Category Archives: Immigration

The Return of “Juan a Be the Luchador!”

24
  by: Colorado Pols Tue October 9, 2012 at 1:30 AM MDT

UPDATE: This one is developing rapidly: in addition to running for the Colorado legislature as a Republican in 2010, Edgar Antillon, according to sources, currently serves as the Adams County chair of the Romney campaign’s Latino outreach effort Juntos con Romney! Neither of these seemingly very important facts made it into Sunday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story below, which bills Antillon only as “a manager at a Denver security firm” upset about immigration.

Short of a very good explanation, this story looks pretty seriously misrepresented.

—–

We were greatly amused to read this story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s James O’Toole, writing Sunday about the aftermath of recent presidential campaigning in this state–specifically, efforts by Mitt Romney’s campaign to “court swing voters in Colorado.”

Mike Melanson, a political consultant and former executive director of the state Democratic Party, said Mr. Romney added to his challenge in the state’s Hispanic community with the tough line on immigration he took on the way to winning the nomination.

Nationally, surveys show that Mr. Obama leads Mr. Romney by the daunting margin of 70 percent to 30 percent. But Mr. Melanson cautioned that there is no such thing as a monolithic Hispanic vote.

Edgar Antillon, a manager at a Denver security firm, proves his point. [Pols emphasis] Mr. Antillon was among those cheering [Sen. Marco Rubio] at the Romney rally. He criticized Mr. Obama for failing to follow through on his 2008 pledge to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Mr. Antillon, whose parents emigrated from Mexico three decades ago, acknowledged that the president retained strong support in the Mexican-American community.

“For us growing up, it was ingrained in you that the Democrats were for the poor, the minorities; the Republicans for the rich, for the whites,” he said. “It’s hard to get beyond those stereotypes.”

But he said the state of the economy was changing attitudes. “The No. 1 issue used to be immigration, but not so much this election,” he said. “Now, the No. 1 issue for Hispanics is jobs.”

Not that we wanted to clutter up Mr. O’Toole’s story, but we’re obligated to note the Edgar Antillon interviewed here, portrayed as some kind of disaffected Latino voter upset about immigration reform, was in fact the Republican candidate for Colorado House District 35 in 2010 running against incumbent Cherilyn Peniston. Antillon was one of a number of legislative candidates we discussed as part of the 2010 “crooks and criminals” expose, including arrests on two counts of felony impersonation in 2004, and over a dozen failure-to-appear charges for missing court dates. And as you may recall, Antillon drew special attention for a series of Youtube videos he filmed under the pseudonym “Juan a Be the Luchador,” which consisted of Antillon firing off various assault weapons while wearing a Mexican wrestling mask (right).

Bottom line: it’s not the first time a ringer has posed as a “concerned citizen.” There are examples on all sides of this, from Obama’s “former Republicans” in ads to “Democrats for Romney.” We’re not going to assert one side is really worse than the other.

But “Juan a Be the Luchador,” a memorable former GOP candidate, is an extra bad ringer.


Full story: The Return of “Juan a Be the Luchador!”

CO Springs newspaper slams Republicans for applauding anti-Hispanic talk-radio hosts

3
  by: Jason Salzman Tue October 9, 2012 at 12:44 AM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



For all the impact conservative talk radio seems to have on the Colorado GOP, you rarely hear about it in the legacy media.

So I was glad to see the Colorado Springs Gazette, in an editorial published today by Wayne Laugesen, cite talk radio, specifically, as a player in the formulation and dessemination of Republican opinion in our state.

Laugesen, who’s a conservative by anyone’s measure, wrote:

Politics of exclusion lead to political extinction. If Colorado becomes a blue  state, Republicans should remember applauding those talk radio hosts who mocked Latinos while inciting immigration hysteria. They should recall taking pride in denying innocent young immigrants access to educations. If Republicans lose  Colorado, they should look in the mirror.

Yeah!

But is it the Republicans’ applause that eggs on the radio hosts?

Or is it the talk show hosts, backed by right-wing activists, who demand the applause, or else the Republicans won’t get the stamp of approval from the talk-radio hosts?

I think it’s the latter.

So I’d like to see Laugesen join me in calling them out more often. Next time Laugesen hears a righty talker “inciting immigration hysteria,” I hope we hear from Laugesen.

Doing so might be one of the best things he can do to change the Colorado GOP in the long term.


Full story: CO Springs newspaper slams Republicans for applauding anti-Hispanic talk-radio hosts

Reporters should also take up Coffman’s offer to answer all questions

3
  by: Jason Salzman Mon October 1, 2012 at 10:38 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Mike Coffman told The Denver Post’s Kurtis Lee over the weekend that Coffman himself will  provide “very specific” answers to any question from his constituents.

As the people’s representatives, reporters should throw queries to Coffman, as well, because the Congressman’s record has yet to be fully aired out in the Denver media, possibly because just three months ago he was ducking not only journalists but friendly talk radio hosts.

Here are a few questions for Coffman:

If Coffman is a true believer in Social Security, as he says he is, why does Coffman repeatedly call it a Ponzi scheme, which is a criminal enterprise?

In light of Coffman’s position in favor of banning abortion in the case of rape and incest, with no exceptions, what would Coffman say to a teen girl who wants an abortion after being raped by her brother?

And what does Coffman have to say to women who use common birth control, like the IUD, that would be banned by personhood amendments, which Coffman  endorsed in 2008 and 2010?

Does Coffman still think the Arizona immigration law is an “understandable response” to illegal immigration, now that the law has been struck down by the Supreme Court?

Why does Coffman oppose the Dream Act, which would help high-achieving children of illegal immigrants to attend college and give them a path to citizenship?

Does Coffman still think Obama is rushing “illegal” immigrants onto the voting rolls to influence the November election?

Why does Coffman think that too big a deal was made of his comment that Obama is not an American “in his heart” and too big  a deal  was also made of his statement that he doesn’t know if Obama was “born in the United States of America.”

Why did Coffman’s website call his private meetings at large corporations, like Home Depot and LabCorp, “town hall meetings?”

What is it about the flat tax that makes it have, in Coffman’s words, “tremendous value?”  The taxing groceries part?

Why did Coffman vote in 2011 for the first Ryan Budget, which would have eliminated Medicare as an insurance option and would have forced seniors to choose among private insurance options? (The 2012 Ryan budget allowed seniors to choose from private insurance plans AND Medicare. But the 2011 version, which Coffman also voted for, did not.)

Those are just a few samples.

The Post explained how Coffman’s constituents can submit questions, but journalists might just have his cell phone number.


Full story: Reporters should also take up Coffman’s offer to answer all questions

No Love For Gessler Voter Fraud Witch-hunt At FOX

15
  by: Phoenix Rising Tue September 25, 2012 at 12:59 AM MDT

Warning: gmdate() expects parameter 2 to be long, string given in /home/coloradopols/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-polls/wp-polls.php on line 445

( – promoted by ProgressiveCowgirl)



[Major Update]: As I was contemplating this in the solitude of a car drive in the mountains, I realized that FOX might have buried the lede on this story, and that I followed right along…

Did Sec. Gessler induce citizens to unregister as voters? This story was based around the 3903 letters sent out to “potentially illegally registered voters”, of which we Colorado Pols readers know that Gessler claims 141 responses were sent back asking to be voluntarily unregistered. This story mentions that of those 141 responses, 35 voted in past elections, and that the Denver Clerk’s office found that all eight of those voters registered in Denver were citizens.

The FOX story doesn’t note this fact – perhaps because they aren’t sure of the significance of those 141 people. But my read of this is that Secretary of State Gessler through his very well documented actions caused citizens through perhaps misleading or intimidating means to unregister themselves as voters. That could be a Federal no-no.

Surfaced at Google News, from FOX News:

Election Officials Who Vowed War On Voter Fraud Find Little Proof Of It:

Last year, Gessler estimated that 11,805 noncitizens were on the rolls.

But the number kept getting smaller.

After his office sent letters to 3,903 registered voters questioning their status, the number of noncitizens now stands at 141, based on checks using a federal immigration database. Of those 141, Gessler said 35 have voted in the past. The 141 are .004 percent of the state’s nearly 3.5 million voters.

Even those numbers could be fewer.

The Denver clerk and recorder’s office, which had records on eight of the 35 voters who cast ballots in the past, did its own verification and found that those eight people appear to be citizens.



The folks here at Colorado Pols will, of course, find this as no surprise at all.  Secretary of State Gessler’s manufactured crisis, about which he testified in front of Congress, turns out to be nothing but vapor.

Which of course begs the question of Scott Gessler…

What question does it beg?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


Full story: No Love For Gessler Voter Fraud Witch-hunt At FOX

ВЎBonito Bronceado, GГјero!

17
  by: Colorado Pols Fri September 21, 2012 at 3:26 AM MDT

Warning: gmdate() expects parameter 2 to be long, string given in /home/coloradopols/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-polls/wp-polls.php on line 445

Latinos Post:

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s appearance in a forum by Spanish-language network Univision Wednesday night in an effort to attract Latino voters may have backfired on him. Viewers took to social networking sites to complain that Romney had “dyed his face brown” to appeal to Latino voters…

“When I’m president, I will actually do what I promise, I will put in place an immigration reform system that resolves this issue,” he added.

Romney was later asked if he would deport young undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children and he answered, “I’m not going to be rounding people up and deporting them. We’re going to put in place a permanent solution.”

However, much of what the presidential candidate said was overshadowed by his apparent and overly tan face. According HuffPost Latino Politics, left-wing blog called Democratic Underground said that Romney had “dyed his face brown for his Univision interview.”

We feel it’s safest to leave this matter to our readers, guardians of good taste that they are.

A poll also follows.

Do you think Romney intentionally had darker makeup applied for Spanish language television?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


Full story: ВЎBonito Bronceado, GГјero!

Romney son at Hispanic event speaks Spanish but isn’t “much of a policy expert”

2
  by: Jason Salzman Thu September 6, 2012 at 8:25 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Mitt Romney’s son, Craig Romney, was in town Tuesday to meet “with some Latino leaders in the Republican Party, talking about Hispanic support and small business,” as reported by CBS4.

Romney has a “daunting task,” Channel 4 told us, to “pick up votes from the Hispanic community which, in most polls, is vastly in favor of President Obama.”

You wonder whether Craig Romney is up for the job, because, even though he speaks Spanish, he “admits he’s not much of a policy expert.”

“The youngest Romney says it’s his job to hear from voters and take their concerns back to his father,” Jeff Todd reported for Channel 4.

Channel 4 should have asked Craig Romney why his ability to speak Spanish qualifies him to be his father’s “kind-of ambassador,” even though he has little policy expertise. (And it does make you wonder about the criteria his father would use in appointing real ambassadors, if Romney is elected prez.)

But, anyway, Channel 4 did the right thing journalistically and reported the thoughts of someone in the crowd, effectively bypassing the messenger pigeon and finding someone to articulate a concern directly to papa Romney.

Channel 4 reported:

“We talked to a Latino community member at today’s event, and he said he has been contacted by the Romney camp to try to drum up support, but he said what he wants to hear first is true solutions from the candidate about real issues, like true comprehensive immigration reform.”



You can’t blame this guy for wanting to hear directly from the candidate, since the Spanish-speaking ambassador doesn’t know policy.

Media outlets can fill the void by questioning Romney on immigration next time he swings by Colorado.

Meanwhile, to answer the gentleman who spoke  to CBS4, the most impartial observer could not call Romney’s immigration position “comprehensive.”

Nicely summarized here, it’s rooted in border enforcement, opposition to the Dream Act, and in a concept known as “self deportation,” which Romney has described as:

Romney: “The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here.”

One Spanish-language outlet in town, KBNO radio, has been trying to get an interview with Romney, during which comprehensive immigration reform would certainly be discussed.

But unlike Obama, who was interviewed by KBNO’s Fernando Sergio, Romney has yet to appear on the show, despite Colorado GOP chair Ryan Call’s pledge to do his best to land him for Sergio.

With Romney in hiding, at least partially, CBS4 made the right move in covering his son, who, did I mention, speaks Spanish! But now we need to hear more about Romneys actual immigration positions, such as they are.


Full story: Romney son at Hispanic event speaks Spanish but isn’t “much of a policy expert”

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

Inside Scott Gessler’s Epic Fail

16
  by: Colorado Pols Sat September 1, 2012 at 6:50 PM MDT

As the story unfolded of Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s latest attempt to uncover what he has consistently claimed are “thousands” of illegally registered noncitizen voters on the state’s rolls–just the latest iteration of a quest that has dominated Gessler’s agenda for over a year and a half now–we’ve been very careful to not characterize what he was doing as a “major threat” to Colorado’s elections. We’ve warned Democrats to be careful not to make sweeping statements about Gessler’s actions, and to wait for the results before passing judgment.

And as it turns out, we were right. If it was ever his goal, Gessler surely hasn’t succeeded in effectively suppressing the vote, or even the secondary goal of frightening conservative voters out of complacence by presenting evidence of a threat to election integrity.

Gessler hasn’t succeeded at any of those alleged objectives. What he has done is make a colossal fool of himself, proving that all these months of fixation on rooting out “illegal voters” has been a waste of time–while helping solidify opposition from Hispanic voters against the GOP ahead of a critical presidential election. AP’s Ivan Moreno via the Huffington Post:

Sixteen of nearly 4,000 Colorado registered voters who received letters questioning their citizenship have voluntarily withdrawn from voting rolls, state election officials said Thursday.

The figures released by Republican Secretary of State Scott Gessler drew criticism that the small number casts further doubt on the merits of Gessler’s investigation and contention that non-citizens are on voter lists and casting ballots…

His office also said 177 of 1,400 names checked through a federal immigration database are pending verification of citizenship. Election officials want to hold hearings to challenge those whose citizenship is still in doubt.

Gessler’s office said that means one out of eight is “trending as non-citizens.”

The statement brought a sharp rebuke from Mark Grueskin, an attorney who represents Democrats on election issues.

“That’s a ridiculous statement. You either are or you aren’t a citizen. You can’t trend that way,” Grueskin said. “More importantly, the secretary still can’t say how many, if any, non-citizens actually voted in Colorado elections. He has a choice: Come up with facts he can defend in court, or end this suspicion-laden inquiry.” [Pols emphasis]

First of all, there is absolutely no question that the lack of results from this latest action, coming after years of Gessler spreading suspicions of a major problem without hard evidence, marks a catastrophic loss of credibility for the most openly partisan Secretary of State in Colorado history. To have only sixteen noncitizens* voluntarily remove themselves from the rolls in response to nearly 4,000 letters, none of whom as of this writing are alleged to have actually voted, is an unjustifiably tiny result relative to the huge controversy of challenging all of these voters.

Gessler’s checks against the Homeland Security immigrant registration database revealed that, as we have argued from the beginning, the overwhelming majority of those checked had indeed become citizens during the intervening period–just as thousands of Colorado residents become citizens each year. This database required more data than Gessler had in many cases, so only about 1,400 were checked against it. But the results clearly indicate that that nearly all of these 4,000 letters challenging citizenship were sent to perfectly legal U.S. citizens and rightly registered voters. Even worse, Gessler could have eliminated many of these challenge letters before they were ever sent, simply by waiting to get access to this federal database.

Instead, Gessler forged ahead with his dragnet letters. And instead of uncovering an actual threat to election integrity, for thousands of new U.S. citizens, he became the threat. The damaging media coverage that Gessler’s actions have received has energized and mobilized far more Democratic voters–Hispanic and otherwise–than this was ever worth to Republicans in terms of either base messaging or actual vote suppression. As we have consistently believed would be the case, after all these months of agitation and scare tactics, Gessler has uncovered a “problem” much smaller than so many other factors that routinely and uncontroversially affect election results. A tiny fraction, just as one example, of the thousands of ballots Gessler himself unsuccessfully tried to stop from going out to legal, registered “inactive failed to vote” voters.

If there is an enemy of free and fair elections in Colorado, Gessler has met it. And it is himself.

Fortunately, he doesn’t appear to be very good at it.


Full story: Inside Scott Gessler’s Epic Fail

The GOP’s False Claim of ‘Significant Strides’ with Hispanic Voters

5
  by: Michael Lund Fri August 31, 2012 at 6:21 PM MDT

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



by Michael Lund

Ryan Call appeared on an ABC interview Wednesday from the Republican National Convention in Tampa, commenting on Colorado’s status as a swing state in this November’s general election, and highlighting Hispanic, women, and young voters’ key role in deciding who gets the nine electoral votes at stake.

Call acknowledges that candidate Mitt Romney needs to do “appreciably better among Latinos” than McCain in 2008 in order to win Colorado.  He said:

“We are making significant strides within those members of our community. The issues of entrepreneurship, about creating opportunities for education, and especially as it relates to the current status of the economy and jobs, that’s the contrast that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan bring to the table versus the failed record of Barak Obama.”

The question that immediately springs to mind is, “Is the GOP making ‘significant strides’ among Hispanic voters?”

And if, as I suspected, he might be wrong, why didn’t the journalists interviewing call him on the inaccuracy?

My analysis of polling among Hispanics suggests that Call might be a little overly optimistic.  While McCain garnered 31 percent of the Latino vote in 2008 (Obama came in with 67 percent), a Gallup poll from June 24, 2012 shows Romney with only 25 percent of the registered Hispanic vote (Obama with 66 percent) – a drop of 6 points from four years ago.  That’s a drop of 6 percent, hardly “significant strides”.  In an even more recent survey from NBC/Wall Street Journal/Telemundo (August 22, 2012), 65 percent of Latino voters plan to back Obama compared to 25 percent for Romney.  That’s not good news for Call or Romney, no matter how you try and spin it.

If ABC News didn’t know that polling data contradicted Ryan Call’s contention, they could have asked him to substantiate his claim.

If they had, Call would have had a hard time reconciling his efforts to attract Hispanics with the polling data available to him and everyone else with access to Google.

Back in April of this year, in an article from The Denver Post, Call acknowledged the uphill battle, saying, “We will work to do much better.” He qualified this by saying that, typically, the GOP party ‘s real efforts to recruit Hispanic voters come later in the election cycle.

So now, with 65 days left until the election, I’m wondering about a couple of things.  First, how “late in the cycle” is too late in the cycle for the GOP’s Latino surge to materialize and show substantive results in the measure everyone’s watching, namely, the polls.

Second, where has the GOP gone wrong?  What does the polling data suggest about each party’s successes and failures in securing Hispanic support and votes, especially here in Colorado?

Maybe I can shed a little light for ABC News journalists covering the RNC convention and reporters everywhere.

In the past six months, Colorado’s GOP chairman Ryan Call has appeared on Spanish-language radio, Solomon Martinez and Pauline Olvera from Colorado Hispanic Republicans have made their pitches on the talk radio circuit, and celebrity Hispanic politicians from both sides have been paraded and promoted in front of cheering partisans at public events, most notably and recently at the GOP convention. The GOP has deployed Latino outreach directors in many states and implemented social media strategies.

In those efforts, the generalized GOP message has been coordinated and consistent: Hispanic voters are actually Republicans who are not yet enlightened enough to know it (see Susana Martinez’s speech to the GOP convention), jobs and the economy are the basket in which to place all your eggs, and that the Republican platform promoting values such as faith, family, freedom and free market is all that is needed to convert traditionally Democratic Hispanics and recruit them to the big tent of the GOP.

Call, in his ABC interview from the convention, offered only a slightly enhanced version of that message, by acknowledging “opportunities for education” as part of the GOP pitch to Hispanic voters.

Hispanic voters have consistently rated jobs and the economy as the most important issue affecting their decision as voters in this election, over other issues such as education and immigration.

But the spiel on the campaign trail doesn’t get much more nuanced than calls for unchaining the private sector and reducing the regulatory burden.  Apparently, that generalized message hasn’t paid off.

In addition to the overriding jobs issue, education is clearly an issue Hispanics care about, but the Republicans haven’t been able to capitalize. Besides being co-opted on many K-12 policy innovations involving accountability, choice, and charters, the Colorado GOP has acquired an obstructionist image in their handling of policies which directly engage sectors of the Hispanic community.

One example of “education policy as political opportunity” was the ASSET tuition bill in Colorado (as well as the previous five similar bills presented to legislatures over the past decade, which would have made college more affordable for undocumented students who qualify).

Call told FOX31 Denver last April that he was “disappointed” that House Republicans killed the bill in committee.  I’d be disapointed, too, considering the opportunity it presented for engaging the Hispanic community.  And remember, this was a measure that had broad support. Seven newspapers, seven school boards, six chambers of commerce, ten organizations that represent k-12, eight institutions of higher education, five local governments, twelve faith based organizations and tens of thousands of individuals and organizations endorsed ASSET.

Then, earlier this summer, when media attention was piqued around Metropolitan State University of Denver’s decision to institute a new tuition rate for undocumented students, Republicans missed another opportunity. Instead of engaging Hispanics by debating merits and implications of the bill, Colorado Republican legislators challenged the move by Metro’s Board of Regents, and called on Governor Hickenlooper to block the measure.  They grumbled about collusion among Democrats, perhaps justifiably so, but in doing so lost the opportunity portray themselves as proactive problem solvers and representatives of the broader Hispanic community.

Immigration, another issue rated as less important than jobs and the economy to Hispanic voters in polling has proven to be similar lesson in lost opportunity for Republicans.  Obama’s executive order of Deferred Action for the deportation of qualified minor children of undocumented immigrants engaged the media and boldly addressed an issue undeniably important to Hispanics.  It’s not that all in the Hispanic community universally agree with Obama’s mandate, but it was an acknowledgement and a proactive action to a problem which has long demanded bipartisan solutions.

The Deferred Action mandate could turn out to be a liability to Democrats and a net loss in their electability standings, but it was a vehicle for Obama (and Democrats by proxy) to gain visibility in the Hispanic community and affirm their presence, participation, and importance in America.  Lawmakers who are viewed as obstructionists, along with their supporters, were the losers in this window of opportunity, at least in the short term.

Hispanics’ view of the GOP as obstructionists might also extend to the GOP’s response to another issue important to Hispanic Voters – Healthcare.

Add in the selection of Ryan for Romney’s vice-presidential running mate, and you might be able to make a case charging the GOP with playing to their base of extremists at the expense drawing Hispanic votes. Ryan has voted against the DREAM act and is hostile to other issues Hispanics care about.  Another lost opportunity.

So, with all this behind him, Ryan Call goes on ABC is able to say with a straight face that the GOP is making significant progress convincing Democratic Hispanics that they’re actually Republicans. And he’s not asked to justify it? He’s not asked to explain why his lack of success reflects the lost opportunities?


Full story: The GOP’s False Claim of ‘Significant Strides’ with Hispanic Voters

Mr. Gessler’s vote fraud case is dissolving before our eyes

41
  by: Republican 36 Thu August 30, 2012 at 1:04 AM MDT

(No matter how you feel about Scott Gessler’s quest to purge the voter rolls of a comparatively tiny number of “problem” registrations, it’s not worth the disproportionate damage he’s doing to the GOP brand. This fool’s errand will have electoral consequences, and not the way Gessler had hoped. – promoted by Colorado Pols)



POLS UPDATE: AP’s Ivan Moreno:

State officials were able to run 1,400 of those names through a federal immigration database and found that more than 1,200 were U.S. citizens. So far, they’ve found none who are non-citizens and registered to vote.

Martha Tierney, an attorney for the Colorado Democratic Party, told election officials during a meeting Wednesday that they were wasting their time on a small group of voters instead of focusing on ensuring a fair and accurate fall election. [Pols emphasis]

“This is a witch hunt and you should be embarrassed that you’re going down this road,” she said.

—–

The Denver paper is reporting that SOS Gessler ran 1,400 of 3,900 people he sent lettters to demanding they prove their citizenship through the Homeland Security database and guess what: All but 168 of the individuals turned out to be United States citizens and the SOS staff admitted many of the remaining 168 may very well be citizens.

The first question is why didn’t he run their names through the Homeland Security database before he sent the letters? He could have saved the taxpayers $570.60 in postage. You’d think a good penny pinching conservative Republican would think of that.

The second question and far more important is could it be the remaining 2,500 people who received letters and couldn’t be run through the Homeland Security database because they don’t have alien registration numbers are United States citizens?

Mr. Gessler’s investigation is a farce, at least for the 1,400 people he has investigated so far. This investigation, including checking the Homeland Security database, should have been conducted before any letters were sent to registered voters. His investigation is akin to a prosecutor claiming a murder has been committed but there isn’t a dead body, there aren’t any missing citizens, but he or she goes forward and sends letters to 3,900 people accussing each one of having something to do with the phantom homicide.

If the remaining 2,500 people turn out to be citizens and he didn’t have any evidence before he sent the letter, then we can only conclude that Mr. Gessler is a threat to our consitutional rights.


Full story: Mr. Gessler’s vote fraud case is dissolving before our eyes

Romney Offended by the Guy Who Came Out and Said It

22
  by: ProgressiveCowgirl Mon August 20, 2012 at 9:32 PM MDT

POLS UPDATE: FOX 31′s Eli Stokols drives home the local angle:

Congressman Paul Ryan sponsored House Resolution 3, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act”, which, for a time, included Akin-like language limiting the definition of rape and incest in certain cases as it relates to whether a woman could get an abortion with federal Medicaid funding.

Ryan wasn’t alone.

Three of four Colorado Republicans in Congress also added their names to H.R. 3 as co-sponsors: Congressman Cory Gardner of Yuma, Congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs and Congressman Mike Coffman of Aurora. [Pols emphasis]

Under H.R. 3, Republicans had proposed that the rape exemption be limited to “forcible rape,” effectively ruling out federal assistance for abortions in many rape cases, including instances of statutory rape, many of which are non-forcible…

—–

Mitt Romney is distancing himself from the “legitimate rape” remarks by Missouri candidate for the US Senate, Todd Akin (R-MO).

“Congressman’s Akin comments on rape are insulting, inexcusable and, frankly, wrong,” Romney said. “Like millions of other Americans, we found them to be offensive.”

Source

Oddly enough, Mitt Romney remains somehow unoffended by his running mate, who worked with Akin to introduce the term “forcible rape” to the legislative lexicon last year.


Federal law prevents federal Medicaid funds and similar programs from paying for abortions. Yet the law also contains an exception for women who are raped. The bill Akin and Ryan cosponsored would have narrowed this exception, providing that only pregnancies arising from “forcible rape” may be terminated. Because the primary target of Akin and Ryan’s effort are Medicaid recipients – patients who are unlikely to be able to afford an abortion absent Medicaid funding – the likely impact of this bill would have been forcing many rape survivors to carry their rapist’s baby to term.

Source

Just like on race, poverty, labor, and immigration, the GOP nominee’s policy on women’s rights goes something like this: Act on the basis of your most regressive beliefs, but if any of you idiots slip up and talk about those beliefs, we’ll skewer the guy who said it. But if you can shut up and legislate, you’re on the presidential ticket.

Let’s get one thing straight, here: There is not ONE piece of legislation regarding rape that Akin would push as a Senator which Ryan would not cheerfully support as Vice President. Ryan believes that abortion should only be legal in cases where it is the only way to save the mother’s life. So what’s “inexcusable” about Akin?

Well, that he said it without coating it in sugary language about the rights of the fetus. His words were inexcusable–not his proposed treatment of women, which is exactly the same as Romney’s and his running mate’s.

Here’s something to give you the shivers:

Many United States rape statutes formerly precluded the prosecution of spouses, including estranged or even legally separated couples. In 1975, South Dakota removed this exception. In 1993, North Carolina became the last state to remove the spousal exemption. However, as of 1999, 33 of 50 U.S. states regarded spousal rape as a lesser crime. The perpetrator may be charged with related crimes such as assault, battery, or spousal abuse. There are other criminal charges that may be inapplicable to married couples. For example, in the U.S., there is a marriage exemption to the charge of statutory rape even if one of the spouses is under the age of consent in the jurisdiction where the sexual act takes place.

Source

Let’s talk about those “legitimate” rapes. What could be harder to prove as a “legitimate rape” than spousal rape, which isn’t even legally defined as  ”as bad” as other rapes in some US states? Even if anti-abortion laws contain rape exceptions, what do you think the chances are that a woman could prove in a court of law that her lawfully wedded husband impregnated her when he raped her, not on some other occasion when they had consensual sex? And do so before reaching the point of viability outside the womb, when she couldn’t abort anyway?

Mitt Romney isn’t offended that Akin would take women back to a day not so long ago–circa 1993, in fact–when all a husband had to do to win the “Should we have kids now?” argument with a reluctant wife was rape her while she was ovulating.

He’s just offended that Akin gave the game away before Romney and Ryan were in office to actually do it.


Full story: Romney Offended by the Guy Who Came Out and Said It

Canadians For Prosperity, Anyone?

47
  by: Colorado Pols Mon July 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM MDT

The Grand Junction Sentinel’s Charles Ashby:

The man who has been the Mesa County director of Americans for Prosperity since 2009 is Canadian, has benefited from government-issued food stamps and has an undetermined residency status.

That’s ironic even to Kelly Sloan, the Grand Junction resident who, until recently, wrote a newspaper column touting the group’s ideals of smaller government and legal immigration, and its opposition to such government programs as food stamps…

[AFP state director Jeff] Crank said he’s asked Kelly for documents that show his residency status but has yet to see anything.

Still, Crank said his group would never hire a Canadian or anyone else who isn’t a citizen of the United States.

This story takes some amusing twists. Canadian citizen Kelly Sloan has been the “volunteer” director of the Mesa chapter of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, but when it comes time to actually pay a director, that won’t do–even though according to Sloan he can legally work in the U.S. But if Jeff Crank wouldn’t “hire” somebody to work for AFP who’s not an American citizen, why would he let a noncitizen be the “volunteer” director for three years?

Apparently this came to a head after Mr. Sloan’s wife posted remarks on Facebook indicating that Sloan was “dragging his feet” on his citizenship paperwork. A July 13 post claimed the family was also relying on food stamps. Needless to say, the thought of a noncitizen on food stamps is enough to set the blood of Mesa County conservatives (and AFP members generally) to boil.

Despite all of this hubbub, Jeff Crank says of Sloan, “as a volunteer, we’ll support anyone who supports our mission.” The possibility of a flood of illegal immigrants showing up at Crank’s office to volunteer for Americans for Prosperity, you’ve got to admit, is kind of intriguing!


Full story: Canadians For Prosperity, Anyone?

DHS Hands Gessler Voter Purge Victory?

15
  by: Colorado Pols Mon July 16, 2012 at 9:30 PM MDT

UPDATE: Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler praises the decision in a brief statement:

“As Colorado’s chief election official, protecting our elections is my top priority. I’m pleased that DHS has agreed to work with states to verify the citizenship of people on the voter rolls and help reduce our vulnerability. Coloradans deserve to know we have these most basic protections for election integrity.”

—–

There are conflicting opinions this morning about the full meaning of a decision this weekend by the federal Department of Homeland Security to cooperate, with important restrictions, with the state of Florida’s request for information on non-citizens their Republican governor and Secretary of State believe may be illegally registered to vote. Politico reports today on what will soon most likely be a major story in Colorado:

Florida Gov. Rick Scott said Monday an agreement between the Sunshine State and the Department of Homeland Security “creates a path” for other states to purge their voter rolls of non-citizens.

An agreement Sunday between DHS and Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner gives Florida access to the federal SAVE – Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements – database, which should allow the purge to restart. The database lists legal immigrants and green card-holders who aren’t eligible to vote. It doesn’t contain the names of illegal immigrants…

“The right to vote is a sacred right,” Scott said. “We gotta make sure a U.S. citizen’s right to vote is not diluted.”

…Five presidential swing states – Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Colorado and Nevada – are among those hoping to use the DHS database to check their own voter rolls, according to CNN and the Associated Press.

“Hopefully,” Scott said, the agreement “creates a path for other states that have the same concerns.” [Pols emphasis]

We talked this past weekend about the related request from Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler for access to information about some 5,000 registered voters he believes may be illegally registered. Based on a “spot check” of immigration detainee records from local jails, Gessler found 85 possibly illegally registered voters, 29 of whom may have voted since 2010. We haven’t seen any response from Gessler yet to DHS’s agreement with Florida, but there’s a possibility that he won’t find it adequate. Even if he does, everything we said about the possibility of “matching mistakes” made by Gessler doing harm in excess of the “gain” of purging a tiny number of illegal voters applies–mitigated only by the restrictions from DHS impeding that.

Like we said, this is more a question of motives. Previous evidence submitted by Gessler has been found wanting based on the normal rate of naturalization of new citizens. Gessler’s “spot check” uncovered possible problem registrations that, while important, must be put in perspective with all kinds of benign errors that occur in every election. How many babies can tolerably be thrown out with the proverbial bathwater? Is one too many?

Gov. Rick Scott makes clear above which side of the debate he’s arguing from, “dilution,” and Gessler will no doubt agree–with Colorado’s GOP Attorney General John Suthers. A different variable in Colorado is the fact that our governor is a Democrat, and John Hickenlooper could change the game here if he decides to start questioning the process (or motives).

We’ll update when we have a clearer sense what this fluid story means here in Colorado.


Full story: DHS Hands Gessler Voter Purge Victory?

Sen. Grantham on Banning Mosques: Where’s The Outrage?

17
  by: Colorado Pols Tue July 10, 2012 at 5:14 PM MDT

The Colorado Independent’s John Tomasic:

“The only news is that it’s no longer news that a Republican lawmaker spews anti-Muslim bigotry,” said Ibrahim Hooper, communications director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Hooper was referring to the fact that state Senator Kevin Grantham, a Cañon City Republican, recently said he saw merit in a proposal put forward by lightning-rod Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders that lawmakers should ban any future mosque construction in the state…

Wilders appeared as a featured speaker at the Western Conservative Summit in Denver last week. Wilders has long campaigned to ban immigration from Muslim countries to the Netherlands and to outlaw mosque building in the country. He has compared the Koran with Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf and has lobbied to have the book banned in the Netherlands.

…Grantham said he agreed with Wilders that mosques are not primarily religious buildings.

“Mosques are not churches like we would think of churches,” he told the Colorado Statesman. “[Muslims] think of mosques more as a foothold into a society, as a foothold into a community, more in the cultural and in the nationalistic sense. Our churches – we don’t feel that way, they’re places of worship, and mosques are simply not that, and we need to take that into account when approving construction of those.” [Pols emphasis]

Nearly two weeks before the Western Conservative Summit in downtown Denver was convened, we discussed the slate of speakers, most notably including controversial anti-Islam Dutch politician Geert Wilders. But this summit proceeded largely under the radar–some coverage was given to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s appearance, but nothing about Wilders until days afterward, in an excellent story in the relatively obscure Colorado Statesman.

Not that we take it personally, but let’s put this in perspective. Rep. Robert Ramirez’s self-injurious freakout yesterday over our wholly deserved critique of his laughable mail piece nets stories in the state’s newspaper of record and a major Denver television station. They were fine stories, though they didn’t turn out very well for Rep. Ramirez–that’s not the point.

State Sen. Kevin Grantham talks about banning mosques, and this does not merit a story?

Taken together, intention or oversight, these do not seem like responsible journalistic choices.


Full story: Sen. Grantham on Banning Mosques: Where’s The Outrage?

Crazies At The Western Conservative Summit–Finally Some Coverage

38
  by: Colorado Pols Fri July 6, 2012 at 9:33 PM MDT

We talked several weeks ago about the controversial–or so we expected–list of speakers at this year’s Western Conservative Summit, held this past weekend in downtown Denver. Most interesting to us was a Dutch politician named Geert Wilders, who has gained international notoriety by calling for a ban on mosque construction and immigration from Muslim countries to the Netherlands. We were disappointed to see that, although the Summit itself received some light coverage, very little about Mr. Wilders ever made it beyond the pages of this blog.

So we’re both happy and a bit frustrated to see this belated report from the Colorado Statesman’s Ernest Luning today:

Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders brought his crusade against the Islamic religion to Denver last weekend, warning an audience at the Western Conservative Summit that Europe and the United States are vulnerable to an insidious takeover by what he termed a “dangerous, totalitarian ideology” masquerading as a religion…

CCU president and former U.S. Sen. Bill Armstrong launched the summit on Friday by proclaiming it open to members of all faiths.

“Of course, those of us at CCU are followers of Jesus, but in the room tonight are men and women of not only the New Testament but the Old Testament, and of other religious and philosophical traditions as well. You’re all welcome, we’re delighted you’re here,” Armstrong said.

But by the time Wilders commanded the same stage the next afternoon, the welcome mat might have been less firmly in place for at least one religion…

In order to keep the United States from succumbing, Wilders said, politicians have to ignore what he promised would be derision from the liberal media and other quarters and firmly deliver strong medicine. First, he said, Americans have to stop putting up with “multiculturalism,” even as free-speech proponents cry foul. In addition, he said American courtrooms must bar Sharia law and “stop the immigration from Islamic countries.” [Pols emphasis]

Most critically, he said, “We should forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in the West already.”

State Sen. Kevin Grantham, R-Cañon City, said it’s worth paying attention to Wilders and the alarms he was raising. [Pols emphasis]

To be fair, reaction in the crowd was somewhat mixed according to Luning–though many joined in standing ovations for Wilders, some did not. Sen. Kevin Lundberg, the famously hard-right GOP candidate for Congress in CD-2, couldn’t quite bring himself to endorse Wilders’ call for a halt to mosque construction, or to “stop putting up with multiculturalism”–something about the First Amendment. Speaking of which, Wilders included a few lines about how individual Muslims aren’t the problem, just their “dangerous, totalitarian ideology.” This gave Sen. Kevin Grantham something to to respond to those pesky “religious freedom” questions with. Heck, we’d bet Sen. Grantham even has himself some Muslim friends!

Like we said, we’re pleased to see some local coverage of this event that occurred right here in Denver with hundreds of local GOP politicians and activists in attendance. We’re frustrated to see this coverage only in the Colorado Statesman, which has a dishearteningly small readership–and mostly political insiders whom nothing seems to faze anymore.

People should know this is going on here, with some of our own elected officials cheering it on.

Shouldn’t they?


Full story: Crazies At The Western Conservative Summit–Finally Some Coverage