Search Results for: pfaff

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

( – 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.

Is Ritter’s Attacker Refusing to Follow Open Records Laws?

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

As part of my reporting for my nationally syndicated column, I sent Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) requests to various legislators a month ago asking them for their correspondence with an array of operatives representing organizations and corporations with business before the Colorado legislature. According to the text of CORA, legislators are statutorily required to respond to these requests within a “reasonable time” which “shall be presumed to be three working days or less” and “shall not exceed seven working days.”

Pursuant to this law, I received a prompt response from a number of legislators, some of which detail the planning Republicans have long been engaging in to grind the upcoming legislature to a halt over giving public employees more of a voice in state government (more on this in the coming weeks).

However, I received no response from the legislator now leading the charge against allowing state workers to have a voice in their workplace – Sen. Shawn Mitchell (R). You can read my full CORA request to Mitchell in the jump of this post, which I emailed to him at his – the email he lists on his official state website.

It is difficult to believe that Mitchell’s refusal to follow Colorado state law and respond to my request is an accident. I have sent Mitchell two CORA requests – the original one, and then a reminder about the original one a month after he refused to answer. Just in case his email was down or my email got caught in a filter, I also left a phone message at his office. I still have received no response at all.

Let’s be clear – Mitchell knows the law. He is, after all, “an attorney in private practice in Denver and Adams County” and was previously Special Counsel to Colorado Attorney General Gale Norton, according to his campaign website. And as Colorado’s state government makes clear, “Under Colorado law, 18-8-114 C.R.S (1989), it is a Class 1 misdemeanor for a person to knowingly make a false entry or alter any public record or to destroy, mutilate, conceal, remove, or impair the availability of any public record.”

What’s amazing about this, of course, is that the Colorado right-wing machine is attacking Ritter for supposedly issuing an executive order in a “back room” deal. This attack is echoed by Rep. Cory Gardner (R) on Jon Caldara’s television show, Independent Thinking (which airs in Colorado tonight and which I was a guest on as well). This, even though Ritter’s office long ago responded to CORA requests about its conversations with state workers and labor officials. This, even as Mitchell, the legislator leading the attacks on Ritter, has refused to even respond to basic inquiries he is legally required to respond to.

In the coming weeks, I’ll be investigating my options about how to get Sen. Mitchell to follow Colorado state law. I frankly have no idea whether he has any correspondence as it relates to my CORA request. He may not. But what I do know is that he is required to respond to a CORA request either way – and that hasn’t happened after repeated attempts to get him to do so.

As I said, it is difficult to believe that Mitchell’s silence is an accident – two emails and a phone message should be more than enough to get a response (just one email got a response from the other legislators I CORA’d), and certainly a month is far longer than the statutorily required limit of 7 days for a response. But I’ll wait to hear Mitchell’s explanation to make any concrete conclusions about what’s going on here – that is, if he decides to follow the law and respond to my CORA request and give me a response.

That said, if Mitchell is, in fact, simply ignoring state law, as the situation seems to suggest, there is something quite disturbing about it. State legislators are, at minimum, supposed to follow state law. There is also something quite hypocritical about a right-wing machine that simultaneously attacks a governor for supposedly being secretive when the leader of that machine has yet to follow state law and respond to the very open records request the governor himself has already responded to.

October 10, 2007

The Honorable Shawn Mitchell
200 E. Colfax
Denver, CO 80203

Dear Sen. Mitchell:

I am writing to make a request for records pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, Colorado Revised Statutes 24-72-201. I am requesting that you provide records relating to discussions with any or all of the following individuals and groups:

1.  Dick Wadhams

2.  Hans Gullickson

3.  Sandy Fuentes

4.  Cameron Lynch

5.  Brad Jones

6.  Amy Rathburn

7.  “Face the State”

8.  Alex Cranberg

9.  Bruce Benson

10.  Bob Schaffer

11.  Focus on the Family/Focus on the Family Action

12.  Tom Minnery

13.  James Pfaff

14.  James Dobson

15.  The Independence Institute, including:

a.  Jon Caldara

b.  Jessica Peck Corry

c.  David Kopel

d.  Kay Cullar

e.  Amy Oliver

f.  Anne McIntyre

g.  Julie Mallon

h.  Nancy Miller

i.  Pam Benigno

j.  Ben DeGrow

k.  Marya DeGrow

l.  Linda Gorman

m.  Randal O’Toole

n.  Penn Pfiffner

o.  Jay Ambrose

p.  Arthur “Trey” Fleisher

q.  Kirstin Haslers

r.  Fred Holden

s.  Dennis Polhill

t.  Barry Poulson

u.  Beth Skinner

v.  Frank Zaveral

In accordance with this request, I ask that you produce copies or originals of all materials made, maintained or kept, including but not limited to:

Calendar entries
Telephone logs
Telephone or other messages
E-mails (both official and private, including e-mails that may appear in the Inbox, Sent, Trash or Deleted folders).

My request applies to all correspondence, both sent and received, involving any discussions with the individuals or groups outlined above. Please include copies or originals of any and all writings not specifically mentioned in this request but which a reasonable person would include. As the open records statute requires, a response is required within three days.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.


David Sirota
Nationally Syndicated Newspaper Columnist
Creators Syndicate

Focus on the Family Blusters Against Gay Adoption

House Majority Leader Alice Madden has introduced the Second Parent Adoption Bill, which makes it legal for two people to adopt a child as opposed to just an individual.

The bill drew a predictably blusterous response from Focus on the Family, which has for years prided itself on leading the fight against the potential gayness of cartoon characters (from SpongeBob Squarepants to penguins). But once again, their blustering is more confusing than penguin sex. As the Rocky Mountain News reports:

House Bill 1330, which will be debated after 1:30 p.m. today before the Health and Human Services Committee, is already drawing fire.

It’s been condemned by conservative religious groups, including Focus on the Family, who call it a thinly disguised effort to legalize adoption by gay couples.

“All the high-minded discussion of ‘protecting children’ and ‘parental responsibility’ is merely a smokescreen for the true intent of this legislation: paving the way for homosexual adoption,” Jim Pfaff, president of Colorado Family Action, was quoted as saying on the Focus on the Family Web site Wednesday. He said the bill ignores the wishes of Colorado voters, who last year overwhelmingly defeated an initiative that would have legalized domestic partnerships and gay adoption.

According to Pfaff, this bill is “Merely a smokescreen for the true intent of this legislation: paving the way for homosexual adoption.”

We hate to break it to you, oh ye of limited vowels, but homosexuals can already adopt children in Colorado. Gay cartoon characters, as far as we know, cannot; so at least you’re still ahead of the game on that one.