in the unstable job markets of the past decade, I haven’t even been able to hold my 401(k) together with any reliability. My healthcare costs an inordinate amount, with deductibles stacked on top of it and limits that I could easily reach were I to become truly ill, as my cousin-in-law recently discovered.
I’m “liberal” not because I’m looking for a handout, but rather because I see a path to a better society and a need for a counter to an increasingly lopsided corporation-worker relationship.
It seems to me that realy good government is the result of balancing social opportunity and personal responsability. IMO, an elected governemnt should insure that every citizen has the opportunity to pull themselves up by thieir boot-sraps. This includes maintaining a lawfull and peacefull living environment where open civil discourse is welcome, as well as offering quality educational opportunities, healthcare, and retirement(socal security). I believe that these social programs can be done effectively and efficiently by the public sector. I will also go so far as to say that I believe that quite often the most compassionate course of action is also the most cost efficient one. The example of the imprisonment of the mentally ill is a good one. Just because the social programs that were experiemented with in previous decades were not always cost effective does not mean that the whole idea should be scrapped.
Finally, it has been expressed a couple of times on this blog recently that a balanced budget is a conservative trait. I counter that it has been the political left that , most recently, has done a better job of this. I think that fiscal “concervative” is no longer an accurate frame. For me it brings up the image of Grover Norquist drowning government in a bathtub. It is not effective, nor is it sexy. I would rather say fiscally “responsable” or fiscally “efficent”. I want government to be efficient with my tax money. This would make responsable budgeting a non-partisan task, as it should be.