Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Five scramble to replace House speaker Andrew Romanoff

3 Democrats, 2 Republicans vie for District 6 seat

By Alan Gathright, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 4, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Updated August 4, 2008 at 10:27 a.m.

Text size  
Josh Hanfling

Josh Hanfling

Liz Adams

Liz Adams

Lois Court

Lois Court

Joshua Sharf

Joshua Sharf

Rima Barakat Sinclair

Rima Barakat Sinclair

Related Links

More Elections

More stories »

Map my news

Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff responded to bipartisan praise as term limits ended his House career by quipping that up to seven candidates were lining up to replace him.

He was close.

Three Democrats and two Republicans are battling to be their party's nominee for central Denver's House District 6 in the Aug. 12 primary election.

The Democratic race features veteran House staffers and community activists Lois Court and Liz Adams along with Josh Hanfling, an entrepreneur and philanthropist.

The Republican contest was ignited by an unusual international dust-up: GOP blogger Joshua Sharf, an Orthodox Jew, branded his Palestinian-American opponent, Rima Barakat Sinclair, a "terrorist apologist" for her criticism of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.

Sinclair rejects the accusation as "nothing but mudslinging."

But in a district dominated by Democratic voters, the main event is the showdown between Adams, Hanfling and Court.

Adams, 43, said her 15 years as a legislative policy analyst and committee staffer gives her the insight and experience to get things done from the get-go.

"I know how to look at the issues from all sides," she said. As evidence of her ability to work with diverse groups, she cited endorsements by both unions and the Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry.

"I believe a good legislator works . . . well across the aisle. I sure know what it takes to do it," she said.

The 41-year-old Hanfling bills himself as a can-do entrepreneur who will bring his skill at creating successful private-public partnerships to boost cash-strapped state government.

While still in college, he started a wood recycling company with nine workers that reaped more than $1 million in revenues its first year.

He's also built and sold a travel firm for corporate VIPs, a computer diagnostic firm and a sign company.

"The bottom line is I'm not a partisan guy; I'm just interested in getting stuff done," said Hanfling, who switched from being a Republican to a Democrat two years ago.

Court, 59, stresses her 25 years of experience in public policy- making and Democratic politics. She's been an aide to state lawmakers, was a department head for Denver Mayor Wellington Webb and has run several successful political campaigns.

She led a campaign that defeated a 1994 state ballot measure by anti-tax crusader Douglas Bruce that would have broadened the right of citizens to petition all government districts on any subject at any time while loosening restrictions on the validation of petition signatures.

"I'm the only candidate advocating the universal, single-payer (health insurance) model," Court said, "and I'm the only candidate rejecting political action/special interest money and accepting the voter-approved campaign spending limits."

Adams and Hanfling also support steps toward covering Colorado's estimated 800,000 uninsured.

But Adams stressed that the complex crisis needs to be broken down into immediate and long-term solutions. She said she'd start by pushing for "some sort of subsidized health insurance system to help more people get access."

All three Democrats back Romanoff's proposed ballot measure to lift constitutional limits on state spending and direct additional revenue into an education fund.

This, they agree, is the only way that Colorado can fund critical improvements to crumbling roads, crowded classrooms and higher education. They also support the party's crusade to make Colorado a mecca for wind and solar power.

Both Republican candidates vow to fight for spending restraint and smaller government.

Sharf, 41, trumpets his signing of pledges to fight "any tax increases for Colorado taxpayers."

"I'm proud to be a conservative and I believe very strongly in the principles of limited government, personal liberty, property rights and free markets," said Sharf, a GOP blogger and Web developer who co-hosts the conservative Backbone Radio talk show.

Sinclair, 48, who works as a translator and Middle East affairs consultant, said: "I stand for the basic values that made this nation great: upholding the Constitution, individual freedom with responsibility, and smaller, smarter government with prudent tax and spending policies."

She stressed her commitment to combating school dropout rates and revamping a state child welfare system reeling from the deaths of 13 children in the past year.

"The remedy to these persisting problems is not to just throw more good money after bad," she said.

Comments

  • August 4, 2008

    9:35 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    roger44 writes:

    So now we're going to hear the Jew/Palestinian fight in our own political arena? Cash strapped state? no, just don't know how to spend it in the right place. No tax increase is the standard for campaigns, and we all see how that's been working. Question for the guy who started the company that had the million dollar revenue first year, how much did you pay those 9 workers who made it for you? We could fertilize the entire state with the manure these people are putting out.

  • August 4, 2008

    9:38 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    davies writes:

    The story says: But Adams stressed that the complex (health care) crisis needs to be broken down into immediate and long-term solutions. She said she'd start by pushing for "some sort of subsidized health insurance system to help more people get access."

    Wow, what a great policy position. It's a complex problem that needs an "immediate" solution as well as a long-term solution. We'll just need "some sort of" immediate subsidy. I wonder where that would come from.

  • August 4, 2008

    10:04 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    Konyok writes:

    Sharf's only rationale for being in the race is that he is NOT Palestinian.
    Given the first opportunity in years to contest HD6, Republicans are swept up in a sterile argument over who is a *real* conservative. (Hint as to the maturity level of Denver Republicans: the county assembly passed a Ron Paulian plank calling for the gold standard.)
    District 6 Republicans have a choice between a candidate who might actually appeal to moderates and independents in the general election and a sacrificial standard bearer with the *right* credentials.
    Meanwhile, we watch the city and the state slouch towards one party rule.

  • August 4, 2008

    12:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    elpresidente writes:

    So, Dems have a three way primary--that's good.

    One Republican challenges another in a primary, because of differences in policy and a question of commitment to conservative principles--that's just "sterile" and puerile.

    The GOP has been plagued with candidates who run to the center and don't actually stand for much more than boilerplate.

    Sharf believed that Sinclair deserved a primary challenge, and regardless of the reasons, isn't that the point of democracy?

  • August 4, 2008

    1:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Konyok writes:

    elpresidente,

    You're right, in principle. Ordinarily, a primary challenge makes the slate stronger. The reasons do matter, in fact, the reasons are paramount.
    Joshua didn't bother to caucus and didn't attend the county convention. The HD6 sacrificial lamb of 2006, Jeff Hecht (my first choice), presented himself as the candidate. His pro choice and pro cannabis decriminalization positions proved too much for the purists. Rima then stepped forward, presented herself well and won the nomination.
    Apparently, Joshua nearly had a coronary when he learned that Rima was the candidate. He ginned up the rumor mill and mobilized all of his talk radio connections to defame his opponent.
    What bothers me is that I really, seriously doubt that he will put this much effort into the general election. He knows very well that he has absolutely no chance against any of those Democrats.
    There was no effort by Joshua, Vince Carroll or any of the Republican establishment to clarify Rima's positions. She had expressed mainstream Palestinian attitudes about Israel and therefore disqualified herself to be a candidate for HD 6. (Somehow, I really rather doubt that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be an issue in the next state house session ... )
    In Colorado it's gone beyond finding "conservative" candidates. In this district the probable contest now is just how "progressive" will be the successor to the "moderate" Romanoff.
    Rima has good moderate-libertarian instincts. The issue that she'd like to run on is more accountability for child protective services - potentially a winner in this district. Joshua has staged a successful guerrilla operation to poison the campaign. Identity politics posed as "principle" prevents a campaign of issues.

  • August 4, 2008

    1:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DRMyrup writes:

    Konyok, you're contradicting yourself. Obviously, you are acknowledging the house district 6 race on the republican side is all about who is or isn't the real conservative and not at all about who is or isn't Palestinian.

    I was in attendence at the county assembly, and Jeff Hecht was my first choice also. I didn't think Rima presented herself well at all, she stumbled on the few questions about the issues we had time to ask her and came off completely unknowledgable. Hasn't it occurred to you the republican establishment tried to clarify her positions on the issues and found it to be nearly impossible to do, because she had no positions on the issues? It was a full three months after Rima's nomination before she ever bothered posting anything about her positions on her website!

    As for doubting Joshua Sharf will put much effort into his campaign in the general election, I'll bet even penny I've got and a few more I don't you're just plain wrong about that. Sharf understands traditional conservative values are far more marketable to moderates and independents than you seem to think they are.

  • August 4, 2008

    3:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Konyok writes:

    Initially, the HD 6 race was about abortion.
    Jeff alienated the room by stating right away that he was pro choice. There were motions to appoint a vacancy committee, but the parliamentarian ruled that a vote had to be held because a candidate had presented himself. In desperation, the captain called for more candidates to step forward.
    Rima took the challenge. Her presentation was pretty vague - mostly puppy dogs and world peace kind of stuff. But, I was impressed by her use of pro life logic in defense of birth right citizenship. I voted for Jeff, but Rima's "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" spontaneity appealed to me and I supported her when she was chosen.
    You're right, she made a major mistake in not having her web site up and running with detailed positions as soon as possible. That has handicapped her campaign and made it difficult for her to argue her positions.
    Joshua publicized the TV interview and the Rocky Speakout column and made the race all about identity. Again, there is nothing in the record that has anything to do with Colorado issues. The thrust of Sharf's initial presentations was that she was disqualified to run because she had expressed conventional Palestinian views about the Israeli "occupation." (No, I don't agree with her. If you've seen my previous posts you would know that I have little mercy for the moral equivalence crowd.) Since then Joshua has followed a public strategy of arguing that Rima is unprepared and a quiet background strategy of painting her as a lying "friend of terrorists."
    Sharf certainly makes a standard conservative case that would play well in Arapahoe county, but I have no doubt would flop badly in Denver. If he were to win the primary, I would bet money that he doesn't even match Jeff's numbers in 2006.
    Ironically, the very litmus test necessary to win the Republican nomination is the same disqualifier for winning the district - abortion. Sharf has a conventional checklist of issues that do nothing to break through the stereotype of "mean Republican."
    Given support and encouragement, Rima would be much more competitive in the general election and would be the stronger bet to add another seat to the Republican caucus in the state house.

  • August 4, 2008

    4:30 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    DRMyrup writes:

    Konyok,

    You are correct the race was initially about abortion. I have reason to believe Rima misrepresented herself as a pro-life candidate, because she's quoted in a 2004 Rocky Mountain News article as saying she "would like a pro-choice president." Her only explanation for this has been she doesn't remember saying it and must've been misquoted. I'd almost be willing to accept that if it weren't for the fact a local Planned Parenthood director fairly recently held a fundraiser for her campaign. It seems unlikely a person in that position would raise funds for a pro-life candidate. I don't know about you, but I'm not about to support someone who lies to delegates to win a nomination.

    Joshua made it clear from the very beginning this race was about the issues, by pointing out Rima has "no credible conservative credentials" and "there is simply no public evidence of a conservative mindset, however defined, or any evidence that she has thought deeply or even at all about such issues as education, immigration, water, health care, taxes, energy, regulation, or individual liberty."

    Have you visited Rima's website lately? She still has very little in the way of clear and concise explanations of her positions on the issues, it's mostly just vague platitudes. At one point in her campaign she claimed her main issue was education, but she never put any section on education on her website. I still have no idea where she stands on things like CSAP and school vouchers, just that she wants to reduce the high school dropout rate. Well, duh.

    She also has a "hit piece" on Joshua on the front page, including carefully edited quotes from a piece he did for the Intermountain Jewish News, in which she conveniently leaves out the fact he said he was concerned about her "lack of any other discernible conservative credentials" and she may "end up introducing ideas into the party which are really antithetical to party principles." When Joshua quotes Rima, he has the decency to quote her in her entirety.

    I've been watching this race unfold for a number of months now, and all I'm seeing is Rima is the one making it about identity politics. She's gotten plenty of support and encouragment. The local republicans have reached their hands out in friendship, and she's done nothing but crap on their hands with her constant insistence they're not doing enough to protect her from these alleged attacks she's suffering from within the party because of her religion and ethinicity. It's all she ever talks about! If Rima wants this race to be about the issues, then she's the one who needs stop playing the victim and talk about the issues!