Friday “Bombshell”–Gardner Flips on Personhood Abortion Ban

UPDATE: In the story cited below, Cory Gardner claims that he started rethinking his support for the Personhood abortion ban "after voters rejected it by 3-to1 margin in 2010." As reported by Lynn Bartels, that appears very hard to believe, in light of the fact that Gardner signed on as a co-sponsor on July 23rd of last year to H.R. 1091: the federal Life at Conception Act. Like Colorado's Personhood abortion bans, this bill would extend "the right to life" to "every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization."

This is just another item confirming what should be glaringly obvious at this point: Gardner's Personhood problems are going to get worse, not better. His explanation for this wholesale flip-flop is plainly belied by facts like the 2013 legislation above–which makes Gardner look like a craven "say anything" politician with no personal values at all. If there's anything worse than dogmatically clinging to an unpopular position, it's being trusted by no one.

It is not hyperbole to suggest that this may be the decisive event of the 2014 U.S. Senate race.

——

Rep. Cory Gardner (R).

Rep. Cory Gardner (R).

Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post breaks a huge story late Friday–GOP U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner is publicly abandoning his prior explicit support for the "Personhood" abortion bans, statewide ballot measures which in 2008 and 2010 failed with over 70% of Coloradans voting against. Without a doubt, one of the biggest "Friday news dumps" in recent memory:

[Gardner] said after learning more about the measures, which have the impact of outlawing abortion, he realized that proposals also could ban certain forms of contraception, a prohibition he does not support.

"This was a bad idea driven by good intentions," he told The Denver Post. "I was not right. I can't support personhood now. I can't support personhood going forward. To do it again would be a mistake."

He did not say when he changed his mind on personhood, but said he began examining it more closely after voters rejected it by 3-to1-margin in 2010.

"The fact that it restricts contraception, it was not the right position," Gardner said. "I've learned to listen. I don't get everything right the first time. There are far too many politicians out there who take the wrong position and stick with it and never admit that they should do something different."

…Gardner said he stepped forward because Udall and his allies have spent the last three weeks "distorting my record." Among the "lies," he said, claiming that he opposes abortion even in the cases or rape or incest. [Pols emphasis]

In order to understand what a massive reversal this is for Gardner, you can watch the clip of a 2010 9NEWS CD-4 GOP primary debate (above), in which Gardner explains how he not only supported that year's Amendment 62, but actually circulated petitions to help the measure reach the ballot. As a state legislator in 2007, Gardner co-sponsored Senate Bill 07-143--a near clone of this year's Republican abortion ban bill, which makes no exceptions for victims of rape or incest. Gardner's statement that it's a "lie" to say he opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest is further tripped up by his co-sponsorship of 2011's H.R. 3, the "Redefining Rape" bill also sponsored by Rep. Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin of Missouri, which included the word "forcible" in the definition of rape to further prohibit federal funding of abortions. Colorado Right to Life, a major proponent of the Personhood abortion bans, says that Gardner "hasn't yet responded" to their 2014 survey, but listed him in 2010 as "supports Personhood, responded to our survey, has participated in CRTL events, and is considered 100% Pro-Life."

Cory Gardner (R) has been an outstanding pro-life legislator, and has attended a number of CRTL functions, including two Legislative luncheons/breakfasts (something most legislators don't attend). We value his dedication to these issues! [Pols emphasis] Cory has responded to our survey with 7 of 7 questions answered correctly, without any reservations or exceptions. He supported Personhood in 2008 also.

Gardner claims that his flip-flop on Personhood is the result of his "learning" since 2010 that the measure's language would have the additional consequence of banning certain forms of "abortifacient" birth control. But the truth is, that side-effect of the Personhood abortion ban has been known since it originally appeared on the Colorado ballot in 2008. It's simply not true to suggest this is new information.

flair-etch-a-sketch-classic.jpg.CROP.article250-medium

​With all of this background established, what does Cory Gardner's wholesale "Buckpedaling" of Personhood just three weeks after entering the U.S. Senate, late on a Friday afternoon, mean? There is only one possible explanation. Gardner is afraid. Despite the rhetoric from Republicans today that issues like abortion won't matter in the 2014 elections, or at least won't matter as much as other issues Republicans are trumping up focusing on like Obamacare, this move betrays a realization that Gardner's prior support for a total ban on abortion may indeed be lethal in the general election. Just as it was to Ken Buck in 2010, Bob Schaffer in 2008, and even to some extent Joe Coors in 2012.

But the pressure Gardner was under only makes this Friday news dump look worse. This is not an act of integrity, claiming false "new information" to abandon a politically scandalous position when the smallest possible audience is paying attention. This is the act of a coward. "Con Man Cory," anyone?

As we have said repeatedly in the weeks since Gardner entered the U.S. Senate race, his fresh face and friendly demeanor can't hide a truly unsavory hard-right record. Gardner's political career as a representative of beet-red safe Republican seats in the Colorado legislature and in Congress obliged him to affirm conservative litmus-test credentials on a wide range of issues, abortion being only one. Those years of safe-seat complacency are an enormous liability to Gardner now that he is running for high statewide office. And it begs the question: what will be the next flip-flop?

Because there will be more, folks. Once a politician starts down this road, the rest come easy.

96 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. dustpuppydustpuppy says:

    Told ya – Gardner's history before he even started.

    Good luck on his future position of a lobbyist where he will be auto-rejected everytime he opens his mouth.

     

     

  2. BoulderDem says:

    Ah, Cory … this won't work. You've just pissed off the anti-choice crowd and in no way innoculated yourself against Dem atttacks. They'll just use video from when you DID support personhood, and add the "flip flop" to the attack. He's a real amateur if he thinks a Friday afternoon news dump will solve this problem.

    • Andrew Carnegie says:

      Boulder, If Cory said he was pro-choice he is not going to piss off the Republicans. They are sufficiently pissed off at Udall that it won't make a lick of difference with his base.

      • BlueCat says:

        So what? It's not about his base.

      • BoulderDem says:

        They'll stay home, trust me.

      • Republican 36 says:

        Mr. Gardner's record from 2010 until as late as January 28, 2014, less than two months ago and barely a month before he announced for the U.S. Senate belies his statement today. 

        On January 7, 2011 he supported HR 217 which would cut off funding for any family planning agency that supported a woman's right to an abortion and advocated that as a family planning measure.

        On May 11, 2011 he supported HR 0003 which would cut off federal funding for any entity that performed abortions.

        On January 4, 2013, he again supported HR 217 that requires any entity that receives federal funds must certify that it does not perform abortions. If a medical entity won't certify that, federal funds are cut off.

        On July 23, 2013, as Coloradopols and the Denver Post point out, he signed on as a cosponsor of HR 1091 which is the federal Personhood Amendment which again would ban all abortions.

        On January 28, 2014, he supported HR 7 which would cut off federal funds to any entity that performs abortions.

        He hasn't been rethinking his position since the Personhood amendment lost in 2010 by a 3 to 1 margin. That's utter nonsense. He has supported the pro life position everytime its come up since he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010, including votes he cast this year.

        The National Right to Life Committee gives him a perfect rating on all anti-abortion issues and votes.

        For Mr. Gardner to imply he is pro choice should offend everyone, including voters who are pro life, for one reason – Mr. Gardner can't be trusted.

         

         

        • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

          Great timing, with Owen (a personhood supporter) no longer in the race.  Field is clear.  Can Ken be far behind?   Brophy?

        • dwyer says:

          There are wheels within wheels within the republican "pro-life" position. H.R.1091 was introduced and has 124 sponsors, about a year ago. It was then referred to the Judiciary Committee.  No hearings have been held and none are scheduled.  When this, the 113th Congress, has its final adjournment, I predict the H.R, 1091 will die in committee.  That has been the fate of all such legislation in a Republican House for the last twenty years. Republicans sponsor but do not vote on legislation that would ban all abortions.

          Gardner has never said that he was pro-choice. To imply that he is suddenly pro-choice is simply not true.  He has said that he has evolved on his position on the Colorado personhood amendment.  The catholic bishop in Colorado did not support the 2010 personhood amendment, not because he suddenly became pro-choice, but because he said that he did not think the amendment was the "way" to achieve the pro-life objectives. Beauprez did not support the 2010 personhood amendment and cited bishop chaput as his justification.

          Gardner's  votes on defunding Planned Parenthood and any other facility that preforms abortions is consistent with, although perhaps an extension of,the existing Hyde Amendment that bans all federal funding of abortions, and has for more than 35 years. 

          I think that his sponsorship on "2011's H.R. 3, the "Redefining Rape" bill also sponsored by Rep. Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin of Missouri, which included the word "forcible" in the definition of rape to further prohibit federal funding of abortions. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/55770/friday-bombshell-gardner-flip-flops-on-personhood-abortion-ban#comments

          is an issue for which Gardner should be forced to explain.  It smacks of Buck's "buyers' remorse" remark.  

          Pro-choice advocates should not dance gleefully around the "abortion issue" fires.  Such dancing is premature and likely to burn.

          • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

            Wrong.

            The bills R36 outlines above are not extensions of the Hyde amendment.  They would prevent any Medicaid or Medicare provider from doing abortions on other patients paid by other funds.

            • dwyer says:

              You are right.  The Hyde amendment does prevent  federal funding of abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother. (I think that I have the exceptions correct, I could be wrong)  However, the right makes the argument that

              funds are funds are funds and that if federal funding is provided for some procedures, than agency money is "freed up" to do abortions.  I think that was what those bills were designed to address.  I think that such laws have lost in the courts…but I see it as a political move to force Planned Parenthood, in particular, to use time, energy and funds to fight such laws or potential laws.

      • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

        A.C. It will matter to his "base" since it's another check mark against on the purity test which theyll apply. Since Udall was never going to pass that test anyway they'l ltake it out on the only one available which is the gundamentalist from the plains, Maybe not by not voting  against him but by not voting for him. This is just too large a reversalfor them to ignore.

        • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

          I mostly agree with you, lang, except I would have added the words "primary" to "base".  With Owen now out, the one-issue voters (pro-birth) will hold their nose and vote for Cory.  He won't bring anybody new on to his bus with this evolution – that crowd was never going to vote for Mark anyway. Everybody else will see it for what it is. 

          Karl Rove made the pro-life wedge a lucrative political ATM – the national party isn't going to give it up anytime soon. 

           

    • DawnPatrol says:

      He is very much an amateur and a lightweight. We're gonna unravel him politically like a cheap swaeter. What an outragoeusly dishonest POS this empty suit Gardner is!

  3. DawnPatrol says:

    Despicable, despicable, craven, lying, lowdown coward.

    An absolute fraud. We will expose this lying son of a b-tch Gardner for exactly who and what he is — a cowardly, slimy, scuzzy, honorless, lying worm.

  4. ModeratusModeratus says:

    I see. Does this mean that only Democrats are allowed to "evolve," like Obama and gay marriage?

    I will never understand liberals. Even after we concede a point to you, you become all the more vicious. You say Gardner cares only about victory? That's exactly what I say of you. If that wasn't true, you'd be congratulating Cory instead of eviscerating him.

    Colorado Pols, you can never claim the moral high ground again. You are political hit men through and through.

    • DawnPatrol says:

      It is to laugh. You're a cheap con man, brazenly shilling for an amoral liar. "Evolved" my ass. You and your ilk don't know the meaning of the word. Do you honnestly think ANYONE will be fooled by your or Cory's rank. dissembling, transparent bullshit? Go suck an egg..

    • BlueCat says:

      Some evolution. Since when? Last week?

    • DavieDavie says:

      "Even after we concede a point to you"… um, you mean, "when we lie through our teeth to appear sane", yeah, you and we believe the same thing.  Cory Gardner if elected will vote for every nutwing, anti-choice, pro-Koch piece of legislation presented to him.

      All he has to do is lie enough to get elected.  His next fundraising letter practically writes itself:  "Christians, politics is an evil game, but in order to protect your rights, it is sometimes necessary to profane the Lord and say things we do not truly believe.  I will always swear to you my supporters that God, Guns and the Kock brothers will always be first and foremost in my heart"

    • OrangeFreeOrangeFree says:

      Here's the difference: Gardner didn't "evolve" on anything. He's still ironclad pro-life, he's just now not supporting something because a) legal kinks and b) the voters don't support it (so much for holding to your convictions, eh?)

    • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

      Gee Moddy, I didn't think Teapublicans believed in evolution.

    • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

      Moddy- Near as I can tell you'll never understand much of anything. Certainly not how human beings feel about things.

  5. ModeratusModeratus says:

    "Con Man Cory"

    Your political opportunism and slander makes me sick.

    • DawnPatrol says:

      Your galling, feeble attempt at projection here is the only sickening thing I see. You amoral political opportunits need better material because your pathetic schtick old no longer fools ANYONE.

    • BlueCat says:

      Seriously?  Noticing Gardner's cringe-worthy attempt at "evolution" makes us opportunists? seriously? I bet even you don't believe that, Modster.

    • ajb says:

      Well, somebody must doing something right. 

    • ct says:

      Con Man Cory makes me sick too Moddy!  Glad you finally came around.  Your occasional demonstration of intelligence above that of an un-useful stick has led to my own desire that you produce at least something worthwhile, so—again—I appreciate that we both agree, and see Rep. Gardner as the conniving opportunist that he is.  But I still want to know if he supported sec Session or not.   Seems like a big issue, does he want to be Colorado’s senator or does he wish to be Senator of Lesser Nebraska?  

  6. MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

    Cory's soul has been sold to the highest bidder – his Money Lords have $100 billion in tar sands profits in Canadan they need to "unlock".  They can't be having him worrying about pesky things like reproductive rights and such….

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      You got that right. Cory is a trooper in the Koch army. The good congressman is standing in the middle of a money stream and loving every minute of it.

      To date, he is yet a minor player in the Conservative Political Mafia…but he is, as I said earlier, unabashedly ambitious.

  7. Diogenesdemar says:

    Does this dress make Gardner's butt look big?? . . .

    " . . . –which makes Gardner look like a craven "say anything" politician with no personal values at all."

    . . . cuz', methinks it's probably his fat ass?!?

  8. Ralphie says:

    Political chicanery will always be what it has always been.

    That said, I welcome Cory Gardner to the anti-personhood movement.  Let's hope it lasts.

  9. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    Cory's flip on this will and should be held against him the same amount as Udall's flip on gay marriage.  In other words, barely at all.

    And with that knowledge hundreds of Dem partisans can cry themselves to sleep.  The rest of us, whether progressive or libertarian, can simply celebrate positive change in a position

    • Andrew Carnegie says:

      I am with you on the effect or non-effect of this.

      The polsters apparently believe that the Republicans are going to only come out to vote for Gardner based on the positions he espouses in the campaign.  I suspect most people who vote for Gardner will be voting against Udall because of all the damage he has done to the country the last five years and because they do not appreciate being lied to.

      Udall voters will be voting for him because of his positions.

      Gardner voters who vote against Udall will be doing so because voting against Udall is more acceptable than doing the other things they would like to do to Udall and is legal.

      • dustpuppydustpuppy says:

        Udall has not done damage to Colorado in five years. Only in your head.

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          DP I was describing the people who would vote for Gardner.  I suspect that does not include you.

          • Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

            Hmmm.  Let's see in the last five years we have clawed our way out of the Bush Recession and had positive job growth every month for the last three years.  We have given people with pre-existing medical conditions a chance to obtain affordable health care insurance.  We have ended the ill fated invasion of Iraq.  True we have cut aid to hungry people and abandoned the long term unemployed but that is more telling about you Anti-Christ Pharasees than it is a reflection on Udall.  His record is going to stack up well when compared with the extreme extremism of Gardner's votes.

          • dustpuppydustpuppy says:

            Still. Everything that has "harmed you" is all from your mind. Udall has done nothing, and all of your "Udallcare" nonsense has already been debunked several times over.

            Again, I ask the same question: Why are you still a Republican? You're just exhibiting utter nonsense that only makes you happy and see others miserable because you don't have the smarts to get out of the boring job you have?

             

            • Diogenesdemar says:

              That's very good form, DP . . . 

              asking why someone's still a Republican, and then providing the answer for him. 

              . . . because, let's face it, that's the only way that someone who's still a Republican is ever gonna' come up with a right answer!!

        • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

          I got to first now the Senator in 2004 when I joined the Amendment 37 campaingn.  He, a Dick Wadhams Boulder Liberal, me, a simple, Republican peasant hailing from Dumphuckistan.  I was in the late stages of my own evolution at that time – a then-27 year veteran of the Colorado Republican party, contemplating leaving the "God, Guns & Gays" caucus whose honorary heads being Musgrave and Brophy.

          That experience was the first for me to, first hand, witness what bi-partisan cooperation looked like.  Mark co-chaired the ballot initiative with Lola Spradley, the first woman Speaker of the House in Colorado and about as far from Mark on most political issues as one could be.  The entire experience was an eye-opener for me, watching the honor and respect bestowed by both of them. 

          Mark, through his leadership, has done more for rural Colorado than any elected politician in our state today, bar none.  The successful passage of our David v. Goliath Amendment set this state on course to now have the second-most aggressive renewable portfolio standard in the nation.  For those Colorado counties fortunate enough to land one of the many scores of wind and solar projects built to meet that standard, they can go back to the root and first thank Mark.  And the Senator is in lock-step with the super majority of Coloradans who support renewable energy. 

          Where does Cory spend his time on? One of his FIRST bills was HR 4480 which contained the following, “The designation by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Colville River Delta as an Aquatic Resource of National Importance shall have no force and effect.”

          No, the Colville River isn't a tributary of an eastern plains watershed.  It's in Alaska.  A man whose Congressional district is literally drowing in renewable energy and biomass.  And then there is the issue of  "the pledge".  That may ultimatley be a more painful achilles heel for his campaign than his evolution on personhood.

          Without the successful passage of A37, setting a foundation for this transition (and bouyed by Governor Ritter's leadership) these projects would not have come to fruition, and the world's largest manufacturer of wind turbines, Vestas, wouldn't be here today.  Ditto for the the thousands of solar, geothermal and biomass-related jobs in the state. 

          While I'm no longer a Colorado Democrat, I am a staunch progressive.  And there is nothing today that I find alluring about the Gardner campaign.  Fifteen years ago I thought he held a lot of promise.  Today, not so much.

      • Curmudgeon says:

        "They would like to do" What? Wave poorly spelled signs at him? Quote lies and made-up "facts"?  Run him over with their Sarah Palin limited edition mobility scooters?   Babble vague threats about "Second Amendment Solutions"? 

        At least you're admitting that Gardner voters know he's a useless piece of crap, and would only vote for him as a vote against Udall. 

    • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

      I really doubt any non-Gardner supporter is crying themselves to sleep over this evolution.  If it was a genuine evolution there would be a celebration. The difference?  Once evolved, Mark voted in concert with his new position.  Ditto for POTUS.  I think we can be assured that won't be the case if Cory were to ever find his way to the Senate chambers (he's clearly not displaying his change of heart in the House if, indeed, he started evolving in 2010)

      • DavieDavie says:

        Michael — you beat me to it.  That is precisely the difference between Udall's "flip" vs. Gardner's crass play for independent voters.  No one believes Gardner's new-found realization that Personhood would outlaw some contraceptives had anything to do with his flip (least of all our resident apologist: "here, let me confuse and distract from the real issue" Fladen. Of course if Elliot does think Cory is sincere, then I need him to call me to discuss some incredible investment opportunities in Lower Makamoneyformiastan ;-)

        As you say, his past voting record against funding any activity or organization that even appears to support family planning and women's health, not to mention putting extreme and arbitrary non-health related restrictions on clinics to put them out of business will continue in any elected position he may hold.  And his acting an unofficial (but "paid") lobbyist for the Koch brothers will also continue unabated.

        The political, moral and ethical differences between Senator Udall and a Senator Gardner should make any thinking voter, regardless of political leanings be very concerned about the direction Gardner would take our state and our nation if given higher office.

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          Say what you will about Gardner, but Udall lied to the voters of Colorado repeatedly about Udallcare and will be perceived by many as not exactly occupying the moral high ground.

          • Curmudgeon says:

            If by perceived by many, you mean your fellow warriors in the 5150th Delusional Brave Patriot Tea Party Foxaholic Hoveround Assault Brigade, yeah…it's Gardner in a landslide.  

            Most people are pretty much okay with Obamacare already. They don't even spit when they say the word.   So, if that's your Ace in the Hole, you might want to check your cards, 'cause you ain't playin' with a full deck. 

          • DavieDavie says:

            AC, you're feeble attempt to characterize providing millions of uninsured or underinsured lower income Americans with affordable healthcare as a perjorative, added to your admission that lying in the name of misrepresenting facts in order for your favored corrupt politician to gain even greater access to money and power says all I need to know about your character (or lack thereof).

  10. MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

    Elliot – I'd be right there celebrating with you if I thought it really was an evolution.  I just had a conversation with a solid pro-lifer here in Wray (about an hour ago).  She's not one bit happy about the announcement. The kicker? She says she'll still vote for him because she's convinced it's only political posturing.  You know, because they have to do whatever is necessary to get rid of pro-choice Udall….

    • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

      MB, chances that Cory will get to vote on personhood this term are possibly less than the Cavaliers winning the NBA title this year. 

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        That's not the point…but I'm pretty sure you knew that.

      • I don't know – they've voted to repeal Obamacare 52 times now. Personhood has a better chance of passing than an ACA repeal, and House Republicans have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a bill's long-term viability is nothing compared to the opportunity to grandstand.

        There just might be another Federal Personhood bill this year. Of course, Rep. Gardner's new evolved position would mean that he'd have to vote against it – and I look forward to a rousing floor speech on his evolved position to show that he means it.

        • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

          There have not been 52 votes to repeal Obamacare.  Check your facts

          • Curmudgeon says:

            Wow, now Elliot (anyone remember when he was a Libertarian?) is just regurgitating RNC talking points. Since a majority of people (64%) now think Obamacare should be kept, as it is, or with minor changes: 

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/americans-stick-with-obamacare-as-opposition-burns-bright.html

            "We didn't really vote to repeal it that many times"  is the new Talking Point. And Elliot is spewing it like a good little soldier. 

            6 times, they've voted to blatantly repeal Obamacare. the other 54 were defunding or delaying measures to make the law null and void, or at least unworkable. And they are proud of that. Here, they discuss their 37th repeal vote, back in May, 2013:

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-usa-healthcare-repeal-idUSBRE94F1CE20130516

            We do check facts, Elliot. But facts are something other than what your Masters tell you they are. 

             

            • dustpuppydustpuppy says:

              I can back up Curmedgeon's facts that we do *keep* track of U.S. House of Monkey's lack of progress. And yes, we have counted exactly 52 attempts to repeal/defund Obamacare that will continue to go nowhere.

              And how many jobs bills have the monkeys attempted to pass? Zero. That's why the Republicans are talking themselves up right now to save their asses from irate voters who sees Republican attempt to suppress the voters more, and disenfranchise a lot of voters to keep themselves with a job. Irate voters do vote with their pockets, and with the amount dwindling down to next to nothing, and the 1%'ers continue to enrich themselves. 

              In 1950, U.S. CEOs earned wages 41:1 to the workers. Today, it is excessively at 100+:1.

              Other country average maximum is the U.S. at 1950s.

              The CEOs are certainly members of the 1%. And want to keep it for themselves while fucking the workers.

              A jobs bills would have helped reverse that kind of trend, and the Republicans continue to ignore things that helps Americans but makes the 1% pay for it. It's past time that the takers have been to pay attention: The French Revolution is an great example of what happens when the 1% takes too much. And it will happen, eventually. People are starting to turn on to these fuckers.

              And with that in mind, Koch brothers are going to end up in prison or worse. And the industries that they will formerly own will turn into a collectives for everyone.

               

              • ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

                However you count it there have not be 50 votes to repeal Obamacare.  Have the decency to admit you are making crap up

                • Curmudgeon says:

                  Disingenuity, thy name is Fladen. Your own Masters blatantly admit they were trying to repeal/defund/nullify Obamacare all those times, but now that public opinion is turning, they call upon mealy-mouthed sycophants to spin the new talking points.  Do what you like. Eventually, they'll tell you to give credit where it's really due, and start calling it Romneycare. And you'll do it.  

                  Or maybe they'll have you fetch a stick. Either way, you'll do it.  

                • exlurker19 says:

                  Nah, we leave that to you, El. 

                • Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

                  Answer the real question Elliot.

                  How many job creation bills have House Republicans passed since they regained control of the House?

                  Jobs jobs jobs.  Wasn' that their mantra when they were trying to get elected?

                  Where are the jobs bills Elliot?

        • Andrew Carnegie says:

          PR, Actually they passed the repeal multiple times.  It died in the Senate.  

          But that will change next year.  Only need 6 seats, already have 3 in the bag (South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana) and will probably get another 5 or 6.

          • denverco says:

            There are at least 3 republican senate seats that couuld easily switch – Maine,georgia and Kentucky. Plus no way gop picks up more than 4 at best. Remember when in 2010 and 2012 the gop was supposed to take the Senate. They won't this year either.

          • dustpuppydustpuppy says:

            Keep dreaming. Your Minority Leader is in trouble. Grimes will defeat the Turtle. Georgia is already showing that they tire of stupidity – Nunn is leading over Broun by a comfortable margin. Montana will remain Democratic. West Virginia will remain Democratic (you think that the Republicans still will get a seat after what happened with Freedom whatever that was dumping toxic water and made the news? Forget it – will be 100% Democratic) . We threw away South Dakota (as we know it's for losers) and we'll just strengthen our seats will removal of stupid Teabaggers and sustain our strength while removing the necessary number to retake the House and throw away the TeaBaggers that are considered major nusiances.

             

        • dwyer says:

           

          @PR

          If any Republican legislation banning abortion comes out of a REpublican led committee and is actually voted upon,in this session,  I will promise never to post on Coloradopols again.

          • Don't go there – we'd miss you. I'm just sayin', with this House I don't think any of us have any idea of what they'll try to do. I'm beginning to think that it largely depends on daily whims and need to throw a temper tantrum as it does anything else.

            • dwyer says:

              Hot damm, PR, you just made my day.  Thank you.  But, if I am wrong about the repubs never voting to ban abortion than I will have not only lost all credibility, but I wouldn't trust myself anything I might post!

          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            I'd bet the Koch-masters have duly informed Speaker Boehner to go all-out Todd Akin and "shut that whole thing down".  I think we can be assured there will be no votes between now and November that would put Cory in an ackward position.  Don't forget, it wasn't that long ago he was being touted as the next "Speaker of the House".

      • DaftPunkDaftPunk says:

        Is he not planning to vote in November?  It's on the ballot.

        • dwyer says:

          @DaftPunk,

          Thank you for making me clarify my position.  I was referring to the US House bill, H.R.1091 that was referred to the House Judicary Committee almost a year ago.  Now, they may schedule hearings, at which point, I will honor my pledge.  But even if hearings are held, I predict the committee will not vote on the bill to pass it on for a full floor vote.

          Personhood will probably be on the Colorado ballot because the petitioners have the necessary signatures.  I predict that Gardner, Beauprez, bishops, etc. will simply say that they don't support this particular personhood amendment to the Constitution.  Since we have a secret ballot, no one knows how Gardner or any Republican or anyone else votes.  My pledge refers to H.R. 1092. not the Colorado personhood amendment.

        • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

          Perhaps someone should remind the Congressman he is a registered voter in Colorado.  He developed a severe case of amnesia when asked how he'd vote on secession:

          "Cory Gardner is a Yuma voter but he didn’t respond to media inquiries about his views on secession. His spokesperson said it was a matter for state, not federal, officials to address."

          (And for the record, every Yuma County "Brophy" is related in either a first or second degree) – and some of them are related to Bowmans.  But the Yuma Gardners aren't related to the Wray Gardners.  And I have no idea which Bowman signed the damn petition.  I just know it wasn't "me". wink

          We could use a new tomcat or two out here… 

           

           

    • Andrew Carnegie says:

      MB, The solid pro-lifer and base Republican will be motivated to vote to get rid of Udall.  Cory has space to move to the middle for the Independant types.

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        I'll take that bet. 

        • langelomisteriosolangelomisterioso says:

          I'dget in on that action too.There's really no such thing as an"independent".There are Republicans who can't bring themselves to back the whole line of silliness and craziness and will try out that title as camouflage .Sort of like "libertarian" in that respect. The solid pro-lifers know there's nothing in the "middle" they're going to disrespect this move worse than any pronouncement Udall could make. They'd expect it of him. This is a betrayal of the worst sort to them and it won't be long before somebody uses that term.

          • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

            I can share that when I shared his evolution with a Yuma County supporter last night (she heard it from me first), she was taken back. I had to pull it up on my phone and show her.  She wasn't happy, but then went on to talk about they had to do what ever they had to do to get pro-life candidates in Congress.  We're both Catholics (she considers herself "the good one") on opposite sides of the fence on this issue.  She's pro-birth (she would phase out all safety nets) and I consider myself whole-life, thanks to the friendship with a Jesuit I've had for years.  I see their side as trying to put a band-aid on melanoma and pretending it's a cure. They see me as someone not even worthy of Purgatory (if there is such a thing)….

            • Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

              Thanks for your comments Michael.  What I find so amazing is that this obsession with controlling women is offset by an almost hysterical preaching of the gospel of the gun.  I have no idea how these Anti-Christ(ians) can keep such diametrically opposite views of the sancity of life in their minds and not be considered schizophrenic.  The Pharasee Carnegie is the classic example of such Anti-Christ(ian) attitudes.

            • BlueCat says:

              She's no more pro-life than any liberal/progressive I know. Just anti-choice. And Gardner still supports federal full rights at conception, doesn't he? Has anyone asked him specifically whether he would support (not just decline to speak against it right out loud) abortion as an option in the case of rape or incest?

      • dustpuppydustpuppy says:

        Um. Are you nuts? Gardner just said he doesn't support personhood aborton ban. It means he's dumping the pro-lifers under the bus. Cory has just lost the U.S. Senate race before it started.

         

         

         

        • dwyer says:

          @dustpuppy,

          Take a deep breath…..Gardner doesn't support the Personhood Amendment,but  he is still pro-life.  He is not "dumping the pro-lifers under the bus" any more than roman cathlic Archbishop chaput did, who also did not support the 2010 personhood amendment…….

          Not for  a moment do I think you are a low information voter…but you need to get this straight…..

  11. yameniyeyameniye says:

    The significance of this flip-flop is great.  Although Con Man Cory is willing to play act like a reformed right winger now not-right winger on Friday, what will he do Monday?  I am sure The Hill and CQ will have a few questions for him. 

    The Republican must have weighed his attempt to disguise his actual performance vs his second act to understand that he cannnot hide his life during the next seven months.  There are too many media clips to show for him to not spend hours talking about what he is not (personhood) and what he is for (seccsion from Colorado) in interviews. 

    He cannot do a Coffman, he has to get out in the entire state.  I am very sure there are people in Durango who have no clue who or what the con man is.  However, once they see the clips they will remember what he has been a constant and strident supporter of (at least until a few hours ago).

    Con Man Cory is a minor condidate, inspite of the hype about how he is neck and neck with Udall.  My next thought or question is how many other far right Republicans are going to replicate this flip-flop on the very supporters they rely on?  How many will stand out in front of their voters and tell those people to f*#k off? 

    Or is this a test?  Are the Koch Bros willing to toss Colorado just to see if the deception works?  We know the bros will do anything to destroy America.  Is this the next attack, to turn their (remember them busing in "Tea Party Patriots" to the state house because there were only two in Colorado at the start) "Tea Party" in to the party of "We really did not mean it"?

    I am guessing if Cory stands tall after the media beating his about to endure the Koch Bros will flip a few more condidates from fervent hard right wingers to right wingers wearing a disguise.

  12. Sunmusing says:

    Con Man Cory….the baggers sure like their crooks…

  13. Gilpin GuyGilpin Guy says:

    Of course Gardner's new position will have no effect on his base but who really believes that the 70% of Coloradoans who voted multiple times against these insane amendments are going to believe that he now supports the right of women to decide when to start their family.  It ain't going to sell in the General period.  Republicans are finding out the hard way that they have overplayed controlling women.  It might have helped them in the beginning but now it is an albatross around all their necks.  It won't affect his support with his base but it turns him into a shifty con man with the rest of the electorate.

  14. Progressicat says:

    Gardner evolving?  The almightly would never have it. It's clear that Cory's position on personhood was the result of intelligent design.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.