Category Archives: Reproductive Choice

Does Ryan really believe “people should be free to have birth control all they want”

9
  by: Jason Salzman Wed September 19, 2012 at 7:01 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



In an interview with 9News Political Reporter Brandon Rittiman, GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan was asked if he wants to “abolish” birth control completely.

His reply,”Oh, heaven’s no.”

But, as we know from our long and losing history with personhood amendments here in Colorado, the phrase “birth control” has multiple meanings, depending on where you come down on personhood, which would give legal rights to fertilized eggs and ban all  abortion.

For Ryan, who supports personhood and believes life begins at conception, “birth control” exists, but it’s limited to specific objects and pills that do not destroy or have the ability to destroy fertilized eggs or zygotes.

Other forms of “birth control,” like some forms of the pill and IUD’s, are not considered “birth control” at all by personhood supporters, but abortifacients, which are zygote killers, chemicals that cause “abortion.” And these would be banned, if fertilized eggs received legal protections under personhood laws.

So, in the following exchange with Rittiman, if you want understand Ryan’s real position on birth control, you have to get biological with him (as in, what about forms of birth control that threaten or kill fertilized eggs?)

Rittiman: I’ve got a few questions from viewers…Holly asked us on our Facebook page about women’s issues, which have been in the campaign dialogue. She wants to know if you’re simply opposed to public funding of things like birth control or if you want to abolish them completely?

Ryan: Oh, heaven’s no. People should be free to have birth control all they want. But what we don’t want to do is force taxpayers or groups, like religious charities, churches, and hospitals, to have to provide and pay for benefits that violates their religious teachings and conscience. Of course we believe people should have the freedom to use birth control. Nobody’s talking about that. The question is, can the federal government require churches and charities, people of religious conviction, to violate their religious liberties, which is our First Amendment in the Constitution.



(This exchange occureed a couple weeks ago on Your Show, which airs on Channel 20 in Denver.)

As I’ve discussed previously reporters need to beware of the “birth-control” rhetoric of politicians who want to support both personhood and “birth control.” Politicians can certainly have it both ways, because some forms of birth control would obviously not be banned under personhood, but some common forms would be banned. So, reporters should clarify what people like Paul Ryan are talking about when they use the phrase “birth control.”

As to which forms of birth control threaten fertilized eggs and which would do not, I interviewed Nanette Santoro, MD, chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, at the University of Colorado about this back in 2010, and, the way I interpreted her comments, a number of types of birth control, including forms of the pill will, or have the potential to, destroy  fertilized eggs. And if you believe that killing a fertilized egg amounts to murder, then you wouldn’t want to risk using some forms of birth control, and it would be illegal to do so. Taking some forms of the pill would amount to playing Russian roulette.

I asked Santoro if the science had changed since my 2010 interview, and she said, through a spokesperson, that it had not.

So, unless scientists tell us differently down the road, reporters will be left to sort out the linguistic gymnastics they hear from personhood supporters, like Ryan, who apparently don’t like to say they are against common forms of birth control.


Full story: Does Ryan really believe “people should be free to have birth control all they want”

Ryan’s attack that Obama supports abortion “under any circumstances” is corrected by NPR

17
  by: Jason Salzman Sat September 15, 2012 at 9:44 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



In his speech to yesterday’s “Values Voter Summit,” organized by the conservative Family Research Council, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan continued his pattern of delivering outright falsehoods in his speechifying.

At one point, Ryan said:

“Now, apparently, the Obama-Biden ticket stands for an absolute, unqualified right to abortion – at any time, under any circumstance and even at taxpayer expense.”

It’s obvious the reporters should set the record straight here, but Associated Press chose not to, reporting Ryan’s comments this way:

[Ryan] also delivered a blistering critique of President Barack Obama’s position on abortion, saying the president stands for an “absolute, unqualified right to abortion.”

In its report, National Public Radio reported Ryan’s full comment about abortion, and corrected it:

That is not the president’s position on abortion rights. The Obama campaign responded that Ryan’s speech contained “over-the-top, dishonest attacks.”

Obama clearly supports a women’s right to choose, with restrictions, as codified under Roe vs. Wade.

To say that Obama supports abortion “under any circumstance and even at taxpayer expense” is so far from the truth, so completely disconnected to the facts, that you wonder why more national reporters didn’t call Ryan out on it, especially given that women are a focus of both campaigns.


Full story: Ryan’s attack that Obama supports abortion “under any circumstances” is corrected by NPR

Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Outed as Alleged Coptic Christian Crook Nakoula Bassely Nakoula

72
  by: ProgressiveCowgirl Thu September 13, 2012 at 10:58 PM MDT

Update (thanks to BlueCat): Oh, and he’s also a meth cooker.

Who made the film, “Innocence of Muslims,” that stirred up protests so violent they cost America’s ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, who was enormously popular with Libyans, his life?

Yesterday, that man was “Sam Bacile,” who described himself as a Jew who had raised $5 million for the film from wealthy Israeli donors.

Today, the Associated Press has identified “Bacile” as Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, a Coptic Christian convicted of financial crimes including federal bank fraud. Convicted in 2010, sentenced to 21 months and nearly $800,000 restitution, and ordered to avoid using computers for five years without permission from his parole officer, Nakoula apparently still managed to post his inflammatory video clip on YouTube. As recently as Tuesday, the AP says, “Sam Bacile” was still posting angry comments on YouTube.

The AP describes Nakoula’s crimes in detail:

Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Leigh Williams said Nakoula set up fraudulent bank accounts using stolen identities and Social Security numbers, then checks from those accounts would be deposited into other bogus accounts from which Nakoula would withdraw money at ATM machines.

It was “basically a check-kiting scheme,” the prosecutor told the AP. “You try to get the money out of the bank before the bank realizes they are drawn from a fraudulent account. There basically is no money.”



Nakoula, apparently a seasoned con artist, didn’t stop at defrauding banks, or even at parole violations. He even scammed the actors and crew members who helped him make the movie which cost four Americans their lives. According to cast and crew members, Nakoula (in his “Sam Bacile” persona) cast them in a movie that did not include a Mohammed character and was not anti-Muslim:

The entire cast and crew are extremely upset and feel taken advantage of by the producer. We are 100% not behind this film and were grossly misled about its intent and purpose. We are shocked by the drastic re-writes of the script and lies that were told to all involved. We are deeply saddened by the tragedies that have occurred.

An actress in the film, talking to Gawker’s Adrian Chen, claims that all of the film’s offensive dialogue was over-dubbed, not spoken by actors:

“It was going to be a film based on how things were 2,000 years ago,” Garcia said. “It wasn’t based on anything to do with religion, it was just on how things were run in Egypt. There wasn’t anything about Muhammed or Muslims or anything.”

In the script and during the shooting, nothing indicated the controversial nature of the final product, now called Muslim Innocence. Muhammed wasn’t even called Muhammed; he was “Master George,” Garcia said. The word “Muhammed” was dubbed over in post-production, as were essentially all other offensive references to Islam and Muhammed.

Nakoula’s scurrilous attempt to blame Jews for his production was yet another lie–in fact, he speaks Arabic (as shown on the “Sam Bacile” account’s YouTube comments) and told his actors he was Egyptian:

Garcia said Bacile told her he was Egyptian on set. Bacile had white hair and spoke Arabic to a number of “dark-skinned” men who hung around the set, she said. (A Bacile associate also told The Atlantic he wasn’t Israeli or Jewish.)

Violent protests also occurred in Egypt, where Coptic Christians like Nakoula were likely endangered along with Americans. Nakoula, a California resident, managed the impressive feat of risking the lives of two sets of his own countrymen in one fell blow.

Christian activist Steve Klein, who was involved with “Innocence of Muslims,” admitted to the AP that he knew “Bacile” was not Jewish, and that numerous individuals from the Middle East were involved with the phone:

About 15 key players from the Middle East – from Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran and a couple Coptic Christians from Egypt – worked on the film, Klein said.

“Most of them won’t tell me their real names because they’re terrified,” Klein said. “He was really scared and now he’s so nervous. He’s turned off his phone.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, said Klein is a former Marine and longtime religious-right activist who has helped train paramilitary militias at a California church. It described Klein as founder of Courageous Christians United, which conducts protests outside abortion clinics, Mormon temples and mosques.

Klein also admitted that Nakoula and Klein knew their film would provoke violence

Klein told the AP that he vowed to help make the movie but warned the filmmaker that “you’re going to be the next Theo van Gogh.” Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker killed by a Muslim extremist in 2004 after making a film that was perceived as insulting to Islam.

“We went into this knowing this was probably going to happen,” Klein said.

So, let’s put the pieces together:

15 people from the Middle East worked with an Egyptian convicted felon and a Christian paramilitary militia leader on a coordinated project.

They used false names and kept even those who worked with them in the dark about their goals.

Although the main players were Christian and residents of the United States, they attempted to cast blame on Jews and Israel for their work.

They lied about where their money came from and, in at least one case, stole.

They knew as they worked on this project that the likely outcome would be violence, including violence against Americans, and including violence in the home countries of many of the key players.

After completing their work, the main player immediately went into hiding, lied about his age, lied about his nationality, and asked for police protection. Meanwhile, his deputies covered his trail and assisted in his lies.

What about this is not terrorism?

The PATRIOT Act was sold to America as legislation that would give Homeland Security officials the broad authority they needed to capture and punish those who seek to influence American policy by creating chaos, violence, disorder, and destruction. It includes specific provisions to punish those who finance terrorism and those who incite others to commit terrorism. In fact, broader latitude to punish incitement to terrorism was one of the key–and one of the most controversial–facets of the legislation that we were told we needed, without which we were told terrorists could cause the deaths of Americans and walk free.

Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, if he has done all that he is alleged to have done, is a terrorist who knowingly took premeditated action to incite violence against Americans and Christians. Further, he attempted to endanger the lives of Jews and Israelis as well by implicating them in a project that does not appear to have had the involvement of a single Israeli or Jew. Thirdly, he endangered the lives of his own cast and crew by editing his film and dubbing over its audio to make ordinary actors appear to be saying inflammatory and hateful things. This heartless felon and convicted fraudster was willing not only to put at risk his own life (albeit not without a plan to obscure his identity and blame others) but the lives of people who didn’t even know what they were working on.

Sounds like someone we all remember–someone who, like Nakoula, was safely in hiding in another country while his own countrymen died for his hateful and ignorant beliefs. Someone who, like Nakoula, did not hesitate to put others in harms way to protect himself. Someone who, like Nakoula, with premeditation and intent, caused the deaths of Americans. Someone who, thank God, is no longer a threat to the United States or to his own people, having been killed by US Navy Seals.

Homeland Security authorities know where Nakoula is, as he has reportedly requested police protection. One can only hope that the police are also “protecting” this terrorist from fleeing the country before someone reads the USA-PATRIOT Act, notices that he meets every qualification for incitement to terrorism in it, and places him under arrest.  


Full story: Anti-Muslim Filmmaker Outed as Alleged Coptic Christian Crook Nakoula Bassely Nakoula

Obama Wheels-Down In Denver Once Again

39
  by: Colorado Pols Thu September 13, 2012 at 3:56 PM MDT

FRIDAY UPDATE: Golden Mayor Marjorie Sloan sets the record straight:

I’m the person responsible for the Ulysses S. Grant statement  and I’m really sorry for my miscommunication. President Obama is indeed the first sitting president to visit GOLDEN since Ulysses S. Grant and I told him so while greeting him. I should have been less ambiguous in my antecedents (“here” could mean either Jefferson County or Golden) or more willing to speak up in the middle of a presidential speech.  

Marjorie Sloan

Mayor of Golden

—–

UPDATE #3: The Colorado GOP appears to correctly take issue with President Barack Obama’s claim, as reported by CBS below, to be the “first sitting president to visit Jefferson County since Ulysses S. Grant.” They point to a 2004 New York Times article about President George W. Bush’s rally at Red Rocks Amphitheater in Morrison–very much located in Jefferson County.

We’re thinking this may not be the only such visit either: we have to think other Presidents have found the backdrops afforded by Jefferson County to be irresistible, like Dwight Eisenhower, whose wife Mamie was raised in Colorado and who spent a great deal of time in our state. But regardless, this was clearly an error by Obama, fairly (and easily) called out by Republicans.

Having said that, AP’s Kristen Wyatt notes helpfully:

You’d hate to be the staffer who “discovered” this little factoid.

—–

UPDATE #2: CBS News:

After a week largely focused on the turmoil in the Middle East and his administration’s foreign policy, President Obama on Thursday revived his economic campaign pitch in one of the most critical counties in one of this year’s key swing states.

“We don’t believe in a top-down, trickle-down economy that says to everybody you’re on your own,” Mr. Obama said to a crowd of supporters in Golden, Colorado, against the backdrop of the Rocky Mountains. “We believe the economy grows from the middle class out, from the bottom up.”

…Mr. Obama noted Thursday that he is the first sitting president to visit Jefferson County since Ulysses S. Grant. “Back then you couldn’t even vote — you guys were still a territory,” the president joked with the crowd.

—–

UPDATE: 9NEWS reports from Golden at noon:



—–

The Washington Post has a good story today on the battle between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney for suburban Denver voters–just as Obama arrives in Golden.

For Obama, who won Colorado four years ago by nearly nine percentage points, the focus has been heavily on Latinos and women. One of the quirks of the new unaffiliated voters who have moved into suburbs across the country – including in other battlegrounds such as Virginia and North Carolina – is that the men who describe themselves this way tend to vote Republican, according to polls, while the women are more likely to swing between the parties.

Just as non-ideological as their male counterparts, unaffiliated women voters are also particularly moved by issues that affect them, such as contraception and abortion. The proof came two years ago, when Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) eked out a narrow victory over Republican Ken Buck largely by targeting women in the suburbs and portraying Buck as ideologically extreme.

“We created the largest gender gap in the country,” said Guy Cecil, who was Bennet’s campaign manager and now runs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “The suburbs of Virginia, the suburbs of Indianapolis, the suburbs of Denver – you have people who are turned off by the sort of extreme points of view that now represent most of the Republican Party.”

Obama is following a similar playbook…

The story identifies Jefferson and Arapahoe counties as “a central focus for both campaigns.” Given the frequency of return visits by both the Obama and Romney campaigns–belatedly for Romney, who inexplicably spent several months making stops in the unpopulated hinterlands of the state–it’s a story our metro area readers already know well, with traffic jam anecdotes.

We’ll update through the day with further coverage of Obama’s visit to Golden.


Full story: Obama Wheels-Down In Denver Once Again

“Personhood” Officially Off 2012 Colorado Ballot

6
  by: Colorado Pols Wed September 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM MDT

7NEWS:

The Colorado Secretary of State’s office says the so-called “personhood” amendment will not be on the November ballot, despite any legal action from proponents to prove they collected enough voter signatures.

Secretary of State spokesman Andrew Cole tells the Denver Post the deadline for ballot certification was Monday. Even if a judge rules personhood sponsors’ petition was sufficient, the measure would have to wait for the 2014 general election.

In both the 2008 and 2010 election cycles, we extensively documented the significant collateral damage done to Republican candidates as they struggled with the “Personhood” amendment. Especially in those two elections, “Personhood” became a litmus test for Republican candidates early in their races and primaries–only to come back to bite them in the general election as the details of “Personhood” turned off women voters en masse. Former Colorado GOP chairman Dick Wadhams railed against “Personhood” supporters in 2008 and 2010 for imperiling the GOP candidate for U.S. Senate in those elections–and both Bob Schaffer and Ken Buck can point to specific incidents where this initiative burned them rather than helped.

Especially given the bigger national stories of Todd Akin’s comments on rape and abortion, and the “Personhood”-style views on the issue held by GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, Republicans are breathing a huge sigh of relief that Ryan won’t be sharing a ballot in the crucial swing state of Colorado with the “Personhood” amendment. It’s enough of a benefit to the GOP strategically that persistent rumors have circulated since the original invalidation of the amendment late last month alleging GOP Secretary of State Scott Gessler made sure it wouldn’t reach the ballot. We doubt anybody will ever prove that even if it’s true.

Bottom line: with “Personhood” off the ballot in 2012 regardless of the outcome of proponents’ court challenge, its usefulness to Democrats changes somewhat–but doesn’t go away. While they can’t call out Republicans for their present support for an initiative not on the ballot, “Personhood” remains a yoke around the neck of every politician who has previously expressed support for it. This is true for Republicans who endorsed one or both of these initiatives in the past, such as SD-22 candidate Ken Summers and Rep. Mike Coffman. But as we said yesterday, the candidate we believe is most vulnerable due to prior support for “Personhood” is Joe Coors–who took the additional step of helping fund Amendment 62 in 2010.

The fact that these initiatives have lost standing in conservative circles, especially after the defeat of “Personhood” in uber-conservative Mississippi, is probably good for Republicans politically in the long term–since they must do something about their image as a backward, oppressive, and misogynist party in order to survive as generations and attitudes shift.

Some Republicans, being part of the problem, may not be able to join them.


Full story: “Personhood” Officially Off 2012 Colorado Ballot

Obama Back In Denver Metro Area Thursday

13
  by: Colorado Pols Mon September 10, 2012 at 9:36 PM MDT

UPDATE: Politico’s Charles Mahtesian profiles Colorado as one of “9 states where the race will be won” today, underscoring all the attention we’re getting:

The Romney formula depends on turning out the GOP base, especially on the energy-oriented Western Slope and in El Paso County’s Colorado Springs, home to a politically active evangelical Christian community and a heavy military influence. This year, the expectation among Republicans is that Romney will also gain more traction in the Denver suburbs than John McCain.

The Obama strategy closely resembles the one successfully employed by Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet in 2010. Bennet ran well among Hispanics and benefited from an enormous gender gap – 17 points, according to exit polls. The same themes Bennet used – notably abortion rights and contraception – have been put to use again in Colorado and were underscored at the Democratic convention in Charlotte last week.

There’s a reason the president campaigned in Colorado with Sandra Fluke in early August, and why he’ll be back again later this week. [Pols emphasis]

And here we thought Sandra Fluke was just about getting under Greg Brophy’s skin.

The above certainly makes more sense.

—–

Why don’t they just rent a house? FOX 31′s Eli Stokols:

President Barack Obama will make his first post-convention campaign stop in Colorado this Thursday with a rally in Golden, right smack in the middle of Jefferson County, one of three suburban metro area counties that will likely determine who wins this state’s nine electoral votes and, perhaps, the White House.

The rally will take place at the Golden Community Center in Lions Park at 11 a.m., the campaign announced Monday morning…

On Monday, the Romney campaign released a memo from its pollster, Neil Newhouse, advising the media not to “get too worked up about the latest polling.”

“While some voters will feel a bit of a sugar-high from the conventions, the basic structure of the race has not changed significantly,” Newhouse writes. “The reality of the Obama economy will reassert itself as the ultimate downfall of the Obama Presidency, and Mitt Romney will win this race.”

Here’s your list of ticket pickup locations. Nothing on the Romney-Ryan campaign calendar for Colorado as of now for this week, but if you wait a few minutes, that’s liable to change.


Full story: Obama Back In Denver Metro Area Thursday

Fact checking the TV fact checkers: It’s true that personhood would ban abortion for rape

0
  by: Jason Salzman Sat September 8, 2012 at 1:29 AM MDT

Update: In my haste to leave my office on Friday afternoon, I didn’t give 9News’ Brandon Rittiman sufficient time to respond to some points I raised after he responded to my intial questions.  I pomised to include any additional thoughts from him, if he had any, and I should have waited longer to receive them. So, I’m including more thoughts from Rittiman here:

I’d add that I’m not taking a side on the issue itself.

It’s not my place to tell people what to think of the idea. It’s pretty clear where the electorate stands, regardless.

This a matter of what the supporters say their initiative would do (which we can prove) versus what it will actually do (which we don’t know for certain.)

If I could go back in time to August 7, I’d have added attribution to what I said on camera: “The sponsors say it would ban abortions in cases of rape or incest.”

I take your point about other ballot questions needing to survive court tests, however, with this initiative, I think it goes beyond merely surviving a court challenge.

The language itself requires court interpretation. It’s incomplete, which is why we have so much room for interpretation of its various effects.

It doesn’t spell out any method for enforcement of its provisions or penalties for violating its provisions.

I’m no lawyer, but I suspect that this vagueness of wording is intentional to force the courts to codify some form of law more restrictive of abortion, to the maximum amount possible.

All we can say would happen for certain is that if this passed the courts would have to decide what to do with it.

Since state law doesn’t trump an existing SCOTUS decision, I don’t know that we can say with certainty that this initiative “would” ban abortions in all cases, even if that’s the intent of its sponsors.

I think the Truth Test piece accurately represents that idea.

————————–

Many journalists in Denver and beyond (e.g, Washington Post, Denver Post, 7News) write, as a factual matter, that the 2012 personhood amendment would have banned all abortions.

Among them is 9News’ Political Reporter Brandon Rittiman, who reported Aug. 7 that personhood “would ban abortions, including in cases of rape and incest.” (Watch the video to see the quote, as it’s not included in the text version.)

So on Wednesday, I was surprised to see Rittiman, in a Truth Test of an anti-Joe-Coors-Jr. ad, call the following statement “debatable:”

“The ‘personhood’ initiative backed by [Joe] Coors would have banned abortion even in cases of rape and incest.”

Via email, I asked Rittiman about the apparent contradiction between his two stories, and he responded as follows:

The short answer is because the wording of the ballot question has changed over time.

The long answer gets into a lot of layers of this story, but here goes:

This year, the supporters of “personhood” decided to use stronger language and publicly stated that the goal was to ban abortions with no exceptions.

In the version that Joe Coors supported in 2010, the supporters did not make that claim, though opponents argued that it could have the effect of banning abortions without exception for cases of rape and incest.

The struggle here is that the proposed personhood amendments are worded in such a way as to practically guarantee the need for court interpretation of the extent and effect of the law.

This story would be a lot easier for all to understand if it were a clearly worded ban on abortion that contained language specific to the exceptions.

Otherwise we are all just trying to determine the effect of a law that has not been vetted by the third branch yet. That is what I had hoped to communicate in the Truth Test.

Rittiman is right that, in this year’s version of personhood, there’s an explicit statement prohibiting exceptions for rape and incest. And there was none in 2010.

Still, both give legal rights to a “person” at early stages of development.

In 2010, personhood gave general legal rights, including “equality of justice, and due process of law, to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.” The Bluebook, interpreted this as meaning, in part: “If a person’s legal rights are violated, this section guarantees that a judicial remedy is available.”

How could the state of Colorado protect one “person” (conceived under happy circumstances), while another “person” (conceived after rape) would not be protected?

Rittiman might say, that’s debatable, and, look, here we are debating it! Fair enough.

But I’d say that, even though you can debate the point, it’s most fair, when you look at the personhood text and interpretations, to say that all abortions would be banned under personhood, even abortions for rape and incest.

The fact, pointed out by Rittiman in his online piece, that Coors, Jr, says he believes in exceptions for rape and incest, does not make the ad’s statement any more “debatable,” given that Coors indeed supported personhood previously.

Neither does this information, which Rittiman included in his Sept. 5 piece:

A spokesperson for Coors says he would encourage women who are pregnant from instances of rape or incest not to terminate their pregnancies. But he does not believe the law should “criminalize” abortion in such traumatic circumstances.

As to Rittiman’s other point, that there would be a court case if personhood had passed, any initiative faces likely court challenges.

Regardless, journalists still have to talk about what it would do, without always adding that it might get tossed by the courts.

In any case, it’s hard to argue that the “rape-and-incest” line in the 2012 version personhood makes it more court-proof than the 2010 version. They both are equally vulnerable.

But for the purposes of fact checking, it’s fair for a political ad to assert that the personhood initiatives, if passed, would have banned abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest, even if the courts might have nixed it.


Full story: Fact checking the TV fact checkers: It’s true that personhood would ban abortion for rape

New Ad To Deliver Coors Coup de GrГўce?

27
  by: Colorado Pols Tue September 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM MDT

Our friends at National Journal report:

House Majority PAC is up with another TV ad hitting a Republican challenger this morning. But there’s a bit more behind the new spot, which goes after Republican Joe Coors in Colorado’s 7th Congressional District.

The ad…is part of a two-week, $500,000 buy in the Denver media market and criticizes Coors for “supporting and funding” Colorado’s failed personhood initiative. Coors donated $1,000 to the initiative, which would have banned abortion, in 2010, and he said in August that he wouldn’t support another try for the ballot measure. But it’s still a potent attack in Denver’s suburbs, where socially liberal voters have moved toward Democrats in recent years. This ad buy also serves as a neat example of why House Majority PAC exists in the first place.

Democratic Rep. Ed Perlmutter, the 7th District’s incumbent, doesn’t seem a likely candidate for a tough race after surviving 2010. Perlmutter’s district is more than 40 percent new to him, but it’s only slightly less Democratic-leaning than the old version of his seat. But Coors, from the wealthy brewing family, has already invested over $600,000 of his own money in the race and has run over $700,000 worth of TV ads, with another $1.8 million of TV time reserved between today and Election Day, according to Democratic media tracking.

Here’s the skinny: sources tell us that internal Democratic polls are much better for incumbent Rep. Ed Perlmutter than a poll distributed by the Joe Coors campaign showing Coors ahead. Especially with the message of Coors’ financial support for the “Personhood” abortion ban initiative properly introduced, Perlmutter moves from an on-paper competitive situation to a commanding position in this race–largely thanks to how that plays with suburban women.

Needless to say, a well-funded spot drilling on Joe Coors’ funding of an initiative to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest is not going to help Coors patch things up with the ladies. And it may just be the beginning: we’ve heard about another, previously unreported donation by Coors in support of “Personhood,” and other unsavory details about Coors support for persons and causes repellent to suburban women voters waiting to be “discovered.”

Despite the big checks Coors is writing to fund his campaign, what we hear from Democrats is they want this race relegated to sideshow status as quickly as possible so they can focus on pickups elsewhere in Colorado–and by making Coors Ken Buck-style toxic immediately after Labor Day with women voters, they may have a formula for doing just that.


Full story: New Ad To Deliver Coors Coup de GrГўce?

Journalists should ask specific questions in candidate questionnaires

3
  by: Jason Salzman Tue September 4, 2012 at 7:43 AM MDT

(Ken Summers backed “Personhood?” Bet he wishes that had stayed in the memory hole – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Publishing the basic positions of candidates, on specific issues and ballot questions, falls into the basic public-service function that journalism shouldn’t let go of, despite the hard times.

But if The Denver Post–or Fox 31 or 9News or KOA or any news outlet–is going to publish candidate surveys (and someone should), please ask specific questions that allow voters to compare candidates in the most meaningful way.

Here’s an example of what a huge difference specificity can make.

In 2008, both the Rocky Mountain News and The Post published candidate questionnaires.

The Rocky’s, which was far superior, asked four broad questions about why the candidate was running for office and his or her priorities. This was followed by a series of very specific yes/no questions, including queries on the death penalty, Roe v. Wade, illegal immigration, and vouchers, as well as questions about whether the candidate supported each of the ballot questions facing voters in the 2008 election.

The Post, on the other hand, asked broad questions about transportation, education, health care, and natural resources, as well as a “wild-card” question.

Among the Rocky’s questions, two were focused on a women’s right to choose.

The first addressed Roe v. Wade.

Here’s how Ken Summers, who was running for HD 22, answered the question:

The Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Do you agree with the decision?

Summers: No

In the candidate’s words: Even if abortion is held to be legal, to save the life of the mother and in cases of rape or incest, it is difficult to view it as a constitutional right. I have always viewed constitutional rights as those that are commonly exercised and essential to a free society.

For comparison, in his response to the Rocky, here’s how Ali Hasan, who was running for HD 56 answered it.

Hasan: Yes

In the candidate’s words: It is important to note that I agree that the federal ban against 7- to 9-month abortion should always be upheld.

Another Rocky question addressed personhood, which would outlaw all abortion and common forms of birth control.

While Shawn Mitchell declined to answer, Summers responded as follows:

Do you support Amendment 48? It would ban abortion by defining personhood as beginning at fertilization.

Summers: Yes

In the candidate’s words: A new baseline for this issue is needed. Clarifications will be needed.

Ali Hasan stated flatly in his questionnaire that opposed Amendment 48.

The closest thing The Post’s 2008 questionnaire had to these fun and exciting questions (and answers) was a broad question on the role of state government in providing health insurance, which is important, to be sure, but fails to illuminate narrow, and easily comparable, views on health insurance issues generally, and, specifically, on the topic of a women’s right to choose. In fact, not Summers, Mitchell, nor Hasan voluntarily brought up abortion issues in their answers. The Post’s question, which has unfortunately been removed from its website, was:

Health Care: What role do you see for the state in providing or ensuring health insurance for every Coloradan? What policies do you propose to achieve your vision of health care coverage in Colorado?

So, obviously, The Post’s question is important, but the Rocky’s approach had to have been of more use to voters.

I’m hoping that this year the Rocky’s 2008 “Ballot Builder” will be a model for journalists.


Full story: Journalists should ask specific questions in candidate questionnaires

Fact checking the TV fact checkers: Mostly accurate on ads attacking Romney’s positions on abortion

1
  by: Jason Salzman Fri August 31, 2012 at 6:35 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Two Denver TV stations so far have fact checked political ads attacking Mitt Romney’s positions on a women’s right to choose.

The ads were aired and checked a while ago, in early August, but I thought I’d spotlight them today, because women’s issues will come up again and again and again, we can be sure.

The two ads, analyzed by 7News’ Marshall Zelinger and CBS4′s Shaun Boyd, were slightly different, but the ads mostly made the same allegations.

AD:  ”Mitt Romney opposes requiring insurance coverage for contraception.”

CBS4 Reality Check (scroll down to abortion ad): TRUE

Channel 7 Truth Tracker: TRUE

Bigmedia.org: Both stations got it right.

AD: “Romney supports overturning Roe Vs. Wade.”

CBS4 Reality Check: TRUE

Channel 7 Truth Tracker: TRUE

Bigmedia.org: Both stations got it right.

AD: Romeny would cut federal funding for Planned Parenthood

CBS4 Reality Check: TRUE

Channel 7 Truth Tracker: This fact wasn’t included in the ad checked by Channel 7.

Bigmedia.org. Channel 4 got it right.

AD: “Romney backed a bill that outlaws all abortion, even cases of rape and incest.”

CBS4 Reality Check: MISLEADING

Channel 7 Truth Tracker: MISLEADING (but it also found the “even-cases-of rape-and-incest” part to be “MOSTLY UNTRUE”)

Bigmedia.org: First, both Channels 7 and 4 point out that there was not an actual bill. The ad shows a clip of Romney saying he’d back a bill outlawing “all abortions,” if, hypothetically, such a bill came to his desk. That’s not enough to call the statement misleading, more like “MOSTLY TRUE.”

But the addition of the phrase “even cases of rape and incest” makes the statement more complicated. Channel 7 separated out this phrase and deemed it “MOSTLY FALSE,” arguing that even though the hyopothetical bill would have banned “all abortions,” the bill didn’t mention rape and incest specifically.

In addition, both Channels 4 and 7 aired video of Romney saying that he supports abortion in the case of rape and incest.

But Romney told Mike Huckabee just last last year that he “absolutely” would have supported an amendment to the Massachusetts’ consitution defining life as beginning at conception, otherwize known as the zygote or fertilized-egg stage.  (Video here at 6:25)

And if you define life as such, like personhood backers do, and you do so in a state constitution, you give legal protections to zygotes created as a result of rape. So it’s fair to conclude that Romney opposes abortion for rape victims, though obviously it’s a Olympic flip from what he’s said elsewhere.

Romney also told Huckabee:

“Would it be wonderful if everybody in the country agreed with you and me that life begins at conception, that there’s a sanctity of life that’s part of a civilized society, and that we’re all going to agree that we’re not going to have legal abortion in the county? That would be great.” (Video here at 8:15)

Against this backdrop of Romney’s own dueling positions, I don’t understand how Channel 7 could conclude that it’s mostly false to say that Romney opposes abortion, even in the case of rape and incest. It could be true or false. Take your pick.

You have to conclude, like Channel 4 did, that Romney’s obviously a flip flopper on abortion. And you certainly can’t say it’s untrue for Obama to tell us Romney opposes all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.

So Channel 4′s take-away comment, which it calls the “bottom line,” hit the mark:

“The ad says women, a key voting bloc, should be troubled by Mitt Romney’s position on abortion.  And they should, because it’s changed so many times. Mitt Romney brought this one on himself.”


Full story: Fact checking the TV fact checkers: Mostly accurate on ads attacking Romney’s positions on abortion

BREAKING: Personhood Amendment Fails By 3,859 Signatures

23
  by: Colorado Pols Wed August 29, 2012 at 8:14 PM MDT

UPDATE #2: “Personhood” backers vow to fight on, as the Huffington Post reports:

A spokeswoman for Personhood USA, the anti-abortion group behind the nationwide push for fetal personhood laws, contended that the Secretary of State’s office had made a mistake in counting the ballots. “We have more than enough valid signatures that were discounted by the Secretary of State’s office,” Jennifer Mason told The Huffington Post…

Personhood USA is not discouraged by the state’s apparent lack of enthusiasm, Mason said. The group plans to challenge the Secretary of State’s decision, have the signatures recounted and try again to put the measure on the ballot.

“Whole petitions were discarded because of small details, like a notary error,” she said. “Once those things are counted, we’ll have more than enough.”

—–

UPDATE: Multiple sources now confirming via Twitter.

—–

We just got word that the “Personhood” Amendment narrowly missed the minimum requirement of valid submitted signatures in support, and will not appear on this year’s statewide ballot.

We’ll update with coverage and statements as we receive them.

As you know, the “Personhood” initiative was set to be a major flash point in this year’s election, with GOP candidates–including those who have previously supported it–refusing to take a stand on the initiative. Controversy over “Personhood” was also stoked this year by the stridently anti-abortion position of vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, not to mention Missouri GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin’s now-infamous remarks on the issue.

By a comparatively small margin, Secretary of State Scott Gessler appears to have relieved the GOP of what would otherwise have been yet another serious optics problem.


Full story: BREAKING: Personhood Amendment Fails By 3,859 Signatures

The details of Gardner’s love for Ryan are left unexplained in radio interview

4
  by: Jason Salzman Tue August 28, 2012 at 9:20 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



If you’ve been soaking up the sound waves from talk radio the past month, you know that Rep. Cory Gardner has been talking a lot about the horribleness of President Obama and the greatness of Romney vice presidential selection Paul Ryan.

For example, here’s Gardner on KFKA’s AM Colorado Aug. 23:

HOST TOM LUCERO:  So, Cory, give us your thoughts on the selection of your colleague, Paul Ryan-vice presidential pick by Mitt Romney.

GARDNER:  I think it’s a brilliant selection.  This is a guy who understands the budget and the economy perhaps better than anybody other than Mitt Romney. This is a person who actually knows the numbers.  He has -I’ve seen him personally, I’ve witnessed him personally explain to the president of the United States why his policies have been such a disaster, and why the policies we have pushed forward would actually get this country back on track, [and] do so in a way that was simple for everybody to understand across the country.  I’m not sure the president understood it because he continues with his failed policies.  But the fact is, Paul Ryan adds a level of excitement and certainly a level of solutions that we were missing.

Listen to the audio here.

It would be nice if AM Colorado’s co-hosts, Lucero and Devon Lentz, aired out a couple of the controversial issues dogging Ryan.

A good one for Gardner would be personhood, because Gardner, like Ryan, supports it, and has left no doubt about it in the past.

Gardner didn’t co-sponsor federal personhood legislation, like Ryan did, but he’s been a full-on endorser of personhood amendments in Colorado.

This means both Gardner and Ryan oppose common forms of birth control, as well as all abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

So, is this part of the reason Gardner thinks Ryan is a brilliant selection?

Or does the brilliance emanate from Ryan’s proposal to partially privatize Medicare? Is Gardner worried that  a disproportionate number of healthy retirees would use their Medicare vouchers to buy health insurance from private companies, leaving Medicare to serve the less healthy population, which, in turn, could cause Medicare costs and Medicare premiums to rise, sending even more of the healthier retirees to the private sector as Medicare costs spiral out of control?

A report from the liberal Center on Policy and Budget Priorities concluded in March:

The budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) would make significant changes to Medicare.  It would replace Medicare’s current guarantee of coverage with a premium-support voucher, raise the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, and reopen the “doughnut hole” in Medicare’s coverage of prescription drugs.  Together, these changes would shift substantial costs to Medicare beneficiaries and (with the simultaneous repeal of health reform) leave many 65- and 66-year olds without any health coverage at all.  The plan also would likely lead to the gradual demise of traditional Medicare by making its pool of beneficiaries smaller, older, and sicker – and increasingly costly to cover.

How about Ryan’s votes against the Dream Act, which would allow the best and brightest undocumented teenagers, brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents, to become productive members of our society?

Why is that so brilliant?

The list of interesting topics goes on and on, and it’s more interesting to debate it than to hear Gardner’s platitudes about Ryan.

As it happens, I’ll be discussing “media bias” tomorrow morning at 7:40 on KFKA’s “AM Colorado,” with Lucero and Lentz.

Maybe I’ll be able to convince them to bring in more viewpoints on their show more often, or at least bring back Lynn Bartels, who was on their program weekly during the legislative session.


Full story: The details of Gardner’s love for Ryan are left unexplained in radio interview

Should journalists decline interviews if questions are banned?

9
  by: Jason Salzman Fri August 24, 2012 at 9:52 PM MDT

(An interesting follow-up to yesterday’s CBS4 Denver Romney interview “Akin off limits” story – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Talking Points Memo reports that the Mitt Romney campaign told an Ohio TV station yesterday that it preferred not to answer questions about Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin.

“They were chatting and it came up and I believe [a Romney staffer's] wording was that they prefer not to talk about it,” [WHIO-TV] assistant news director Tim Wolff told TPM. “But we didn’t care because we were going to talk about Ohio stuff.”

If I’m a journalist, and a campaign tells me it prefers not to talk about something, that’s immediately what I want to ask about.

But Wolff told me that the preference was expressed by a low-level logistical person in the Romney camp, and so it didn’t matter to the station, which wasn’t interested in the topic anyway.

I asked Wolff if his station would have conducted the interview, with some questions banned outright.

“We’ve never agreed to any kind of stipulations and never would,” he said. “So it wouldn’t be an issue for us.”

Dave Price, a reporter at WHO-TV in Iowa who also interviewed Romney yesterday, told Talking Points Memo that he also would not have agreed to the Romney interview, if he’d been told that Akin questions were banned.

I asked Wolff what he’d do if forced to reject an interview, due to unacceptable preconditions.

Would Wolff report that the interview invitation was declined?

“I’m not sure, just because I’ve never had it happen,” he said. “There are many variables in how it can happen. We may or may not report, depending on how big a deal it was, that we did not do the interview because of these circumstances.”

Normally, I’d think a reporter should tell us, if he or she doesn’t accept an interview because of banned questions or the like.

Transparency is key, and that’s why CBS4 did the right thing by going ahead with the Romney interview and reporting the ban on Akin/Abortion questions.

Rejecting the interview would have been an over-reaction, because, as CBS4 News director Tim Wieland tweeted, there’s a lot of other questions that can be asked–and you can still report that certain questions were banned, as CBS4 did.

But, at some point, and I’m not sure where it is, an interview gets so restricted that a reporter has to say no, and report what happened.

Or if a topic was so important at a particular moment, a reporter might decline an interview, just because one topic was banned.

So I think it just depends, but CBS4 made the right call yesterday.


Full story: Should journalists decline interviews if questions are banned?

Romney Campaign Shuts Down Local Reporter’s Akin/Abortion Questions

27
  by: Colorado Pols Fri August 24, 2012 at 12:07 AM MDT

FRIDAY UPDATE #2: You heard it here first, and Friday afternoon Politico confirms:

Ciara Matthews, the Romney campaign’s Colorado communications director, has been asked not to speak to the media after her decision to prohibit a reporter from asking Mitt Romney questions about abortion, sources tell POLITICO…

A spokesperson with the Romney campaign told POLITICO yesterday that the campaign did not prohbit questions, and other networks said that their questions were not influenced by the campaign. “This is not how we operate,” the spokesperson said. “The matter is being addressed.”

Politico lists prior jobs for Ciara Matthews with Scott Walker’s campaign in Wisconsin and Sharron Angle’s Senate campaign. In addition, Ms. Matthews’ resume includes a stint with Marilyn Musgrave’s Susan B. Anthony Fund, a stridently anti-abortion activist group.

So it’s possible that Ms. Matthews’ connection to Musgrave and the Susan B. Anthony Fund might explain her allegedly self-driven desire to censor questions about Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin and abortion in general. But we’re still not sure, given the Romney campaign’s history with reporter Shaun Boyd and the obvious political problems with the Akin story. After Boyd’s grilling of Romney back in may, this would surely have been a reporter his Colorado operatives would have been watching out for.

We’ll be watching to see what happens to Ms. Matthews: wherever she ends up next will help answer if she genuinely violated policy, or simply made the mistake of not being subtle enough.

—–

FRIDAY UPDATE: The Washington Post sheds some light on this story today:

And in a wide-ranging interview late Thursday night, Boyd provided further substantiation for the campaign’s claims. Boyd says that the conditions were the work of a state-level Romney staffer in Colorado [Pols emphasis] and that, from all indications, that staffer was acting independently of official Romney campaign guidance…

In her exchanges with the conditions-imposing staffer, Boyd tried appealing to common sense. After learning that she couldn’t ask questions about the sensitive topics, Boyd responded, “Everybody’s talking about this, and I can’t talk about it? It’s going to look weird…It’s not going to look good for you.” Too, Boyd wasn’t intending to ask per se about abortion but rather about how Romney had asked Akin to give up his Senate campaign and had been defied.

The primary miscalculation of the staffer, suggests Boyd, was in supposing that the insistence on conditions would remain bottled up. “When the stipulation was made, I think the staffer didn’t think I’d tell everybody,” she says. The stipulation wasn’t communicated off the record, says Boyd, who announced to the whole world at the very beginning of her story that she’d been prevented from discussing abortion and Akin.

After the incident went national, Boyd spoke with a national campaign staffer, who asked why Boyd hadn’t appealed the matter to them. She said she responded that she didn’t think such an approach would get her anywhere.

The rumor making the circuit this morning is that the “state-level” Romney staffer in question is Ciara Matthews, the communications director for the campaign in Colorado. We obviously can’t confirm that without Shaun Boyd’s help, but if this truly was the error the campaign is claiming it was, we expect the staffer’s identity will be confirmed soon enough.

Also, the Huffington Post video we posted yesterday appears to have been removed. Click here to watch the original report from CBS4.

Talking Points Memo:

Denver TV reporter Shaun Boyd wanted to ask Mitt Romney about Todd Akin and the abortion controversy roiling the GOP Thursday. But the Romney campaign refused…

Boyd told TPM that the Romney campaign offered her station an interview with Romney, one of several local news hits in swing states that Romney conducted via satellite Thursday. A campaign staffer who’s name she didn’t divulge told her what questions she wasn’t allowed to ask.

“They said, you know, ‘the only stipulation is we don’t want you talking about the Akin issue,’” Boyd recalled. She also said the Romney staffer told her the campaign didn’t want questions for Romney about ‘the whole abortion controversy.’” [Pols emphasis]

Boyd said she resisted.

“I said to them, ‘Look everybody’s talking about this. It’s going to seem awkward if I don’t ask about it,’” she said. “And they said, ‘Well he’s said all he’s going to say about it. He doesn’t have anything more to say, you won’t be getting any new information so we don’t want to talk about that.’”

“It was pretty clear: ‘Here’s our one stipulation,’” she recalled.

You’ll recall that CBS4 reporter Shaun Boyd filmed an interview with Mitt Romney back in May, where she very commendably drove home the tough questions on topics Romney didn’t want to discuss. It’s at least as commendable for Boyd to go on the air after today’s interview and disclose the topics that Romney’s campaign took off the table before the interview even started. Had she not, we might be writing a post criticizing Boyd for not asking the GOP’s presidential nominee about the biggest political story in America when she had a wide-open chance.

The fact is, presidential campaigns wield tremendous power in their ability to grant (or exclude) access to reporters. Reporters need access to do their jobs effectively, making confrontation a delicate task. There’s little doubt that the pre-emptive conditions imposed on Shaun Boyd are being imposed on reporters all across the nation. It’s not that the latest controversy over the GOP and abortion is abating, they’re using all their influence to manufacture that impression.

But it didn’t work this time. And now, once again, the omission is the story.


Full story: Romney Campaign Shuts Down Local Reporter’s Akin/Abortion Questions

“No Personhood” Campaign Launches Today

3
  by: Colorado Pols Thu August 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM MDT

A photo from the west steps of the Colorado State Capitol a short while ago:



Photo courtesy Serena Woods via Twitter

Today, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains and allies launched the campaign in opposition to the so-called “Personhood” abortion ban ballot measure, headed for the Colorado statewide ballot (pending confirmation of submitted petition signatures) for the third consecutive general election cycle. The measure failed by over 70% of the statewide vote in 2008 and 2010, and is generally considered harmful to Republican prospects in any number of important congressional and legislative races–not to mention the timing of this with recent events that have thrust abortion rights to the forefront of political debate in a presidential election year.

We’ll update shortly with statements and news coverage.


Full story: “No Personhood” Campaign Launches Today