Editorial Department: If We Endorsed Mike Coffman in CD-6

Colorado Pols Editorial DepartmentWelcome back to the Colorado Pols Pol’s Pols’ Editorial Department, where we use letters to form words and occasionally words to form sentences.

After reading the very strange Denver Post endorsement of Congressman Scott Tipton, we got to thinking: Could we write an endorsement of Mike Coffman that didn’t really endorse Mike Coffman?

After asking ourselves that question, we set out to answer it as well. Then we wrote stuff.

Click after the jump to see what it would look like if we endorsed Rep. Mike Coffman for Congress in CD-6…


Congressman Coffman’s “Community” Challenge

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

coffmansmileEvery two years Democrats choose a challenger to go against Mike Coffman. Each time Mike has defeated these challengers in spite of real/perceived massive Democrat support. This year the Democrats sense there is an opportunity to finally achieve their goal because of the Trump candidacy and the consternation it has created.

If you have an opportunity to hear Mike speak he will tell you about the challenges of a Gerrymandered district that includes portions of Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties. The Democrat drawn district is meant to include a greater population of Democrat voters and fewer Republican voters to switch it to Democrat control. In his district Mike identifies the various communities. They include, Hispanic, Black, African, Ethiopian, Korean, White, Muslim, Christian, Jewish and others. The community that has the most influence that Mike doesn’t speak of is the Paul Ryan community.


Post’s Editorial Page Promotes Coffman and We Lose

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Denver Post editorial/news guy Chuck Plunkett.

Denver Post editorial/news guy Chuck Plunkett.

“Good for Mike Coffman.” That’s the first line of an August Denver Post editorial, and, as it turns out, it’s an excellent summation of the The Post editorial page’s singular stance toward Coffman over many years.

I just finished reviewing five years of Post editorials mentioning Coffman, and, of the 43 editorials citing the Aurora Republican Congressman during that period, including two endorsements, he’s been criticized only four times, while being praised in 34 editorials. The newspaper has lauded him mostly on issues related to the Veterans Administation but also on immigration, Selective Service, Afghanistan, marijuana, the federal budget, and more.

Yet, during these five years, Coffman has run seriously afoul with the broad positions/principles taken by The Post: on Planned Parenthood (Coffman voted twice to defund just last year, after putting the organization’s logo in a campaign ad the previous year.) and on immigration (Coffman opposed a 2013 bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, and he reiterated his opposition to birthright citizenship, even stating so in an interview with a Post editorial writer.).

In 2013, Coffman threatened to shut down the government instead of raising the debt ceiling. Nothing from The Post. And nothing from The Post when Coffman belittled global-warming science in 2013.

The Post was silent in 2012 when Coffman said Obama was not an American “in his heart,” and Coffman strangely told 9News’ Kyle Clark five times:  “I stand by my statement that I misspoke, and I apologize.”

Coffman’s positions over many years have been at odds with stances The Post has taken. But the newspaper has been mostly silent.

To be fair, a more cursory analysis shows that The Post doesn’t criticize U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet much either, and he was also endorsed by The Post.

The difference? Bennet’s policy positions, on the issues mentioned above and others, align very closely with The Post’s, while Coffman’s do not.

You can’t blame Post editorial page editor Chuck Plunkett for much of this, since he took over the job exactly three months ago, but I called him anyway for his take on whether the newspaper deliberately refrains from criticizing Coffman, even when his positions clash with the newspaper’s editorial views.

“I think this is an election year stunt, not a genuine analysis,” he told me, arguing that there was no news hook for my blog post and I was not focusing on The Post’s treatment of other elected officials. “You’re picking Mike Coffman, when Morgan Carroll is struggling. Why is that? It looks like you’re trying to aid Morgan more than you are legitimately trying to critique an institution.”

I explained to Plunkett that as a progressive media critic, I look for instances where news outlets tilt rightward. That’s my bias, and with the election coming up, now is a valid time to analyze The Post’s editorial-page approach to Coffman, which I found inexplicable.

“As a journalist, I think trying to analyze a newspaper’s position over time is very tricky, especially if you only look at one particular angle,” Plunkett told me. “There are all kinds of things that go into thinking about an editorial or an endorsement or what have you.”

“You’re right,” Plunkett acknowledged, “when a newspaper endorses someone, that same board is going to be, understandably, more protective of that person.”


FACT CHECK: Zika bill, supported by Buck and Coffman, has anti-Planned Parenthood agenda

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

zika_0_3On KNUS 710-AM yesterday, U.S. Rep. Ken Buck accused U.S. Senate Democrats of holding up funds to fight the Zika virus.

Buck: “Senate Democrats filibustered that bill. They wanted more money for Planned Parenthood for abortions related to the Zika virus.”

In fact, Senate Democrats did not want more money for abortions, and federal dollars can’t be used for abortion anyway.

The truth is, U.S. House Republicans, including Buck and Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora, passed a Zika-relief bill in June, but the legislation blocked the United States’ Zika-response funds from going to groups (like Planned Parenthood) for birth control and family planning programs—even though Zika affects the developing fetus and appears to be sexually transmitted.

Since then, Senate Democrats refused to pass bill, which they see as fatally flawed. The New York Times reported June 28:

Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, said Republicans had poisoned the chances for moving ahead by blocking money for Planned Parenthood, knowing Democrats would never agree.

“They’re just not living in the real world, and they’re just not facing the fact that this is an emergency,” Mr. Nelson said. He noted that at least five babies had been born with microcephaly in the United States — the most recent one in Florida — but said he expected the disagreements to continue.

Yet, Buck told KNUS host Krista Kafer, “This is tragic in a number of ways. It really is going to create a human tragedy, number one, and, number two, a burden on taxpayers in the future if we don’t start dealing with the epidemic , certainly the disease, that is rampant in some parts of this country.”

Morgan Carroll Goes On The Air

The Aurora Sentinel’s Rachel Sapin reports on Morgan Carroll’s debut ad in the red-hot CD-6 race:

Democratic challenger Morgan Carroll released her first television ad Wednesday in her 2016 campaign to win the congressional seat from incumbent Republican Mike Coffman. In the ad, the former state Senate president touted her personal accomplishments in an effort to win over voters.

“I put myself through school with minimum wage jobs, and I started a business with my mom to help advocate for people with disabilities” Carroll says in the ad, titled “Why I Am Running.”

The ad will air on broadcast television and is part of a planned $1.4 million marketing campaign between now and election day, according to the Carroll for Colorado Campaign.

“We are extremely excited to kick off our first ad of this cycle,” said Carroll for Colorado campaign manager Jenny Donovan in a statement. “Morgan’s story is the story of thousands of people in this district, and that’s why they know that, when elected, she’ll fight for them in Washington to deliver real results on education, jobs, and veteran’s issues. The voters of this district recognize that they need someone in Congress who understands them, and we’re going to see the results of that this November.”

Supporters of Carroll have been looking to see the candidate get out and define herself, and this ad does a very good job at introducing her–and building the affirmative case for her election to Congress. We’re pleased to see that Carroll did not kick off her ad campaign with a negative hit on opponent Mike Coffman, choosing instead to tell voters about her own background. That’s what she needs to be doing.

Bottom line: it’s a good ad to introduce Sen. Carroll, with enough money behind it to make sure CD-6 voters see it. With high election season just now getting underway, now is the time when voters will start paying attention down the ballot.

Mike Pence Supports “Official English,” Just Like Mike Coffman

Mike Pence, Mike Coffman

Mike Pence, Mike Coffman

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence recently reaffirmed his support of efforts to make the English language the official language of the federal government. According to a press release issued this week by “ProEnglish”:

ProEnglish Executive Director Sam Pimm recently attended an exclusive meeting with Vice-Presidential candidate Governor Mike Pence.

Governor Pence is a longtime advocate of official English; as a former Congressman, he cosponsored H.R. 997 (a bill to make English the official language of the federal government) five times. [Pols emphasis]  English is also the official language of Indiana, where Pence is Governor. Hot off the campaign trail, Governor Pence met with Pimm and others in a closed door meeting to discuss policy positions.

ProEnglish Executive Director Sam Pimm took the opportunity to ask Governor Pence, if elected Vice-President, if he would continue to “advocate for English as our official language,” noting that “54 other countries have English as their official language.”

Governor Pence not only reiterated his support for official English, but clarified why he supports official English. “When my ancestors came here they already spoke English. Speaking English is the key to assimilation and achieving the American dream.”

The “Official English” movement, which has long been supported by former CD-6 Rep. Tom Tancredo, has also been a favorite cause of Congressman Mike Coffman (R-Aurora) over the years.

Although Coffman would have you believe that he is “One of Us,” he is also a repeat co-sponsor of “Official English” legislation. Like Pence, Coffman has regularly co-sponsored H.R. 997 during his time in Congress (here, and here). Coffman has not offered his name as a co-sponsor in the most recent iteration of the “Official English” legislation, however.

Does Coffman no longer believe in the “Official English” movement? Or is he just no longer willing to attach his name as a co-sponsor?

Paul Ryan is in the Denver Area if You Can Find Him

From Mike Coffman's campaign Facebook page (Aug. 24, 2016)

From Mike Coffman’s campaign Facebook page (Aug. 24, 2016)

House Speaker Paul Ryan was in Wyoming this week for a big meeting of major Republican donors and associated advisors. Today, Ryan is in Colorado helping Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Aurora) to raise money at a super-secret luncheon of some sort.

We can’t tell you much more about where Ryan is stumping with Coffman, or for how long, because Coffman’s own campaign won’t really talk about it. Check out the weird statement that showed up this morning on Coffman’s campaign Facebook page, in which Democrat Nancy Pelosi’s name is mentioned four times before Ryan’s name comes up.

“We can’t take anything for granted and we’re honored to have Speaker Ryan in Colorado today,” says Coffman spokesperson Cinamon Watson.

Anyhoo…so, the Speaker of the House is in Colorado today, and nobody wants to talk about it.

Nancy Pelosi!!!

Coffman’s “Oversight” of VA Hospital = Too Little, Too Late, Too Partisan

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Joe R*  has to go to the VA hospital for psychiatric care again – the third time this year.  An obese middle-aged man with thick grey hair, Joe wears a Vietnam ballcap,  sunglasses because he’s mostly blind, Tshirt, shorts, and flip-flops. He ‘s off his meds again, belligerent, paranoid, barely coherent. When the police come, they evaluate his condition, and gently talk him into the ambulance. But where will the ambulance take him?

Aerial view of VA Replacement Hospital 10/2015

Aerial view of VA Replacement Hospital 10/2015 – 50% completed after 11 years and $1 Billion

The “old” VA hospital on 10th and Clermont, where Joe has gone for 25 years and where they know him well, no longer has an emergency room for psychiatric triage, and they only have 20 beds in their psychiatric wing.  So the VA farms “psych emergency” patients out  to several area hospitals. Where he’ll end up, nobody knows.

Wherever the ambulance takes him, the new hospital won’t have his medical history. They won’t know what meds he’s supposed to be taking or how long he’s taken them. They won’t know what works and doesn’t work with this particular disabled veteran. So they will trank him up and warehouse him for a few days or a week, and then send him back home. This is how the VA treats those with “mental health injuries” while awaiting opening of the shiny new VA hospital.

What Joe needs, says his case manager, the social worker, and his doctors, is a residential treatment center that specializes in long term psychiatric needs of veterans. The VA had plans for such a facility, as part of the new and improved Denver VA Medical Center. The Veterans Administration has been designing and building a new “Replacement Hospital” for 12 years.  The cost of this facility has gone from $328 million to its current 1.73 billion price tag – and that may not be the final cost, and doesn’t include the psychiatric rehabilitation wing that Joe needs, nor will it have room to accommodate the outpatient caseload expected  when it is slated to  finally be completed 1/23/2018.


The Most Transparently Stupid Editorial You’ll Read This Year

Chuck Plunkett looks for a spot on Mike Coffman's soapbox

Sorry, Chuck Plunkett, but there’s no more room on this here soapbox.

The editorial board at the Denver Post has always been an unabashed defender of Congressman Mike Coffman. This is not something that any reasonable person could dispute with a straight face.

There may be isolated instances when Coffman has been slightly dinged in the editorial pages over the years, but by and large the Aurora Congressman is treated as a favorite child by the Post. This was true when Vincent Carroll was the editorial page editor, and it is certainly the case now that Chuck Plunkett is commanding the keyboard.

As we’ve said many times in this space, journalists are not infallible beings who are able to tuck away every inherent personal bias when writing about a particular subject, and it is unfair for anyone to expect otherwise. Everyone is biased, to some degree, about everything. But it is a different thing altogether when “bias” morphs from favoritism into outright prejudice — the kind of indefensible preconceived slants that are not supported by fact or logic and cannot be reasonably explained otherwise.

This is the kind of blind prejudice that drives an editorial such as the one that appeared Friday evening in the Denver Post (“Rep. Mike Coffman Right to Defy Donald Trump”) in which Mike Coffman is inexplicably defended for his ongoing tap dance about Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump. This editorial, presumably written by Plunkett, is over-the-top silly, filled with blatant untruths and constructs so illogical that they end up making Coffman look bad by accident. Let’s take a look:

Good for Mike Coffman. On Thursday the Republican congressman from Aurora went farther than other political candidates in his party have gone by attacking Donald Trump in an online ad headed for a small television run.

The very first paragraph of the editorial is factually wrong. Coffman hasn’t gone “farther than other political candidates in his party” in attacking Donald Trump. Despite his criticisms, Coffman still won’t say whether or not he will support the GOP nominee in November; many other Republicans, such as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, have repeatedly said in public that they won’t even vote for Trump.

But it strikes us as odd for Coffman’s liberal critics to demand for months that he clearly state whether he would support Trump and then cry foul once he does not.

Come again? It’s “odd” that critics would continue to be concerned that Coffman still won’t take a position on Trump even after Coffman has refused to take a position on Trump? This makes no sense whatsoever.

While it’s true that Coffman once maintained he would support whoever won the GOP nomination, he did so in February, when he said he thought Sen. Marco Rubio would get the nod. And Coffman has used much the same language in his ad in recent past statements.

Try to explain this one without getting a migraine. It’s true, says the Post, that Coffman said he would back the Republican nominee for President…but he only said that because he was supporting Marco Rubio at the time, and he thought Rubio would be the GOP nominee.

What the Post is actually saying here is that Coffman was lying when he said he would support the GOP nominee for President, because what he really meant was that he would only support Marco Rubio as the GOP nominee. As a defense of Coffman, this is as blatantly illogical as “2+2=5.”

It’s also worth noting here the disservice that Plunkett does to Coffman, albeit on accident. We’re not aware of any other media descriptions of Coffman’s position on the Presidential race that directly implicate the Congressman as saying he would back the Republican nominee for President; it’s usually Coffman’s former spokesperson, Kristin Strohm, who gets the “credit” for saying Coffman would back the GOP nominee.

Another fact that ought to be obvious in considering whether Coffman’s words can be judged sincere: By challenging the shoot-from-the-hip nominee, he exposes himself to Trump’s vicious and vindictive ways. No small consideration, as any number of critics have learned.

Here the Post says that Coffman is definitely sincere in his criticism of Trump because most everyone else is afraid to say anything negative about Trump. This might make a modicum of sense if it were at all true that there was a general reluctance among politicians Americans at large to attack Trump. Plunkett would have you believe that Coffman is on the leading charge of anti-Trump sentiment, when in truth, the Aurora Congressman can’t even keep his narrative straight within the same news cycle.

This editorial by the Post and Plunkett is journalistic jaundice as its worst. We’ve come to expect this kind of editorial prejudice from the likes of the Colorado Springs Gazette, where editor Wayne Laugesen doesn’t even bother to pretend that his wife doesn’t take money from the same Republican politicians upon which the newspaper will heap praise, but the Denver Post didn’t used to be this way. Former Post editorial page editor Vincent Carroll was an unabashed supporter of conservative Republican principles, but he never would have blindly walked into the same logic traps that befuddle Plunkett here. Carroll didn’t hide his own biases, but he didn’t thumb his nose at factual truths, either.

As the writer E.B. White once said, “Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts.” Maybe Plunkett was just under a tight deadline. Maybe (probably) not. Whatever the reason, the result is an editorial that is so illogical and silly that it damages the credibility of an entire newspaper.

True prejudice and bias doesn’t recognize its own flaws, and neither does the Post in this instance. When your logic in defense of a subject is so terrible that the subject ends up looking worse as a result, you’ve lost the ability to even attempt to appear reasonable. This editorial is just plain silly, and “silly” is about the worst thing that can happen to a news organization.

Mike Coffman Just Imploded

UPDATE #2: Annnnddd….then it gets so much worse:


UPDATE: Story now up from 9News:

We followed up with Coffman on Thursday and found that’s not precisely the case. Instead, Coffman is walking a fine line and saying that he’s undecided in the presidential race.

While the ad is intended to showcase a stance against the leader of his party, Coffman stopped short of disavowing Trump’s candidacy in a telephone interview with 9NEWS.


What's that, now?

What’s that, now?

Remember that story this morning about that anti-Trump TV commercial that features Rep. Mike Coffman? The ad isn’t even on television yet, and Coffman is already backpedaling, as Brandon Rittiman reports for 9News.

You can read our original post about Coffman’s Trump dance for more background, but to really understand how totally bizarre this has become, we thought it would be helpful to give you a quick timeline of the words coming out of Team Coffman today:

1. Mike Coffman, in a preview of his new TV ad released to the press:

“People ask me, ‘What do you think about Trump? Honestly, I don’t care for him much.”

2. A bit later, Coffman’s spokesperson, Cinamon Watson, had this to say about Coffman’s thoughts on the Presidential election:

Watson said Thursday that “Hillary Clinton is not an option” and that Coffman will not vote for her. She did not directly answer whether he has ruled out voting for Trump. He “is considering his options — like a lot of Americans,” she said in an email.

3. And here’s what Coffman apparently just told Brandon Rittiman at 9News:

Rittiman: Would you rule out supporting Donald Trump for President?

Coffman: No.

There you have it, folks. This is how an incumbent member of Congress loses his re-election campaign.



Spoof Ad Sets Record Straight: Mike Coffman is “One of Them”

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

After a paid television ad for Republican Rep. Mike Coffman has aired for several weeks claiming Coffman is “one of us” and “not like other Republicans,” ProgressNow Colorado, the state’s largest online progressive advocacy organization, released a parody of Coffman’s “One of Us” ad to correct the record about what Mike Coffman really stands for.

“From his attacks on Social Security, abortion rights, immigrant voting rights, and even questioning President Barack Obama’s citizenship and allegiance to our country, we know that Mike Coffman is not ‘one of us’–he’s ‘one of them,’” said ProgressNow Colorado executive director Ian Silverii. “Coffman is running scared from his long far-right record because he understands that the voters are tired of Donald Trump, and the backward far-right agenda Trump and Coffman have always shared for our country.”

Watch ProgressNow Colorado’s parody ad here. To see Coffman’s original ad, click here.

ProgressNow Colorado’s video parody, which is running now as an online advertisement on major social media and news sites, recounts numerous moments from Coffman’s long record in Colorado politics, including:

  • ∙ Mike Coffman once introduced himself to a crowd at a Tea Party rally as “a proud member of the Party of No.” [1]
  • ∙ Mike Coffman supported legislation in Congress to “redefine” the crime of rape to make it harder for rape victims to get an abortion. [2]
  • ∙ Mike Coffman agrees with former Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme.” [3]
  • ∙ Mike Coffman said “the DREAM Act will be a nightmare for the American people.” [4]
  • ∙ Mike Coffman told a group of Republicans that President Barack Obama “is not an American.” [5]
  • ∙ Mike Coffman told bilingual voters to “get a dictionary” while trying to restrict access to bilingual ballots. [6]
  • ∙ Mike Coffman doesn’t believe in climate change. [7]
  • ∙ Mike Coffman didn’t take action on the Aurora VA hospital cost overruns for years while the problem got worse. [8]

“Mike Coffman has built his political career on appealing to the same ugly elements of American society that Trump is motivating for his presidential run,” said Silverii. “Coffman can’t claim to be ‘not like other Republicans’ after he spent years proudly advancing the far right’s agenda in Congress like every other Republican. Now that Trump is destroying the Republican brand, Coffman must own his appalling true record–and face the consequences in November.”

Denver Post Deletes Mike Coffman Quote About His Marriage in Archives

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Rep. Mike Coffman (R).

Rep. Mike Coffman (R).

Of all the crazy stories we heard last summer about the GOP efforts to depose Colorado Republican Party Chair Steve House, this snippet from the Washington Post’s Ben Terris was perhaps the most shocking.

… House arrived the night of June 15 to find himself outnumbered — and on the defensive. [Colorado Attorney General Cynthia] Coffman was joined by Tom Tancredo, a firebrand former congressman, and Becky Mizel, a Pueblo County chairwoman. Three months earlier, these three had been his biggest supporters when he challenged and beat the incumbent party chairman — but now, suddenly, they wanted him out.

They ticked off a litany of grievances: House’s bookkeeping habits, his communication style, his refusal to hire one of their allies as executive director.

“Is that all?” House asked after each point, in an exchange recalled by Tancredo and confirmed by House’s office.

“Well, there’s Julie,” Coffman said.

“I know three Julies,” House said.

Come on, said Coffman — who was he trying to kid?

“Are you accusing me of having an affair?” House asked.

“Well,” Coffman said, “are you?”

All of us have dirt to be uncovered, and you hate to see it trotted out in the media, but this story is an absolutely legitimate invitation for  reporters to take a look at Cynthia Coffman’s own house, literally, the one she lives in alone, separate from her husband, U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman.

But it appears that the only public statement Mike Coffman has made about his marriage has been expunged from the public record by The Denver Post.

In an article last June, then ace political journalist Lynn Bartels reported Mike Coffman as saying:

Mike Coffman: “The fact the we’re married in this day and age is a success story in and of itself.”

But if you look for that quote in The Post’s archives now, you find it gone, disappeared.

Bartels tells me the quote is accurate, as recorded by her from Mike Coffman.


Colorado Republicans Flop Like Fishes As Trump Rolls On

Hair by Donald, head by Coffman.

Hair by Donald, head by Coffman.

In the last few days, our local media has turned its attention to the increasingly urgent question of whether local Republicans, from Sen. Cory Gardner all the way down through the ranks of elected officials, would support Donald Trump in the event he wins the Republican nomination for President.

Trump’s insurgent presidential campaign has resulted in perhaps unprecedented division within the Republican Party, even as he rolls to victory after victory in Republican primaries. Certainly Trump’s dominance of the GOP primary so far over the objections of that party’s entire establishment has no precedent we can think of in our lifetimes, and the long-term consequences for that party are difficult to fully comprehend–but very, very significant.

Yesterday, 9NEWS gave us a fairly definitely roundup of Colorado’s federal elected Republicans on the question, with one significant caveat:

None of Colorado’s GOP members of Congress took an anti-Trump stance when asked by 9NEWS whether they would support the billionaire’s insurgent bid for president if he ends up winning the Republican nomination.

National GOP leaders have grown increasingly leery of Trump, with past Republican nominee Mitt Romney going so far as to call the reality-TV star turned politician as a “phony” and a “fraud” who must not become the party’s standard-bearer.

The five Republican members of Congress from Colorado were split along two positions: refusing to answer the hypothetical and saying they would support the eventual GOP nominee.

According to this latest 9NEWS report, Rep. Mike Coffman says he won’t answer a “hypothetical” question since Trump is not yet the nominee. But we’re obliged to note that contradicts what Coffman’s spokesperson told Ernest Luning of the Colorado Statesman in February when asked the same question:

“Will Mike Coffman support the Republican nominee over Bernie or Hillary?” said campaign spokeswoman Kristin Strohm. “The answer is obviously yes. [Pols emphasis] And he believes strongly it is going to be Marco Rubio.”

As of today, the informed speculation is whether Marco Rubio will drop out before the March 15 Florida primary, or after he loses his home state to Trump as all the polls show him destined to do. Rubio’s total collapse in the last couple of weeks should have already made this deflection an unacceptable answer to inquiring reporters. But either way, Coffman’s flopping to and fro the biggest political news story of the year is a story all by itself.

Sen. Cory Gardner.

Sen. Cory Gardner.

And as 9NEWS continues, surprise! Sen. Cory Gardner is flip-flopping too, after a disastrous interview with the Wall Street Journal last week that became the butt of innumerable weekend jokes:

After being pressed seven times to answer the question by Wall Street Journal, Gardner did say “I will support the Republican nominee” on Friday, saying he didn’t believe Trump would end up with the nomination.

On Monday, Gardner walked that back, telling 9NEWS via email he “will not engage in hypotheticals,” and stating that he believes Marco Rubio is the only person in the race who can prevent Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton from winning the White House.

Gardner’s backpedaling may have something to do with a secretive conference he attended over the weekend at a swanky Georgia resort hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, at which Karl Rove reportedly outlined the GOP establishment’s last-ditch plan to stop Trump. Obviously, if you’re still entertaining any hope of stopping Trump, saying you’re ready to support him if he wins the nomination is not helpful.

Bottom line: if you’re a Republican not on the “Trump Train,” this is a slow-motion train wreck of epic proportions–from which it is not hyperbole to suggest the GOP as we know it may never recover. If you’re a Colorado Democrat, you’re positively gleeful watching this Republican civil war play out, from Donald Trump to Tim Neville.

And it’s only going to get worse/better, folks.

Donald Trump CAN Be the GOP Nominee; What Does That Mean for Colorado?

Hair by Donald, head by Coffman.

Hair by Donald, head by Coffman.

Republican critics of Republican Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump have often used some variation of the line that “Trump won’t be the nominee” as an excuse to avoid offering an opinion on some of the more bombastic statements from His Hairness.

Congressman Mike Coffman (R-Aurora) — who for some reason is absolutely terrified of saying anything about Trump — has used this very excuse himself as he ducks and dodges repeated attempts by reporters to get him to talk about Trump. This is odd for a number of reasons, as we’ve written before, not the least because Coffman has already publicly endorsed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio for President. As our friends at “The Fix” reported over the weekend, not only can Trump win the GOP nomination for President…recent history suggests he’s in the catbird’s seat:

But the fact that Trump is ahead nationally and that he is running first or second in Iowa and New Hampshire is meaningful, argues Sam Wang over at the Princeton Election Consortium.

Wang’s argument is that based on recent electoral history and where Trump stands in polling today, the real estate billionaire actually has a very good chance at being the Republican nominee.

Here’s the historical comparison from Sam Wang, with Trump’s current poll positions factored into the equation:


As Wang says about the numbers: “This emphasizes the fact that based on polling data, Donald Trump is in as strong a position to get his party’s nomination as Hillary Clinton in 2016, George W. Bush in 2000, or Al Gore in 2000.”

State Sen. Tim Neville.

State Sen. Tim Neville.

Trump “won’t be the nominee?” We’ll see — history would seem to suggest otherwise. If Trump is the GOP nominee, it’s going to make things mighty awkward for Coffman when if reporters ask why he ducked Trump questions for so many months.

Should Trump capture the Republican nomination for President, it will also have a significant effect in Colorado’s increasingly-crowded GOP Senate Primary. The main argument that critics make against Sen. Tim Neville — still the odds-on favorite to win the June Primary — is to question Neville’s “electability” in a General Election matchup with incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Denver).

National polls have shown that potential GOP voters aren’t concerned about the question of “electability” in a General Election, and a Trump victory would prove that point. If “electability” doesn’t hurt Trump, it becomes a much weaker argument to use against Neville in advance of the June Primary.

Get More Smarter on Wednesday (Dec. 9)

Get More SmarterOn the plus side, it’s not so windy today. It’s time to Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols! If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example).


► Republican Presidential frontrunner Donald Trump says he stands by his comments that the United States should temporarily bar all Muslims from entering the country. In the 36-48 hours since Trump announced his newest foreign policy idea, politicians on both sides of the aisle have strongly condemned The Donald; Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Yuma) called Trump “a buffoon,” and Rep. Ken Buck (R-Greeley) said that Trump was “a fraud.”

Annnddd…then there’s Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Aurora), who whiffed not once, but twice in attempting to respond to Trump’s comments by trying not to respond to Trump’s comments.  As Colorado Pols wrote earlier today:

In the last week, Coffman has also refused to condemn the remarks of State Rep. JoAnn Windholz, whose Commerce City district is within the boundaries of CD-6, even though his hometown paper called for Windholz to resign over her disgusting comments in the wake of the Planned Parenthood terrorist attack. Coffman had plenty of cover here, too, to speak out about Windholz’s statements, and he just skipped right along in silence.

Does Mike Coffman believe that Donald Trump is right in saying that the United States should temporarily bar all Muslims from entering the country? Does Mike Coffman believe that the Planned Parenthood attacks were the fault of Planned Parenthood (which is Windholz’s belief)? We don’t know, because he won’t say.

And it speaks volumes.

► Love him or hate him, you’ve got to give this to Donald Trump: The man understands the principle of leverage. While (most) Republican elected officials were being openly critical of Trump’s Muslim comments, Trump once again dangled the “I-word” on Tuesday:

Republicans don’t have any good options for dealing with Trump right now. If Trump ends up becoming the GOP nominee for President, his litany of offensive comments will be the albatross that hangs from every Republican neck in 2016. If Trump decides to leave the GOP and run for President as an Independent, he will suck enough votes away from Republicans to make it impossible to defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton in the General Election.

Thus, many Republicans have resorted to crossing their fingers and repeating the mantra, “Trump will not be the Republican nominee.” But his Hairness isn’t going anywhere: “I. Will. Never. Leave. This. Race.”

Get even more smarter after the jump…