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
May 18, 2014 11:04 AM UTC

You're Welcome: Cantor Kills Coffman's Immigration Amendment

  • 12 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Rep. Mike Coffman (left).
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) and Rep. Mike Coffman (left).

​AP reports, on the same day that U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor headlined a fundraiser at Denver's Brown Palace Hotel with Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora, Cantor killed an immigration reform amendment Coffman has heavily promoted as evidence of his newfound sympathy for the plight of undocumented immigrants:

House Republican leaders intervened Friday to prevent a vote on immigration legislation, dealing a severe blow to election-year efforts to overhaul the dysfunctional system.

The move came after a Republican congressman from California announced plans to try to force a vote next week, over strong conservative opposition, on his measure creating a path to citizenship for immigrants who were brought illegally to the U.S. as children and serve in the military.

Rep. Jeff Denham labeled his bill the ENLIST Act and said he would seek a vote as an amendment to the popular annual defense bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA.

In response, Doug Heye, spokesman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, said: "No proposed ENLIST amendments to NDAA will be made in order."

You may recall in early April that Coffman "denounced" fellow Republican Rep. Steve King (R-IA) for opposing Rep. Jeff Denham's amendment. Despite the lip service Coffman has paid to immigration reform as he tries to stay in office in his newly competitive district, this very limited provision for undocumented students who enlist in the military is as far as Coffman has gone on the record with a specific policy proposal. Pro-immigrant GOP Rep. Denham is a co-sponsor of the comprehensive immigration reform bill, H.R. 15, that Coffman has said repeatedly he opposes. When Coffman had the opportunity to take action to support the undocumented students he now claims should have a path to citizenship, he voted to terminate the program that protects them from deportation.

And Friday, the same day Cantor's staff in Washington announced the "ENLIST Act" Coffman made such a big deal out of supporting was dead, Coffman was at the Brown Palace with Cantor raising money.

It seems to us that Democrats couldn't come up with a better example of New Coffman's® hypocrisy if they tried.

Tweet
Share

Comments

12 thoughts on “You’re Welcome: Cantor Kills Coffman’s Immigration Amendment”

      1. Well, of course not, there's no way to make up a "Romanoff is just as bad" angle.  So, Elliot will not say anything. Except to say that he's not saying anything.  

      1. Elliot we've been over this and over this here and this is the best you can do because you've got zero ability to engage in discussions by addressing other people's points. An odd handicap for a lawyer if you are the type of lawyer who ever represents clients in a trial situation. If all you can do is pick an opinion and parrot it over and over while choosing not to directly engage with anyone presenting  evidence backing up their own differing opinion, that's pretty silly.

      2. Jeebus there shyster I'd believe they had ought to have taught you in law school to include evidence. You might have quoted from, cited, or linked to this " worst anti-immigrant" bill.Otherwise how do we know we're not just getting your opinion or that you might be prevaricating?

      3. I find it bizarre that for someone who professes not to support either Coffman or Romanoff (you don't even live in CD6, for Chrissakes!), you have invested considerable time, if not much thought, into a pathetic attempt to propagate the GOP's false narrative about the events of 2006.

        Disappointing Elliot, very disappointing, and puzzling.

        Although, one positive outcome is my discovery of the Denver Post article that can be used whenever needed to dispell the GOP's false narrative.

        Here's the link again that you probably wish didn't exist:  http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3988055

        Oh, and in case you forgot what this is all about, let me remind you:

        2006 immigration laws backed by Romanoff deflected hard-line anti-immigration initiative favored by Coffman – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/58052/2006-immigration-laws-backed-by-romanoff-deflected-hard-line-anti-immigration-initiative-favored-by-coffman#sthash.wfcN4boc.dpuf

        1. He won't respond by directly addressing anything in the article. If you call him on it he'll say something to the effect that you're not the boss of me and I don't have to respond to anything if I don't want to. That's what I always get.

    2. Nice thought, Laura, but since when has being the obviously superior candidate ensured victory? Heck, Reagan won reelection even though he was obviously already in the early stages of dementia. I join you in believing Romanoff has an excellent chance and hoping he prevails.

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

169 readers online now

Newsletter

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