The Importance of the Colorado Water Plan

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Most politicians from the Western Slope run on a platform of “not one more drop.” That’s because 80% of Colorado’s water falls on the western slope, yet 87% of the population lives on the other side of the Continental Divide. To solve the problem and get more water to the Front Range of Colorado, in the 1930’s Colorado began building tunnels and water storage facilities that divert water from the Colorado River Basin to the Front Range. Over time Western Slope water users became concerned that too much water was being diverted, hence the mantra about not one more drop.

Today there are 30 completed water diversion projects in the State, most of which take water from the Colorado River Basin and deliver it to the other side of the mountains, although a few just move it from one river basin to another without the inter-mountain transfer. The 24 diversions that do change the flow of water from west to east currently deliver approximately 500,000 acre feet of water to farmers and municipalities on the Front Range annually.

In 2005, Colorado passed House Bill 1177, which created River Basin Round Tables. This was a bi-partisan attempt to get water policy out of the world of partisan politics. The bill was supported by two names you will recognize from here:  Josh Penry and Bernie Beuscher. Abel Tapia, running to unseat Scott Tipton, was in the Colorado legislature at the time and was also a sponsor of this bill. The short name of the bill was “Colorado Water for the 21st Century Act.”

(more…)

Dems Go To Court To Stop Late GOP HD-23 Candidate

UPDATE: Click here to read the complaint as filed in Jefferson County District Court today.

—–

Nate Marshall, who got the GOP off to a very bad start in HD-23.

Nate Marshall, who got the GOP off to a very bad start in HD-23.

We've been talking about the Colorado Republican Party's major recruitment problems for state legislative candidates in this space for some weeks now. Perhaps the best example of the GOP's stunning inability to get organized in state legislative races is House District 23. A seat presently held by Democratic Rep. Max Tyler, Republicans originally nominated a candidate named Nate Marshall in this race. Marshall's campaign melted down, as our readers know well, after Marshall's overtly white supremacist past made headlines.

As we reported at the time, Republicans waited for weeks to hold a vacancy committee and appoint another candidate for HD-23 in the wake of Marshall's withdrawal. In the end, we broke the news in mid-May that Jane Barnes would replace Marshall as the GOP's HD-23 candidate–not the party. Which seems kind of weird, doesn't it?

As a complaint filed today shows, that's where things get problematic legally. The last day on which the law allowed the GOP to designate a new candidate to fill this vacancy in its assembly delegation was April 18. But the vacancy committee that selected Barnes didn't meet until April 28th, and Barnes didn't file her candidate affidavit until May 2nd–two weeks after the deadline.

Bottom line: as everyone knows, Jefferson County is the key to this election in just about every respect–with national eyes on races they normally wouldn't care about due to their aggregate effect up the ticket.  Like Politico says, “As Jefferson County Goes, So Goes Colorado.”  Understanding the critical role these races play, not just in the GOP's strategy to retake the legislature but all the way up the line, it's nothing short of unbelievable that the state and county GOP cannot get their act together. Democrats, who we can assure you do vet their candidates, simply do not have this problem.

Jane Barnes.

Jane Barnes.

First the Jefferson County GOP nominates a white supremacist with an arrest record, revealing a disastrous lack of vetting of GOP candidates in competitive races. After an embarrassing public spectacle they manage to force him off the ballot–but then they can’t even convene a vacancy committee in a timely fashion? They let weeks go by without doing anything at all?

And when they finally did hold a vacancy committee, they didn’t even bother telling anyone which candidate they nominated? Why were we the ones to break this news? For a party that claims to be interested in winning elections, this is just inexplicable behavior. Of course Democrats are going to cry foul–because they can and they should. And Republicans have no one to blame but themselves for these repeated displays of rank incompetence.

We'll update with court filings and press coverage later today.

How GOP Brass Punked The Colorado Grassroots Once Again

UPDATE #2: FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

“Now that we know who was behind many of the false and slanderous ads that were purchased in Colorado in the final days of our primary season, there are many questions that Colorado Republicans deserve to have answered,” Tancredo said. “Voters deserve transparency and they deserve to have a full accounting as to why the RGA would secretly funnel money into our Colorado Republican primary.”

Tancredo called on Christie to release all communications between the RGA and RAGA, disclose who authorized what appears to be $175,000 funneled into the primary, and to say who was involved with coordinating efforts between the RGA and two issues committees formed to help Beauprez through the primary.

“Governor Christie was previously accused of using political power as governor of New Jersey to block bridges as an act of political retaliation. So I’m sure he will relish this opportunity to ‘come clean’ and to ‘clear the air’ to avoid new allegations of using his elected position at RGA to carry out a political vendetta in Colorado.” [Pols emphasis]

—–

UPDATE: We have yet to confirm this report from AM radio host Ken Clark, but very interesting if true–Colorado Republican Party vice-chairman Mark Baisley, a "Tea Party" insurgent, calling for an investigation?

—–

tancgov

Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post breaks an important, if unsurprising development–the Republican Governors Association worked actively behind the scenes to ensure one-time Colorado GOP gubernatorial frontrunner Tom Tancredo did not win that party's primary. Far from a neutral observer, it looks like the RGA was in the tank (pardon the pun) for Bob Beauprez the whole time, and pretty darn sneaky about it too:

Tancredo, considered the front-runner for much of the primary, finished second in the June 24 four-way GOP primary for governor. Beauprez faces the Democrat incumbent, Gov. John Hickenlooper, in November.

"The RGA wanted to play in the Republican primary without anyone knowing about it," CREW executive director Melanie Sloan said.

"To avoid any fingerprints, the group ran the money through RAGA, an organization that typically doesn't weigh in on gubernatorial races. Despite a public posture to the contrary, it seems the RGA is, indeed, willing to pick sides in at least some Republican primaries."

beauprezdemsfear

​There were plenty of signs during the GOP primary that the RGA was actively working against Tancredo and for Beauprez. Early press reports after Beauprez's entry into the race described him as the "prohibitive favorite" of the RGA, and Beauprez himself made it clear he was getting in because the field of candidates as it stood then wasn't considered competitive. As we've discussed at length, Beauprez's loony-tunes record since leaving electoral politics in 2006 makes him almost as great a liability as Tancredo–the biggest difference being that Beauprez's nutty statements haven't been as widely publicized. But the judgment of GOP insiders at the time was that Beauprez hurts them less.

Either way, as Bartels continues, Tancredo is not a happy camper now that the truth is out:

"I am trying my very, very level best to figure out how to deal with my anger with them and exactly what to do about this without hurting Bob," Tancredo said. "I want Bob to become governor, but I want to blow the whistle on these people. They are despicable."

Tancredo said he's certain Beauprez knew nothing about the funding behind the attack ads, and Beauprez's campaign on Monday agreed.

Now folks, without getting too far into the whys and wherefors, let us just postulate right here that Bob Beauprez knew full well the RGA would back him in this primary. When Tom Tancredo says he's "certain" Beauprez didn't know the RGA was helping out, we submit Tancredo knows it's not true. Everybody with an ounce of political understanding knows it's not true. Tancredo can't say that, of course, because that would "hurt Bob." But the report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) demonstrates clearly how the money flowed from the RGA into the Colorado GOP gubernatorial race:

(more…)

Gardner’s immigration spin cycle now includes attack on Udall for supporting Senate Bill

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Cory Gardner.

Cory Gardner.

Senatorial candidate Cory Gardner has been hitting the radio airwaves recently with his thoughts on immigration, and I've discerned a pattern, nothing too complex, but a pattern nonetheless:

Start with point number one here: 1. Sound like you're for immigration reform. 2. Attack others for immigration-reform failures. 3. Sound like you have an actual factual immigration-reform plan, when, in fact, you have nothing specific to offer. 4. Go back to point number 1.

Here's how it works in action, as delivered during a Hot Air interview July 26, so real reporters can be prepared, if they interview Gardner on immigration.

Gardner: We have a humanitarian crisis at our Southern border that underscores the broader need for responsible immigration reform.

[That's point one: He's sounding like he wants rational reform.]

Gardner: My opponent, Senator Udall, voted in favor of the Senate legislation that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would decrease illegal immigration by as little as 33%. Our current problems require long-term reform, not short-term Washington fixes.

[Point two: He's blaming others. And, by the way, the bill would cut illegal immigration by 33-50 percent.]

Gardner: I believe we should move forward with an immigration policy that prioritizes border security, and that includes a viable guest-worker program that capitalizes on the benefits of legal immigration to this country.

[Pont three and four: He's sounding like he has a plan. But where is it? Judging from his utterances, you'd think he supports the bipartisan Senate bill, which he's just slammed Udall for supporting. What does Gardner support?

In another recent interview, on KFKA's Amy Oliver show, Gardner rattled off his immigration spin cycle in a slightly different order, but the points were there.

(more…)

Gardner Camp Responds to Cosmopolitan Article by Ridiculing Magazine

Last Thursday we wrote about a story from Cosmopolitan magazine discussing the Personhood issue in Congress, with a focus on Colorado Rep. Cory Gardner's struggles with flip-flopping on the issue. Here's the money quote from that story:

[Gardner has] built his entire political career on support of personhood," Personhood USA president Keith Mason told Cosmopolitan.com. "I think he's just listening to some bad advice, and he's playing politics."

A few hours after our post first appeared on Colorado Pols, Gardner's campaign responded via Twitter in just about the worst possible manner — by (SURPRISE!) making fun of women's magazines. From Jill Filipovic of Cosmopolitan:

This week, journalist Ada Calhoun published a piece on Cosmopolitan.com about personhood bills, wildly unpopular right-wing legislation that would outlaw abortion and, potentially, some forms of birth control and in-vitro fertilization. She highlighted the Senate race in Colorado between pro-choice candidate Mark Udall and his anti-abortion opponent, Cory Gardner, who supported state personhood legislation until he didn't, and who remains a co-sponsor of federal personhood legislation. Udall's press team tweeted the article. In response, Sam Stookesberry, Gardner's deputy press secretary until last month, responded:

Cosmo Tweets

You may want to adjust those blinders

That kind of condescension is de rigueur when you write in lady-mag land. If your outlet brands itself as a "women's publication," the automatic assumption is that it's lowbrow, apolitical, superficial, or all of the above. And there's certainly plenty of content in traditional women's magazines and websites that fits the bill.

But mainstream "serious" media, with its regular forays into rape apologia and marginalizing female accomplishment, isn't exactly an enjoyable place for the feminist-hearted either. And while beauty tips, fashion spreads, and sex advice are staples of women's publications, so is an abundance of serious reporting and thoughtful writing from excellent journalists. Calhoun, for example, has written for The New York Times, New York Magazine, NewYorker.com, and the New Republic — and that's just the "N" section of her resume. Put her in Cosmo, though, and suddenly "hard-hitting journalist" becomes a sarcastic reproach instead of an accurate characterization…

The reaction to an article's placement also serves as a handy litmus test: Whether a person engages with the work sincerely or whether their go-to response is to brush it off because it appears in a women's publication alongside celebrity, fashion, and sex coverage offers a pretty clear read on how they view women more generally. [Pols emphasis] Which makes smarmy dismissals from conservative men fairly predictable — if especially rich when those men's patronizing tweets are published alongside their own less-than-hard-hitting style advice.

As we wrote last week, it would be foolish to dismiss something that appears in Cosmopolitan magazine — which boasts a readership of a female demographic that Gardner desperately needs in order to have any hope of defeating Sen. Mark Udall in November. It is completely irrelevant if some individuals — primarily men — brush Cosmo off as unimportant. Cosmopolitan magazine isn't trying to influence an audience of conservative men…even if that's all Cory Gardner's campaign can think about.

Lamborn Getting Creamed for Absence on VA Issues; Offers Typically Stupid Response

Doug Lamborn (R).

Doug Lamborn (R), has lots of meetings and stuff.

In case you missed it last week, Congressman Doug Lamborn is taking a beating over reports that he has regularly missed congressional meetings of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs — an issue that has become much more politically-important in the wake of a scandal over conditions at VA Hospitals around the country.

Democrat Irv Halter has been successful in drawing significant attention to Lamborn's absences, with coverage last week in the Colorado Springs Gazette, Fox 21, and KRDO News (the ABC affiliate in Southern Colorado). You can probably guess by now that Lamborn's response to critics has been less than optimal. The Gazette's Megan Schrader sums up the issue nicely:

U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn says he must juggle his time sitting on three committees and six subcommittees at Capitol Hill, but his opponents are questioning why he's missed more than half of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs meetings in the past two years.

"Sometimes three will meet at the same time," Lamborn said. "There is a constant allocation of time."

Democrat Irv Halter, who is challenging Lamborn in November, says Lamborn's attendance record reflects the congressman's priorities…

…Lamborn provided The Gazette with a detailed list of scheduling conflicts that kept him from each of the meetings he missed. He had conflicting committee meetings for 17 of the 19 meetings he missed, including budget hearings for the Department of Defense. During the other two meetings, the records indicate Lamborn was flying to Washington, D.C., at the time. [Pols emphasis]

Lamborn also serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources. When he can't attend a meeting, Lamborn said he has a staff member there to take notes. From January 2013 to June 20, the congressman attended 14 of 33 full committee hearings, according to The Gazette's detailed review of meeting videos and minutes from the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. Lamborn's records indicate he attended two additional meetings April 3, one briefly, but The Gazette was unable to verify his attendance at those two meetings.

The response from Lamborn is sadly predictable, reflecting a general air of complete cluelessness. Lamborn is trying hard to avoid the topic directly, instead focusing on telling the press that he has a very busy schedule. That doesn't answer the important question, of course, which is this: Why would Lamborn not be prioritizing these meetings when he represents a district that is as militarily-focused as CD-5? What the hell is he doing instead that is more important?

For a better sense of how bad this looks for Lamborn, take a look at the two-minute KRDO story after the jump…

(more…)

Other co-sponsors of Life at Conception Act say it aims to enact personhood at federal level

(Oops. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Cory Gardner.

Cory Gardner.

Senatorial candidate Cory Gardner's spokespeople are saying that a federal personhood bill cosponsored by Garder, called the Life at Conception Act, is not a real personhood bill because it "simply states that life begins at conception" and would not actually outlaw abortion or contraception.

If so, you'd expect other co-sponsors of the Life at Conception Act to agree with Gardner. But this is not the case.

After co-sponsoring the same Life at Conception Act in March, 2013, four months before Gardner signed on, Rep. Charles Boustany, (R-LA) issued a statement saying:

“As a Member of Congress, I take the cause of fighting for the unborn just as seriously. That’s why I cosponsored H.R. 1091, the Life at Conception Act. This bill strikes at the heart of the Roe v. Wade decision by declaring life at conception, granting constitutional protection to the unborn under the 14th Amendment.”

Boustany's comment comports with the actual factual language of the bill. It's an attempt to outlaw all abortion, even for rape and incest, via the 14th Amendment.

I've made multiple attempts to reach the House sponsor of Life at Conception Act, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), for his take on his own bill, but I have yet to hear back. [Hint to a reporter who might be reading this: Would you please give him a call?]

But Sen. Rand Paul is the Senate sponsor of the Life at Conception Act, which is identical to the bill co-sponsored by Gardner. And this is how Paul described his own bill in March of last year.

"The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known-that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore is entitled to legal protection from that point forward." [BigMedia emphasis]

(more…)

My response to the lies and racism that Rachel O’Bryan of SMART Colorado is promoting

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Hi Rachel,
My name is Wanda James and I am former Naval Intelligence Officer, a former marketing director at two Fortune 100 companies and I served on Barack Obama's National Finance Committee. I was also a part of the Amendment 64 campaign and task force work group. And I'm Black.

As a Black woman, I am more concerned with the arrest of black and brown children over cannabis. Clearly this is a racial issue. The NAACP and the ACLU have clearly outlined the destruction of the black and brown communities over cannabis arrests. I find your misinformation and flat out lies truly disturbing.

https://www.aclu.org/billions-dollars-wasted-racially-biased-arrests
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/04/us/marijuana-arrests-four-times-as-likely-for-blacks.html?_r=2&

I watched in horror as you and your counterparts presented a series of misinformation and political spin in Florida. It is sad to watch. Yes, 94% of people on the Marijuana registry have pain. I'm sure you know that pain is the leading condition for the over prescribed, Oxycodone and it is killing our population. As a matter of fact Colorado has the second-highest rate of prescription-painkiller abuse in the nation, according to a new federal report, boosting the urgency of various state efforts to curb rampant overuse of the pills.

Six percent of Coloradans said they used prescription painkillers — such as Percocet or OxyContin — for nonmedical purposes in 2010 and 2011, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. That was second only to Oregon, where the rate was 6.37 percent. And BTW, over 500,000 children have been prescribed this drug.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/19/us/children-s-use-of-prescription-drugs-is-surging-study-shows.html

So, if people choose a plant that has NO ability to kill them, isn't that a better choice. Facts Rachel, you must address the facts.

Secondly, since when hasn't food been considered medicine? And where did you get your MD from? According to the Hopkins University, food is apparently the best medicine of all. Dr. Oz has said the same; if medical scientific studies are too difficult understand. There is also this little tidbit from a guy in ancient times….
“Let medicine be thy food and let food be thy medicine." — Hippocrates

And lastly Rachel, as for the person that took an edible and jumped out of a window, truly a tragedy. Not unlike the kids that die each year at CU Boulder and other American universities from guzzling whiskey. And I am sure that you are aware that Colorado tops the list of alcohol related deaths. 1 in 7 adults die from alcohol in this state.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2014/06/29/alcohol-responsible-for-1-in-7-deaths-among-co-adults/11699461/

So, I implore you to stop with the reefer madness and give people facts. The fiction created by you and a bunch of racist law enforcement officers for the purpose of continuing to harass black and brown people, and lock up their children for the purposes of slave labor, will not go unanswered. But of course, the idea of parenting for white women is obviously not the answer. You are happier with black and Latino mothers losing their children to life in prison, than the simple idea of white women teaching their children how to deal in world full of temptations, like alcohol, sex and too much sugar. Your White Privilege does not trump facts. Nor does it trump our right to Freedom.

Wanda James
wanda@cannabisglobal.org

Beauprez’s clarified comments on immigration still in need of clarification

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

“Both Ways” Bob Beauprez (right).

In case you missed it, here's gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez's response to criticism of his comments on the radio that states should enforce immigration law, if the feds don't do it, “as Jan Brewer tried to do in Arizona.”

Radio hosts failed to ask Beauprez for details, but Beauprez told former Colorado Statesman reporter Peter Marcus July 14 that his comments were misrepresented by the “radical left.”

“It wasn’t as much about Jan Brewer’s policy as much as Jan Brewer was standing up for her citizens and saying if the federal government’s not going to protect them, somebody needs to,” explained Beauprez. “That was the point.”

As for the comments about blocking busloads of undocumented children if they are transported to Colorado, Beauprez said he was simply repeating comments he had heard.

“That was passed on because somebody in Pueblo told me that that would happen,” clarified the gubernatorial candidate. “That wasn’t me saying it. I said I had heard that from people in Pueblo.

“And that’s the kind of concern, that’s why this president needs to get his arms around this,” Beauprez continued. “You’ve got a volatile society and people are looking for leaders that are willing to address reality. You may not like reality, but you’d better deal with it.

“This didn’t just happen,” he added. “[Texas Gov.] Rick Perry sent the president a letter two years ago that said you’d better get on top of this, and he ignored it. Actions have consequences.”

What I don't see here is Beauprez saying he disagrees with Jan Brewer's law, later found to be unconstitutional, to detain anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant. I also don't see him saying he wouldn't join in blocking buses with migrant children, if they were sent to Colorado. More clarification is needed.

Coffman still upset that he’s forced to be a square peg in the round hole of Aurora

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

endangeredcoffman

If you follow the 6th Congressional District race, Coffman vs. Romanoff, you know that everything we're seeing, from Coffman's attempts to re-invent himself (abortion, immigration) to Romanoff's decision to run at all, goes back to the 2010 redistricting, which turned the seat from red to purple.

From day one after the new district was created, reporters referenced the question of whether, when it comes to his new district, Coffman is a square peg in a round hole, a bad fit, even a Cuckoo bird* (my friend's analogy). The election will answer this question.

But whether you think Coffman is anything like a Cuckoo bird, you wouldn't expect Coffman, three years after redistricting, to be bringing up the square-peg issue himself, almost hating on his own district.

As Coffman said on the Hugh Hewitt show last week:

Coffman: Well, what they did, is they targeted my seat in the redistricting process. A Democratic judge – you know, certainly his affiliation, I’m sure, — in Denver, signed off on their map, without any amendments, and it certainly is what they call a ‘D+1’ [‘D’ plus one] district. So, it’s a Democrat-leaning district. Obama carried it by five points last time. I’m the number-one target for any sitting House Republican by the Democratic Campaign Congressional Committee. And I’m proud of it. I need the support of all the folks out there who seeks to return to a constitutional government to the United States.

Listen to Coffman's thoughts on redistricting on Hugh Hewitt 7.18.14

Hewitt doesn't know enough about Colorado politics to be expected to correct some of Coffman's facts here, so I'll fill in for him.

First, there's the politics. I read this as Coffman admitting that he's not right for his own district. He's pissed at Democrats for targeting his seat, and he's mad at the "Democratic judge" for approving it. Yet, he wants to be the representative. Fine, but how far will he go (and can he go) not to be the square peg? That's the heart of the matter out there in Aurora.

(more…)

Colorado River Basin drying out faster than previously thought

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

What will our Fracker in Chief say about this?

Seven Western states that rely on the Colorado River Basin for valuable water are drawing more heavily from groundwater supplies than previously believed, a new study finds, the latest indication that an historic drought is threatening the region’s future access to water.

In the past nine years, the basin — which covers Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and California — has lost about 65 cubic kilometers of fresh water, nearly double the volume of the country’s largest reservoir, Lake Mead. That figure surprised the study’s authors, who used data from a NASA weather satellite to investigate groundwater supplies.

About two-thirds of the water lost over the past nine years came from underground water supplies, rather than surface water.

“We were shocked to see how much water was actually depleted underground,” Stephanie Castle, a water specialist at the University of California at Irvine and lead author of the report, said in an interview.

This water is critical for all aspects of life in the geological area.(No, I will not change my screen name to Captain Obvious.) Fracking, which our governor, a trained geologist, says is harmless, uses enormous amounts of water which in turn affects individuals' water wells. Discarded fracking fluids are now also beginning to affect water tables and aquifers around the nation.

Oh, and did I mention increased earthquake activity in fracking areas?

Here's a map of the Colorado River Basin by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation that is in the Post article:

The ease with which our Governor gives his support to the highly disruptive extraction of fossil fuels from our environment never ceases to amaze me. There are many negative aspects of the technology, yet he has remained firm in his support of Big Energy. Maybe this latest piece of evidence will finally catch his attention to the long-term harm fracking will do to Colorado's environment. 

Cory Gardner: So, Cosmo Says You’re Whack…

Cosmo-July14

Guess which key demographic reads Cosmo?

Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal wrote at length on a subject we have been intimately familiar with in Colorado: Congressman Cory Gardner's Personhood problem. It has now been more than 4 months since Gardner first tried to flip-flop on Personhood (but only the "Colorado" kind), and he's had a hell of a problem with the issue ever since. Gardner has tried hard to distance himself from the issue — which was the point of the flip-flop to begin with — but things have gone so bad that 4 months later Personhood is still dogging the Republican Senate nominee. He's now being criticized by Cosmopolitan magazine, which is a problem for a lot of reasons.

Since we all agree that women are probably the key to winning statewide races in Colorado, a new story out today should absolutely scare the hell out of the Gardner campaign — not just for what it says, but for where it says it: Cosmopolitan magazine. Ada Calhoun writes this week about the federal "Life at Conception Act," which Gardner sponsors and which is pretty much the exact same thing as the Colorado Personhood ballot measures:

A bill introduced in the House of Representatives last year has major criminal implications for women. If it passes, women could be prosecuted for seeking an abortion or even for taking a drug and then having a miscarriage. It would also outlaw IVF and any form of contraception that could theoretically prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, including Plan B, the IUD, and the pill…

…More than anywhere else, the debate over personhood is playing out in Colorado, the home base of Personhood USA. There, Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat, has been pounding his challenger, Cory Gardner, with ads calling him out for his support of personhood. Gardner responded in a commercial that he no longer supports personhood after he "listened" to his constituents. But Udall's campaign launched a website that shows Gardner with a cartoon of the federal personhood bill perched on his shoulder, and Planned Parenthood Votes released an ad calling Gardner "still wrong for women's health." Gardner's campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

"Colorado might be a little unique because Coloradans know what this means," says James Owens, deputy communications director for the Udall campaign. "We've had two ballot initiatives on [personhood] in the last six years, and they've failed by overwhelming margins. So when people hear that there's a congressman running to represent the entire state who still has his name on a federal personhood bill, they know what that means for their access to birth control and safe access to abortion."…

"[Gardner has] built his entire political career on support of personhood," Personhood USA president Keith Mason told Cosmopolitan.com. "I think he's just listening to some bad advice, and he's playing politics." [Pols emphasis]

Whoa. That quote from Personhood USA president Keith Mason is a doozy. When you call out Gardner for basing "his entire political career on support of personhood," it absolutely kills Gardner's hopes of trying to make this look like a reasonable re-think of a controversial issue. And it's not like there isn't a preponderance of evidence against Gardner on this "change of heart."

Cory Gardner's Personhood twist

Cory Gardner is all tied up over Personhood.

Not that we're surprised this isn't going well. Take a look at what we wrote in late April, and notice how you could use the same paragraph months later:

Look, we get it. We understand the idea here. Rep. Cory Gardner was obviously concerned that his longtime support of the Personhood issue — both in Colorado and in Congress — would be a significant problem in his quest to defeat incumbent Sen. Mark Udall in November. From a broader perspective, it probably seemed like a wise move to try to distance himself from his Personhood past. But Gardner and his campaign team didn't spend enough time thinking this through.

Not only has the Personhood issue failed to fade for Gardner, but his clumsy handling of the flip-flop has actually made things worse for his candidacy. And from what we hear, some high-level Republicans are quietly growing nervous about Gardner's silly mistakes.

If Gardner loses his bid for the U.S. Senate largely because of the Personhood issue, he'll have nobody to blame but his own campaign. Personhood was going to come up in this campaign one way or the other, but Gardner's own arrogance at thinking he could just tell people he "changed his mind" has kept this as a top issue as we enter August and the busiest time of the campaign season. He should never have tried to flip-flop on an issue as seemingly black and white as Personhood, but now he's living with the consequences. 

Look, we get it. We understand the idea here. Rep. Cory Gardner was obviously concerned that his longtime support of the Personhood issue — both in Colorado and in Congress — would be a significant problem in his quest to defeat incumbent Sen. Mark Udall in November. From a broader perspective, it probably seemed like a wise move to try to distance himself from his Personhood past. But Gardner and his campaign team didn't spend enough time thinking this through.

Not only has the Personhood issue failed to fade for Gardner, but his clumsy handling of the flip-flop has actually made things worse for his candidacy. And from what we hear, some high-level Republicans are quietly growing nervous about Gardner's silly mistakes.

- See more at: http://coloradopols.com/search/personhood/page/3#sthash.kmsDckbY.dpuf

Chris Christie Still Thinks Colorado Sucks. Vote Beauprez!

Chris Christie and Bob Beauprez.

Chris Christie and Bob Beauprez.

With New Jersey's embattled Gov. Chris Christie safely away from the state of Colorado, here's a brief roundup of the press he left in his wake yesterday while raising funds for the Republican Governors Association and Colorado GOP gubernatorial nominee Bob Beauprez. 9NEWS' Brandon Rittiman:

"Go to Colorado and see if you want to live there," Christie said in the April broadcast. "See if you want to live in a major city in Colorado, where there are head shops popping up on every corner, and people flying into your airport just to get high. To me, it's not the quality of life we want to have here in the state of New Jersey."

Speaking to the Denver media at Sam's No. 3 Diner, Christie said he meant exactly what he said and that reasonable minds can disagree… [Pols emphasis]

The Durango Herald's Peter Marcus:

Christie laughed that he had been in Colorado for only about two hours when he made the stop in Denver. He said he hadn’t had time yet to explore Colorado’s quality of life. But he still maintained his position. [Pols emphasis]

“I disagree with you,” Christie said to more than 55 percent of the Colorado electorate that legalized retail marijuana in 2012. “The fact is that we’ve got to stop in public life worrying about making everybody happy and faking it by we’re going to agree all the time. … What I’d say to those folks is if you’re looking for a candidate that you’re going to agree with 100 percent of the time, go home and look in the mirror. You’re the only person you’re going to agree with 100 percent of the time…"

AP via the Colorado Springs Gazette:

Christie said he stands by his comments.

"I'm not backing off an inch from what I said. What I said is what I believe," he said.

Given the reaction Christie received back in April when he made these disparaging remarks about Colorado and marijuana legalization–when Republicans and Democrats in this state paused to ridicule the idea that New Jersey's "quality of life" is superior to Colorado's–it's genuinely surprising that Christie didn't soften his stand at least a little. Maybe he calculated that the voters Colorado Republicans are courting this year won't be put off by Christie's unrepentant dissing of the Centennial State, but what he said went far beyond marijuana–"go to Colorado and see if you want to live there," Christie said. Well, as the Herald's Peter Marcus explains:

Colorado ranks seventh for top business states, compared with New Jersey ranking 42nd; Colorado ranks fifth for business and careers, compared with Jersey coming in at 32nd; Colorado ranks second for innovation and entrepreneurship, compared with The Garden State’s ranking at 14; and the Centennial State came in eighth for business climate, compared with 49 for Jersey…

Got it? The governor of New Jersey, a state in the nether reaches of just about every indicator of a healthy economy that exists to rank states by, and who is in the throes of a potentially career-ending political paybacks scandal, thinks Colorado sucks! "This is a much lower turnout of protesters than I normally get," Christie says, like that's a good thing? But since Christie was kind enough to grace our backward state with his presence, he's got a candidate for governor of Colorado he'd like you to consider:

Christie, the chair of the Republican Governor's Association, praised Beauprez and called him "the best chance for change and the best chance for a more positive Colorado." [Pols emphasis]

Like New Jersey, right? It's preposterous, or at least it should be.

How exactly was Christie visiting a good thing for Beauprez and local Republicans? We're not seeing it.

Coffman is Christie’s ally in saying Colorado going to pot

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Mike Coffman.

Mike Coffman.

It's one thing for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to drop into Colorado and tell us our quality of life is going down the tubes thanks to marijuana legalization.

But it's another for our own elected officials to tell us as much. You recall Rep. Mike Coffman grumped on the KOA radio earlier this year that legal pot may scare giant corporations from coming to Colorado. (Maybe that's a good thing, but that's a topic for another blog post.)

Coffman: “I worry, ‘What about that Fortune 500 corporation that wants to move to Colorado?’ And the chief executive officer has young kids, and to say, ‘Do I want my children exposed to a culture where this is acceptable for adults? And will that influence their behavior as kids?’”

Contrast Coffman's fact-free brain puff with what Christie said in April:

Christie: “For the people who are enamored with the idea … the tax revenue from this, go to Colorado and see if you want to live there."

Coffman is saying Colorado's lifestyle/culture is so diminished by pot that rich people, in particular, may not want to live here.

Coffman stands with Christie.

(more…)