CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 07, 2013 09:39 AM UTC

New Coffman® Stumbles

  • by: Colorado Pols

endangeredcoffmanFOX 31's Eli Stokols updates in the aftermath of Rep. Mike Coffman's (R-Endangered) vote against a presidential executive order halting the deportation of "child arrival" undocumented immigrants, a.k.a. "DREAMers."

Congressman Mike Coffman, perhaps the most vulnerable incumbent in Washington heading into next year’s election cycle, has been making serious overtures to Latino voters.

But on Thursday, when he voted along with fellow House Republicans to de-fund the Obama administration’s executive order that allows so-called “dreamers” — kids who were brought here by their illegal immigrant parents — to receive temporary work permits, Democrats pounced.

“Congressman Coffman just voted to take us back to the days of deporting law-abiding DREAM Act-eligible children who just want to live the American Dream,” said Emily Bittner of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Coffman's response, saying that the executive order in question gave too much "prosecutorial discretion" while insisting he still supports a path to citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants (but not their parents), doesn't hold water. It certainly doesn't align with the justification from most of his Republican colleagues in the House who voted with him and against the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Anti-immigrant hard liner Rep. Steve King of Iowa, so politically toxic that Rep. Cory Gardner canceled a fundraiser with him, sponsored this amendment. King, as everybody who follows the issue of immigration knows, isn't encumbered by Coffman's recent mission-critical need to say nice things about immigrant children.

In short, New Coffman® just had a troublesome outbreak of Old Coffman.

With that said, there is the matter of the Republican response to criticism of Coffman, which quickly sought to deflect to the record of Coffman's Democratic opponent, former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff

Romanoff, the former House Speaker, has his own political issues with Hispanics after supporting immigration legislation during a special session called by former Gov. Bill Owens in 2006.

“If Washington Democrats want to criticize a politician with extreme views on immigration they should attack their own hand-picked candidate Andrew Romanoff,” said the National Republican Congressional Committee’s Tyler Q. Houlton.

“Romanoff is wildly out of touch with Colorado values and even admits he supported the harshest anti-immigrant laws in the country as Speaker of the Colorado House.”

The 2006 session of the Colorado legislature's work on immigration, while beneficial to Democrats in the short term as they headed off an expected major campaign issue that year, has indeed left hard feelings between some Democrats and the Latino community in Colorado. Romanoff's now-infamous quote in the Los Angeles Times extolling the 'toughest immigration law in America' is a political liability for him, even after the worst of the 2006 bills was repealed in legislation this year. We believe Romanoff understands he has a lot of work to do.

Folks, do you see who is doing the criticizing above? That's Tyler Q. Houlton, longtime local Republican operative now working for the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC).

The guy calling Romanoff "a politician with extreme views on immigration" is Tom Tancredo's former spokesman.

Bottom line: Rep. Mike Coffman, Tom Tancredo's successor in Congress and, until redistricting, every bit the immigration hard-liner to match Tancredo and please Tancredo's former constituency, really might be trying to run to the left of his Democratic opponent on immigration in 2014.

But as this latest episode demonstrates, it's just not going to work.


48 thoughts on “New Coffman® Stumbles

  1. Tyler's point is completely legitimate.  Romanoff did support one of the harshest state immigration bills of the past few years (Arizona and Alabama of course being worse).  However, the operative word there is "did".  As in several years back. 

    I still am pulling for Coffman in this race.  However, Coffman's vote yesterday just set back GOP outreach in a significant fashion in a manner that did not advance conservative principle.  And for that I am severly annoyed at the moment. 

    1. Coffman set back outreach and did not advance "conservative principle" (whatever that is), but you still back him. Do you always back politicians who stand for nothing?

      1. There is more at stake than just immigration.  I voted for Romney although I despised his immigration position of "self-deportation" under existing laws.  

          1. EF is a Libertarian; have you never read Ayn Rand?

            To a Libertarian, Romney is a yeoman industrialist, creating wealth with his own bare hands, struggling against the scourge of inheritance taxes and the ravages of evil liberals like Obama, someone who never had a "real" job in his life.

            Libertarian idolotry of the super-wealthy is standard fare, not to mention crank economic ideas about fiat money and keeping gold bars in the basement.

            Explain again why are you confused about who EF would support for president?

    2. I wouldn't worry too much about Coffman setting anything back. There are plenty more R pols doing a bang up job of that so, outside of Colorado, Coffman is just a little drop in a very big bucket.

      So you can vote for him and other Rs for all of your good reasons like their devotion to failed austerity policies, their determination to control women's bodies and oppose equal pay, their opposition to equal marriage rights, the fact that the only tax break they ever called for ending was the payroll tax break that benefits every working American and pit more money directly into the economy, ditto social security, their enthusiasm for sending more Americans to fight more wars and lack of enthusiasm for spending to take care of the returning broken vets,  supporting troops who happen to be women, etc, but you can forget about the present batch ever evolving on immigration. 

      It will take a lot of doing to replace the present batch with anything better since they are exactly the kind who make it through GOP primaries. Maybe in a decade or so you'll be able to vote for Rs who won't be poison to immigration reform.  Not today, so I guess you may as well go with Coffman if you like all that other R stuff.

    3. "severly annoyed"


      You sound like the English Bobby (who don't carry weapons) : Oy! You there! Stop….or I'll shout "stop" again!


      As long as Coffman maintains his core voters, no matter how misinformed or annoyed they are – he wins. Ie, he gets away with crap like this.

  2. EF "severly annoyed" (sic) by Coffman and "despised" Mitten$ but still so solidy sucking it up for the red team.  Kinda like a bit of Stockholm syndrome for a soul who should really be able to figure out what's best for himself but can't help it due to some seriously screwed logic.

  3. "…economic policy and various constitutional questions.."

    Such as? (in the open diary or a new one of your own)

    Oh wait, I know! I know!

    – Dems want to take away everyone's gun by requiring background checks and limiting weapon types

    – Dems want the USA to "nation build" in foreign countries where the USA is uninvited and unwanted

    – Ds support civil rights by allowing consenting adults to marry whomever they want


    Apologies if I have overreacted misinterpreted  – please, any examples would be welcome (elsewhere).


    Your type no longer deceive me.  You can talk about independence and non-partisan, post-partisan, multi-partisan baloney all you want.

    In the end, you vote R. Don't get me wrong – I know plenty of D voters who say the same kind of things.  High minded ideology is almost always just talk.  You're going to support a better R candidate in the primary…next time.   You'll support the (3rd party) candidate  …next time.

    But this time- Coffman gets a pass on anything he says or does that annoys you becase ….. you vote R.


    1. But not without being severely annoyed. You're not even trying to feel his pain. which should get him, I don't know, points or something? A pat on the back for, good intentions? Sorry about voting in folks who will fight to maintain a system in which your mom, who was brought here when she was 2 and had a good job and paid taxes, got deported after she was stopped for a traffic violation but please be aware that I voted for them while suffering severe annoyance. Oh, the pain. Pretty brave, huh?  And I'm really sorry about your mom. High five?

      1. "…points or something?"


        a)  What do you call a rapist who wears a condiom?

        b) What do you call a husband who only slaps his wife, never punchs, kicks etc?

        c) The guy, while severely annoyed, votes his party anyway?

        a) a rapist

        b) a wife beater.

        c) a base voter.


            1. If I ever run for office you won't see me commenting on sites like this around that time.  Anyway, I felt like venting some frustration regrading the DACA vote.  You guys helped me do that.  So for that, thanks I guess 

              1. You did. And you deserve credit for that, Elliot.

                I know your frustration is genuine, and it does you credit. Most of us just see a choice for you that you don't see.

        1. I assume you're saying that you have. If you keep voting in the people you know will screw them, helping those people attain majorities in congress, it kind of cancels whatever small scale good you accomplish that way out.

          My husband and I aren't lawyers so, no we have never waged a legal battle for any of the immigrants we know but we have helped immigrant friends, documented and un, in whatever way we can.   We've provided affidavits for one couple seeking a green card for the immigrant wife, attesting to the their being friends of long standing and knowing their marriage to be real. We filled out paper work to help a Vietnamese employee bring his wife and kids over.  When one of our undocumented friends who came here very young and has American born children lost a cash paying housekeeping job due to the break up of the employers' marriage which led to their having to ditch the multi-million dollar house  around same time her husband was deported, we found her another equally good job with a sympathetic and rich client.

          Oh and we never vote for troglodyte, xenophobic rightie bigots or help elect GOP majorities. That's our most important pro-immigrant contribution.


          1. The only way CIR will occur is if it is bipartisan.  So if you want to stay in your echo chamber and pat yourself on the back, go right ahead … You won't be moving the ball

            1. Rs don't have any intention of cooperating so bipartisan doesn't work any more. What works to get  things done  is Dem majorities. Look at all our state legislature got done with Dem majorities in both houses and a Dem Guv.

              At this point, the philosophy of no compromise obstructionism being what it is in the actual GOP, not the the one you wish for, a vote for an R, any R, is a vote against good bi-partisan legislation. Period.

              And I was not patting myself on the back. You're the one who inferred, back patting style, that you were doing wonderful things such as saving people from removal. I simply responded to your point, a concept I'm well aware is not one with which you are at all familiar.

              And weren't you not "engaging" with me anymore because I'm so horrible? wink

            2. The only way CIR will occur is if it is bipartisan



              The Senate is a maybe. The House is not while Obama (any D?) is POTIS. So it's over.

  4. Coffman seems kind of checked out for a guy facing his toughest re-election battle ever. Doesn't seem to be doing any defending himself, it's all talking heads.

    1. Welcome to Coffman-land.

      Where last time around he learned that when he makes a statement, that we all have, that's his statement.  Say nothing, do nothing, duck and cover.

  5. Not sure why the graphic … Coffman is just one of the many idiotic GOPer ignorati vying for first place in the ASShole Olympics.  He & his ilk are neither endangered nor worthy of any sympathy.  If anything, ColPols is doing a serious disservice to both the National Geographic brand and the plight of defenseless innocent wildlife.

    Coffman has his own small-minded pig-priggish brain to blame for any defeat and his ultimate demise.  I solidly in the Romanoff court, though out of his district, but will do what I can to support his run.  Romanoff has done nothing that I despise or has even mildly annoyed me.  Sure helps when one has reason to be proud of their candidates (unlike an the serial blogger & suck-up EF).  


  6. I am so confused.

    I understand why this vote occured in the House as it is a symbolic “Up yours, Barack”.

    That said, I do not understand Mike’s vote.

    1. He could have avoided voting altogether. Couldn't he have scheduled a squash game during the vote?
    2. His vote strengthens his credentials with his right-side base. But, he didn't need to do that. They are going to vote for him anyway. They would never vote for that snot-nosed, Commie Bastard® Andrew.
    3. He has guaranteed that no one on the left-sde nor any Hispanics are going to vote for him. Did he think this would appeal to some Black voters and get them to vote Republican?

    What did Mike gain from this vote?

    1. I don't get it either.  But consider this – Coffman outperformed Romney by several percentage points in the current district for 2012.  Given the typical point or two shift for the GOP in off year elections, he still has a strong chance to win the coming election (especially if Romanoff is still (I haven't been keeping up) refusing to take PAC money) 😉

      1. Coffman's not going to be a pushover and, in fact, would have to be considered the one with the edge right now as an incumbent still mysteriously portrayed as and assumed to be by low info  (the vast majority) voters, a moderate. But he isn't doing himself any favors. Look at how close he came to blowing it last time. If anyone in this situation can screw it up and lose, Coffman can. But maybe he has no choice with his wacky primary electorate being what it is. See Romney.

          1. Certainly not as as long as he toes the hard line and that's the way he wants to keep it.  That's the only reason for him to be spouting what he knows the base wants to hear.  Of course he could probably get by without a serious challenger without sounding quite so draconian (which would be better for him in the general) but if  the gaffes, zombie like responses on video and apologies followed by taking back or denying the apologies that characterized the campaign he almost lost last time are any indication, the man simply isn't very bright.

    2. Dear Confused,

      Considering how much help Coffman's dumb remarks gave Miklosi Who?, allowing him to come much closer than the most optimistic had hoped, I suspect one, or perhaps all, of the following explanations.  

      1) It doesn't make any sense because Coffman isn't very bright.

      2) He's afraid of getting labeled a RINO and being primaried from the right, forcing him to open his mouth way more often than he wants to for fear of "misspeaking" incidents and subsequently…

      3) being faced with a candidate from some third flavor party in the general. He has to hang on to all of the base, including the most loony, because he won't be changing any hearts and minds elsewhere. And of course the hand full of Fladens will vote for him regardless.

      Explanation number 1 seems like it must be at least be part of the mix.


        1. Wouldn't you be more likely to know about that kind of thing? Are you hoping for one? We evil lefties would love one, too, the more Tancredo-like the better.

        2. sign?  You are looking for signs?  Well- 

          1) there have been 3rd party candidates in most of the recent CD6 races. One of them even got over 5,000 votes.  Good bet the next race will have at east one too.

          2) The Blackhawks are about to win the Cup.  It's not as clear an end-times sign as the Cubs winning the Series, but it's something.

          3) The tea party folk in CD6 have money, though they don't Freda Poundstone anymore.

          4) Coffman will NOT, under any foreseeable circumstance have a viable primary challenge. See- now that it's been said, someone could step up just to prove me wrong.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

79 readers online now


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