Republican gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Coffman told Peter Jones of the South Metro Villager last month that she backs abortion rights. Jones reported:
Coffman is likewise supportive of abortion rights.
“I want abortion to be rare. I want it to be safe, and I want us to be doing things as a society that diminish the need for there to be abortion,” she said.
That’s a pretty straight-forward articulation of a pro-choice position.
So you wonder why Coffman said previously that she was “surprised” that Channel 4 political specialist Shaun Boyd had characterized her as “pro-choice.”
“No! No, I didn’t. I refused to accept a label. And I still do,” Coffman said on air in response to a question about whether she’d describes herself as pro-choice.
Yet, Boyd reported that the Coffman campaign did not want Channel 4 to correct its story labeling Coffman as “pro-choice.”
So Coffman’s words say she’s pro-choice, but that’s not what she wants to be called? What to do with that, if you’re a reporter? You have to call her pro-choice, because that’s what she appears to be, but maybe there’s more to the story.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Weekend Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Dems Save The Day, Government To Stay Open
BY: Gilpin Guy
IN: Weld County Gerrymandering Case Pushes The Boundaries Of Home Rule
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: notaskinnycook
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: bullshit!
IN: Friday Jams Fest
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Friday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Maybe Ms. Coffman is NOT pro-choice in a conventional manner … the only choice she wants to be involved is hers?
At some point, I expect her to be quizzed with questions about specific legislative options. Perhaps then she can clarify how she cannot be summed up by a label.
The dilemma for today’s Republicans is that the party demands dishonesty and obfuscation in everything. In this case, one can’t be called simply “pro-choice”, you have to be “not-pro-choice-but-not-totally-against-it-either” (“. . . as long as you don’t ever quote me as saying that, either”).