Guess which key demographic reads Cosmo?
Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal wrote at length on a subject we have been intimately familiar with in Colorado: Congressman Cory Gardner's Personhood problem. It has now been more than 4 months since Gardner first tried to flip-flop on Personhood (but only the "Colorado" kind), and he's had a hell of a problem with the issue ever since. Gardner has tried hard to distance himself from the issue — which was the point of the flip-flop to begin with — but things have gone so bad that 4 months later Personhood is still dogging the Republican Senate nominee. He's now being criticized by Cosmopolitan magazine, which is a problem for a lot of reasons.
Since we all agree that women are probably the key to winning statewide races in Colorado, a new story out today should absolutely scare the hell out of the Gardner campaign — not just for what it says, but for where it says it: Cosmopolitan magazine. Ada Calhoun writes this week about the federal "Life at Conception Act," which Gardner sponsors and which is pretty much the exact same thing as the Colorado Personhood ballot measures:
A bill introduced in the House of Representatives last year has major criminal implications for women. If it passes, women could be prosecuted for seeking an abortion or even for taking a drug and then having a miscarriage. It would also outlaw IVF and any form of contraception that could theoretically prevent implantation of a fertilized egg, including Plan B, the IUD, and the pill…
…More than anywhere else, the debate over personhood is playing out in Colorado, the home base of Personhood USA. There, Sen. Mark Udall, a Democrat, has been pounding his challenger, Cory Gardner, with ads calling him out for his support of personhood. Gardner responded in a commercial that he no longer supports personhood after he "listened" to his constituents. But Udall's campaign launched a website that shows Gardner with a cartoon of the federal personhood bill perched on his shoulder, and Planned Parenthood Votes released an ad calling Gardner "still wrong for women's health." Gardner's campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
"Colorado might be a little unique because Coloradans know what this means," says James Owens, deputy communications director for the Udall campaign. "We've had two ballot initiatives on [personhood] in the last six years, and they've failed by overwhelming margins. So when people hear that there's a congressman running to represent the entire state who still has his name on a federal personhood bill, they know what that means for their access to birth control and safe access to abortion."…
…"[Gardner has] built his entire political career on support of personhood," Personhood USA president Keith Mason told Cosmopolitan.com. "I think he's just listening to some bad advice, and he's playing politics." [Pols emphasis]
Whoa. That quote from Personhood USA president Keith Mason is a doozy. When you call out Gardner for basing "his entire political career on support of personhood," it absolutely kills Gardner's hopes of trying to make this look like a reasonable re-think of a controversial issue. And it's not like there isn't a preponderance of evidence against Gardner on this "change of heart."
Cory Gardner is all tied up over Personhood.
Not that we're surprised this isn't going well. Take a look at what we wrote in late April, and notice how you could use the same paragraph months later:
Look, we get it. We understand the idea here. Rep. Cory Gardner was obviously concerned that his longtime support of the Personhood issue — both in Colorado and in Congress — would be a significant problem in his quest to defeat incumbent Sen. Mark Udall in November. From a broader perspective, it probably seemed like a wise move to try to distance himself from his Personhood past. But Gardner and his campaign team didn't spend enough time thinking this through.
Not only has the Personhood issue failed to fade for Gardner, but his clumsy handling of the flip-flop has actually made things worse for his candidacy. And from what we hear, some high-level Republicans are quietly growing nervous about Gardner's silly mistakes.
If Gardner loses his bid for the U.S. Senate largely because of the Personhood issue, he'll have nobody to blame but his own campaign. Personhood was going to come up in this campaign one way or the other, but Gardner's own arrogance at thinking he could just tell people he "changed his mind" has kept this as a top issue as we enter August and the busiest time of the campaign season. He should never have tried to flip-flop on an issue as seemingly black and white as Personhood, but now he's living with the consequences.
Look, we get it. We understand the idea here. Rep. Cory Gardner was obviously concerned that his longtime support of the Personhood issue — both in Colorado and in Congress — would be a significant problem in his quest to defeat incumbent Sen. Mark Udall in November. From a broader perspective, it probably seemed like a wise move to try to distance himself from his Personhood past. But Gardner and his campaign team didn't spend enough time thinking this through.
Not only has the Personhood issue failed to fade for Gardner, but his clumsy handling of the flip-flop has actually made things worse for his candidacy. And from what we hear, some high-level Republicans are quietly growing nervous about Gardner's silly mistakes.
– See more at: http://coloradopols.com/search/personhood/page/3#sthash.kmsDckbY.dpuf
Cory has been rising in the polls continuously as you proclaim personhood is hurting him? His unfavorables are much better than Udall. Why is that?
Simple. He has low name ID and voters are still learning about him.
Cory Gardner: The More You Know, The Less You Like
That's why I'm pretty confident Udall stays in.
Me, too. The only folks who won't easily see the level of "sleaze-ball" in Corys' DNA will be those who just don't want to see it.
If it doesn't hurt him , why did he withdraw his support? Apparently his values depend on which way the wind blows in Yuma.
what he said at the time, soon after he announced for Senate, is "I can't support that now". He knows/knew that he can't run statewide on Personhood. For Cory winning is much more important that a "belief"
Hmmmm . . .
" . . . has been . . ."
Oddly apropros . . . but I still prefer "shameless ashat" when I think of Gardner.
Jamie's Sweet and Easy Corn on the Cob
Ingredients
2 tablespoons white sugar
1 tablespoon lemon juice
6 ears corn on the cob, husks and silk removed
Directions
And the next polls will show Gardner struggling mightly trying to get back to the pack, which falls after his "peak" last week.
Gardner, fail.
Cory is getting the worst of both worlds. The pro-choice voters will NEVER trust him and all he has done is offend and alienate his social conservative base.
I agree with Frank. Gardner has an interesting tendency to shoot first and aim later. Two yers ago, when the High Park fire flared up west of Fort Collins, Gardner was quick to blame federal government land mangement policies. After several days, somebody clued his staff in that the fire started on private land and was burning mostly on private land.
I mean, if Gardner wins, I am sure he will be the VP candidate in 2016. Kerry couldn't do this and Romney couldn't do this. And now Gardner has taken flip-flopping to a whole new level. He is a Schrödinger's candidate, if you will. Sort of an experiment in quantum political science.
In case any are wondering, Moo is here referring to the paradox of Schrodinger's Cat:
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Schrodingers-cat
28?
I gotta know.
Sorry to be so dense, JB…but, to what are you referring?
OMFG moves!
Nobody reads Cosmo for what it says about Yuma, Colorado, asshat politicians . . .
Are you insinuating that AC reads it for the feminine hygeine ads? That's harsh, Dio.
Are you insinuating that our troll is "unfresh"?
LOL. How was the corn?
Looked fantastic. Just got home, so this evening's dinner menu will include grilled corn. Thanks again.
We may buy it for the OMFG moves, but those mags tend to sit around awhile, and eventually most of the articles get read….
All the articles in Playboy definitely get read in due time.
28.
"33"