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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 13, 2011 09:06 PM UTC

Romer Targets Hancock on Creationism

  • 6 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: It’s important to note Michael Hancock’s statement on last night’s debate:

Tonight at the Denver Democratic Party Debate, during a quick-fire round of Yes/No questions, the candidates were asked, “Do you believe Creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught in schools?” Michael misunderstood the question and answered “Yes.”

Michael released the following statement to clarify his position:

“While I am a man of great faith, I believe Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious beliefs that have no place in a public school curriculum. The best place for religion to be taught is at home or a place of worship.”

Hancock says he misunderstood the question. We think that’s possible — these rapid-fire yes/no debate questions can get kind of muddy — but this is the second time now that Hancock has essentially affirmed his belief in creationism. Either way, Hancock should be able to answer a yes/no question without getting confused. What makes this even more priceless is that just three days ago, Hancock released this statement about Romer:

“Voters should be concerned by how quickly Romer will alter an entire policy position just for the sake of a political endorsement,” said spokeswoman Amber Miller.” “If the people of Denver cannot count on Romer to stay steady for only four weeks as a political candidate, how can they count on him to stay steady for four years as mayor?”

So Hancock calls Romer out for changing a policy position, and then just a handful of days later, does the same thing overnight?

Keep paying attention, folks. The back and forth between the candidates is only going to get worse.

Original post follows.

—–  

We knew that Michael Hancock‘s previous statements on whether or not he believes in evolution would prove to be a minor chink in his armor. That is to say that we didn’t expect Romer to attack Hancock on the issue, but we knew it would upset some progressives.

Last night, however, at the Denver Young Dems Mayoral Forum at East High School, Hancock made his views open to attack. And attack Chris Romer has:

ON VIDEO, MICHAEL HANCOCK SAYS YES TO TEACHING CREATIONISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN IN DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

(Denver) – Statement from the Romer campaign:

“Chris Romer believes real science, not creationism, should be taught in Denver schools, especially as we strive to improve math and science proficiency among Denver students. Both candidates were asked the question whether creationism and intelligent design should be taught in Denver public schools clearly by the moderator. Chris Romer said no. Michael Hancock said yes.”

Transcript:

Moderator: Should creationism or intelligent design be taught in Denver Public Schools?

Hancock: yes

Romer: no

Folks, we don’t think that a candidate’s religious views should define them as a candidate. However, the Mayor does serve as Denver’s chief public policymaker. When Hancock states that he would like to see creationism taught in public schools, we can only assume that is a view he would share when elected Mayor and when he would have the ability to create public policy.

Whether or not creationism should be taught in schools is an issue on its own. However, Hancock did open himself up to attack with his answer last night, and Romer’s doing the smart thing: by targeting Hancock on an issue that progressives hate, Romer’s hoping to lessen progressive support for Hancock. That attack point may sway former Linkhart and Mejia supporters who haven’t made up their mind yet, and that’s support that Romer needs.  

Comments

6 thoughts on “Romer Targets Hancock on Creationism

  1. Michael corrected/clarified his position.  Can we please talk about real issues?

    Very dissapointed but not surprised that it took Romer less than a week to go negative. However the fact that his whole messaging has become negative makes my decision easier as a former die hard Mejia supporter.

    1. I was only marginally on the Hancock side and am indeed disturbed by any confusion related to creationism, but this Romer cat is starting to show his true colors and turn my stomach.

      Romer seems to be all pedigree, privilege and politics.  I know he’s got more than that, but he sure isn’t showing it by trying to slime a guy who seems to have tremendous character.

      Hope the recent polls hold.

  2. and it’s quite pathetic and sad. It’s distressing because I have so much respect for his father.

    I was previously ambivalent about Michael Hancock, but the past couple of weeks have moved me squarely into his corner.

    And for the record, I strongly supported Doug Linkhart in the first round.

  3. I am troubled by our party’s behavior in what is supposed to be a non-partisan race in the Mayoral Election of Denver.

    There is a perception emerging of Denver Democrats that current and former members of Cindy Lowerie-Graber’s board have engaged in deceptive, damaging whispering campaigns, and even outright blatant attacks on Michael Hancock.  

    Most recently the non-issues of “pro-choice” pushed by former vice chair Jennifer Jacobson, and questions designed to smoke out Michael’s religiosity.  

    Since when has it been the mission of our party to troll in such nonsense?   No matter what Michael’s personal spiritual beliefs, questioning them, has no place within our party, and the question she asked about creationism, on Thursday, May 12th,  at East High School was inappropriate, unbecoming of our party and should never have been asked.   It would be just as wrong as to ask Chris Romer if he believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior.  And as a Jewish progressive, who draws on the universal values of my faith, I find it offensive as well.   It reeks of suspicion as to how and why these questions were vetted as well as Cindy’s role as moderator and her choice in this race, and she should have recused herself. So I ask, why did she ask that particular question to begin with?

    Such questions are irrelevant to our city and amount to nothing more than a witch-hunt.  It will not balance our budget, create jobs, restore integrity in our police department, keep our libraries open, or even improve our schools – which in fact the mayor is limited to only dialogue and opinion, with marginal impact at best.  

    Cindy Lowerie-Graber has some explaining to do.    

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

92 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!