Joe Coors "Buckpedals" Personhood Abortion Ban

10 thoughts on “Joe Coors “Buckpedals” Personhood Abortion Ban”

1. But I still have serious mixed feelings about criticizing him for doing something right because he did something wrong before. Yes, it’s probably for reasons of political expediency. No, Joe Coors will never, ever, ever be a candidate that any woman should vote for if she likes making her own medical decisions. But it is right that in a state where this sort of thing is decided by ballot measures, he will not endorse a measure this year that was rejected by voters two years ago,  regardless of his personal feelings.

   Do we want consistent politicians more than we want ones who do things right?

   (That said, conversation irrelevant, he’s running against Perlmutter, race was over before he was on the ballot. Nobody beats Perlmutter in CD-7.)

   Log in to Reply

   1. Is why Democrats lose.

      This is a man who gave a thousand dollars to help force you to have your rapist’s baby only two years ago. Good for him “respecting the will of the voters,” but he’s not excused by a fucking longshot. Unless Joe Coors is willing to repudiate the POLICY, this is political expediency and nothing more, and he deserves no respect from either side.

      Democrats being more mature and objective than our enemies, to the point of making excuses for them, is both an encouraging and greatly frustrating thing.

      Log in to Reply

      1. If he means it, and that is a legit question, a large part of the compromise that makes our system work is accepting when the opposing view is held by the majority.

         Log in to Reply

      2. If we hope that our candidates will not have to choose between electability and the right to occasionally change their minds for good reason, we should not jump on every Republican who changes his mind and yell, “Flip-flop!”

         As I said in another comment, if this turns out to be a pattern for Coors as it is for Romney, I think it becomes valid to claim he can’t be counted on to serve with the positions he’s elected with.
         

         Log in to Reply

         1. for a depth that just isn’t there. Seriously.  It is what it looks like. Political expediency.

            As for Kerry, he supported the rush to war in Iraq for purely selfish political reasons.  He was told by advisers that if he opposed the invasion and it was a success he could kiss any thoughts of being elected President goodbye. He lost because he didn’t project strength of character at a time when people were terrified and ignored the Swift Boaters for too long and allowed them to define him.  

            Pols, brilliant or mediocre, will be pols.  The Mother Theresas of the world aren’t running for political office.  Mediocre  would probably be a generous assessment of Coors.  

            Log in to Reply

   2. and shake it upside down a bit and it all applies to Mitt Romney too, depending on where you’re standing.

      Some things are clearly about political expediency over values–or trying to lie about your values. This is one of them.

      For Mitt Romney it boils down to a basic issues of character, and Romney’s total lack thereof. For Coors to try and have it both ways on personhood with such a flim flam rationale demonstrates exactly the same thing about him.  

      Log in to Reply

      1. If it becomes so with Coors, I’m willing to declare him a flip-flopper. But the same thing has been used to attack Democrats for changing their positions for valid and good reasons.

         Log in to Reply

   3. is the fact that while they both agreed on the Iraq war by 2008, Obama got it right from the beginning.

      There’s something to be said for having half a fucking clue before you make a horrible mistake. That’s quite aside from the fact that there’s something to be said for opposing a shitty policy because it’s wrong and not just because it was unpopular in the last election.

      Seriously, I’m always the first to say great things about Republicans (you can look it up), but there’s nothing decent here. It’s basically, “I want to support horrible policies, but I might not get elected if I’m honest about my feelings on them because you voters are morons.” What about that sounds good to you?

      Log in to Reply
      1. Log in to Reply

2. There is a real problem with this comment.  Joe Coors is a neophyts candidate with a campaign staff made up of idiots.  Because here is the problem he now has.  Does he oppose the partial birth abortion ban because Coloado voters opposed id?  Does he now oppose Charter Schools because Colorado voters have opposed this twice?  Is he in favor of abortion-on-demand because all polls show that a large majority of Colorado voters are in favor of this?  Does he favor a one subject per bill limit in congress because Colorado Voters do.  Does he favor limits on campaign contributions because Colorado voters do?  Does he now oppose the Paul Ryan budget and particularly the cuts to Medicare because the people of Colorado do?  Does he, well, as you know, I could go on and on and ultimately, it is this kind of disconnect with voters which will re-elect Ed Perlmutter.

   But even more disturbing is the inherent inconsistency of his position on abortion and the personhood amendment and the ultimately “Democratic” position he takes on it.  Joe Coors states that he opposes abortion in all instances except to save the life of the mother.  He believes that life begins at conception.  As such, he must believe that a fertilized egg is no different than a 5 year old child.  And while he hasn’t confirmed it publically, I’m pretty sure that if a woman stood by and let a doctor tear her 5 year old child limb from limb and then throw the body parts in a trash can, he’d be in favor of the death penalty for both the mother and the doctor.  So, if a fertilized egg is the same as a 5 year old, why should abortion doctors and mothers who have abortions not get the death penalty?  The answer is that he believes a fertilized egg and a 5 year old child are different.  If he believes they are different,as a Republican, he believes that people can have different views of abortion and when life begins.  As a Republican, if he believes that different people can have different positions, why, as a Republican who believes in limited government and a person’s right to make their own choices, does he want the government telling people what their position should be on when life begins and when abortion is OK or not OK.  That’s what Democrats do, have government make decisions for other people.

   So, Joe Coors, put up or shut up.  Either you believe life begins at conception and you are endorsing Personhood which states nothing more, or you are pro-choice and as a REpublican think these dicisions need to be made by individuals or you are really a Democrat in sheeps clothing and no Republican who believes in their platform can support him.

   Sorry Joe, but this is reality and you should have asked someone who knows about abortion politics before you did what you did.

   FYI, the same analysis goes for every Republican  who thinks like Joe does and even for those Republicans who believe in rape and incest exceptions.  They only have one of the three choices above or they’re simply pandering to the right-wing masters of their party and don’t believe what they say.  Glad to see all the pro-choice Republicans coming out of the closet and that so many of you Republicans really are Democrats and ought to change party.  

   The moral of this story, it that there are only two consistend, rational, non-pandering positions for Republicans on the abortion issue.  Either you believe life begins at conception and that a fertilized egg is just like any other human being and that abortion doctors and their patients need to be put to death, or you believe that there is room for disagreement on when life begins and you leave it to women for them to decide for themselves, with no restrictions what-so-ever.  There is no middle ground for Republicans, none.

   Thems the facts.  Weep on you pandering bastards who are afraid to say what you really think because of a very, very tiny minority of people in this country.

   Log in to Reply