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
April 15, 2014 04:00 PM UTC

Old Coffman vs. New Coffman®--Medicare Part D Edition

  • 11 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

One of the biggest themes in the CD-6 race has been the wholesale transformation of incumbent GOP Rep. Mike Coffman, from the arch-conservative Republican representing firebrand conservative Tom Tancredo's former district, into a "moderate" representing one of the most economically and culturally diverse congressional districts in the United States. It's a transformation that has mostly taken place since 2012, when a relatively obscure and underfunded Democratic opponent came within only two points of unseating Coffman–demonstrating how redistricting has made Coffman one of the nation's most vulnerable incumbent members of Congress.

Coffman's record before redistricting reshaped the electorate he answers to, from a time when his only threat was being deemed insufficiently conservative, is the biggest problem he faces remaining in office today. This video clip from a 2008 congressional debate, when Coffman was working overtime to prove his conservative credentials in the Republican primary to replace Tancredo, demonstrates the problem better than perhaps anything we've seen:

MIKE COFFMAN: In terms of federal spending it is out of control and that's why Republicans are out of power right now because they didn't hold true to their beliefs as being fiscal conservatives. The biggest part of the budget, unfortunately is now on auto-pilot. It's entitlement spending–it's not discretionary spending. [Interrupted]

What is important about this district, in being a very Republican seat, is it enables someone to be able to take strong positions that someone in a swing seat may not be able to take. [Pols emphasis] And entitlement reform, in order to bring fiscal sanity to this country, has got to be a part of it. 

And here you have a President [Bush] who was talking about Social Security reform, abandoned Social Security reform, turned around and did an entitlement on Medicare for which he cooked the books to make the numbers work, and future generations are going to be paying for that. Someone has to have the courage to step up and say "no." I've demonstrated that courage here in the state of Colorado.

"Old Coffman" was awfully candid, wasn't he?

It's critical to understand this: the "entitlement on Medicare" for which Coffman claims President George W. Bush "cooked the books" to enact is the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit–the same Medicare Part D Coffman received an award for "protecting" from the National Grange just last year! Has anybody asked Coffman what changed between the time that Medicare Part D was a big bad "entitlement," and when it became a plank in Coffman's platform to "protect Medicare?" We're guessing not. Because there is no good answer, folks.

But it's a great example of how Coffman's "strong positions"…have come back to bite him.

Tweet
Share

Comments

11 thoughts on “Old Coffman vs. New Coffman®–Medicare Part D Edition”

  1. Book your tickets now for the Romanoff swearing in.  Mike Coffman after hanging out with and going along with the craziest far right guys around is now worried.  Last second flip-flops won't save him.  Has anyone seen a candidate work as hard as Andrew Romanoff?

  5. His flip-flops only matter if the Romanoff campaign or their surrogates do a tv ad calling him out for them before they damage Romanoff on the immigration thing (even though his side of the story is that the Governor called for that infamous Special Session, not him.) Coffman's side has no conscience and will smear Andrew with any lies they can think up  — they did it to Joe Miklosi and never looked back.

    1. Attempting to do damage on the immigration thing would be a two edged sword for Coffman, wouldn't it?  Since being tough on immigration is exactly what his Tancredo loving base likes, doesn't that make it a little awkward for him to use Romanoff's past harsh legislation in any advantageous way? Using it to make a counter flip flop claim would have limited value since Coffman's own flip flops are so much more numerous while it seems like it opens up a can of worms for somebody trying to placate his base and also appeal to a bigger chunk of immigrant citizen voters. 

  6. I believe this is the first time Colorado Pols has ever defended George W. Bush.

    Never, ever let Republicans evolve. Freeze them in your most desired moment in time. Like Alisnky said, pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. You follow the playbook perfectly.

    1. I'm always amused by how much more closely conservatives read and follow Alinsky than liberals do. It's very practical advice, whatever the partical partisan bent the reader takes away from it.

      You, AC, Elliot, N3B…every conservative poster on here does exactly the same things: Target, Freeze, Personalize, Polarize.

        Does "Udallcare" ring a bell? How about "death panels"? Or "cough-SB90-cough"?  etc.

    2. Dang, Moddy.  I looked up "evolve" in the GOTP playbook, and there it was staring right at me:  Evolve:  the process whereby Republicans trying to get (re-)elected discard politically offensive, unpopular or inconvenient positions.  Belief in the new "evolved" position is not advised because if you do win the election, the new position used to deceive voters might conflict with the wishes of your political masters, which would be detrimental to your financial health and ability to run for higher office.

      Note:  "evolve" is not related to "evolution", The word was hijacked and distorted by Godless Heathens like Darwin and Mendel in a vain attempt to explain away how God took a week off from his day job to create the Earth and Heavens.  Evolve has been in common usage per the GOTP playbook for, oh, the last 6,000 years.

  7. And if these evolutions happen to occur right before elections, as they have recently with Coffman and Gardner, it is our solemn duty to look away.  There's just nothing to see there.

    Carry on.

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

147 readers online now

Newsletter

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