U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(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) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
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%
June 09, 2010 07:06 PM UTC
43 Comments
There is nothing really new here in this story. McInnis was a member of Republicans for Choice. The other fact that this story conveniently forgets is his 0 rating from NARAL. His record is pro-life. Period. Also it cannot be assumed that because Scott was at one point associated with RFC that he is implicated in allegedly “questionable” spending. Stone’s name is continually mentioned. Scott’s is not in this spending allegation. This is nothing but trying to throw mud at Scott and hoping that these claims stick even though they have minimal, at best, factual evidence.
It shows he’s a pandering flip-flopper with no solid positions on anything except for the fact that he hates Ritter’s O&G regs. The fact that he could be in RFC and then support something as idiotic as the personhood amendment is proof enough of that.
that a member’s primary responsibility is fiduciary oversight.
As we know the erstwhile DeLay/Abramhoff era DC-insider congressman from the big-spending days of GOP yore has a well-documented history of flopping around from position to position.
If I were to concede this point I would ask you to show me a politician that did not? Don’t hate the player, hate the game comes to mind.
or a sufferer of convenient amnesia. Didn’t he recently say he couldn’t remember whether he was a member of Republicans for Choice? Don’t hate the player, hate the player who constantly rewrites the rules in his favor comes to mind.
…between evolving your views due to additional info that impacts your thoughts on a policy – and flipping to whatever you think the voters want to hear today.
Mr. McInnis can’t avoid the obvious based on the time line. He is now saying the following:
1992 – I was pro-choice during my first election to the U.S. House of Representatives;
1993 or 94 – Shortly after the 1992 election I became pro life;
June 1996 – After becoming a pro life advocate, I became the board member of a pro-choice organization;
June 1996 – at least 2005 – While remianing stedfast to my pro life position for at least nine years, I remained on the advisory board of a pro choice organization which according to an earlier thread consulted me about pro choice issues regularly and whose former chairman stated I indicated I was pro choice.
This has nothing to do with a candidate changing their mind or flip flopping. Mr. McInnis simply can’t square his statements with what he did in the past, and it is too late for him to do so.
Maybe McInnis never actually flip flopped. He’s still pro-choice, he just voted and spoke against his own position. Whatever people want to hear, that’s what he’ll tell them. What a great Governor he’ll make!
This time he’s made his credibility the issue. Not good for him.
… when you’re the member of a board of an organization, you do have some responsibilities that go along with your name on the letterhead.
If an organization you’re on the board of, has collected $5 million but spent almost all of it for the organization’s executive or for payments to her companies, that’s not a good thing. Regardless of the organization’s position on abortion.
This one:
So what about this?
I can’t find anything online that confirms McInnis’ claim that he ever scored a zero from NARAL. So why are you so sure that he did?
Except for all the years he was pro-choice. Period.
According to this site, NARAL rated McInnis 0% in 2003.
I already tried to follow that one.
NARAL ranks members of congress every year. I wanted to see the year-by-year rankings. For example, in the current year, the NARAL ranking for House members is based on just 3 votes. What if McInnis’ zero-ranking claim is based on one vote in one year? What if the following year there were 10 votes and he scored 50%? I wanted to see how valid and robust his claim wsa.
I only used the google to see what I could find, but there is no document available on the NARAL website that contains the word “McInnis”. Every other page that google found only has McInnis’ of Duffy’s claim.
Left a message with their press contact. I’ll let you know what I hear back from them.
It would be interesting to see the history.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Hou…
This is a non-partisan source and it is the first issue. Big “Abortion” header and it is the last bullet point in the area. I hope this helps answer your question.
I posted a similar link to the one you posted, but ajb is right–it doesn’t link to the original NARAL 0% rating. It just says that they rated him 0% in 2003. We were wondering about the validity of using that rating to tout his pro-life credentials when we don’t know what the rating is based on.
It’s complicated. Try to keep up.
So you don’t trust a non-partisan group reporting or the Pro-choice group? I’m sure they are trying to trick us. Hey if this guy is pro-choice lets give him a zero rating which says we disagree with his voting and oust a pro-choice Republican. Yeah I agree that is probably what they are doing. My bad.
One score for one year with no collaborative information doesn’t constitute proof of “Pro-Life forever”. The link doesn’t go anywhere. Do you understand how flimsy this “fact” is and all the years it doesn’t account for? You throw up one fact and claim that because the organization providing it is “non-partisan” then it must be true according to your point of view. It is like unions rating Ritter and one year he is their friend and the next he vetoes their passed legislation. Unions would probably grade Ritter differently based on the year in question.
Criminalizing womens health care was once an intrusion of government on the privacy of the individual. Protecting individual privacy was one of the big things that conservatives had against the health insurance reform. In another age (early 90’s) defending the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the state was the right thing to do if you were a conservative. I can believe that McInnis might not have been “Pro-Life forever” if he truly believed in the conservative principle of protecting the individual from the state. From what I can tell today’s conservative is an amalgam of spiritual voodoo and worship of the rich. It gets difficult trying to keep track of which principles they follow on which issue. I guess two faced liars would be a more apt description of them and in that vein McInnis is a prefect reflection of his base.
The Republican Governor’s Association has stopped running ads attacking Hickenlooper. By the time McInnis gets through the GOP primary and if he gets through he will be dead broke and far behind. McInnis’ main problem is that he started with 60% of the delegate votes and after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars had 48%. The more people get to know McInnis the less they like him.
Foolish errors such as this one are not helping any.
McInnis went into the Right wing of the Republican party and came out 16 votes behind Maes. Maes target base was the same as Buck’s. Difference is Buck was able to pull 77%. All that shows is that a little less than half of Maes’ base voted for McInnis, interesting. Also the people that do support Maes don’t donate to his campaign. Look at last weeks reported numbers. And lastly, money talks. McInnis still isn’t spending money on defeating Maes because he is confident he can beat him soundly. He is however following an apparent game plan of jobs and anti-Hickenlooper. Maes is all over the board trying to pander. All polls have McInnis ahead or at worst tied (after making up an 11 point deficit to Hick). So I am a little confused about
But the “independent third party” ads against McInnis are beginning to write themselves. All we need now is an arresting visual…
Does Scott parasail?
He just looks so out of place.
And that was without any credible opponents!
No one disagrees the assembly vote for governor was mostly an anti-McInnis vote. A lot of Republicans are going to be holding their noses — not exactly what a candidate wants going into a tough election.
It was delegates upset with Scooter that he didn’t sit down for an interview with me 🙂
You think very highly of yourself and I like that confidence. Although misplaced I like it
Although I do thing McInnis’ attempt to control the conversation about himself has done him great damage.
He forgot that he was on their board…so he forgot to resign? Does this happen very often with him? You know, that could be an early stage dimentia symptom….
What if he were to be elected Governor, forget that he was elected…and then forget to resign? That would leave our state is a pretty sorry mess….
He forgot that the bill was going to release all convicted murderers, so he forgot to veto it.
He forgot that the budget needed to be balanced, so he forgot to sign it when the GA passed it.
He forgot that he was responsible for declaring a state of emergency, so he forgot to send in the planes to put out the forest fire.
The possibilities are endless!
it could have been used in a number of other situation as well:
John Ensign forgot he was married so he had sex with his office assistant’s wife.
David Vitter forgot both that he was married and that prostitution was illegal…so he paid that hooker for sex.
Bristol Palin forgot that she was an opponent of pre-marital sex–or–she forgot that she wasn’t married, so she got pregnant.
Larry Craig forgot he had a “wide stance” so he sat down in a narrow stall.
Classes are enrolling now. Don’t forget to register!
Obama forgot that he promised to work to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, so he didn’t.
reminding McInnis that this organization still existed…(you know like updates, emails, phone calls, etc.) if there was no such activity reminding McInnis of his involvement with the group, why should it matter? Maybe that was the case and that’s why he simply forgot that he was apart of the organization, aside from changing his mind.
on the issue of abortion, does that make me a liar?
You would remember? I remember when my mind changed, and I doubt I would have remained on the board of Pro-Life 4 EVAH organization. Even if I didn’t hear from them for a while.
he knew he was going to be running for governor in 2010. Everybody is attacking him and wondering whether he is going to change his mind again if he were in office…Well, is there really a rationality to that? Or are we just saying to ourselves “since he changed his mind once, then it is obviously going to happen again, therefore he cannot be trusted.” Well I don’t believe that comment itself can be trusted. Nor do I believe that it is rational.
Although I find it rather convenient.
It’s about him lying about remembering whether he was on the board. Plain and simple.
Is it not possible someone changed their mind? I don’t like my politicians changing their position a year after being elected either, but the fact is McInnis is pro-life. That’s his upfront position now and has been steady since 93-94. McInnis never attended RFC events or meetings, it’s not like he was living a double standard.
Guess what, everyone in this world has made mistakes and has skeletons in the closet, that’s why most of us are not brave enough to run for office. If this is the worst dirt oposition can dig up on a candidate I’m impressed. Because again, he’s been active pro-life now for over a decade and has stood by his choice. Whether you like that choice is another debate all together, but I wouldn’t consider him a flip-flopper or a liar.
By the way this blog took out very limitted pieces of the Colorado Independent article to slant this conversation very hard one way, if you’d like the real story I’d do a little research youself and not just read the ten lines this blog decided to show.
It’s that he’s lied about his involvement in RFC during his latest campaign. And that he stayed on the board long after he supposedly changed his mind.
This isn’t about McInnis’ abortion position, whatever that might be. It’s about talking out of both sides of his mouth depending on the audience, and voters are right to be skeptical of politicians who make a habit of that.
n/t
http://www.denverpost.com/poli…
I’m going to ring them again today.