CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

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 19, 2010 09:04 PM UTC

McInnis says he's ok with flip-flopping politicians, but talk-show host lets it slide

  • 32 Comments
  • by: Jason Salzman

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Some say I’m beating my head against a church wall when I ask social conservative talk-show hosts to act more like journalists and ask tough questions of conservative candidates whom they interview on their shows.

But here’s Jim Pfaff, pro-life activist and talk-show host, doing a little bit of what I’d hope others of his ilk would do May 17 on his Jim Pfaff show on KLZ radio, 560-AM in Denver. (The segment begins at 26 minutes, 45 seconds on the podcast here.)

Pfaff asks a few decent questions of his guest, gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis, but overall he lets his own cause and the public down big time.

He’s discussing a Denver Post editorial stating that McInnis has “factually challenged explanations” to various details in his history, including the fact that his name was listed on the board of an organization called “Republicans for Choice.”

McInnis dismisses political flip flopping, saying to Pfaff:

“The critical views are where are your views today, and where have your views been recently.”

McInnis adds later:

“The critical issue is where have you been in the last few years…. Scott McInnis was at one time pro-choice. That’s right. In fact, there’s Republicans, you know, that used to be Democrats or vice versa, way back when.”

What I hear McInnis saying here is that he could care less about politicians who flip flop, as long as it hasn’t been in the last “few years.” And what’s really important is what they say “today” or “recently.”

But Pfaff, the anti-abortion foe, didn’t ask the obvious question: Does this mean that McInnis thinks it would be okay if he flipped and became pro-choice after a few years, perhaps during his second term as governor? And what if he flips on other issues after a “few years?” Would this be ok?

Unfortunately Pfaff also did not ask McInnis, at the end of the interview, what the difference is between a candidate who advocates a “social agenda” and one who advocates a “conservative approach in regards to social issues.”

McInnis did say that winning conservative candidates will have “not just conservative economic values but have conservative social values.” Pfaff should have explored what this means.

Here’s a partial transcript:

Pfaff: How did your name end up on that letter, explain that first?

Let’s start at the very beginning by saying I’m pro-life. I’ll be a pro-life governor. And when I become governor I will do lust exactly like Gov. Owens did and that is we will defund the funding that Ritter and Hickenlooper would keep in place in regards to Planned Parenthood. So there’s no question about that.

Second, in regards to my record, which is the beauty of what I have…my record is pro-life. When I was in Congress, I had a zero rating by NARAL….

1998, I think was the date stamp or something on some letter. I don’t know when the letter was dated. I think the letter pre-dated that.

Two things come up. Did I meet with this group called Republicans for Choice? And my policy was always as a Congressman was, you represent the people. Now you may not agree with them but if you can meet with them people have a right to come in and express their points of views….

Apparently, there’s a letter where they list me as an advisory. Yeah, there’s an advisory. Hank Brown is on that for example. And I haven’t visited with Hank about this. The Denver Post calls up and says, did you, I said, man, how many years ago was that? It was a lot of years ago. I don’t have recollection. I told them that. I mean, I was pro-choice when I was younger, of course, when I got out of college. I struggled with it….

Pfaff: You did take a very clear pro-life track while you were in Congress, but you did hold a different position at one time and pro-lifers are going to be very concerned about that and they are an important constituency. So explain how that changed. I think that’s the best way for them to understand what’s going on.

McInnis: You know I went into office in 1982. So almost 30 years ago. So, yeah, views I held almost 30 years ago, 20 years ago, yeah. The critical views are where are your views today, and where have your views been recently. And, you know, when the Denver Post, for exmaple, originally wanted to do an interview on this stuff, I think they even asked for my high school transcripts. And in my high school transcripts, it probably shows I wasn’t a great student in algebra, although I liked math, and things like that. So they are going to reach back….

The critical issue is where have you been in the last few years. And in this article, not in the thing today, but in the article the other day that came out and said we’ve discovered a piece of stationery, not Scott McInnis stationery. There’s a group out there, we’ve discovered this stationery. Scott McInnis was at one time pro-choice. That’s right. In fact, there’s Republicans, you know, that used to be Democrats or vice versa, way back when. The key issue is, where’s the proof in the pudding. And in this article in the last sentence they said they had gone through and done an extensive look through the Congressional Record and could not find one pro-choice vote. The reason is, because he’s pro-life. So the critical issue is today, yesterday, a year ago, ten years ago,five years ago, whatever, I was pro-life, and I will govern as a pro-life governor….

Pfaff: What legislatively could we do in this state to make this a more pro-life state? Obviously we have Roe v. Wade that we have to deal with, but what can we do right here in the state?

McInnis: Great questions. We gotta win seats. We have to put up candidates that can win these seats have those values and those principle values. Not just conservative economic values but have conservative social values. I am convinced that the social agenda, excuse me, the conservative agenda, let me correct that, the conservative aganda. I am absolutely convinced that the pro-job, don’t-raise-the-taxes, the conservative approach in regards to social issues, is the path for prosperity for the state of Colorado.

Tweet
Share

Comments

32 thoughts on “McInnis says he’s ok with flip-flopping politicians, but talk-show host lets it slide”

  1. Trying to get these talking big-mouths to act like journalists is silly. They’re not journalists. Never were, never will be. The name of their game is ratings, nothing else.

    Scooter’s ramblings, of course, are interesting. Thanks for posting them.

    1. They’ll talk “in-depth” with talking heads who share their political leanings, but they’ll send their spokesmen and spokeswomen to talk to real journalists who ask thoughtful questions and follow-ups. Using that formula, candidates can avoid being “pinned down” on issues.

      1. it’s just a big conspiracy isn’t, owl?  Politicians intentionally planning to get interviewed by reporters and talk-show hosts of the “same blood”, simply to make it easier from from being “pinned down”.  As a college student , I was quick to look for “conspiracies” and flaws within my local politicians.  I was a liberal.  Luckily I have matured from that as everyone should when they graduate.  

        I am just going to start attacking Hickenlooper as soon as he gets interviewed by someone who shares the same beliefs at him, just like everybody is doing on here.

        1. There’s nothing much to attack, at least compared to the opposition.

          Attack politics only works against incumbents.  If you’re still running against Ritter, you’re going to be seriously disappointed by Hickenlooper.

  2. Sounds like somebody finally convinced him to quit digging.  This response certainly beats admitting to dementia, to being a compulsive liar or making up fresh lies to cover old lies, as he kept doing with the whole charitable contribution thing.  Just say “next”, studiously ignore any attempt to revisit and cross your fingers.

  3. over lying Conn. Democrat Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal and Denver State Senator Joyce Foster? (For that matter where’s Pols?)

    I find listening to or reading ranting columnists from either extreme a waste of my good time because they rarely have anything to contribute.  You successfully fall into that not so illustrious category.

    4. Disgraced politician John Edwards (my emphasis) is seeking a plea deal with federal authorities in order to avoid serving any time in prison, (my emphasis) the National Enquirer reports. Edwards is under investigation by the FBI and the IRS for campaign violations regarding payments to his former mistress Rielle Hunter.

      Edwards is “terrified” of going to jail, according to the Enquirer source, and “he’s willing to cop to a misdemeanor charge” to avoid jail time, but “is asking to keep his law license.”

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

      Feel better now?

      1. I hate it when our leaders in either party make it impossible to argue that not all those in or running for public office conduct themselves in such a despicable way.

        I have only fired one candidate in the last 30 years telling him to get someone else.  He BS’d his way to one term but his wife caught him and…well let’s just say he only served one short term.

    5. This isn’t really about Jason, is it? It’s about Scott McInnis denying that he ever changed his mind on the issue of abortion.

      Personally, I don’t really minds it when a politician changes their mind on an issue. But I do mind it when they lie about it, or won’t admit that that’s what happened. Unfortunately, a well-reasoned explanation doesn’t pass muster with the party purity police, and so we see a parade of evasions and distortions. This happens in both parties, but it seems that between the flight of moderates and the rise of the tea party movement, it’s been happening more to Republicans lately.

      1. I thought Pfaff should have pressed McInnis when McInnis 1) switched positions on the issue Pfaff cares most about, 2) either lied or spoke incorrectly about it, 3) continues to do so by saying he didn’t vote pro-choice in Congress, and, on top of all this, says 4) what matters is what a politician believes today or in the last few years.

        I personally respect a politician who can change his or her mind. But I wouldn’t dismiss flip flopping either.

      2. our politicians and future politicians are put up to such a high standard that they must be rendered perfect or else… They will not have our vote.  It’s amazing how many comments has has resulted regarding a conversation of McInnis “changing his mind” over the course of a few years.  

    8. highlight what’s missing or wrong. My focus is the news media, including talk radio. But I understand where you’re coming from.

  4. or screeching cat with his tail in a ringer, Jason sounds the same and you all encourage him with your applause.  

    You are at least consistent in your support of Bennett over Romanoff in bashing Andrew and it’s likely to bite you in the butt come fall.

  5. and I know him to usually be a fairly hard inquisitor when it comes to validating the sociocon credentials of GOP candidates here in CO; it’s odd that he doesn’t in this case.

    1. In my first draft of this I gave him even more credit than I did in the end (See the first part of my piece.)

      I know it’s not easy to challenge someone like McInnis, when you’re interviewing him. So I do give him some credit, for sure.

      Pfaff did much better, for example, than Ross Kaminsky did when he was interviewing Jane Norton last month. See my post on http://www.bigmedia.org.

      So thanks for pointing this out.

  6. is a long time. Especially when McInnis hasn’t shown any sign of “flip-flopping” on this issue. I’m pretty confident that he’s anti-abortion and will stay that way.

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

159 readers online now

Newsletter

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