A GOP “Move To The Middle”–Wouldn’t That Be Nice?

UPDATE: The New York Times had an interesting story over the weekend about the GOP "establishment" throwing down the gauntlet with the "Tea Party" in 2014. We've discussed this on many occasions in this space, but it bears repeating: Republican attempts to kill their own Frankenstein is the gift that keeps on giving for Democrats.
—–

We want to acknowledge a well-intentioned editorial from The Denver Post on Friday, titled "A move to the middle for Colorado Republicans?" As our long-time readers know, this blog has accurately narrated for many years now as the Colorado Republican Party has alienated itself from the state's present and future majorities, with results increasingly undeniable in the form of five consecutive electoral defeats since 2004–even in years where the national political trends were strongly with Republicans, as was the case in 2010. We've been accused of celebrating this alienation, but the truth is, our warnings to the GOP have been sincere, and the consequences we have witnessed can very arguably be considered objectively bad. As Republicans have lost touch with the voters of Colorado, and lost elections, an honest representative viewpoint for conservatives in our politics–a viewpoint still very much prevalent among many of our state's citizens–has been undermined.

In the Denver Post's editorial Friday, a reported incremental change of heart on the part of a few Republican lawmakers on the ASSET legislation for undocumented students is celebrated as a "years overdue" "migration to the middle." They express hope for more such "migrations," on issues like civil unions for gays and lesbians, and (though they note it is unlikely) reducing gun violence. A truly moderate GOP, says the Post, might "be a voice for many Coloradans who hold centrist views that fall on the GOP side of the spectrum."

We want to be clear, as we have said so many times over the years, that we too would welcome a genuine move to the center by Colorado Republicans. We think that, partisan advantage notwithstanding, most Democrats would prefer to have less-unhinged conversations about the issues facing our state.

So it is really too bad that we have to pop the Post's bubble now.

(more…)


Full story: A GOP “Move To The Middle”–Wouldn’t That Be Nice?

Civil Unions Quietly Passes Appropriations

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

For those of you keeping track of Senate Bill 11 on Civil Unions, it passed the Senate Appropriations in an early morning meeting on a 4-3 vote. 

Next up will be 2nd reading on the Senate Floor, expected for Friday, February 8th with final Senate passage expected the following week. 

The word is that supporters are aiming to have the Governor's signature on the bill before March 1. 

Update with story: http://equalityfederation.salsalabs.com/o/35061/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1048


Full story: Civil Unions Quietly Passes Appropriations

And…the 2014 Ballot Race is On!

While a 'Civil Unions' bill is expected to make it through the Colorado legislature this year, the first potential ballot measure for 2014 looks to legalize gay marriage. Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post reports on the official wording, which reads:

Be it enacted by the voters of the State of Colorado: Article II Section 31 of the Constitution of the State of Colorado is amended to read: A union of one man and one woman, one man and one man, and one woman and woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.


Full story: And…the 2014 Ballot Race is On!

Anti-Civil Unions Rally Turns Decidedly Icky

SUNDAY UPDATE: Lynn Bartels of the Denver paper gives former Sen. Ed Jones’ offensive remarks some belated attention, and background, in a blog post late yesterday evening.
—–

marriagerally012513

FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports on yesterday's rally to "Protect Marriage" at the state capitol:

At the event, organized by the Colorado Catholic Conference, opponents of Senate Bill 11 bemoaned the fact that it no longer contains an exemption for adoption agencies that preferred not to work with gay couples for religious reasons.

Last year’s bill, which included that exemption, would already be law if not for former House Speaker Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch, who decided to shut down the legislature on the session’s penultimate day as a last resort to avoid a vote and effectively kill that bill, which would have passed the full House with some GOP support.

“It doesn’t take courage to do the right thing,” McNulty said to cheers at Friday’s rally. “Marriage should be reinforced, not redefined.”

…Former state lawmaker Ed Jones took aim at the bill’s sponsor who is also McNulty’s predecessor as Speaker, Rep. Mark Ferrandino, for having a “wife” he called “Eric”, even though the lawmaker has a husband whose name is actually Greg. [Pols emphasis]

“Gays don’t have to be that way,” Jones said, ignoring overwhelming science that states otherwise.

We've heard from multiple sources in attendance that former Sen. Ed Jones' remarks at yesterday's rally were far and away the most offensive–openly invoking his race to disparage not just civil unions, but gays and lesbians in general as unworthy of rights. That said, we're unaware of any attempt made by organizer Dan Caplis, or anyone else including the numerous elected officials in attendance to repudiate Jones' remarks, or this over-the-top insult against Speaker Mark Ferrandino in particular. To brand this event as an embrace of exactly the sort of bigotry that so many moderate Republicans have warned the party to reject is a considerable understatement.

We don't understand why nothing about any of this unvarnished hate speech appears in today's Denver Post story about the same rally–which says only that Jones called on Gov. John Hickenlooper to "act on his moderate credentials" and veto the bill. As Stokols' more thorough reporting shows, there was nothing "moderate" about this.

What happened yesterday should be called out, not sanitized.


Full story: Anti-Civil Unions Rally Turns Decidedly Icky

Denver Nuggets Player Kenneth Faried Voices Support for Civil Unions in Colorado

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

fariedmoms

Denver Nuggets star player, Kenneth Faried, has made a video with his two moms voicing their support for civil unions in Colorado.

“Nobody can ever tell me I can’t have two mothers because I really do,” said Faried.

Faried’s two mothers, Carol and Waudda, have been together for eleven years. Waudda has lupus, and the protections of a civil union have helped Carol care for her partner through the ups and downs of life.

“Gay and lesbian couples share similar worries as everyone else, like taking care of a loved one in sickness and in health,” said Brad Clark, Executive Director of One Colorado, the lead organization advocating for passage of civil unions in Colorado. “The story of Kenneth’s mothers remind us why civil unions are an important part of building the security we all long for.”

Click here to thank Kenneth Faried and his moms for supporting civil unions.

(more…)


Full story: Denver Nuggets Player Kenneth Faried Voices Support for Civil Unions in Colorado

Civil Unions “Revenge Tour” Begins Next Week

As announced in an email from LGBT advocacy organization One Colorado today:

The Colorado Civil Union Act has been scheduled for its first hearing — Wednesday, January 23, at 1:30 p.m. in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Civil unions is a critical piece of legislation for our community. If passed, it will provide committed same-sex couples in the state with the protections they need to take care of their families.

We have a lot of support for the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee — thanks to your incredible work during the election. But you can be sure that opponents of equality will flood the Capitol before Wednesday’s vote…

Passage of civil unions was assured, of course, after the extraordinary actions of the GOP House majority last year to kill the bill became a central 2012 campaign issue, and Democrats retook control of the House in the November general elections by a strong majority.

Fait accompli or no, it’s a popular question today at the Capitol whether “Anus Granny” will make another appearance Wednesday.


Full story: Civil Unions “Revenge Tour” Begins Next Week

Radio host doesn’t ask State Senator for the names of legislators who “just don’t like Christians”

(The “War on Christmas” starts earlier each year – promoted by Colorado Pols)



On the radio Monday, State Sen. Greg Brophy said there’s an “element” of  ”folks who just don’t like Christians” in Colorado, and “they are well represented at the State Capital right now.”

Citing Obama’s victory, as well as the passage of a measure legalizing and taxing marijuana, Brophy said on the radio:

BROPHY: “That’s what leads me to say that we’re kind of a Libertarian/Left state.  You know, and geez, I hate to say this, but it sure seems like there is an element of an anti-Christian bent in Colorado which probably does also play into that Libertarian/Left side of things…and they’re well represented at the State Capital right now.”

KFKA radio’s guest host Krista Kafer didn’t ask Brophy to reveal his list of anti-Christian folk up at the State Capitol. So I called him to find out whom he was thinking of.

Brophy referred me to an opinion piece he wrote arguing that Senate Democrats were attacking hospitals for their religious convictions. They passed a bill, which did not clear the House, that would have required hospitals to post services that they elect not to provide due to religious, not medical considerations (e.g., abortion and some contraception services), but Senate Democrats rejected an amendment requiring all hospitals to list services they don’t provide, Brophy wrote.

If you remember,” Brophy told me, “when I was [on the radio], I said I don’t want to say this because it’s kind of a harsh thing to say, but I think it’s an accurate observation.

So it’s based on that? Or are there other things?

“That’s a very public observation that’s been out there,” Brophy said. “Other stuff is certainly more subtle. You never can tell for sure, Jason, what someone’s thinking or what motivates them. You can only tell what they do. And when I wrote that op-ed I specifically went into what they did.”

I thought it was ironic that Brophy was raising the specter of anti-Christian bigotry at the State Capitol, given his comments about gays in the same KFKA interview Monday.

Brophy said he believes civil unions are one thing, but it would go too far to require an adoption agency, for example, to award a child to a traditional couple over gay couple based on the adoption agency’s alleged religious beliefs about the morality of homosexuality.

BROPHY: “But isn’t there a happy medium here where you can also have an adoption agency that says, “All things being equal, we would prefer to have a male-female married couple work with our adopted children – all things being equal.”  I mean, I think most people believe that too, and I would hope that we could find a happy medium.  I suspect that we will end up settling this question at a U.S. Supreme Court level within just a couple of years, because there are some cases that are testing this.  For instance, say, if you run a Bed and Breakfast and want to cater to folks who are on, you know, bible study-based family vacations, and you refuse to rent a room to somebody who isn’t married, or who is in a same-sex marriage, you can be sued for discrimination.  And your- that’s a direct contradiction between the civil rights protection and the religious liberty protection.

We heard a lot about religious liberty during the election, as Republicans argued that restrictions on abortion and women’s health should be accepted as religious freedoms instead of as a war on women.

Brophy’s comments, about gays and Christian haters, leave me thinking that he’s not going to back away from the election rhetoric. He didn’t talk about Republicans working with each other or with Democrats, but instead about Republicans picking sides within their own party and fighting, building a movement of social conservatives prior to the next primary.

BROPHY: “And there’s an element, there’s a leg, or an element of the Republican Party that has always been rather embarrassed by the Christian conservative component of the Republican Party.  I don’t know what to do with them. I mean, you know, we form our coalitions in U.S. politics before the primary and so, pick your side.  And as for me, I’m going to be on the side that argues for fiscal restraint, and that argues for religious liberty and individual liberty, limited government and less spending by the government, but either people buy that argument or they don’t.”

If I’m a reporter, and I hear Brophy, I’d be watching to see if the election collapse had any impact at all on him and like-minded Republicans. It appears it did not.


Full story: Radio host doesn’t ask State Senator for the names of legislators who “just don’t like Christians”

Denver reporters say 2012 presidential race drowned out coverage of local races

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



During a panel discussion today on local coverage of the 2012 election, journalists said the presidential election, as it played out in Colorado, consumed so much of their time that they were unable to give proper attention to other important Colorado races, including congressional campaigns.

“The presidential just drowns out everything else,” said CBS4 Political Specialist Shaun Boyd. “I did cover the local stuff, but it’s hard to do that when you’ve got so much going on with the presidential race, and that’s what so many people are focused on.”

“TV is broadcasting, and the word ‘broad’ is real, ” added Fox 31 Political Reporter Eli Stokols. “If we think about what people are most interested in, it’s what they’re already hearing about, the presidential stuff. It’s hard for us to cover congressional races in much detail.

Colorado Public Radio reporter Megan Verlee told the audience of about 30 people at the Independence Institute that her station tries to explain why other races matter.

“If you’re covering the CD-7 race, most of your listeners aren’t in CD-7 , they’re wondering, ‘Why do I care about Coors and Perlmutter?’” Verlee said. “And then if you’re covering a State House race, the vast, vast majority of your listeners are not in that area. We were running stories reminding people why it matters who controls the Legislature next time. So if you’re uncomfortable with legal recognition for gay unions, and you’re Republican, you might want to get out and help your candidate. If you want civil unions, and you’re a Democrat, you might want to go out and help your candidate. There were things we could say–’This is why you need to pay attention to your local races.’ And we actually interviewed Ernest Luning from the Statesman who was doing really great coverage of the State House races and we linked to his website.”

Twitter’s Impact

All four reporters on the panel, which was moderated by Diane Carman, Communications Director for the University of Colorado Denver’s School of Public Affairs, said Twitter has had a major impact on their reporting, and they expect this to continue.

“Twitter allows you to be in different places at once,” said Associated Press reporter Ivan Moreno. “It can be a huge distraction, but it’s a huge benefit. I could not live without it as a reporter.

“It makes us into a team,” said Verlee, agreeing with Moreno. “Nobody could be everywhere at once. It makes reporters from competing outlets each other’s eyes and ears.”

“I saw a couple times this year where [a story] wouldn’t have been such a big deal on our station had it not blown up on Twitter,” said CBS4′s Shaun Boyd.

Boyd cited her interview with Mitt Romney, whose staff told Boyd not to ask questions about abortion issues. Boyd and others at CBS4 didn’t think much of this, because preconditions to interviews are not unheard of, she said.

“When that went up on Twitter, I was stunned,” Boyd said. “I was hauled into the news director’s office. And the head of communications for Romney’s campaign was on the phone. And suddenly I have to totally change how I’m telling this story. I mean, [the precondition] becomes the story. And I felt that the only reason it became the story that day was because it blew up on Twitter.”

Partisan Pressure

None of the journalists on the panel, which would have included The Denver Post’s Politics Editor Chuck Plunkett, had he not gotten sick this morning, claimed to be influenced much by angry partisans who think journalists are biased.

“You know what’s funny, it’s gotten to a point where people get angry and see things as biased, it doesn’t impact me at all,” said Stokols. “The person it impacts, is the person leveling that charge. What that is, writ large, is a certain type of person, and they exist on both sides, who doesn’t want to live outside of that bubble, that idea bubble, that thought bubble, [because] it doesn’t fit the way they see the world. It’s a biased reporter. It’s a skewed poll. It’s dismissed. You can only insulate yourself from reality for so long.”

“If you look at the news that makes you uncomfortable, it will make you more effective, whether you are a campaign or volunteer,” he said. “If you just look at the stuff you like to digest, then the rude awakening is not far away.”

Journalists’ Bias

All four journalists on the panel, which was jointly sponsored by the Independence Institute, the University of Colorado Denver’s School of Public Affairs, and my own BigMedia.org, rejected the notion, presented by an audience member, that journalists should state their biases openly, rather than act as if they have no opinions, and strive to be fair and accurate, as expected according to modern standards of professional journalism.

“If you are involved in a court case, and you go before a judge, and you know all of his biases, which everyone has, but you then realize they are unfavorable to you, you would have the perception that you would get an unfair trial,” said AP’s Moreno. “I think it’s the same with journalism. With us, it’s not that we don’t have personal opinions, but I think we need to be objective and maintain public trust. If we expressed our opinions, people would question, much more so, our facts that we report and our objectivity.”


Full story: Denver reporters say 2012 presidential race drowned out coverage of local races

Winners and Losers of 2012: Losers

After a few days of reflection, here is our list of losers from the 2012 election cycle in Colorado. Find our list of winners here.

1. Mitt Romney and Colorado Advisors

Mitt Romney’s campaign efforts in Colorado never made much sense to us. Romney spent far too long early in the campaign visiting traditionally beet-red, but more importantly under-populated areas of the state, allowing the battle for suburban votes to shift toward President Barack Obama. Some 85% of Colorado voters live along the Front Range between Ft. Collins and Pueblo, which we would think is fairly common knowledge at this point. At one point at the end of the summer, Romney had gone more than 30 days between visits to our state.

Later, Romney made a disastrous mistake by declaring himself opposed to the wind power production tax credit, which is tied to thousands of manufacturing jobs in Colorado–even though almost all Republicans in the state supported it. By the time Romney began to “Etch-a-Sketch” himself into a moderate candidate for the general election, he had already radicalized himself in the eyes of too many Colorado voters. Once that was done, his attempts to walk back from the hard-right positions he took in the primary looked disingenuous and fed distrust.

But above all, Republican supporters of Romney in Colorado disastrously internalized their own spin, and convinced themselves that polls showing Obama steadily regaining, then holding his lead in Colorado from mid-October onward were “skewed.” This false sense of security, combined with the Obama campaign’s world-beating field campaign, yanked the rug out from under Romney’s feet in a state that consistently ranked as one of the most competitive.

2. Frank McNulty

Outgoing Colorado House Speaker Frank McNulty will go down in history as one of the most divisive, Machiavellian, and ultimately self-destructive leaders in the history of the state. Taking a one-seat majority in 2010 by the barest of electoral margins, McNulty acted as if this was a mandate for the “Tea Party.” Abusing and manipulating legislative rules to an extent nobody we know can remember a match for, McNulty ruthlessly carried out a partisan, obstructionist game plan in the House against the Democratic Senate and Governor’s office.

But McNulty’s arrogance was his own undoing. McNulty lost control of the legislative reapportionment process through his own bad faith, resulting in maps that dramatically reduced the number of “safe” seats for either party. Then McNulty turned the 2012 legislative session into a nationwide controversy when he shut down debate just before civil unions legislation would have passed his chamber with bipartisan support.

As a result, outside money poured into key legislative races, and Democrats used the story of the shutdown of the legislature against Republican House candidates all over the state. Today, not even a candidate for GOP House minority leadership, the implosion of Frank McNulty’s political career is pretty much complete.

3. Angry, Knee-Jerk Politics

Republicans were given yet another bruising lesson in the folly of embracing extreme and controversial stands on wedge issues in a moderate swing state. One of the best examples of this was the response by Republicans in the Colorado State Senate to the battle over birth control coverage as part of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). First, Sen. Greg Brophy willingly inserted himself into that debate by crudely insulting Sandra Fluke in defense of radio shock-jock Rush Limbaugh. Later, Senate Republicans held a rally on the steps of the Capitol likening birth control coverage to Nazis, genocide, and even King Henry VIII.

Despite problems with the mainstream media failing to cover these antics, advocacy groups and others, working with the Obama campaign with essentially the same message, were able to demonstrate a “War on Women” continuum between the national issue of women’s reproductive health and local Republican politicians. This amplified and localized the damage done via national stories like Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock–and hurt the GOP brand all the way up and down the ticket.

4. Joe Coors, Jr.

Colorado Pols broke the news last December that Joe Coors, Jr. was going to challenge Democrat Ed Perlmutter in CD-7, and we were as confused then as we are now. Why would an independently wealthy guy enjoying retirement want to run for a job where, if successful, he would be a 70-year-old freshman Congressman? It’s one thing to run for the U.S. Senate, as brother Pete Coors did in 2004, because the prize is so much bigger and you don’t have to run for re-election every two years. It’s another thing entirely to run for the House against an incumbent who absolutely destroyed his Republican challenger in 2010 in what was then a Republican wave.

Even die-hard Republicans admitted that Coors didn’t have much of a chance against Perlmutter, but that didn’t stop him from spending millions of dollars of his own money just to get punched in the face by past skeletons. The money, perhaps, isn’t as important to Coors. But the damage to his reputation is permanent. This time last year, how many friends and neighbors knew that Joe had once predicted that the world would end in 2000? How many knew that he listed “Biblical Prophecy” as a hobby on his resume? How many knew that he had lost tens of millions of dollars because he fell for a scam that promised a 75% return on investment each week? There were a lot of Colorado candidates who came out on the losing end on Election Day, but few, if any, lost more than Joe Coors, Jr.

5. Joe Miklosi

Democrats celebrated in the wake of the congressional redistricting process last year, after major changes to congressional maps created at least one major new opportunity for Democrats, while leaving other districts as prime competitive seats up for grabs by good candidates in either party. The new lines for CD-6 were so competitive on paper that both politicos and the press named it as one of the most likely districts to change hands in the country.

But then the actual campaigning began.

State Rep. Joe Miklosi did a good job of coalescing Democrats early and preventing a serious primary challenge, but it quickly became clear that Miklosi was not prepared for a Congressional campaign. His first fundraising numbers were anemic, which is usually a flashing-red light warning; if you can’t put up good numbers with all of the low-hanging fruit in your rolodex, that’s a pretty good indicator of things to come. Fellow Democrats Brandon Shaffer and Sal Pace faced registration numbers far less favorable than CD-6, yet both consistently raised serious money. At the same time, incumbent Republican Rep. Mike Coffman was pulling in big bucks every quarter and putting tremendous distance between himself and Miklosi.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee did its best to try to prop up Miklosi, and Coffman did everything he could to give his seat away. Coffman’s now-infamous “not an American” insult against Obama shook even many of his Republican supporters, and left them questioning whether he could hold on in a race to the center. As it turned out, he didn’t need to worry.

It was telling that Miklosi kept the same slogan (“Not Your Average Joe!”) for his CD-6 race that he had used successfully to win a Democratic primary in his State House seat four years earlier. Miklosi and his top staffers made odd errors and took a long time trying to find a message; in the first story about his campaign in the Denver Post, Miklosi named in-state tuition for illegal immigrants as a top priority, which is an odd thing to try to push in your first story as a likely candidate. By the end of this summer, he seemed to have settled on calling out Coffman for “Rush Limbaugh-style politics,” which really only makes sense to a partisan audience.

But Miklosi’s biggest error was perhaps the most inexcusable. Miklosi couldn’t win this race first and foremost because voters didn’t know who he was…and the campaign knew that. Nevertheless, Miklosi’s campaign spent 90% of its time attacking Coffman and did very little to increase his name ID, even though polling and common sense (this was essentially a new district, with voters unfamiliar with either candidate) dictated otherwise.

While fellow Democrats Shaffer and Pace were also unable to knock out a Republican incumbent, Miklosi’s loss was different. This was a race that a Democrat should have won in 2012.  

6. Mike Coffman

Sure, Coffman won re-election despite running in a district that did not favor his right-wing conservatism, but he lost plenty along the way. With so many Republican losses in recent years, Coffman was the most experienced and well-known GOP elected official in Colorado. But he may have gone as far as he can go politically because of this election cycle.

Coffman hasn’t been shy about wanting to run for U.S. Senate in 2014 against incumbent Democrat Mark Udall, but he may have lost that opportunity with so many self-inflicted wounds in the last 18 months. Whether it was jumping on as the Colorado Chair for the Presidential campaign of Texas Gov. Rick Perry (oops), or sad attempts to dodge a local TV reporter after his claim that President Obama is “not an American” (d’oh), Coffman showed Republican big-wigs and donors that he is too risky of a candidate to support for higher office anytime soon. Coffman was hoping he could ride to an easy re-election in 2012 and take that momentum into a clear GOP nomination as the challenger to Udall. Now? Coffman probably runs for re-election instead, and there’s a very real chance that he’ll lose.

7. Republican donors

A large investment by Republicans into the Colorado House and Senate GOP independent efforts produced perhaps the smallest return on investment since 2004, failing to hold the House as well as failing to increase their Senate delegation. This is important particularly as long-term GOP strategy in the Senate depended on picking up a few seats this year, and more in 2014. Today they’re well behind the pace.

As was the case in 2010, a significant amount of the problem can be traced to a failure by Republicans to properly vet their candidates. We were dumbfounded by the size of some of the skeletons that GOP candidates such as John Enstrom and Brian Watson had in their closets; particularly since in both cases it seemed like Republicans were caught off guard by the allegations. Sometimes things fall through the cracks and problems turn up unexpectedly, but in the case of Enstrom and Watson, a fresh-faced intern could have found these problems in a few hours.

It’s totally unacceptable to miss these kinds of problems early, but it’s even worse to lead with your chin. When McNulty was touting Watson as the GOP’s new “rising star,” he was setting them both up for catastrophic falls.

8. Gov. John Hickenlooper

Gov. John Hickenlooper, elected in 2010 as a Democrat, has proven quite frustrating to base Colorado Democrats–frequently siding with, or at least making big concessions to Republicans, just plain idiotic statements about drinking fracking fluid, and pushing the privatization of state-chartered Pinnacol Assurance over the objections of just about everybody.

It was much easier for Hickenlooper to straddle this fence with a divided legislature. Hickenlooper’s “post-partisanship” has a kind of shallow media appeal, but we don’t think it has been tested in a way that qualifies him for the higher office for which he is widely rumored to have an interest. Hickenlooper’s “bringing people together” approached worked as Denver Mayor (as it should, in a political structure giving the Mayor significant power), and he has tried to keep it up as Governor. But for the first time in his political career, Hick is a Democrat with a fully Democratic controlled General Assembly. He won’t have Republicans to blame for legislation he tries to kill or veto. Hick and his staff are going to have to really be on their toes dealing with legislation during the session, because he’ll have no excuse for vetoing a Democratic bill once it lands on his desk.

9. Eric Sondermann and Floyd Ciruli

Two fixtures in the political pundit circuit in Colorado, consultants Eric Sondermann and Floyd Ciruli, made major mistakes this year in predictions and commentary that hurt their credibility. Ciruli, a former chairman of the Colorado Democratic Party, made a fool of himself for claiming this year that “Democrats had $4 million to Republicans’ $30,000 in 2010, helping stop the Republican national tide in Colorado.”

Ciruli was referring to a widely-discredited story by Karen Crummy of the Denver paper, which claimed that Democrats “outraised Republicans 150-to-1″ in 2010. In truth, Crummy was only counting so-called independent expenditure committees, generally ignoring 527s, 501(c)4 groups, and so many others who most certainly spend money on elections…without disclosure. Crummy at least briefly noted that there was other kinds of money in play, but Ciruli didn’t even manage that. For someone who represents himself as an expert, claiming that Democrats had this kind of cash advantage in 2010 is nothing short of ludicrous.

Consultant Eric Sondermann likewise made predictions about this year’s elections that were not only wrong, but revealed a significant lack of understanding of the situation on the ground. Two years ago, Sondermann predicted there was no way Michael Bennet could win based on Bennet’s standing with men, only to watch as Bennet’s 17-point advantage with women propelled him to victory.

Last month, on the very same day that Obama regained a national advantage in polling, Sondermann predicted that Mitt Romney’s “momentum” would carry him to a win. In both of these predictions on the top of the ticket in both elections, Sondermann summoned up all his mad pundit skills–and picked the loser. Now Sondermann told Jason Salzman afterward that he was pressured to make a call when we believed it was a “tossup.” We’d say you should always make the call you believe is true. Even the most partisan of politicos was at least suspicious that Romney had real momentum.

In both cases, we think it’s time reporters broaden their pool of talking heads.


Full story: Winners and Losers of 2012: Losers

The Fall of the GOP: Silence is Stupid

(Another take on the topic of the day. – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)



I recently posted this tweet on Twitter: “Memo to 2014 Dem candidates: Ask your GOP opponent his/her opinion on rape and forced birth. Your win will be assured.” It was retweeted quite a few times. And I honestly think it is a great idea. Look what happened to Akin, Mourdock, and Roger “some girls rape so easy” Rivard.

There is a recurring theme among the GOP, from Ann Coulter to Jane Norton and, most recently, Mario Nicolais (in a Lynn Bartels article) that “nobody wants to talk about social issues. They’re not important. The economy is important.” This election proved them wrong. More than 7 million women voted than in 2008. This was due in a large part to Planned Parenthood’s “Women Are Watching” campaign, and organizations such as Emily’s List. And, especially, an incumbent President who supported both reproductive freedom and equal pay for women.  

The GOP’s harsh party platform and the unprecedented amount of anti-women legislation both proposed and passed in 2011 and 2012 was unacceptable to many, many people. The GOP simply refuses to admit that reproductive freedom IS a “pocketbook issue.” Deciding when, if, and how many children to have is an economic issue. To pretend otherwise is foolish beyond belief. And yet the GOP persists in trying to restrict abortion and contraceptive access.

For young women in particular, an unplanned pregnancy can derail, or even end, educational and career plans. Young women need to decide what is right for them. Some old dinosaur of a legislator has no right to force HIS decision upon her. The GOP just doesn’t GET that.

Married women, too, like to plan their families. The GOP has NO business interfering with the relationships between doctors and patients, or with employers and employees regarding contraceptive coverage. Who really cares about their employer’s “moral conscience”? Not I. And if it would interfere with my personal family planning decisions, I would be nothing short of outraged.

So the GOP “doesn’t like to talk about these things”? Maybe it’s time to examine why, and admit that these policies, created to pander to a small but noisy extremist fringe, have failed. The GOP needs to understand that the US is not, never will be, and was never intended to be a “Christian Nation.” There is much more diversity. The views of the Christian Right have no place in politics. Separation of Church and State, remember?

The GOP can hardly expect to continue sneakily trying to pass garbage, like Chris Holbert’s insane attempt to attach an anti-abortion measure to the bi-partisan budget, and not get soundly smacked for it. Women ARE watching, and we DID “Remember in November.” So did the men who love and respect us. And we will again, in 2014 and 2016, until the anti-choice dinosaurs are gone.

And good luck pandering to Latinos and LGBT people. I was utterly revolted by Frank McNulty’s shenanigans over civil unions last year, and am beyond thrilled that Mark Ferrandino is the new Speaker. He will be excellent :) The Latino vote pushed Colorado blue :) Why? The harsh GOP rhetoric. In closing, I leave you with this: http://www.dailykos.com/story/…


Full story: The Fall of the GOP: Silence is Stupid

A list of the best political journalism in Colorado so far this election cycle

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Compared to the 2010 election in Colorado, this one has been mostly a snoozer, journalistically.

But the 2010 election wasn’t really an election. It was a dramatic comedy show, with so many stories to tell and scandals to uncover that journalists almost couldn’t help but be stars.

Still, reporters have turned out some excellent work this time around, and I’ve listed my favorite reporting below.  I’m hoping to see more great work in the next few weeks, but this list is inspiring…



9News Kyle Clark: “Coffman won’t explain Obama ‘not an American’ comments” Rather than let Coffman hide, Clark went out and found him.

Fox 31′s Eli Stokols:FOX31 Denver goes one-on-one with Paul Ryan” Stokols shows how an informed journalist can challenge a candidate’s spin.

The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels and Tim Hoover: “Anarchy, chaos behind Colorado civil unions bill may have long-lasting effects” They dug deep to show, among other things, how the upcoming election influenced the legislative debate on civil unions.

The Denver Post’s Tim Hoover: “Noncitizen ID’d fraction of those first alleged by Gessler” No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, to understand Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s behavior and priorities, you have to understand the blizzard of numbers Gessler tosses around. Hoover did a great job clarifying Gessler’s figures in this piece.

Associated Press’ Ivan Moreno: “Voter Purges Turn Up Little Evidence Of Fraud Despite Republican Insistence” Like Hoover, Moreno gets to the heart of the voter “fraud” issue by looking at the details.

Fox 31′s Eli Stokols: “Colo. girl registering ‘only Romney’ voters tied to firm dumped by RNC over fraud” Stokols quickly connected the dots from Colorado to a scandal that was developing nationally.

CBS4′s Shaun Boyd: “Romney Loses Cool When Questioned About Marijuana, Gay Marriage” Boyd keeps her cool and sticks to her questions even as Romney flips out.

KBNO radio host Fernando Sergio’s interview with President Obama, which makes the list because Sergio almost certainly got the first interview with a sitting president on Spanish language radio in Colorado.

Colorado Statesman’s Judy Hope Strogoff: “Perry campaigns with friends in Colorado” I love this scoop, with the photos. An illuminating piece showing political poobahs in a different setting.

The Denver Post’s John Ingold: “GOP’s VP candidate, Paul Ryan, emphasizes contrast with Obama’s vision” I like how Ingold gets at the candidate’s underlying view of government, as he reports on a campaign stop.

Local TV news fact checkers Shaun Boyd (CBS4), Matt Flener (9News), Brandon Rittiman (9News), and (sometimes) Marshall Zellinger (7News). I don’t always agree with them, but what they do is really important, especially on local TV.


Full story: A list of the best political journalism in Colorado so far this election cycle

$100,000 Radio Ad Buy Thwacks Colorado House GOP


Can’t see the audio player? Click here.

It’s been playing heavily on local radio for a few days now, but we didn’t want this significant radio ad buy to escape mention. FOX 31′s Eli Stokols reported last week:

“Earlier this year Republican leadership recklessly shut down the legislature and stopped working, refusing even to debate more than 30 important bills,” the ad’s voice-over says. “Including measures that would have lowered taxes on small businesses, would have improved public safety, and would have invested in water projects critical to Colorado farmers and Colorado jobs. Why did the Republicans quit on Colorado?”

…Of course, it’s not McNulty these groups are going after – it’s his one seat GOP majority that’s on the line this November.

Paid for by the Campaign for a Strong Colorado (a group some of you will remember from the 2010 U.S. Senate race and more recent pushback against Scott Gessler), this ad campaign takes a whack at Republican Colorado House leadership–and by extension the whole caucus–for “shutting down the legislature” at the end of this year’s legislative session.

This ad is interesting in that, although it concerns the shutdown of the legislature last session over the civil unions bill, it doesn’t actually mention civil unions–being more focused on the other legislation that Republicans jeopardized in their zeal to kill civil unions before it could receive majority support in a GOP-held chamber. Republicans are singling out this “omission” in their defense, but the fact is, civil unions is supported by a lopsided majority of the public, and was supported by a majority in the GOP-controlled House when it was killed.

In fact, we’d suggest more people know the civil unions part of this story than all the other parts. The noncontroversial legislation killed by the GOP in the battle over civil unions absolutely should evoke broader anger than simply killing civil unions, with or without the overwhelming public support–or at least push voters to evaluate the choices made by GOP leadership last May.

One thing’s certain, this is not the framing of the debate that Frank McNulty would prefer.


Full story: 0,000 Radio Ad Buy Thwacks Colorado House GOP

Coram vs. Coram in HD-58?

This fascinating possibility comes to us via the Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby:

Democrats are trying to recruit the gay son of a Republican lawmaker who was a swing vote against a civil unions bill to challenge his father in his re-election bid this fall.

The son, 45-year-old Dee Coram, made international news in May when his father, state Rep. Don Coram, R-Montrose, cast the swing vote in a Colorado House committee against creating civil unions for gay and lesbian couples…

Dee Coram, who operates a coffee shop in Montrose, later spoke to several national media outlets about the controversial issue, saying he was disappointed in his father’s vote.

Now, Democrats in the heavily Republican House District 58, which stretches from Montrose County to the Four Corners, are trying to talk Dee Coram into replacing its nominated candidate, Gregory Thornton, who chose late last month to drop out after he decided to take a job in Aurora.

“It would be an interesting race if Dee Coram were to jump in,” Montrose County Democratic Party Chairwoman Jayne Bilberry said…

The first thing we would remind readers of is Rep. Don Coram and his son Dee Coram, by all accounts, have a good relationship that wasn’t endangered by the younger Coram’s criticism of the elder Coram’s vote last spring against the civil unions bill. We’ve heard nothing to suggest that’s changed. As heated as the debate over this issue often becomes, that’s pretty cool.

House District 58 leans heavily Republican, so any challenger to Rep. Coram faces an uphill battle. Certainly a father-vs.-son election battle over a hot issue would raise the profile of what might otherwise be an uninteresting race, but despite the news camera appeal of such a race, we can’t say with confidence either way how the actual voters of HD-58 would receive this. We think the answer to that question would depend heavily on the tenor of the campaign.

If they can keep it amicable, it could be a lot of fun to watch whatever the outcome.


Full story: Coram vs. Coram in HD-58?

Conspiracy Theory, Colorado House Republican Style

Statesman columnist and former Colorado legislator Miller Hudson writes about the recent would-be “Star Chamber” proceeding orchestrated by Republicans on the Joint Budget Committee and GOP House leadership to hector Metro State University about their decision to create an affordable category of tuition for undocumented students from Colorado.

For the second time in less than a month, a Republican legislator has expressed their suspicion that Colorado’s leaders are actively colluding with the White House for the express purpose of embarrassing them. It’s enough to make you break out your copy of Richard Hofstader’s famous 1963 essay, The Paranoid Style of American Politics…

This past week Joint Budget Committee Chairwoman Cheri Gerou scheduled a hearing in the old Supreme Court Chambers at the Capitol for the purpose of grilling Metro State President Steve Jordan regarding the decision by his governing board to offer a preferential tuition rate to immigrant students who would be eligible for participation in the federal Dream Act or its Colorado equivalent, the ASSET bill, if either were ever to be approved. She and several of her GOP colleagues were anxious to flog both Metro and Jordan for their audacious usurpation of legislative authority. This Star Chamber proceeding was justified under the guise of a flimsy concern that this policy might negatively affect state budget outlays.

Gerou is a legislator whose self regard visibly swells behind a microphone. She launched her explanation of the hearing’s objective with a snarky remark about Jordan’s recent trip to Washington, D.C., by observing, “…I understand you visited with the President at the White House on Monday?” Jordan promptly corrected her by pointing out that the President was in Los Cabos attending the G-20 meeting, [Pols emphasis] although he gave as good as he got by adding that he would have been delighted to have participated in such a meeting. Gerou was clearly knocked off balance, and stumbled ahead with a lame attempt to link Obama’s announcement the previous Friday that the Department of Homeland Security (INS) would no longer enforce the deportation of students who met the Dream Act criteria with Metro’s decision. It was obvious Gerou could not accept the possibility that Jordan’s visit to Washington was merely a coincidence.

As Miller points out, the same far-fetched conspiracy theorizing prevailed when Speaker Frank McNulty accused Gov. John Hickenlooper of coordinating his call for a special session to deal with civil unions with Barack Obama’s campaign–as if Hickenlooper or Obama could have known that McNulty was going to short-circuit a majority in his own chamber to prevent civil unions from coming up for a vote. In Metro President Stephen Jordan’s case, the “visit to the White House” he was accused of could be debunked by reading the national news.

The first rule of conspiracy theories is they shouldn’t be this debunkable. Next time, Republicans, try space aliens! Nobody can ever disprove aliens appearing out of nowhere on a dark highway to coordinate the nefarious plans of Democrats, with everyone’s favorite icon of alien “coordination,” the anal probe. Bigfoot might work in a pinch, but aliens would naturally be smarter than Bigfoot, more capable of nefariousness–like George Soros himself.

Try it at home, it’s fun!


Full story: Conspiracy Theory, Colorado House Republican Style

In Case You Missed It: “Fight Back Colorado”

FOX 31′s Eli Stokols reported on this last week, and we wanted to ensure it’s noted:

If you thought civil unions had an outsized impact on a few of Tuesday’s statehouse primaries, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

On Wednesday, liberal activists and donors announced the launch of a new group that will work specifically to target state lawmakers who opposed and twice helped kill civil unions legislation in May.

In short, Tim Gill, the gay millionaire responsible for bankrolling much of Colorado’s infrastructure of progressive political action groups, isn’t wasting time, helping fund the new group Fight Back Colorado, modeled on Fight Back New York, the political action committee that spent $800,000 and successfully removed anti-gay marriage incumbents from office, paving the way for the bill’s passage by the New York state legislature last year.

“I’m no meteorologist but it’s going to be raining rainbow money in Colorado,” one pro-civil unions activist told FOX31 Denver Wednesday. [Pols emphasis]

We discussed wealthy pro-LGBT philanthropist Tim Gill’s personal interest in the passage of civil unions legislation this year, evidenced in part by his sitting in on hearings on the legislation. It was widely speculated after the bill’s failure that Gill would invest heavily to ensure Republicans who subverted the will of their own chamber’s majority pay a price in November.

This would then be the vehicle for making them pay.


Full story: In Case You Missed It: “Fight Back Colorado”