U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(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) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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%
March 26, 2014 08:55 AM UTC
27 Comments
Agreed — put metaphorically, just because the scorpion chooses not to strike the frog crossing the river this time, doesn't mean they won't when given another chance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scorpion_and_the_Frog
You know, if he changed his opinion on this because the "people have spoken," then I suppose he's now against school vouchers (people spoke twice about this), for partial birth abortions (people and legislature voted to allow this to continue), for marijuana legalization (people voted for this), and for background checks, even at gun shows (people voted for this). Yeah right. What a stupid argument. He does think we are stupid. This has to stand as one of the all time, flat out lies in a campaign, not to mention just a stupid idea. If the people voted to discriminate against Hispanics, would he be in favor of that too? Come on Gardner, get a brain. Oh, I forgot. "Republicans" today don't want legislators with a brain, they want pretty boys who talk nice and never buck the party line. And that's exactly what they've got with Gardner. Talk about a light-weight.
When someone finally does get to ask them the question, make sure you ask the right one. "Do you oppose abortion in case x and y?" isn't it. I can oppose something and agree to a "compromise." The right question, I think, is more like "Would you vote against any legislation limiting abortion that fails to allow abortions for women who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest or whose pregnancy puts their health in jeopardy?"
Craig is right – Gardener and Coffman are merely showing their contempt for their base, and for all of the voters in their districts. They are showing their belief that their constituents are too stupid to look up their records, or too apathetic to care.
This assumption may be partly correct – they may actually get a few more moderate voters by repudiating Personhood. It won't be enough to get them elected, nor to offset the effects of pissing off their enthusiastic pro-life volunteers.
I always understood that part of the rationale for a candidate to be strongly "pro-life" was because that stance guaranteed a steady supply of passionate volunteers and donations. Maybe now, with the Koch money, these candidates have enough to pay canvassers – but if I were one of those pro-life volunteers, I'd feel betrayed right now.
You can disagree with Cory Gardner and Mike Coffman and say what you want about them, but you can't say they aren't real men of principle. Standing firm for your beliefs is what true leadership is all about.
And their belief is that voters are stupid and inattentive….and they are standing by it.
I think I overlooked that Duke. There is actually something these two unequivocally believe in.
They both also believe that another big, fat, check from the Koch bros. would be, oh, so nice…
Exactly!
This one issue is the symptom — because, believe it or not (. . . and, who would just reading this site of late?), there's a small chance that there might be at least one other issue in one or two of these races.
Au contrare, Colorado Pols. Personhood did have unintended consequences, and there are plenty of pro life Republicans who agree. The birth control red herring for Personhood was useful to Democrats for awhile, now it's not anymore. If you try to move the argument to abortion itself, you'll find you have far less support.
I know Democrats want to keep this non story going, but you're about to run out of rope.
Moddy-I'm still trying to figure out what "pro-life"means to the typical con it sure doesn't mean opposition to wars or capital punishment. There might be less support for pro-choice measures than any opposing this particular bad idea,but there's still more support for pro-choice than most cons wish there were.This story stays current as long as Gardner is a candidate.
Let me help — "Pro-life" to a "conservative" (another word that doesn't mean what it ought to) simply means for about 9 months periodically throughout any woman's life, she loses her rights as a free citizen of the USA, unable to make decisions for herself.
Nothing more, nothing less — and little to do with life.
Bingo.
Moldy this is just the tip of the iceberg. Both Gardner and Coffman have long records of advocating EXTREME positions and policies to their inbred constituencies including Birtherism and are going get absolutely hammered over the coming months on their out of the mainstream pasts. In six months the Affordable Care Act with be accepted by the mainstream constituencies and unrepealable so Republicans are going to look really bitchy continuing to whine about it. They are going to look like fools advocating denying children with pre-existing health conditions affordable health care.
As usual, your words are meaningless and devoid of truth.
But the French was a nice touch. Freedom Fry?
Woulda been a lot more impressive, had Modster looked up how to spell contraire. (Bolding italics and correct spelling mine.)
. . . Oh Corvair!!! [face palm]
History lesson on Personhood and Conservative Evangelical believes:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_contraception_how_conservative_evangelicals_went_from_not.html
This was the view of the Southern Baptist Convention before Roe v. Wade:
By the time Reagan was running for the presidency, that had changed:
The great scholar Rashi specifically rebuked the personhood position centuries ago. See commentary for Exodus 21:22
http://m.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9882/jewish/Chapter-21.htm#showrashi=true
"22. And should men quarrel and hit a pregnant woman, and she miscarries but there is no fatality, he shall surely be punished, when the woman's husband makes demands of him, and he shall give [restitution] according to the judges' [orders]. כב. וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים:
And should men quarrel: with one another, and [one] intended to strike his fellow, and [instead] struck a woman. [From Sanh. 79a]
וכי ינצו אנשים: זה עם זה, ונתכוין להכות את חבירו והכה את האשה:
and hit a pregnant woman: Heb. נְגִיפָה וְנָגְפוּ is only an expression of pushing and striking, as [in the following phrases:] “lest you strike ךְתִּגֹף your foot with a stone” (Ps. 91:12); “and before your feet are bruised (יִתְנְַָפוּ) ” (Jer. 13:16); “and a stone upon which to dash oneself (נֶגֶף) ” (Isa. 8:14).
ונגפו: אין נגיפה אלא לשון דחיפה והכאה, כמו (תהלים צא יב) פן תגוף באבן רגלך, (ירמיה יג טז) ובטרם יתנגפו רגליכם, (ישעיה ח יד) ולאבן נגף:
but there is no fatality: with the woman. -[From Sanh. 79a, Jonathan]"
Personally, I don't see the relevance of ancient religious writings(especially this garbled mess. What's that about bruised feet?) or any particular religion's theology. In our system the state has no religion and isn't allowed to impose any religious views on anyone.
I think Elliott was pointing out (pretty sharply, I might add) that arguments used by the the quasi-religious nutcases in the Personhood debate are rebuked by their own source material. Not that that's ever stopped them before….
I couldn't make much of it at all.
I think this is interesting. I'd heard that before , that there were no biblical, nor Torah (Toric?) prohibitions against abortion. (If there is a miscarriage but the woman doesn't die, there is no fatality). It's relevant because it does kind of blow out the religious arguments against abortion. In case I ever argue abortion with a religious person again, which Goddess forbid I should have to.
BC is also correct that we have to deal in the here and now, with laws and lobbyists. To me, the abortion question still comes down to: Yes, there may be a "fatality". The life begun will not continue. Still, the mother knows the circumstances of her own life and is in the best postion to judge whether that little life should continue, if it will harm the family already born.
Just FYI, in the most specific sense the Torah is the first five books of the bible, the five books of Moses, so it is biblical. Sometimes the word is used in a broader sense to refer to all of what Christians would call the Old Testament which is the entire bible for Jews in addition to which there are the commentaries, etc. Here's a brief Judaism 101 clarification:
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm
I'm no biblical scholar but I know from my parents and immigrant grandparents' that the traditions of their eastern European Jewish culture made abortion permissible until quickening, when the mother can feel the baby moving, after which it was no longer allowed. Couldn't tell you if it says anything like that in the bible or not. There are lots of non-biblical traditions.
I just mention the tradition on abortion as a point of interest. Naturally the state has no more business basing laws on my ancestral culture's folk traditions than it has to base them on somebody's interpretation of Christian theology.
The basis for the legal right to abortion, with restrictions beginning in the second trimester depending on specific state law, is the Constitution of the United States. It not the Bible, the Torah, nor any other religious or philosophical writing. Granted, the medieval meanderings of the judges in Roe
v. Wade confused the issue and led, in part, to endless and pointless discussions. I don't believe, to their credit, that the word "personhood" was even mentioned in the Roe decision.
But, it seems to me that if you are pro-life; you would automatically be totally in favor of the most effective birth control available. As to what that would be, it would seem to me you would need medical opinion, not legal. But, then, the angels dancing on the head of the pin have been strangely silent.
Wrong again.
"[Texas] argues that the fetus is a ‘person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment…If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case (or Roe's case) collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed by the 14th Amendment."
@DP
Thank you. I didn't believe that the term personhood had been mentioned in Roe.