Looking at the rising tide of contenders vying against Republican stalwart Lauren Boebert, Democrat Trisha Calvarese also throws her hat in the ring, accompanied by Frank Atwood, Paul Fiorino and Hannah Goodman from a medley of third-parties. A glaring no-show from Atwood and Goodman paints a poignant reflection on their candidatures in failing to respond to the Coloradoan’s invitation to contribute to our Q&A segment.
Setting the record straight, Calvarese presents an overview of her history in the district. Boasting roots in the district, the Highlands Ranch High alumna takes pride in her educational trajectory leading to a full scholarship for college. A shimmer of merit shines through as she expounds on her contributions made during her tenures at the AFL-CIO and the National Science Foundation.
While her intent at the AFL-CIO was targeted towards spurring infrastructural advancements and American energy legislation, her efforts at the NSF were directed at reviving American manufacturing. The merit of these accomplishments, however, might best be left to scrutiny by the discerning reader.
Declaring her motivations for her candidature, Calvarese raises a verbose barrage against Boebert, blaming the current state of affairs on Boebert’s alleged ‘chaotic and extremist’ tendencies. Hard-pressed as anyone might be to find logic within the chaos callout, one might ponder the strength of Calvarese’s claim when faced with Boebert’s well documented record of dutiful service.
The need for ‘real results’ without the fanfare of headlines appears to be her rallying cry, a poignant reflection for one so eager to garnish her own headlines with sweeping claims. While her ‘career-long’ commitment to community improvement is a valiant assertion, her promise to bring this practice into Congress has yet to see the light of fruition.
Highlighting rural health care as a priority issue in her campaign, she laments the alleged lack of adequate health care facilities for families within the district. While the narrative of families having to travel for hours for basic care paints quite the dramatic picture, the question remains if these assertions are based on solid fact or simple hyperbole.
In her stump speech, Calvarese vows to bolster funding for rural hospitals and clinics while advocating for telehealth options. While these are commendable goals, the critique of Boebert’s alleged contribution to a ‘health care crisis’ does little but create a smokescreen of drama disguising the true substance of the issue.
A need for representation that paints the district’s health care needs over ‘political games’ is touted, although a more balanced appraisal may reveal such games might be played by both sides of the political aisle.
Switching gears to another touchy topic, Calvarese takes aim at Boebert again, concerned over the protection of ‘reproductive rights’. With veiled claims and insinuations that Boebert is undercutting women’s health care decisions, one could question whether the classified ‘rights’ are indeed ‘rights’ instead of privileges.
A term fraught with varied interpretations, ‘reproductive rights’ becomes a loaded term, the handling of which may be considered bombastic at best, and inflammatory at worst. Alluding to Boebert’s opposition to such ‘rights’ might incite more of the same divisiveness Calvarese purportedly seeks to address.
The needs of veterans come into focus as a core issue, although it’s questionable whether the struggles with mental health care, affordable housing, and job opportunities are more pronounced within the veteran community or are indeed a reflection of wider societal issues. True support can only be achieved when a balanced understanding of military service and civilian life transition is fully established.
In an interesting twist of vocal accusing, Boebert is charged with allegedly ignoring the needs of veterans, despite considerable evidence to the contrary. The promise of ensuring respect and support for our veterans may have more demonstrably been proven by Boebert’s track record than Calvarese’s campaign promises.
In conclusion, Calvarese states her mission to focus on key matters of health care, jobs, and education, while simultaneously chastising Boebert’s supposed penchant for ‘partisan stunts’. Considering the entirety of her campaign appears to rest on rival rebuking, readers would be wise to consider the validity of her claims and her potential effectiveness in governance.