U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 13, 2012 11:01 PM UTC

Which CO politico will be Ryan's role model on personhood? Buck, Coffman? Coors? Gardner? Lamborn?

  • 33 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Colorado has a lot of experience with politicians endorsing personhood, then trying to slide away from it when the eyes of everyday people turn toward them.

It’s time for reporters to draw on this experience in questioning Rep. Paul Ryan, when the opportunity presents itself.

Will Ryan, who  supported personhood legislation in Congress, stand by his position?

It won’t work for Ryan to say, like Rep. Mike Coffman and Rep. Cory Gardner did last week, that it’s a just measly state issue that’s not relevant to him as federal candidate , because Ryan endorsed it at the federal level.

(Actually, that excuse doesn’t work for Coffman and Gardner, since they supported it when they ran for federal office previously, according to Colorado Right to Life.)

It won’t work for Ryan to say, like congressional candidate Joe Coors did last week, that the voters have twice voted the ballot measure down, and so Ryan is going to respect their decision, because Ryan was pushing federal legislation on the issue despite voter hostility and long odds against him?

(And that logic doesn’t excuse Coors from telling voters why he supported personhood.)

Will it work Ryan to un-endorse personhood, like Colorado Senate Ken Buck did in 2010, because he doesn’t understand that personhood would ban common forms of birth control.

I mean, he co-sponsored the personhood bill!

Can you imagine a guy like Ryan offering the excuse that he’s a budget maven not a birth-control maven?

Or will Ryan follow the lead of Rep. Doug Lamborn, who’s separated himself from his GOP personhood allies in Colorado by saying through a spokesperson that he’s still a “supporter” of personhood.

You might guess that Ryan’s model would be Lamborn, since Lamborn co-sponsored the same federal personhood “Sanctity of Human Life” bill that Ryan did.

In any case, at some point, whether it’s tomorrow, if Ryan takes questions from reporters, or at some future debate or press conference, some reporter has to ask Ryan, “You’re a co-sponsor of a bill making personhood federal law.”

“Why are you so strongly against choice, that you want to ban common forms of birth control, as personhood laws would do?

Why do you feel so strongly about abortion, that you want to ban it, even for a girl who’s raped by her father?”

Tweet
Share

Comments

33 thoughts on “Which CO politico will be Ryan’s role model on personhood? Buck, Coffman? Coors? Gardner? Lamborn?”

  1. Good luck trying to move Paul Ryan off his principles. He’s going to mightily disappoint you libs. You’re not going to be able to attack Ryan on flip flops, you’re going to have to actually debate the man’s views.

    Good luck! Ryan was a brilliant choice, and he’s going to spend the next three months proving it.

    1. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha…..

      The guy who lived off of Social Security but now wants to destroy it has “principles…” That’s funny!

            2. when his dad passed away. That’s pretty widely cited, but Politico includes it in their description of his background.

              http://www.politico.com/news/s…

              His family’s construction company’s history page is here

              It’s currently run by his cousins.

              Perhaps I was making an unwarranted jump to a conclusion to surmise that a young man from a wealthy family didn’t actually depend on the social security that he saved up for two years before going to college in Ohio.

    2. SLATE:

      Ryan attended a closed meeting with congressional leaders, Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on September 18, 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to disclose the coming economic meltdown and beg Congress to pass legislation to help collapsing banks. Instead of doing anything to help, Ryan left the meeting and on that very same day Paul Ryan sold shares of stock he owned in several troubled banks and reinvested the proceeds in Goldman Sachs, a bank that the meeting had disclosed was not in trouble. [my emphasis.]

    3. since Team Willard announced their choice this decision that they were forced to swallow, in the weekend news dump . . . and “man of principles” is still the best you can come up with?

      I honestly thought you quit, or got fired, or Willard ran out of Adelson’s money, or something.  Looks like maybe you had to take a haircut though, cause that comment and your big rush to show your enthusiasm is just phoning it in.  I’d feel sorry for you, except . . . ah, hell, who am I kidding — tee hee hee hee . . .  

    4. I’d be happy if someone would just talk about what he and Mitt stand for.  If you think that you win that one Goper, then I have land to sell you in Nevada.  Problem with Paul Ryan is that the more people get to know him, the less they will like him.  They already hate his policies.  Hmmm, who else doe this sound like?

    5. If Ryan is a man of principles and sticks with what he believes, then good for him. Doesn’t mean I will vote for him but it does speak very well of him if he sticks with his beliefs.

      Now, if only you could say the same of Romney…

      1. before he was against them?

        In reality, Ryan was a staunch ally in Bush’s profligacy, dissenting only to urge Bush to jack up the deficit even more.

        Ryan’s plan was so staggeringly profligate, entailing more than $2 trillion in new debt over the first decade alone, that even the Bush administration opposed it as “irresponsible.”

    9. Like the principle of balanced budgets?  Ryan was a rubber stamp for the highly unbalanced Bush budgets.  How long after he and Romney get in to office before Republicans decide once again that it’s not so important to rein in the debt?

  2. The real question ought to be:  Your wife and you have obviously used birth control since you chose to have only three kids.  And, yet you’re Catholic which bans contraception in any form, and certainly bans “abortifacients” like the Pill and IUD.  So, what so different about you and your wife as opposed to what you want for the rest of the American people?  Love to hear not only his answer, but his wife’s too.  Hypocritical, inconsistent bastard.

    1. Just opening that can of worms would mean that we would have to endure endless talking head speculation about his wife’s cycle or how tight his briefs are.

      Worse, he might actually answer that question. I don’t want to endure whatever story he puts forward about some traumatic groin injury that left him unable to have more kids, but still good with the Church. Gross  

    2. Since it’s impossible that the majority of them are not also part of the 95% majority, including a similar majority among Catholics, who use effective birth control, most if which is labeled abortifacient by their crowd, during the childbearing years, the answer is simple. No difference. Very garden variety typical in their hypocrisy.

      2. because Republican women 1) don’t have sex or (if they do) use the 2) ‘rhythm’ method.

        Women problem?  aRatatataGOP don’t have no stinkin’ women problem!  Besides, I got my cootie shot!!

        -aRatatataGOP

  4. Why does Jason Salzman want innocent babies conceived by criminal rapists to be killed for the crime of his or her father?

    Why does Jason Salzman claim that Personhood for pre-born babies will ban common forms of birth control when the language clearly states, “(a) Only birth control that kills a person shall be affected by this section.” ?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

66 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!