With President Obama’s plummeting approval numbers, it’s not surprising that Republicans are reminding voters that Udall voted with Obama 97% of the time since 2011 (it was 99% of the time last year). But, it is funny to have a compilation of Udall’s attempts to distance himself now – at the 11th hour – from the President. Enjoy before the tonight’s debate when Udall will again square off against Rep. Cory Gardner during which we will tweet for your enjoyment.
Last night, U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman and his Sixth Congressional District opponent sparred at the 9News debate. The biggest question that Romanoff has yet to answer is exactly where he stands on health care reform. He still didn’t answer the question last night. Here’s a clip from the debate:
Coffman: Three weeks ago, you were for a public option and you were for a government-run healthcare system. And, I understand that three weeks ago you changed, and now you’re just for Obamacare. Being for Obamacare, I want to ask you a question: Would you vote to repeal the individual mandate in Washington, D.C. if you were elected?
Romanoff: If this is what no labels looks like, I wonder what a label would be. The truth is that we ought to be fixing the Affordable Care Act, not simply repealing it, and not allowing insurance companies to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing conditions or charging women more than men, or throwing people off the rolls when they get sick. That doesn’t make healthcare more affordable or more secure. What we need instead is for Democrats and Republicans to take on the insurance industry, hold them accountable, lower rates, and help more families get access to the care they need.
Coffman: So, the answer is no?
I just gave you the answer Congressman. Stop asking me questions I don’t want to answer.
Coffman: No you didn’t.
We haven’t gotten any answers from this Congressman.I’m rubber, you’re glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
Coffman: So, the answer is no, you will not repeal the individual mandate.
Here’s what’s hilarious. Despite Romanoff claiming to not accept PAC dollars, he does benefit from PACs as the House Majority PAC has been carrying out negative attacks on his behalf, as we pointed out yesterday. Who do you think funds HMP? Well, the PAC regularly receives donations from the New Democrat Coalition as well as the BlueDog PAC. And, who funds those PACs? America’s Health Insurance Plans for one, to the tune of $10,000 per organization. So, Romanoff can talk a big game about representatives divorcing themselves from the influence of the health insurance industry, but he’s a beneficiary of its funds.
Next, can Coloradans trust Romanoff to take a stand this critically important issue when he’s all over the place? Whichever way the wind blows is where he stakes his claim. Until the wind shifts, that is.
Another thing that’s funny. Romanoff suggested that insurance companies could charge women more than men. Not here in Colorado. thanks to Mike Coffman, who passed legislation forbidding the practice.
And, finally, we see the real Romanoff emerge again. It’s the guy who lobs personal attacks when he’s backed into a corner, the guy who says “if this is what no labels looks like” or “we haven’t gotten answers from this Congressman”. The truth is that Coffman has been praised for his bipartisan efforts and he’s answered plenty. It’s Andrew Romanoff who has some explaining to do.
Nancy Pelosi’s Super PAC, the House Majority PAC, is about to announce an ad against Rep. Mike Coffman that says he opposes stem cell research. Too bad Pelosi and Andrew Romanoff didn’t do their research. Coffman has championed adult stem cell research and helped get funding for adult stem cell research at Anschutz Medical Campus. He also co-sponsored the Patients First Act of 2013 to increase stem cell research.
As part of his support for stem cell research, he worked closely with the Charles C. Gates Center for Regenerative Medicine and Stem Cell Biology in his own district. Here’s what the director of external relations for the center, Jill Cowperthwait, said about Coffman’s support:
“Mike Coffman has visited our research facilities on multiple occasions and done everything possible to support us in our efforts on stem cell research.”
As for the ad, that’s not the only misleading thing about it. The woman in the ad, while we sympathize that her child is ill, is not actually from Colorado’s Sixth Congressional District. She lives and votes in Wheat Ridge. And, well, she doesn’t exactly look like she does in that ad either. See the photo to the right.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time that the House Majority Project has tossed aside veracity in favor of political points when it comes to Coffman. Last year, a flack from the despicable organization called Coffman, a military veteran, a terrorist. Clearly not accurate.
No word yet on whether Romanoff will denounce this ad from outside money that clearly benefits him, you know, since he’s not taking PAC dollars and all.
National Democrats official hit the panic button today as veteran Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg released a 100+ slide Power Point presentation which basically can be summed-up thus: If we manipulate the numbers really hard, things are not really as bad as we all assume them to be. Yet, this huge amount of Democratic spin comes at a cost for them. It only illustrates that for Sen. Mark Udall things are even worse.
Udall is tied in Greenberg’s poll with Rep. Cory Gardner 45%-45%. Less than a month out, polling in the mid-40’s with no lead, welcome to the incumbent death zone Mr. Udall. But, what has got to be the absolutely worse news from this Democratic attempt at “good” news, is that their polling shows Udall, his attacks, and his messaging have hit a wall. There are essentially no voters left for Udall to grow his numbers.
One poignant slide points this out. On slide 53, Greenburg polls the races among voters before and after the “message vote.” By “message vote,” they mean their attacks on Republicans. The other three states (North Carolina, Iowa, and Georgia) perform like one would assume they would, when the Republican has a bunch of nasty things told about them the Republican loses votes (between at least 3 to 5 points in the other states). Colorado on the other hand, Cory Gardner actually gains a point after the pollsters read the attacks against him.
Udall is f@#$ed.
Greenburg tries to bury the inconvenience of Colorado at the very end of his slides, pushing the Colorado in-depth analysis to slide 97. On slide 111 we see that Udall has done the impossible and hit the until now unknown threshold of diminishing returns for Democrats “war on women” messaging. Every single attack ad Udall now shows on TV ends up costing him more support than he gains from them. To further emphasize this, Udall has maxed out his goodwill with the ultra-liberal, Democrat-dominated, unmarried women, where his attacks against Gardner will not move the numbers any higher, and leaves Udall sitting at 45% with no where to go. Udall has reached his ceiling.
This explains why Udall’s campaign has recently took to twitter trying to attack Gardner on any and every thing, hoping that something will take, and they can eek out just a few more votes. Otherwise, Udall is dead in the water at 45%.
The new collaboration between the University of Denver and The Denver Post, where they set up a so-called “Fact Lab” must be one of the more stupid ideas we’ve seen recently. Not only have they set up a grading rubric for it that will never see any letters handed out for ads overall other than mostly “B’s” and maybe an occasional “C,” but to assume students—yes, even the very smart one— can set aside their own biases (let alone recognize they have any) is to believe in unicorns.
Take for example the students most recent attempt at being fact-checkers. Here they dissect the Steyer-led NextGen’s attack ad on Rep. Cory Gardner:
This NextGen ad makes three claims:
- Cory Gardner thinks he knows better than scientists, NASA, and the US Military when it comes to climate change.
Interestingly enough, just two weeks ago, a highly-respected scientist (and former Obama appointee to boot), Steven Koonin, wrote a 2,000 word essay for The Wall Street Journal on this very subject. Gardner’s position seems to fit with this scientist’s view. As Koonin wrote:
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere’s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences. [the Peak‘s emphasis]
How could Gardner agree with all scientists when there are disagreements among the scientists themselves?
DU and The Denver Post go on to further embarrass themselves when they cite The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as further proof how true NextGen’s errant claims on Gardner are:
In addition, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has concluded that the increased rate of climate change has been influenced by human activity.
Yet, Koonin himself uses the very same report to show how unsettled the actual science is:
We often hear that there is a “scientific consensus” about climate change. But as far as the computer models go, there isn’t a useful consensus at the level of detail relevant to assessing human influences. Since 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has periodically surveyed the state of climate science. Each successive report from that endeavor, with contributions from thousands of scientists around the world, has come to be seen as the definitive assessment of climate science at the time of its issue.
… For the latest IPCC report (September 2013)… uses an ensemble of some 55 different models… The models differ in their descriptions of the past century’s global average surface temperature by more than three times the entire warming recorded during that time… As a result, the models give widely varying descriptions of the climate’s inner workings. Since they disagree so markedly, no more than one of them can be right. [the Peak’s emphasis]
We have to believe the DU/Denver Post did not consider such possibilities when they said NextGen’s claim about Gardner was true.
The problem with most “fact-checkers” is that they believe themselves to be above the political fray; that they either have no bias, or are able to check their bias at the door. Such an attitude is more dangerous than a willingness to admit one’s bias.
That the self-proclaimed “fact-checkers” would allow themselves to be swept up in the liberals’ false narrative that everything about climate change is a settled science, shows just how utterly lacking most “fact-checkers” are. More false prophets who claim they are the purveyors of truth, just dressed up in 21st century garb.
Embattled U.S. Sen. Mark Udall’s interview with Eli Stokols probably did go as well as he had hoped. Here are a few clips from the interview with our take on where Udall could have done better.
Here Udall tries to avoid talking Obamacare by bringing up his self-proclaimed privacy watchdog status, which the Peak has debunked over and over and over again.
Here is our take on Udall calling himself a privacy watchdog:
“Privacy watchdog? His record suggests otherwise. In 2011, as we reported, Udall pulled a very public 180 on privacy issues. In March 2011, he published a diatribe on Huffington Post talking about how he couldn’t support three tenets of the Patriot Act: roving wiretaps, business record access (aka the “215” orders) and so-called “lone wolf” wiretapping. Sure, sounds good, except that he voted for these three pieces in H.R. 514 just one month before. The funniest part of the whole thing? H.R. 514 only dealt with these three issues.”
Let’s be honest, the real reason that Mark Udall won’t talk Obamacare on the campaign trail is because it’s a disastrous issue for him. Period.
Here’s another great moment – when Udall says that he has no regrets on his votes over the last six years. Seriously? We have regrets about decisions we made last week. Not a single regret over the last six years? Udall voted with Obama nearly 100% of the time and he doesn’t have a single regret? Not a one? What about Keystone, which would help bring jobs and energy independence to the United States? Not even that?
And, finally, here is Udall trying to fudge the truth. His opponent Rep. Cory Gardner suggested that Udall asked the White House to pass cap and trade (aka a carbon tax) before comprehensive immigration reform. Udall denied that happened. But, here is a Denver Post report suggesting that’s exactly what happened. From a 2010 Denver Post blog post:
“President Barack Obama isn’t the only one worried that trying to squeeze in comprehensive immigration reform right now could derail climate change legislation that has been in the works for nearly a year. U.S. Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colorado), who has been a major backer of trying to pass sweeping green energy legislation this cycle, said that the climate change bill should go first in the Senate’s busy calendar and that immigration should wait until later.”
Udall’s entire campaign has been marked by a “distract and deny” strategy, but don’t Coloradans deserve better?
We weren’t surprised that The Denver Post endorsed Gov. John Hickenlooper. After all, the newspaper is one of the embattled Governor’s biggest apologists. But, we were surprised that they did so in a manner that totally glossed over his major failings as a Governor. Here’s our line-by-line rebuttal to the endorsement.
The Denver Post: It also belies the accusation from critics that he is indecisive or somehow too reflective — as if taking the full measure of an issue is a sign of weakness. It isn’t.
Colorado Peak Politics: Hickenlooper’s mulling of controversial issues is not why he has been called indecisive. We saw Hickenlooper’s “taking a full measure of an issue” at the Denver Post‘s very own debate, where Hickenlooper’s flip on two very key issues – minimum wage and climate change – seemed more to have to do with how he was digesting his lunch, than hours upon hours of him taking the full measure of something. The Post mistakes Hickenlooper’s lackadasical attitude and flip flopping for thoughtfulness. Even Colorado Public Radio, by no means a bastion of conservative thought, nailed Hickenlooper on his unwillingness to make tough calls.
The Denver Post: By any fair assessment, Hickenlooper has been more than just a capable governor. He’s been a highly effective one.
Colorado Peak Politics: We’re just going to turn this over to CATO, which just released a new report that gave Gov. John Hickenlooper an “F” grade as Governor. Here’s what the report said:
“General fund spending has ballooned over the past three years under Governor Hickenlooper, from $7.2 billion in 2012 to a proposed $9.2 billion in 2015. The governor’s proposed spending increases have averaged 6 percent over the past three years. His most recent budget included a 15 percent spending boost for higher education and new spending on corporate welfare programs. State government employment is way up under Hickenlooper, rising 16 percent since he came to office.
He pushed for a huge personal income tax increase on the ballot in 2013 to fund education, which would have raised more than $900 million annually. If passed, Amendment 66 would have replaced Colorado’s flat income tax of 4.63 percent with a two-rate structure of 5.0 and 5.9 percent. Luckily for Colorado taxpayers, this increase was soundly rejected by voters, 65 to 35 percent.”
The Denver Post: Nowhere have his political skills been more evident than in the bitter wrangling over hydraulic fracturing used to extract oil and natural gas.
Colorado Peak Politics: Now, we’re laughing. It was only because of his unwillingness to stand up to the extremists in his own party and an overgrown spoiled child (yes, we’re talking about you, Rep. Polis) that spread wholly inaccurate information about this safe procedure that Colorado’s economy was held hostage. Further, the only reason this Polis Commission was forged is because Hickenlooper was terrified of the impact it would have on his own campaign. If The Denver Post really believes this drivel, we have a bridge to sell them.
The Denver Post: [The economic recovery] has been a disturbingly slow recovery from the 2009 economic collapse, but Colorado appears to be leading the way.
Colorado Peak Politics: We’re not sure how we’re leading the way or who we’re leading. Our unemployment is down, but the number of employed is still lower than before the recession and we have more people here. Additionally, our recovery has lagged behind our neighbors. It sounds like even The Denver Post isn’t sure about this dubious claim by the Hickenlooper camp.
The Denver Post: But let’s not forget that the gun measures passed in 2013 were modest in scope and had solid or overwhelming public support. These were not gun-grabbing initiatives….
Colorado Peak Politics: Let’s not forget, DP, that these are the most extreme (yet, arbitrary) pieces of gun legislation in the country. Subsequent surveys have shown that the gun laws do not enjoy the overwhelming public support that this piece claims. Further, he took only input from out of state donors, refusing to meet with sheriffs, the very people who would have to enforce these laws, until after they had passed. He also claimed that his staff (ahem, Roxane) pinky-swore (ahem, Bloomberg) that he’d sign it. Just another example of how he’s not taking the full measure, but, instead, is a weak leader.
The Denver Post: Hickenlooper’s decision to give Nathan Dunlap an open-ended reprieve from the death penalty pleased almost no one on either side of that divide — we’d have preferred he commute the sentence to life in prison without parole…. And yet he went ahead with his unpopular call because he believed it was the right one.
Colorado Peak Politics: The decision to grant a temporary reprieve to Nathan Dunlap is unpopular because it’s so monumentally unfair. It’s unfair to the justice system, which ruled on this. It’s unfair to Dunlap’s victims, whose lives were brutally cut short. It’s unfair to Dunlap’s victims’ families, who may have looked to Dunlap’s execution as closure. It’s unfair to Colorado’s future murder victims, whose killers were not deterred because Hickenlooper proved that the state does not take seriously public safety.
The bottom line is that Colorado deserves a leader who will stand up against his own party and against special interests. That’s not Hickenlooper. We were not surprised that The Denver Post endorsed Hickenlooper, but we were disappointed. We were surprised that the newspaper didn’t take more seriously it’s role in standing up for its readers, and as a result, maybe The Denver Post shouldn’t be surprised by its falling readership.
The Republican State Leadership Committee is dropping mail in support of State Senate candidate Beth Martinez Humenik. She is running against former State Rep. Judy Solano for a highly competitive seat in Adams County.
RSLC President Matt Walter issued the following statement on the RSLC’s decision to spend money in Colorado:
We are committed to making Republican gains in Colorado and are excited about the opportunity to elect Beth Martinez Humenik. Beth is a strong ‘Right Women, Right Now’ candidate in the Centennial State, as highlighted in our Future Majority Project “Races to Watch” list last month, and we look forward to seeing her join the Colorado Senate in November.
Cash, especially third party cash, is always the truest indicator of competitiveness and momentum, so the fact that the RSLC is coming in now shows a high level of confidence in the GOP’s chances of flipping the State Senate.
It’s no secret that many supporters of the anti-fracking movement are from out-of-state, but a quick analysis shows just how far flung they are. In February 2014, the education campaign Coloradans for Responsible Energy Development (CRED) started sponsoring a supplemental ad insert in The Denver Post. Not surprisingly, the Sierra Club immediately coordinated a feeble action-alert campaign. Colorado Public Radio and Climate Progress both took the bait. Hundreds of complaints were alleged, none of which were verified.
Now a second online petition has been directed at The Post to stop the section. Guess how many signers listed their state as Colorado? Just over one half of one percent (0.67%) [the Peak emphasis]. See the chart below.
Other key points:
- Only 2,679 are from the U.S. (34.7%). And the most are from… wait for it… California! Big shock.
- Our friends in Europe (who are currently being held hostage by Putin) made up a whopping 41 percent of the signers.
- Middle Eastern countries total 143 (1.85%); Russia totaled 108 (1.4%); and Saudi Arabia had 35 signatures (.45%) (We bet they did)
- Only 52 signatures from individuals who listed their state as Colorado (0.67%)
We’ll spare everyone a post on conspiracy theories (for now), but we’re pretty sure that when fractivists said they wanted local control, they didn’t have Russia in mind.
Last night, John Hickenlooper and Bob Beauprez squared off in Pueblo for their third debate. Once again, Beauprez had a strong performance and offered a clear vision for Colorado moving forward. Beauprez forced Hick to answer for his record that harms Coloradans. In contrast, Hickenlooper appeared weak and defensive. Here are some of our favorite Beauprez moments:
Beauprez Owns Hickenlooper on Renewable Energy Mandate and Polis Commission
Beauprez Hits Hickenlooper on the Economy
Beauprez Notes Hickenlooper Didn’t Have Facts on Gun Laws
Videos courtesy of the Bob Beauprez YouTube channel.