Coffman wants to prohibit borrowing, except when he wants to borrow

by: Jason Salzman

Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 14:27:35 PM MST

Coffman's proposal specifies an exception. Deficits would be allowed during war or serious military conflict. (Families don't get such an exception, in case you're wondering whether your warring family can spend willy nilly.)

But Coffman himself has advocated for another crisis situation during which, he's said, deficit spending by the feds should be allowed.

On KHOW radio, back in April, 2009, Coffman said he "would certainly support deficit spending," if it were "truly stimulative" during the dark years of the great recession, 2009 and 2010.

In February, 2009, Coffman was equally clear on KHOW radio that the recession, which was slamming the country, was "so severe" that Coffman supported more deficit spending to stimulate the economy:

Silverman: So what are you suggesting? That we not do it? That we not have the stimulus package? Because Barack Obama said last night, hey, I didn't come up with this $800 billion figure on my own. This is what the Republicans and the Democrats are talking about. The size of the stimulus package that is necessary given the dire condition that we are in. I like to live within my means. I am not big on borrowing for anything other than to buy a house. Are you saying we shouldn't borrow money? I am not big on borrowing for anything other than to buy a house. Are you saying we shouldn't borrow money?

Coffman: I do think that the situation is so severe that it warrants it. And obviously, from my point of view, that the greatest stimulus to the economy is by allowing individuals, small businesses owners, and corporations to keep their money in their pockets. And let the individual spend it versus the government spend it. So they can spend it their way. [BigMedia emphasis]

Length of payroll tax cut extension didn't seem to matter much to Gardner before this week

by: Jason Salzman

Wed Dec 21, 2011 at 13:58:14 PM MST

Unless they are asked right questions.

The Denver Post's Allison Sherry dialed into a call with Rep. Cory Gardner Dec. 14, and asked a really good follow-up question raising doubts about Gardner's subsequent explanation that he opposed a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut because two months was too short.

The Colorado GOP organized the news conference call last week to tout passage of a House bill that extended the payroll tax cut, but the House bill also included riders, which would, among other things, have paved the way for the Keystone oil pipeline.

This House passed this bill before the Senate passed its bill this week extending the payroll tax cut for two months.

On the call, Sherry, along with 9News' Brandon Rittiman, wondered about the inclusion of the Keystone rider in the House bill. And the de-funding of some of Obamacare. Why was that stuff on the bill?

Sherry put the question to Gardner like this. (at the 10-minute 40-second mark in the recording here).

Sherry: I think what one of the other Democratic members of the Colorado delegation said last night was, look, we do all agree on one thing, which is that we want the payroll tax cut to extend, and so why can't we focus on that, and why are these other policy riders lumped into the House bill. And I'm not even talking about the Keystone pipeline. I think they were talking about the EPA regulations, the defending of some of the Obamacare stuff. Why would the House go and pass something that probably won't pass the Senate and the President would veto, if we all do agree on wanting to pass the payroll tax cut.

Gardner didn't answer the question.

So Sherry calmly put it another way, that got to the heart of the matter.

Sherry: And you said to me yesterday, and I want to make sure you still agree with this, that you don't believe that this is a make-or-break deal for you. If there is something that you had to vote on that didn't have the Keystone pipeline on it, that didn't have some of the EPA provisions, you would still likely vote yes, because you believe in extending the payroll tax cut?

No actual factual proof of misogyny offered in Post article

by: Jason Salzman

Mon Dec 19, 2011 at 21:53:58 PM MST

No solid evidence was produced to support the Republican allegation, which was refuted by Democrats.

And no proof was offered for the other GOP allegation in the article, namely that there's also a "very, very small" segment within the Colorado Republican Party whose "misogynistic attitude" hurts GOP women.

This charge came from Rep. Amy Stephens, according to The Post:

Stephens said she researched the word "misogynistic" - a hatred or distrust of women - earlier this year after the attacks on her started.

"It's an attitude of 'We know better. You don't get it. You wouldn't understand,' " Stephens said.

"As long as you're mothering the caucus, you're fine. But by God, raise money, recruit women candidates, train them, no, oh no, oh no. And then have the audacity to win the majority? Then, it's threatening. Then, it's 'How dare you? Now you're a RINO.' "

I thought I'd see if another critic of Stephens could shed more light on the origin of the "mysogynistic attitude" mentioned by Stephens.

In response to my email, former Secretary of the El Paso GOP Sarah Anderson wrote:

Mme. Majority Leader Stephens appears to be applying the "misogynist" label to anyone with whom she has a difference of opinion, much as she previous had with the "anarchist" label.  It's exactly that kind of response that furthers her reputation as a "RINO"... last time I checked, you only pull out the ad hominem attacks when you are losing an argument and have nothing of substance or value left to say.  Frankly, it's a very Alinskyite tactic, which is antithetical to being a Republican.

Post Columnist scoops news department & reports Gessler allegation of actual election fraud

by: Jason Salzman

Wed Dec 07, 2011 at 07:48:32 AM MST

(My mistake, he didn't wave these lists; he just talked about them and refused to make them public.)

But, if you've been reading The Post, you may not know that Gessler has alleged real-life, actual, happening-now fraud. That's of course a far more serious allegation, but not a word of it has graced the pages of The Post.

That is, until Saturday, in an opinion column by Fred Brown, who scooped the entire news department.

Brown's column was the first piece of any kind, news or opinion in The Post, stating Scott Gessler's view that there is actual election fraud in Colorado.

Brown wrote:

"He [Gessler] rode into office in 2010 on a wave of Tea Party insurgence and immediately began warning everyone, from Coloradans to congressional committees, about election fraud, which he says is widespread but most others, including Meyer, say is a minor problem."

But Gessler said on the radio: "So we know fraud exists. The question is, what's the extent and what's the proper balance."

And to the Pueblo Chieftain: "Signatures vary a lot, and sometimes people's signatures don't match what's on file. Some are fraud, some are innocent mistakes."

Brown wrote that he relied on other sources, including Gessler's congressional testimony, which was quoted in The Post but does not quite allege fraud. Gessler testified,  "We know we have a problem with possible noncitizens on the voter rolls."

Because Brown didn't talk with Gessler directly, a door is wide open, beckoning, for a Post reporter to get out in front of the commentary section, track down Scott Gessler, and ask him, "Where's his evidence for fraud in Colorado elections?"

And if he has none, why does a laywer like him, much less a man who's got the title of Secretary of State, play fast and loose with the F word?

Gessler suggests people influence journalists by, among things, blogging 20 minutes a week

by: Jason Salzman

Thu Nov 17, 2011 at 07:00:30 AM MST

"When they write a story, and they see a large number of comments one way or the other, that means something," said Gessler. "We do a terrible job on our ideological side of the fence. We do a terrible job of this."

Gessler's comments came in response to a question from the audience at his lecture Monday evening at Colorado Christian University's Centennial Institute.

Cease and Desist from the Denver Post

by: Fong

Wed Nov 16, 2011 at 12:11:07 PM MST

So please remember that when discussing the somehow copyrighted "news", especially in a light that criticizes the whoreishness of the DP, that the Denver Post with all their butt-hungry lawyers will come down and sue me for everything I'm worth.

...which ain't shit.

Let's stop linking to them and start looking for real reporting that isn't beholden to a master antithetical to truth in reporting.

Thank you and this concludes your butt-hungry public service announcement.

Denver news outlets lie there as Gardner, Gessler, and Whitman abuse them

by: Jason Salzman

Thu Nov 03, 2011 at 08:38:05 AM MST

I mean, if journalists don't defend themselves, who will? Academics? Maybe, but who cares?

And if only the marginalized and irrelevant characters are defending journalism, you have to think the profession will sink even faster than it is now.

In July, for example, Rep. Cory Gardner said on Grassroots Radio Colorado that "the media" is biased against people like him who believe in "smaller government," but as far as I know, no journalist has reported why Gardner believes this, much less responded to it.

Last week, Secretary of State Scott Gessler said "a lot of the mainstream media" are "fine" with Republicans as long as they "don't make waves." But if Republicans, presumably like Gessler himself,  "challenge the status quo," then then the media get upset.

Here's a chance for journalists to explain 1) whether they've been "upset" at Gessler, and 2) why their coverage of him has been in the public interest.

But no such stories have been written, even though Gessler's attack on the media appeared in The Denver Post's Spot blog.

Then over the weekend, The Post served up a story about Gerry Whitman lashing out at the media during a farewell news conference, saying the news media's portrayal of his department was "just ridiculous" and stories about excessive force have been overblown.

Another opportunity for journalists to stand up for themselves! But I noticed little or no such self defense in the article.

Green energy investments aren't just "meant" to create jobs; they're creating them

by: Jason Salzman

Sat Oct 15, 2011 at 13:43:23 PM MST

The editorial commented on General Electric's announcement this week that it will be building a $300 million solar-panel manufacturing plant in Aurora, which will create 355 jobs right off the bat and could employ double that number.

Here's part of what The Post had to say:

What makes it even sweeter is that the thin-film technology that will be used in the plant was developed in Golden, at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, an economic engine in its own right, and PrimeStar Solar, an Arvada-based company.

With these developments, the state continues to make a name for itself in the green energy business.

In both a symbolic and real-world blow to green energy development and the jobs renewable industries are meant to create, the National Renewable Energy Lab in Golden announced significant job cuts today.

That's not true, especially when it comes to NREL, as this week's announcement from GE makes clear.

Still waiting to hear why Gessler thinks there's "fraud" (fraud!!!!!!) in Denver elections

by: Jason Salzman

Tue Oct 11, 2011 at 07:48:31 AM MST

It's a pretty serious accusation, given that we like to think we live in a functioning Democracy and all.

Gessler made the fraud accusation once, for sure, on Oct. 2, when he claimed that "there's a pretty high incidence of fraud in inactive-voters returned ballots" in Denver. And he may have said it last year, when as candidate he asserted there wasn't "massive fraud" in the Denver elections office, but implied that there appeared to be a little bit of fraud happening.

You can't assume your Secretary of State plays fast and loose with the "F" word, so if I were Gessler, I would have jumped at the chance to return my call, to make sure I had it right, even if I'm a lowly blogger.

And if I were a reporter at a legacy media outfit, I'd be chasing this story, as a public-interest matter.

In any case, it was good to see The Denver Post's Sara Burnett tweet on Friday that the chief of Colorado's elections office apparently disagrees with Gessler about fraud in Denver elections.

Here's Burnett's tweet:

sara_burnett: Head of SOS elections div says he's not aware of any fraud regarding ballots mailed to inactive voters. #COpolitics

That's a relief.

25,000 more Republicans

by: therebis

Tue Oct 26, 2010 at 07:25:43 AM MST

"With one week until Election Day, Republicans have cast about 25,000 more votes than Democrats at either early-voting sites or through the mail. About 443,600 ballots have been cast statewide.

Republicans are also winning the turnout battle, with about 17 percent of Republicans having cast a ballot so far compared with about 15 percent of Democrats, according to the figures released Monday."

Read more: More Republicans head to ballot box early in Colorado - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/elec...

We need to get our "game on" for GOTV!  Do we want to live under Ayn Rand's John Galt society?

If you HAVE to endorse a Republican, I GUESS it should be her

by: Fong

Sun Jul 18, 2010 at 23:02:29 PM MST

Jane Norton gets a (reluctant, in my mind) endorsement from the Denver Post. (which has done a lot to piss me off lately).

A Conservative nitwit could whine her paporial nod is "a part of the liberal media shiny shiny meow meow meow" but we know they're stupid.

...even if they're occasionally a majority...

Either way, Buck is flip-floppy crazy, and Jane Norton is just an attention whore.

Yeah, I said it.