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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 08, 2014 07:58 AM UTC

The Pueblo Chieftain Crosses The Line...Again

  • 79 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

SATURDAY UPDATE: The Chieftain's Peter Roper attempts to correct the record in a new story today:

Colorado’s new law on background checks on individual gun sales allows family members to loan each other guns for unlimited periods, the legal staff for Gov. John Hickenlooper said Friday.

A news story about a Colorado Senate committee meeting earlier this week mistakenly reported those indefinite loans were not allowed.

The reporter made the mistake based on inaccurate information given in interviews.

Roper claims that former Sen. Angela Giron "confirmed" Victor Head's false claim that House Bill 13-1229 prevented indefinite loans of guns between immediate family members. Whatever may have happened there, there is only one "confirmation" that matters, and only one that Roper should have relied on–the unambiguous language of the bill itself. We don't accept that as an excuse for yet another instance of blatantly false reporting from the Pueblo Chieftain, but we do appreciate the correction–and we sincerely hope this lie doesn't get repeated ever again.

—–

UPDATE #2: Media Matters for America rips the Chieftain's false reporting:

More than six months after two Colorado state senators were recalled over their support for stronger gun safety legislation, Colorado newspaper The Pueblo Chieftain continues to push false information to defend supporters of the recall.

Controversy in Colorado has erupted over the February 3 testimony of primary recall organizer Victor Head before the Colorado Senate State, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee. In calling for the repeal of a 2013 law that created a requirement for background checks on most gun sales, Head testified that he gathered recall petition signatures by telling people that the background check law would prohibit firearms loans between immediate family members for longer than 72 hours without a background check.

In fact, Colorado's background check law allows "a bona fide gift or loan" without a background check "between immediate family members, which are limited to spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles" with no time limit. State Democratic Sen. Angela Giron — one of the two senators targeted by Head for recall — was responsible for authoring this family exemption.

—–

UPDATE: A statement from the Colorado Senate Majority Office attempts to set the record straight:

Misinformation has been shared this week, by a member of the public and in a news report, regarding the 2013 law (HB 13-1229) requiring background checks for private gun transfers. To clarify, when a gun is given as a bona fide gift or indefinite loan to immediate family members, a background check is NOT required. The 72-hour limitation on loans applies to anyone who is not an immediate family member as defined in the law. [Pols emphasis]

—–

Victor Head.
Victor Head.

Wednesday, we released clips of audio testimony from Monday's hearing in the Colorado Senate State, Veteran's and Military Affairs Committee by Pueblo recall organizer Victor Head. Head was testifying in favor of a bill to repeal last year's universal background check law. In response to friendly questions from Republican Sen. Ted Harvey, Head explained how he "changed minds" of undecided voters in favor of signing the recall petition against former Sen. Angela Giron:

I changed a lot of people's minds by making that contrast. The statistics are potentially right, although I'm aways leery of statistics, that we keep hearing, 80% of Coloradans, you know support background checks for sales, or 90% nationwide. You talk to people and they'll say 'yeah, absolutely,' and then when you tell them, 'okay that's a sale, but what about a transfer, you know, from you to your brother or whatever, they do a 180. [Pols emphasis] Instantly. They say 'well wait a minute, you're talking just loaning it?' And I say 'yeah, that's what the legislation says.' And they would say, 'well sign me up, that's not okay.' That was the overreach…

The problem, as Democrats on the committee immediately pointed out and we explained Wednesday, is Head's claim that one cannot loan a gun to family members for more than 72 hours is completely false. The plain language of House Bill 13-1229 reads:

THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION DO NOT APPLY [Pols emphasis] TO:

(a) A TRANSFER OF AN ANTIQUE FIREARM, AS DEFINED IN 18 U.S.C. SEC. 921(a) (16), AS AMENDED, OR A CURIO OR RELIC, AS DEFINED IN 27 CFR 478.11, AS AMENDED;

(b) A TRANSFER THAT IS A BONA FIDE GIFT OR LOAN BETWEEN IMMEDIATE FAMILY MEMBERS, WHICH ARE LIMITED TO SPOUSES, PARENTS, CHILDREN, SIBLINGS, GRANDPARENTS, GRANDCHILDREN, NIECES, NEPHEWS, FIRST COUSINS, AUNTS, AND UNCLES… [Pols emphasis]

It's that simple, folks. Family members, including the example of a transfer to one's brother, are indeed fully exempt from the provisions of House Bill 13-1229. Persons to which HB13-1229 does not apply, as you can read above, include spouses, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, first cousins, aunts, and uncles. We have confirmed once again this with numerous authoritative sources this morning.

And why was an emergency in-triplicate reconfirmation of a fact we already knew necessary? Because the Pueblo Chieftain, a newspaper we have repeatedly called out for false reporting of political news, has committed perhaps the most egregious violation of basic factual standards we've ever seen from a Colorado newspaper.

 

Peter Roper writes today:

Democrats on a Colorado Senate committee challenged Pueblo plumber Victor Head this week on whether he misrepresented a new gun-control law last summer to get voters to sign recall petitions against former state Sen. Angela Giron, D-Pueblo.

But Head, a Republican who is running for Pueblo County clerk, was right when he told petition signers the new gun law blocked family members from loaning guns to each other indefinitely without a background check. [Pols emphasis]

Head’s testimony before the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee Monday caught the attention of Internet bloggers Thursday as readers argued about the intent of the law requiring background checks on personal gun sales and transfers.

A subscription is necessary to read the full story. Roper quotes Head again claiming that anyone who someone loans a gun to for longer than 72 hours must have a background check performed. Amazingly, Roper makes no attempt to confirm if what Head is asserting is actually true, simply affirming that Head "was focusing on loans within a family and he was right, also."

But Head wasn't right. The plain reading of the law you can read above, as every legal and legislative source we have checked with once again this morning has confirmed, demonstrates unambiguously that Head is wrong.

It may seem like a technicality, but indefinite loans without a check — like a brother to a brother — are not allowed.

Folks, there is no nice way to say it. This statement from Peter Roper of the Pueblo Chieftain has no basis in fact. Gifts or loans to brothers, and other immediate family members, are fully exempt from the background check requirements of HB13-1229. Roper does not point to anything in the law to justify his assertion, only Head's quote.

The Pueblo Chieftain has crossed the line with this latest false report. We have been covering the factual problems with the Chieftain's political news reporting in this space for years. Last year, as one example, the Chieftain wrote a story about an "ethics complaint" against Sen. Giron that was never even filed, and got basic facts like what cities are part of Giron's district wrong. The Chieftain has consistently misreported on the fight by Pueblo County Clerk Gilbert Ortiz–Head's presumed opponent in the county clerk's race this year–against Secretary of State Scott Gessler over voting issues. This also isn't the first time the Chieftain has misreported last year's gun safety legislation.

But this latest example, promulgation of a blatant lie as fact, with no attempt whatsoever to verify statements asserted by a highly biased nonexpert, statements which are in fact entirely false, is without hyperbole one of the most worst incidents of failed journalism we've ever seen. A correction is not enough. How do you "correct" the fact that the entire basis of your story is false?

Perhaps the most depressing part of all of this is the likelihood that the Roper and the Chieftain will never bother to correct this story. At this point, we question whether the most basic standards of factuality even apply any more in the Chieftain's so-called "newsroom." This is a media outlet that is routinely, and we really believe at this point willfully, lying to its readers in ways that consistently serve one side. We don't know what more we can say.

In the end, perhaps only the readers the Chieftain depends on for its own survival can send a message they will hear. By any objective standard, this is totally unacceptable.

Tweet
Share

Comments

79 thoughts on “The Pueblo Chieftain Crosses The Line…Again”

  1. Sorry guys.  But there is nothing requiring someone who prints a newspaper to be factual.  They can tell as many lies as they want and with the cost of responding in a similar out of reach, they can get away with it. Fortunately, this is a dying media that we won't have to put up with for too much longer.  And with the internet as the major news source, it is easy to respond, just as you are doing.  There was never anything requiring the press to report the truth, as we well know.  The problem in this case and I suspect other cases around this state is that Democrats haven't spent the money to debunk the lies and Dudley Brown and his co-horts at the Pueblo Chieftain will keep telling lies until the Democrats and gun control supporters stand up and call them liars.  I am only hoping that this will happen, because as you know, I have no faith in Democrats fighting back against this kind of lying.

    1. Used to be that journalists were interested in maintaining their professional credibility. Now I think we have reporters and editors who  were educated during the self esteem era that preached everyone's "opinion" is as valid as anyone else's, independent of anything as confining as verifiable facts. Whatever you pull out of your ass is as valid as whatever anyone else pulls out of theirs.

        1. I think it is more dishonest writing than lazy journalism.  ColoradoPols does not pretend to be journalism and many of its articles are blatantly dishonest. That is largely understood because nobody thinks Pols or someone like Jason Salzman comes at it without an agenda.  They are partisans.

          A newspaper traditionally had the gloss of being journalism.  That largely is gone as well.

            1. I'd take it this is largely a rhetorical question/statement as anyone ought to know better than to expect corroboration from a certified winger.

  2.  I relied on three sources for Friday's story — the audio provided here at Coloradopols and interviews with Victor Head and Sen. Giron. Who better to challenge Mr. Head's testimony than the former lawmaker who sponsored the family exemption amendment? In my interview with Sen. Giron she said that gun sales and gifts between family members were allowed, but indefinite loans not allowed. She gave a similar interview to KRDO. I did not cite her in the story because she told the KRDO reporter — who shares our newsroom —  that she is no longer the story about gun control, a position I understood.  As one e-mailer told me this morning, I should know better than to rely on lawmakers or their critics to explain legislation. 

    Pete Roper    The Chieftain

    1. Who better to challenge Mr. Head's testimony than the former lawmaker who sponsored the family exemption amendment?

      You…perhaps? Yes, you should know better than to verify anything with a legislator. 

        1. Roper has previously reported on the exemption for family members. I have to go digging for it, but I'm 100% sure of this. That means he knows, or should have known, that Giron was wrong. He reported it as fact anyway, and did not even attribute his source. He could have read the bill and seen the plain language. It is totally indefensible. If this was a real media outlet instead of the Pueblo Fucking Chieftain, he'd be cleaning out his desk right now.

    2. What you could have written:

      But Head, a Republican who is running for Pueblo County clerk, was right when he told petition signers the new gun law blocked family members from loaning guns to each other indefinitely without a background check, according to Giron.

      This would have gotten you off the hook, because you're reporting. Not for nothing, but that's first-year stuff, man. Unless it's about the sky being blue, attribute, attribute, attribute. 

      Unless, of course, your intent by leaving out attribution is to imply that the issue is utterly incontrovertible. In which case I don't know what to say to you.

      2. [Roper] "could have written."…

        But even that would be piss-poor journalism–simply "he said, she said" drivel when the facts about who was right could have been determined easily with some brief research. So that would not have gotten him off the hook for reporting that was inaccurate–regardless of whether it was laziness or intent.

    5. Mr. Roper,

      Here is the video of your interview with Angela Giron. At 2:58, she says,

      After the town halls, I heard from some of the constituents…that, you know, they had family members, and they didn't feel that they should have to go through a background check. So I took that, and I amended the bill, which extended what we consider family.  So that was one thing where I was able to make a change.

      Senator Giron was referring to amendment L.028 to HB1229. It does what she said it did, in response to her constituents, to extend the definition of "family" as listed above in the Pols article.

      At 6:47, in the interview, you ask the Senator:

      The legislation to make people getting background checks pay for their own background checks..What? (motions to Giron to answer)

      Giron: Well, what I had learned in this process is that Colorado had done that since 2006 and before. People paid for their own gun transfers, background…$10, which is what it is still today. We're spending three million dollars every year on background checks.  Colorado does over 400 different types of background checks…teachers who renew their license, they pay for their own background check. If you volunteer at the Boys and Girls Club, you have to pay for a background check. All of them except for this particular one, which was some political deal, that worked out after an incident that happened in Castle Rock…They made a deal, and changed it. So we just went back to that, what it was before.

      The rest of the interview is mostly Giron discussing the various gun laws with Peter Roper – the reasons for the laws, statistics behind the reasons. She also talks about some of her legislative accomplishments. It's a civil interview, and you did a good job on it. So did Angela Giron.

      So, two things. One, I don't want to hear from Polsters on here that the problem was that Giron and Dems didn't talk about guns. Certainly, in this interview, she did, and in many others. It was late in the recall process, perhaps mid-August, that the word came down to people on the phones and at doors to stop talking about the issue. I never did, as a phone canvasser. But it was certainly not Giron's decision during the bulk of the campaign.

      Two, I want you, Peter Roper, as a journalist, to issue a formal correction to the lies and misinformation that you have been spreading about the impacts of HB1229. People may give and loan guns to their family members. That is not in dispute.

      They can loan guns to non-family members up to 72 hours. After that, they are obligated to get a background check. I sincerely doubt that anyone will ever check up to see if that time limit is being followed. And you are still entirely free to disagree with the post 72-hour background check for non-family part of the law, and the other gun control laws,  and to publish your opinions on your editorial page, as you have done many times.  But the facts are the facts. The language in HB1229 is not ambiguous.

      So my point is that you have archives of a 30 minute interview you conducted with one of  the lawmakers who sponsored the bill. If that's not a primary source, I don't know what is. You owe it to your readers to publish the correct information, from your own reporting, at the least to save your readers from anxiety about giving or loaning guns within the family, or paying for unnecessary background checks.

      I understand that the Pueblo Chieftain has the highest per-capita market share of any print newspaper in a metropolitan area. I can't confirm that, but I've heard it.  I'm a newspaperman's kid – I don't want any papers to go away. But as more and more people realize that the Chieftain is not a reliable source of news, your base is dwindling.

      So if my ethical argument doesn't move you, consider the self interest of having a newspaper which people have respect for and can rely on. For that to happen, you must issue a correction.

       

      1. That's the thing about crappy little newspapers in one-party towns (of either side); they're usually immune to considerations of honesty, integrity, or journalistic ethics when advancing their own agendas.  Out here on the Western Slope, we call it the Seaton Effect. 

  3. Hint for Pete & other reporters: whenever you have politicos pissing on each other about what a bill says, call the legislative council and/or the attorney general's office. They get paid to know what's in the law.

     

  4. Well, I am shocked, shocked, that misleading the voters is one way to win an election.  I am morally offended by the tactics used by Head and all his supporters in Pueblo and the Pueblo media.  Now, I feel better.  

    Democrats believe in losing with grace, not winning with tactics that are untoward. When dems win and are subsequently accused of misleading tactics..like"you can keep….etc" it is only because they are so high minded that they simply believed everything the insurance companies told them….

    I think the democrats are just too good for the rough and tumble of american politics.

    Just a question:  how is anyone in Pueblo going to be informed about the confusion and misleading tactics used to win the recall against Giron???  that is what I thought…they are not…because there is no way to talk to voters….

    1. dwyer, give us some credit. Many people, including me, are attempting to publish comments and letters to the editor in the Chieftain. The problem is that the Chieftain historically does not print letters and comments from people with opposing views.

      They are doubling down on the "can't share guns with family" lie and refusing to acknowledge the literal letter of the law because if they acknowledge it, they must also acknowledge that they've been lying all along about the justification for the recall and their libel of Angela Giron,

      2. @mj55

        I was referring to most of the comments here.  I will apologize for not acknowledging your continued efforts.  As far as I can tell, you are persistent, brilliant and ineffective, because you are essentially powerless.  I don't think the latter is your fault.  I think that the top echlon of democrats (read: the money people) have decided on a data driven model that worked so well in Colorado ten years ago and helped Obama nationally.  That means, that dealing with public perceptions and answering republican misconceptions are not in the plan.  Data deals with numbers, not people. 

        It is not the responsibility of the Chieftain to respond to you and others or to publish your letters.  Banging on their editorial door doesn't mean they have to open it.

        Now, I am not into the gun culture.  I don't own a gun; I have fired some on firing ranges in my youth. Guns are just not part my life.  I respect guns as a necessary part of protecting people and property.  I absolutely support the gun control legislation passed by the Colorado legislature and deplore the blowback they have experienced.

        Having said all that, I have read and reread the Roper article and the Giron responses and I am totally confused about the issue of family members lending each other guns.   Just saying.  It is not clear cut to me.

         

          1. Not unclear. Not confusing. Righties have only lies in the face of all the polling . They have to convince people that the legislation doesn't do what they say they support but does something else instead.. They are happy to make up that something else. Apparently they expect everybody to be as easy to confuse as dwyer claims to be and are rarely disappointed in that a expectation.

            1. And, don't ever forget, Blue Cat, Republicans win with that assumption. Write in big letters someplace you can be reminded of this, every day…(maybe on your mirror) easily confused people VOTE…..and if they are old, as I, they are more likely to vote than campus intellectuals…

              1. Dwyer, you are best ignored, but do you really think Blue Cat and MammaJamma are "campus intellectuals?"  Can you make an argument without insulting the people on your side? Did you notice that I haven't insulted you even though I really, really want to?  Are you advocating that Dems should learn to be soulless liars like Republicans?

                  2. @mj55 and othersT

                    true story…long ago, about 100 years or so, I was a middle school substitute teacher trying to finance my grad school education……I found the middle school kids more honest and smart than my grad school "colleagues."  But ultimately, I had to recognize, I really couldn't manage either group very well.

                    1. I think that the main advantage of older adolescents vs. 7th graders is that older teens have longer attention spans, and, when they flirt, manage it without poking each other with pencils, or throwing spitwads.

                      Middle school kids are adorable and fun, and, when the school has a consistent discipline policy backing up teachers' classroom management, the kids are easy to "control".

                      When a school is flailing and trying out new policies every other day in an effort to not suspend too many kids so as to look good for their state ratings, things fall apart pretty quickly.

                2. @DaftPunk

                  Please, do not hesitate to "insult" me if you really, really, want to.  Although, I do find that disconerting and more. That sounds like you are really, really  angry.  You don't know me. Evidently, you just ignore what I write….which is perfectly fine and appropriate…..but wanting to really, really insult me….okay, I find that scary…particularly coming from a doctor.

                  I am advocating that Dems should figure out how to win.  What happens on this blog, all too frequently, is that the repubs/tea party say something that is demonstratedly false and/or designed to appeal to the base or independents.

                  The response on this blog, is to denounce the repubs, etc. etc. or to present a counterargument, and to be "morally outraged" or "morally superior" to such propaganda.

                  My contention is that this does not deal directly with the audience to which the Republicans/right wing  spoke or are trying to influence.  It does nothing.  It does not make the "propaganda" ineffective.  It does not advance the "progressive" cause.  It does not address the issue.  It just rattles around this blog, which many times resembles a college bullshit session…..among the like minded.

                  Now, this blog is really just a sounding board, but it would be helpful to also hear what is being done to counteract the argument.  Almost six months after the Giron recall election, we are finally seeing some action that addresses the distortion that helped Rivera win.  I think that mj55 was instrumental in helping that happen, and I said so.

                   

                   

                  1. Dwyer,

                    What other common human attributes are innapropriate for doctors?  Am I not supposed to be angered when people lie to me?  What other unreasonable expectations of yours am I failing to meet?

                     

                    2. Doctors are human beings, not robotic automatons devoid of the normal reactions people have.  It was a for-instance to illustrate another situation to which I might have an emotional reaction.

                      You have a nice double-standard going there.  No acknowledgement whatsoever of your own insulting tone, but rather than casting the mote from your own eye you point out that of your neighbor’s.  When I insult someone it’s intentional, and rarely done outside the internet.

                      You know what?  You don’t know me either.  Intelligent people are capable of compartmentalization, playing different roles in different situations.  As an anonymous blog poster I can release the constraints I place on myself IRL situations, which are considerable and weighty. You’re perfectly happy to comment on the inner workings of my psyche when I have refrained from sharing my own opinions of yours.

                      You're a pompous, holier-than-thou, condescending nanny, whose perhaps reasonable observations are rendered worthless by the know-it-all tone in which they're delivered, and there are many here who agree with me. I don't know if that was any more effective than what I wrote in my original comment above, but it made me feel better.

                      This is not an arm of the Democratic Party, it's a fucking blog. This is recreation for the participants. It's obviously not meant to penetrate the Republican bubble.  To think that what goes on on these pages is somehow an outreach program of the progressive political movement is delusional or perhaps demented.

                      Sorry I don't meet your expectations.  They mean nothing to me anyway. 

          2. @Robb,

            I did not read the law, I read the interview and the comment by mj55 and that was what I was referring to in my original comment….but much has happened since then.

      3. MJ, It looks like you had more success with getting the Chieftain to acknowledge the truth than I had trying to get Pols to acknowledge the truth as to the numbers of people who were sent notices cancelling their insurance policies.  

        The law says what the law says.  

        The number of cancellations are the number of cancellations.

        It would be nice if the editors at ColoradoPols were as honest as their counterparts at the Chieftain.

        1. Two different cases. First of all, I didn't individually get the Chieftain to admit anything. I'm just an anonymous blogger with a funny name. I was part of a group effort of media and individuals and the straightforward language in the law, exposed by legislators at the repeal hearing on Monday.

          Others have written this to death; but as I understand it, if your policy is cancelled, that is a cancellation. As Pols wrote on January 29,  out of those 250,000 people who received cancellation notices,96% of them were cancellation/renewal notices, allowing the consumers to renew their policies, usually with better terms because of oversight by the new Affordable Care Act.

          So 27,000, or about 11% of the people who got those notices in the mail, had their policies actually cancelled.  They, too, now have the opportunity to get better policies at better rates.

          So Pols has written at least three articles about the insurance "cancellation" debacle.  They're doing their job to inform the public. You seem to have taken it as your mission to continue beating that poor dead horse. You'll have more credibility here if you let the beast rest in peace.

           

           

           

          1. I'll have more credibility where it matters if I speak the truth.  Pols lied and continues to lie about the numbers.  If some got a notice of cancellation their policy was cancelled.  It is black and white.  If somewhat got a swell option to buy another policy that is swell, but their policy was still cancelled.

            2. Andrew,

              "Discretion is the better part of valor." ….Shakespeare…Henry IV

              It is not bravery to attack a lion with a salad fork.

              Hanging on to one word, out of context, to convey a message that is demonstrably false is not a courageous move…it is stupid….just plain stupid.

              2. It's all he's got to hang on to, Duke….if he lets go of that, he has to face reality. The reality is, Obamacare, for all of its flaws, is an improvement to the American Health Care system.  It's not going anywhere. The only thing that will happen is expansion (hopefully, to Single Payer, like every other damn first world country on the planet).  The people who shrieked, screamed, and lied against it so determinedly will be remembered the same way we look on the throwbacks who fought against integration, Medicare, Social Security, and a host of other advancements for the general good.  And for someone who is in such deep denial, that has to be terrifying.  So don't expect him to let go of that one word anytime soon. Even though it's wrong, it's all he's got.

            3. Insurance policies get canceled all the time. I have had mine canceled, my family has had theirs' canceled. That has happened before and after the AFA.  Insurance companies have always done that.  Things change, policies change … We move on.  That won't change very soon.  

              Having more people covered, for reasonable cost … THAT'S A BIG DEAL.  And it's important for the economy, for the country.  And if you could actually understand why, I wouldn't have to say that it is important for national security interests.  That is elementary.  And you can figure that point on your own.  

               

               

               

               

               

              1. The cost of adding each life covered, according to the most recent CBO numbers is about $8,000 per year, a total of about $127 billion.  Seems reasonable to me.

                1. You aren't making any sense at all.  You should be ashamed of yourself.  I wish we could have the real Republicans back.   The country needs them.  You sound like just a silly shill.  There is no honor in that. 

                  Eight thousand dollars for each soul covered…that's all you can come up with.  You sound like the devil.

            4. If the power company sends you a notice that your service will be discontinued on a date certain unless you do a, b, or c; and you do a,b,or c by that date certain and thus the company does not disconnect your service, would it be correct to say' the power company disconnected my service!!!'  ?

              1. CT, If the power company does not disconnect your serivce it would not be correct to say the power company disconnected your service.  

                If an insurance company says they are cancelling your policy and they cancel your policy but offer you another one instead, it would not be correct to say they did not cancel your policy.

                If someone were to kill your child, but offered that you could adopt another child, they still killed your child.

                2. AC desperately believes that if he keeps repeating this it will cause Udall to be defeated.  It's all he's got and he's not going to give it up no matter what. Think of him as a 3 year old and this is his Santa, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy combined. Do we really want to spoil it for him? Well, yeah but we're going to do that in November anyway.

  5. and we sincerely hope this lie dosen't get repeated ever again.

    Good luck with that.

    and we sincerely hope this lie doesn't get repeated ever again. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/#sthash.kuCyTRug.dpuf

    and we sincerely hope this lie doesn't get repeated ever again. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/#sthash.kuCyTRug.dpuf

    and we sincerely hope this lie doesn't get repeated ever again. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/#sthash.kuCyTRug.dpuf

    2. Keep calling them out, MamaJ. I'm in Denver so I never see the stuff the Cheiftan prints unless it's reposted here. When a paper prints an error, whether it's sloppy journalism or a flat-out lie somebody has to throw a flag or they'll ust get lazier and lazier. I watch the Denver Pest and try to keep them honest. 

  6. Well, hot damm, mamajama55, you won one for the good guys.  CONGRATULATIONS! I think your persistence got the correction in the Chieftain. I absolutely never would have believed it.

    You really did well.  There should be Pulitizer Prizes for investigative bloggers…we would nominate you. Thank you.

    3.  As far as I can tell, you are persistent, brilliant and ineffective, because you are essentially powerless. 

      Can we presume then, that you are going to retract the last five words of this statement?

      1. I am not powerless as an individual; however, whatever half-ass correction the Chieftain made, was made as a result of pressures by Media Matters, Colorado Pols, many good Democrats in Pueblo who wrote comments and letters to the Editor, even if they weren't published. It's all part of the pressure to do the right thing.

        People have to work together to get anything done.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

212 readers online now

Newsletter

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