Mike Coffman: America’s Most “Tea Stained” Congressman

Are you feeling it?

Today's press release from liberal activist group Americans United for Change probably won't surprise you:

It’s official: The Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party. Even those Republicans who represent moderate districts voted with the Tea Party 81 percent of the time in 2013, according “Tea Stained,” a groundbreaking new legislative scorecard compiled by Americans United for Change.

“Tea Stained” details the voting records of 47 Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are running for reelection in statistically swing districts or who are facing significant reelection challenges.

The scorecard measures Tea Party loyalty based on 48 recorded votes. Many of the votes scored either appear in the scorecards of major Tea Party-affiliated groups Americans for Prosperity or Freedomworks or both. Other votes scored in this project were chosen on the fair basis that they are representative of the Tea Party’s core values, in particular undermining the Affordable Care Act. The health law became the catalyst for the Tea Party’s crowning achievement for 2013 – shutting down the government – and all votes to that end were also scored…

The Members with the highest Tea Party loyalty scores are surprising only in that they represent swing districts. Steve Pearce and Justin Amash, who scored 96 percent and 92 percent respectively, are both proud conservative-to-libertarian types who would have little problem being called Tea Party Republicans.

Far more shocking are those who voted with the Tea Party 80 percent of the time or more and yet represent districts that either voted for President Obama over challenger Mitt Romney in the 2012 Presidential Race or represent a statistically Democratic district.

And by their yardstick, the #1 most "tea stained" Congressman in America:

Of these, Rep. Mike Coffman represents the greatest dissonance between the makeup of his district and his loyalty to the Tea Party. Coffman’s suburban Denver district leans Democratic yet he voted with the Tea Party a whopping 88 percent of the time in 2013. [Pols emphasis]

It bears repeating as many times as necessary, and we've been talking about it for years: Rep. Mike Coffman, originally elected to represent a conservative stronghold, was redistricted in 2011 into one of the most diverse and competitive new congressional districts in the entire country. Coffman faced an overmatched, underfunded challenger in the 2012 elections, and even then only barely managed to keep his seat. Coffman's record of pleasing the staunch conservatives in Tom Tancredo's old district has left him desperate to reinvent himself ahead of a much stronger challenger, former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, in 2014.

Anyway, here's evidence that Coffman's "reinvention" never really happened.

View the original article here

Media omission: Coffman favors re-deployment of advisory troops in Iraq

(Wait, what? – promoted by Colorado Pols)

On a Denver radio show Friday, Rep. Mike Coffman affirmed his opposition to the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, adding that, even now, he'd deploy U.S. military personnel to Iraq, if they were invited, to serve in an advisory role.

Asked by KNUS talk-show host Dan Caplis if he'd support "boots back on the ground in Iraq," Coffman replied:

Coffman: Certainly an advisory role, but certainly not anything beyond that. And that's if requested. I think we have to be very careful once out about reentering that particular conflict. I would say, in terms of regular troops on the ground, absolutely not."

During the interview, Coffman expressed regret that U.S. troops are not on the ground in Iraq today, to help the Iraqi government confront sectarian violence.

"Some residual force would have maintained at least that military-military, government-to-government ties that we would have had some influence there," Coffman told KNUS' Dan Caplis Friday. "Right now we have no influence."

Listen to Coffman say he favors re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq.

Coffman didn't offer details on the size of the "residual force" he had in mind, but back in 2009 he endorsed the Administration's plan envisioning an American force of up to 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq.

On the radio, Coffman criticized President Barack Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq. If Obama hadn't pulled out so many troops, it's possible a residual force could have been left in Iraq, Coffman said, and the current crisis might have been avoided.

Coffman: "I think the Administration was looking for a narrative that we ended war in Iraq. And the Iraqi government had requested some kind of residual presence, if anything to be symbolic to the Iraqi people that we were still engaged. And that's, I think, very important, probably to this day, although the decision has been made… But what the Administration kept doing is lowering the number of troops, and obviously insisting, as they should, that Status of Forces Agreement keep U.S. military personnel under U.S. jurisdiction, as we always insist on. The Iraqi government clearly had to expend the political capital to accept that. And they were willing to until the numbers dropped so low that it wasn't worth it to them to do that. And so the Administration is now saying, 'Well, we gave them the opportunity, and they didn't take it, in terms of the Status of Forces Agreement.' But the Administration just wanted out. And I think we're suffering some of the consequences of that today." [BigMedia emphasis]

Under the Status of Forces Agreement, Obama planned in 2011 on keeping 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, he lowered the number to about 5,000, before the troops were asked by the Iraqis to leave. Based on this, and his statement above, Coffman appears to have been prepared to leave at least 10,000 troops in Iraq or more, if necessary to make it worth it to the Iraqis politically.

Coffman's announcement that he favors the re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq appears to be a reversal of a position he took in 2011, when he stated that he supported President Barack Obama's decision to remove all troops from the country.

View the original article here

New Coffman® Scrubs “Tea Party” References From Wikipedia

Rep. Mike Coffman (R).

How are people are still making this amateur mistake? Buzzfeed:

Last year BuzzFeed reported on how congressional staffers had been editing members’ Wikipedia pages. House offices all share the same IP address. This makes it quite easy to find when people who work in Congress airbrush Wikipedia pages. BuzzFeed found 13 new examples since the first post…

And who do you suppose they found idiotically making edits to their congressional Wikipedia pages from that effortlessly traceable (and public) congressional IP address?

A section from the article “List of politicians affiliated with the Tea Party movement” was removed that said Republican Rep. Mike Coffman was associated with the tea party.

That's right! Colorado's own Rep. Mike Coffman, one of the most endangered GOP members of Congress heading into 2014, has been caught editing his Wikipedia page to remove references to his formerly proud membership in the Tea Party Caucus. The latest red-handed example, though there are likely others, took place as recently as September 20th of this year:

It's pretty stunning to see this error still being made by congressional staff. Buzzfeed's expose last year of congressional Wikipedia edits was bad enough. Coffman, as 9NEWS' Kyle Clark reminds us today, was the #1 offender of last year's story, for removing all reference to his infamous 2012 remarks about President Barack Obama's citizenship. When supporters of Sarah Palin ham-fistedly edited Paul Revere's entry to conform to Palin's faulty recounting of history, eyes rolled from coast to coast. At the very least, couldn't Coffman's staff wait until they are outside the Capitol to make these traceable edits? Use their phones? Something?

Especially since in "New Coffman's" case, one can hardly imagine a more embarrassing screwup?

View the original article here

Coffman touts stem-cell lab tour despite opposing stem-cell research

(New Coffman®? strikes again – promoted by Colorado Pols)

From a post of mine on rhrealitycheck.org yesterday:

Rep. Mike Coffman is on record opposing embryonic stem-cell research, but that didn’t stop the Colorado Republican from touring a stem-cell laboratory at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and tweeting, “Happy to get the chance to tour the Stem Cell Research facility.”

A spokesman for the school, which is located in Coffman’s district, confirmed that the stem-cell facility visited by Coffman November 8 uses stem cells obtained from human embryos.

In 2008 and 2010, Coffman supported Colorado’s failed “personhood” initiatives, which aimed to define life as beginning at conception, when embryos form, and would have banned not only embryonic stem-cell research but also all abortions and some common forms of birth control.

Coffman is one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the U.S. Congress, and reporters should be watching for him to make statements and stage events, like this stem-cell tour, that may appeal to moderate voters but run counter to Coffman forever-held beliefs and policy positions.

Other examples include Coffman's shifting position on the government shutdown, his attempt to label himself a no-labels politician, his once hard stance against allowing abortion after rape and incest, and his evolving position toward undocumented immigrants and their children.

Reporters should remind readers of Coffman's major and mini-makeovers as more emerge. The pattern is now part of the story.

View the original article here

Coffman may take personal legal action against Obama

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Rep. Mike Coffman announced Tues. that he may file a personal lawsuit against President Barack Obama over what Coffman sees as Obama's abuse of power.

Speaking on KHOW radio's Mandy Connell show, Coffman said America is in a "Constitutional crisis" due to Obama's "abuse of waving the so-called magic wand of this prosecutorial discretion."

Obama is "creating new law by not enforcing existing law, without going through Congress, a co-equal branch of government," Coffman said on air. (Listen to Coffman say, on KHOW 11-26-13, that he's considering legal action against Obama.)

"My office is engaged in the legal research right now of how do we take on the Administration," said Coffman on the radio. "It appears right now that we may have to do it, that I may have to do it, or somebody may have to do it, as an individual, outside of Congress, to litigate on one of these issues, the constitutionality. And I think you can litigate on one of them and establish a precedent that impacts all of them."

On the radio, Coffman was unclear about the specific instances of prosecutorial discretion would be the focus of his legal action.

In June, Coffman voted to strip "Dreamers," undocumented immigrants brought to this country illegally by their parents, of work permits and start deporting them, because, Coffman said, Obama over-stepped his authority in allowing immigration officials to defer deportation of them. (Yet, Coffman is also opposed to comprehensive-immigration-reform legislation, passed by Senate Republicans and Democrats, and he has yet to propose a specific plan that he would support.)

On KHOW, Coffman said he believes Obama exceeded his authority in lifting "certain elements of the [Iran] sanctions," in deciding that governors had some discretion under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, and in implementing Obamacare.

One wonders what else Coffman is thinking of. Relaxing some federal drug enforcement measures relating to Colorado's marijuana statutes? (unlikely since Coffman has signed on to a bill allowing banks to conduct business with dispensaries). Maybe Coffman is also upset about Coffman's approach to DOMA?

Reporters might explore the irony that Coffman is wasting time with a hail-Mary lawsuit trying to stop Obama from getting stuff done via executive orders, which Obama has arguably been forced to use thanks to Coffman and his fellow obstructionist House Republicans.

Partial Transcript of Rep. Mike Coffman's Appearance on KHOW Nov. 26, 2013

Listen to Coffman say, on KHOW 11-26-13, that he's considering legal action against Obama

Coffman: I think this country is in a Constitutional crisis because of this President's ability or abuse of waving the so-called magic wand of this prosecutorial discretion, and basically creating law by not enforcing existing law, creating new law by not enforcing existing law, without going through Congress, a co-equal branch of government.

Connell: …One of my great frustrations with the Republicans DC is that there does not seem to be a concerted effort to push back against these exact Constitutional abuses that you are talking about. Is this something that comes up in the Caucus about if there's any strategy. There has to be some way to tell the President of the United States that he cannot just on a whim choose to enforce or not enforce pieces of legislation that have been created by the Congress.

Coffman: My office is engaged in the legal research right now of how do we take on the Administration It appears right now that we may have to do it, that I may have to do it, or somebody may have to do it, as an individual, outside of Congress, to litigate on one of these issues, the constitutionality. And I think you can litigate on one of them and establish a precedent that impacts all of them.

View the original article here

Cory Gardner, Mike Coffman: Call Your Office

GOP Reps. Cory Gardner and Mike Coffman.

A press release from health care advocacy group Protect Your Care Colorado that you'll find curious to say the least:

Even as ads and right-wing OpEds are running praising Representative Mike Coffman for opposing Obamacare, and as Congressman Cory Gardner rails against it on television, their offices are helpfully referring constituents to Colorado’s marketplace, connectforhealthco.com, and helping them #GetCovered by the Affordable Care Act.

According to Carl Dixon from Aurora, “I spoke with a staffer at Coffman's office and he asked me if I was over 65. When I responded yes , he told me I had nothing to worry about. Then I pursued getting info for a family member under 65. He gave me a number for the Exchange.  He offered me a website.  He also stated that one of his coworker's son works for the Exchange and they are having success!” [Pols emphasis]

Another constituent, Stephen Parish, reports, “I called Coffman’s office and spoke to a staffer and asked for help getting started is signing up for the ACA. He was polite and gave me the 1-855-752-6749 number to get in touch with a navigator.”

Other current and former constituents report that the Congressman’s office quickly referred them to the connectforhealthco.com website and phone number, as well as the federal office of Health and Human Services…

“What we have here is a case of ‘don’t do as I do, do as I say’ from Congressman Coffman and Gardner,” said Laura Chapin, State Director of Protect Your Care Colorado. “The ads and their public statements say one thing, but their offices are helping people #getcovered. Instead of voting to shut down the government over the Affordable Care Act and posturing for the TV cameras, Congressmen Coffman and Gardner should be helping even more Coloradans secure access to health care and #GetCovered.”

On the one hand, you can't help but commend the office staffs of GOP Reps. Cory Gardner and Mike Coffman, who are apparently giving inquiring constituents good advice on obtaining health insurance despite the devoted opposition of their bosses to the entire reformed health insurance system under Obamacare. Remember, Rep. Gardner is one of the most vocal opponents of health care reform, who tells a factually questionable personal horror story about his "canceled" plan. Gardner has claimed that the federal insurance exchange website was structured to "conceal the true cost of Obamacare from the American people." Coffman likewise proudly voted dozens of times to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

But is it too much to ask that they have a conversation with their staff, who are helping Obamacare work in Colorado? Like the story of those much-hyped insurance policy "cancellations" this weekend, the gap between what these Republican politicians are telling the press, and what seems to be actually playing out on the ground, cries out for an explanation.

View the original article here

What specific border measures would allow Coffman to support citizenship path?

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Over the weekend, The Denver Post's Allison Sherry reported Rep. Mike Coffman's position, as Coffman has said before, that undocumented adults should be given the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship, but only when the U.S. has an “independently verified secure border.”

It’s fair enough to report that Coffman claims to favor citizenship with conditions. But if a reporter like Sherry is going to take Coffman at his word, she owes it to us to report more details on what an “independently verified secure border” means to Coffman.

To her credit, Sherry did report that Coffman does not support the immigration bill passed by the U.S. Senate that would beef up border security. Sherry reported:

The Senate bill, which no Colorado House Republican supports, commits $38 billion on border security — 20,000 new agents, 700 miles of new fencing, expensive technology such as drones and infrared cameras. [BigMedia emphasis]

Sherry could easily have asked Coffman what security he wants? Another 10,000 agents? Ten billion dollars more? With respect to verification, Coffman wrote in a Denver Post op-ed that he wants the border certified by "experts outside of the executive branch." Who is Coffman thinking of?

And if Coffman won't provide more details, a journalist could report his non-response.

Or a reporter might conclude that, until Coffman releases more details, it's more fair to say he really doesn't support citizenship for undocumented adults.

After interviewing Coffman about his immigration position in Sept. (Two months after Coffman's Post op-ed appeared.) and trying to understand his position on citizenship, The Post’s Tim Hoover, for example, concluded that Coffman “favors legal residency, but not citizenship, for adult illegal immigrants.”

The importance of providing specific information for the public become obvious when you contrast Coffman's immigration position with his opponent's.

Like Coffman, Democrat Andrew Romanoff says he supports "comprehensive immigration reform" and a path to citizenship. The difference is, Romanoff supports a specific plan, the bill already approved by the Senate.

Coffman doesn't support the Senate bill, but holds up no specific plan of his own, even though he says he supports "comprehensive immigration reform," like Romanoff does.

The public would be forgiven for not seeing much difference between Coffman and Romanoff on this issue because, without more details on what Coffman's thinking, their positions sound close to identical.

And maybe they are similar, but we're all in the dark unless reporters do their job and tell us what Coffman is thinking with enough specificity to make his broad rhetoric meaningful. Then his constituents will be able to make up their own minds.

View the original article here

Coffman vs. Romanoff Rated Among Nation’s Top Three Races

 

Analysis from U.S. News and World Report's Lauren Fox:

The showdown between Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Colo., and former speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives Andrew Romanoff is expected to play out in a demographically evolving district that once leaned Republican when Coffman was first elected in 2008, but because of a new wave of Latino constituents moving to the Denver suburb, is swaying in the Democrats' favor. President Barack Obama swept the district by 5 points in the 2012 election.

The rapid evolution of his district has forced Coffman to reevaluate his positions. The congressman entered the House of Representatives and pushed for legislation to nullify a requirement that polling stations provide ballots in more than just English. This year, however, Coffman stepped out and advocated for an immigration overhaul that would provide some kind of legal status for immigrants who entered the country illegally.

The two candidates have deep pockets with Coffman and Romanoff raising $1.6 million and $1.5 million respectively as of September 2013, and there is plenty of outside help.

With so much at stake, the race is expected to be about national issues with Republicans and Democrats both keeping a pulse on the fight. Already, conservative group Americans for Prosperity targeted the district with an ad thanking Coffman for voting against the Affordable Care Act, which has made headlines after the Obamacare website has been plagued with technical malfunctions.

Although this report does note the changing demographics confronting incumbent GOP Rep. Mike Coffman, for whatever reason the story fails to note the much larger impact on Coffman's district from the redistricting process in 2011. Colorado's CD-6 shifted in redistricting from one of the most solidly red districts in America–the stomping ground of former hard-right Rep. Tom Tancredo–into a truly competitive and diverse battleground. In 2012, Coffman faced an underpowered Democratic challenger, yet still barely managed to win re-election.

More than just demographic evolution, although that certainly matters, it is redistricting that has made Coffman one of the most vulnerable members of Congress going into the 2014 elections. Coffman got elected to Congress in 2008 by an electorate that couldn't be more different than what he faces today. There are lots of external reasons why Coffman is vulnerable, from abortion to the recent shutdown he helped bring about.

Factor in his post-2011 constituency, and Coffman is the political equivalent of a dead man walking.

View the original article here

In trying to defend Coffman, Mike Rosen proves enviros’ claim that Coffman has head in sand on global warming

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

I try not to miss any of the fact-checks of political ads on local TV. But somehow 9News' Aug. 21 "Truth Test" of an ad attacking Rep. Mike Coffman got by me. It was the ad showing photos of ostriches and claiming that Coffman has his head in the sand about global warming.

9News' Brandon Rittiman concluded that, even though part of the ad is an "overstatement," it’s “fair to say” Coffman questions whether “we can do much” about climate change, because he's "said repeatedly that 'climate change is naturally occurring' and it's still up for debate how much of an impact people are having."

Rittiman reports:

“Despite saying on his website that he wants to reduce carbon emissions, Coffman does have a solid record of voting against controls for carbon.”

“Bottom line, if you want someone in office who will vote for more control of carbon emissions, Mike Coffman isn’t your guy.”

Rittiman's analysis of the ad demonstrated basic integrity and attention to detail that was nowhere to be found in the work of Denver Post columnist Mike Rosen, who also critiqued the ad.

Rosen starts his Aug. 11 Denver Post column by writing that the ad, paid for by the League of Conservation Voters, "dishonestly attacked Rep. Mike Coffman," and "absurdly calls Coffman an anti-science extremist."

But where are the dishonest attacks on Coffman? Rosen never tells us. Instead, he just writes that "science is never settled," and, it's "highly speculative" whether humans are causing global warming.

Rosen doesn't try to defend Coffman for being the climate-change denier that the ad accurately says he is. Instead, Rosen holds hands with Coffman and questions whether humans are causing climate change. Rosen asserts that the ad falsely claims that "97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real."

Rosen: The league charges that Coffman is out of step, claiming "97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real." Of course climate change is real. Coffman doesn't deny that. The Earth's climate perpetually changes. Ice ages and warm ages predated human existence. Yes, global temperatures have increased since 1800. That was the low point of what's called the "little ice age." And the increase was driven by solar radiation, not SUVs. But notice the League of Conservation Voters' sneaky wording. It didn't say that 97 percent of scientists agree that "human activity" is a primary cause of global warming, because the survey it cites made no such claim. And the impact of human activity is the key, disputed variable.

Actually, the survey cited in the ad says that 97 percent of scientists do, in fact, agree global warming is "very likely due to human activities."  They didn't assert that it's absolutely positively the primary cause, but "very likely" sounds like agreement to me.

That's probably why Rittiman also found the ad's fact that 97% of scientists believe climate change is real "to be true, among climate scientists."

Rittiman reported:

CLAIM: 97 percent of scientists agree climate change is happening and NASA says it's worsening extreme weather. VERDICT: TRUE

The ad should have specified that the figure represents agreement specifically among climate scientists, but it is a well documented figure, backed up by reputable research.

You can also find articles from NASA discussing extreme weather as it relates to climate change and worsening fire conditions, too.

It turns out, surprise, Rosen denies climate-change science just like Coffman does.

So, ironically, in trying to defend Coffman, Rosen reinforces the basic facts in the ad, which were affirmed by Rittiman, that scientists agree humans are causing global warming and Coffman doesn't believe mainstream scientific opinion on the topic.

View the original article here

Like It Or Not, Mike Coffman Owns The Shutdown

?

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank began yesterday's column on "the Cruzification of the GOP" thusly:

When a poll came out this week showing that the government shutdown was putting Republican Mike Coffman in danger of losing his Colorado congressional seat, the lawmaker responded with the serenity of martyrs through the ages.

“Whatever the consequences of doing what’s right,” he told a Denver TV station, “I’m willing to take those consequences.”

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.

Rep. Mike Coffman's resolve to stand with his fellow House Republicans and allow the federal government to shut down, as occurred beginning the first of this month, was amply demonstrated. Coffman told reporters that "this is a negotiation," very much in approval of using the shutdown as a negotiating tactic. We also want to note for the record this C-SPAN video clip from debate just before the shutdown. Coffman upbraids Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman for not "reading" the GOP's bill, and reassuring Waxman that "those reforms in place in the provisions of Obamacare prior to 1 October, will remain in place." 

But as our readers know, in the end Rep. Coffman lacked the courage of Sydney Carton before the guillotine in Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities. As the shutdown of the federal government entered its second week, Coffman appeared to break with his colleagues by claiming support for a "clean" continuing resolution, reopening the federal government without the demanded delay or "defunding" of the Affordable Care Act. The next day, however, Coffman abandoned that promise, telling the Denver Post he wanted some kind of unspecified bigger bargain that included renewal of the government's borrowing authority. Coffman also said he would not sign on to a Democratic attempt to force the House to vote on a "clean" resolution.

Coffman enjoyed a round of highly favorable press when he announced his support for a "clean" continuing resolution to reopen the government. His abandonment of that promise a day later received much less attention. But the fact is, every day this shutdown drags on, Coffman takes damage simply for being part of the Republican House majority the public holds responsible for the whole mess. Coffman's waffling on the shutdown, then waffling on his waffling, contribute to a growing narrative of untrustworthiness–like paying lip service to DREAMer students before voting against them, or justifying his vote for abortion restrictions by highlighting exemptions he used to oppose. Just because the lede got buried this time doesn't mean Coffman's intransigence and doubletalk won't be used against him in the long election cycle that lies ahead (sorry, Vince Carroll).

Mike Coffman, perhaps more than any politician in America after redistricting in 2010, must juggle his ideological loyalties with the opposed interests of his increasingly outraged constituents. The lesson may be, at least in Coffman's case, that's just impossible.

View the original article here

Coffman Buckles–Now Backs “Clean” Continuing Resolution

UPDATE: FOX 31's Eli Stokols:

Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, reversed course Tuesday and vowed to support a clean continuing resolution to fund the government, breaking ranks with an obstinate House GOP bloc that has insisted on changes to Obamacare in exchange for passing a CR to end the ongoing shutdown…

Last week, Coffman told FOX31 Denver he was adhering to the House GOP position and that he was comfortable with the position even if it eventually hurt his reelection chances.

But Tuesday morning, in an Op-Ed piece published in several community newspapers, Coffman reversed course, revealing yet another crack in the House GOP unity around the unrealistic strategy of holding the government hostage until Democrats agreed to the de-funding of the Affordable Care Act.

—–

Rep. Mike Coffman (R).

As the Denver Post's Allison Sherry reports:

Rep. Mike Coffman said Tuesday he will urge his GOP colleagues to support a “clean” continuing resolution to fund the federal government and end the current standoff in Washington.

Coffman, R-Aurora, is a critical voice in the debate because there is now a critical mass of Republican votes to pass a funding measure that does not dismantle or defund the Affordable Care Act — a proposal rejected by the U.S. Senate that led to the current shutdown…

“I have done my best to delay, defund and dismantle all or parts of Obamacare because I believe that much of it will be harmful to this country in the long run,” Coffman wrote. “However, the debate over attaching Obamacare to a spending bill must end and I will argue before my colleagues in the House that we need to pass a 'clean' spending bill to immediately reopen the government.”

Obviously this marks a major shift from Rep. Mike Coffman's position just a few days ago, when he held firm with the strategy to shut down the government to forestall implementation of the Affordable Care Act, saying "this is a negotiation" and demanding further concessions such as the repeal of the "Obamacare" medical device tax. Since that time, Democrats have singled out Coffman for paid-media pressure, and Coffman's hometown Aurora Sentinel weighed in with a blistering editorial condemning Coffman's "abandonment of good judgment." The latest polling shows Republicans taking heavy damage, to the extent that even safe-seat Rep. Doug Lamborn sees "the writing on the wall." Coffman is broadly considered one of the nation's most vulnerable incumbent Republicans going into 2014, so all sides were watching to see how long he would hold the hard line before cracking.

Answer: eight days.

View the original article here

Making Mike Coffman The Face Of The Shutdown

The Hill's Alexandra Jaffe reports on a hard-hitting new shutdown-themed ad campaign from the Democratic aligned House Majority PAC. The goal of this campaign is straightforward: attach embattled Colorado GOP incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman's face and name indelibly to the enormously unpopular shutdown of the federal government presently dominating the headlines.

House Majority PAC, the super-PAC focused on electing Democrats to the House, is launching a wide-ranging multimedia ad campaign hitting all of its top nine Republican targets on the government shutdown…

The super-PAC is targeting Reps. Coffman, Heck, Joyce and Southerland with individually tailored television and Web ads accusing them each of playing "games" with Americans for their role in the shutdown.

…Democrats believe the shutdown will ultimately be a political winner for them, bolstered by polls that show Americans largely blame Republicans. House Majority PAC joins the two central party committees in attacking Republicans for it and labeling it as the "GOP shutdown."

"This harmful and unnecessary government shutdown is a result of House Republicans’ complete embrace of the extremist, Tea Party mentality and their abject failure to pursue a reasonable course that would have prevented a shutdown and the economic damage it’s wreaking all across the country,” said Andy Stone, communications director for House Majority PAC.

That Coffman is getting an even higher degree of attention than most of the nine Republicans on House Majority PAC's list is another indicator of the marquee national importance of the CD-6 race going into 2014. In a district remade out from under the formerly safe-seat Coffman into a culturally and economically diverse battleground, and this time with a strong Democrat opponent to challenge him, the stage is set for the grandest congressional fight in Colorado since Bob Beauprez battled it out with Mike Feeley to win the closest race in the nation in 2002.

The latest press reports have Coffman still rejecting a "clean" continuing resolution to resume funding government operations without the added demands from Republicans to gut the 2010 Affordable Care Act health care reforms. However, that increasingly appears to be the only way out of a standoff that the GOP apparently initiated without a viable exit strategy.

The lopsided polling showing major political damage ahead for whoever the public ends up blaming for the shutdown reveals a wide open opportunity for Democrats to deal a severe blow to Republican credibility ahead of the next election. Those same polls show that, despite a full-court press campaign to shift the blame away from Republicans for the shutdown which has admittedly softened numbers by a few points, voters are still set to blame them by a large plurality. For every bad thing they read about the shutdown, every personal inconvenience they suffer or hear about from friends and neighbors. If, in CD-6, voters come to associate Coffman's face with all of the negative consequences of the shutdown–especially as it persists and the effects worsen–this could be a lasting, even decisive, gift to Democrats in this race.

View the original article here

Airtight Shutdown Denial From Coffman, Tipton

Rep. Scott Tipton (R).

?In the Craig Daily Press, a statement from GOP Rep. Scott Tipton on how he really tried, tried mind you, along with his fellow House Republicans, to avoid shutting down the government Tuesday:

As I’ve said throughout this process, my constituents have sent a strong message that they do not want Obamacare because it’s raising health care costs, restricting access to care and costing jobs in our communities.

The House is listening to the concerns of our constituents and has done everything possible to effectively address Obamacare and keep the government open. It’s unfortunate that the Senate and president would rather force a government shutdown than listen to Americans or even have a conversation about possible alternatives to Obamacare to create a truly affordable and accessible health care system.

On Monday night, we voted once more to heed the call of the American people by sending legislation for the third time to the Senate to keep the government open, as well as to go to conference with the Senate. We fought to require equal treatment for all Americans under Obamacare by delaying the individual mandate and repealing the unfair subsidies that the president issued for Congress. There should be no special treatment in Obamacare for Congress or anybody else, and since the president already has exempted businesses and other special interests from the Obamacare train wreck, he needs to do the same for hard-working American families and individuals.

Despite this, the Senate voted down the continuing resolution that would have treated all Americans fairly under Obamacare and even went as far as to refuse to go to conference with the House to work out a solution to keep the government open. It’s deeply troubling that the Senate and president are willing to shut down government in order to protect special treatment for some, including Obamacare carve-outs for Congress, while hard-working Americans are forced to bear the burden of this bad law.

Rep. Mike Coffman (R).

?For a thorough debunking of Tipton's "Obamacare carve-outs for Congress" falsehood, see this FactCheck.org entry. We haven't checked to see if this statement is actually verbatim duplicated talking points, but it's pretty close. And as the Denver Post's Allison Sherry reports, the other "competitive" Republican representative from Colorado, Rep. Mike Coffman, says he too is not yet ready to endorse a "clean" continuing resolution to reopen the government:

“This is a negotiation,” Coffman said. “I think there’s a belief that compromise is wrong but I believe that to govern, particularly in divided government, you have to compromise.”

He said he was considering supporting a continuing resolution to fund the government that also repealed the unpopular medical device tax — something both Democrats and Republicans have said they’d like to reform.

Sherry's report on Coffman was in the context of word that a growing number of Republicans would be willing to support a "clean" continuing resolution, meaning a bill to fund the government without undoing the Affordable Care Act. But no Colorado Republican members of Congress as of this writing are willing to join them. To the extent that the shutdown of the federal government is highly unpopular, we would have recommended that the swing-district embattled Rep. Coffman in particular have joined Republicans seeking a quick resolution.

As of this writing, no such wisdom has prevailed.

View the original article here

Still waiting to hear why Coffman thinks climate-change research is controlled by radical environmental orthodoxy

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Last month, Rep. Mike Coffman told long-time KOA talk show host Mike Rosen that a lot of scientists can't get climate-change research grants unless they "submit" to the "orthodoxy of climate change by the radical environmentalists."

Some media outlets quoted Coffman's radio comments, but not a single journalist has reported asking Coffman to explain himself, even though global warming, even if you're a skeptic, ranks at the top of the list of environmental issues of our time.

So, since Coffman won't talk to me, I'm left to speculate about what he was talking about. 

I found a handy breakdown of U.S. government funding for climate research.

The top granter is NASA. Does Rad Enviro orthodoxy prevail over there?

Next is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, followed by the National Science Foundation. Both aren't known for harboring the radical environmental set.

But what percentage of the total funding for climate-change research comes from the feds anyway?

I asked Prof. John Reilly, who Co-directs the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Center for Environmental Policy Research at MIT's Sloan School of Management, and he estimated that over 90 percent comes from governments worldwide, with the U.S. government providing the most money.

He added: "The definition of 'radical environmentalist' will of course depend on one's views and interpretation of the science. Both environmental groups and private companies with a range of perspectives fund some research."

So this opens up a serious line of questioning for Coffman. What is his definition of a radical environmentalist?

In a Twitter discussion of this topic, "AFPColorado" told me NASA may be be submitting to radical-enviro-global-warming orthodoxy because "it helps fatten budgets and supplants [its] abandoned original mission (manned space flight)." AFP Colorado offered me an article claiming that "climatism" is, as AFPColorado put it, an "orthodoxy-enforcing religion," used to create alarmism and justify grants.

In his interview with Rosen, Coffman said he'd read "viable sources" backing up his view that radical environmental orthodoxy controls grant funding for climate change. Maybe Coffman was thinking about the article from AFPColorado? It's titled "Science in the Public Square: Global Alarmism and Historical Perspectives" by Richard Lindzen.

I asked Prof. Reilly if he knew what sources Coffman might possibly be thinking of. He told me via email:

Reilly: I am not aware of "viable sources" that have evaluated whether research grant applications that challenge the "orthodoxy of climate change" are more or less likely to be funded. A great strength of the US research system is that there are many different sources of research funding. These programs award grants on the basis of peer review by scientists, and so the grant managers are relatively constrained by the results of the peer review. In the US there is also an important tradition of industry and philanthropist funding of research. The Program I run at MIT is funded in part by a large industrial consortia (the industrial sponsors are identified on our WEB site) and so that provides us with additional freedom to investigate the climate issue, unconstrained by any Federal funding bias, if that is the Congressman's concern. Ultimately, whatever the source or potential bias of research funding, to ultimately have scientific credibility any research findings must find their way into the peer-reviewed literature. Hence that is another check in the system.

It is the case that granting programs are very competitive. Climate change is an area that has energized scientists, in part because of the intensity of the public debate, and so there are many scientists competing over a limited amount of funding. Such competition, just like in the market place, is a good thing but it means that many proposals rated excellent and very good don't make the cut. It is probably only human nature to look for larger reasons if one's proposal fails. For competitive grants from the NSF, for example, my guess is that the success rate is only 10% or less, and even for my Program at MIT I must confess probably no higher success rate than that. Human beings must one way or another make decisions throughout the research system and so there are no doubt imperfections. However, the US system of multiple competitive grant programs, private funding, peer review of grants, and peer review of research findings introduces many checks, balances, and funding opportunities, and so the system is not easily manipulated.

I provide you with Reilly's entire response because you have to admire his effort to be fair and thoughtful about Coffman's assertion, but I'll re-quote his last seven words because I think they sum up his view "so the system is not easily manipulated."

Coffman is saying that, in the case of global-warming grants, science is being manipulated, and not just in subtle way, but by extremists. He's attacking science.

But the good thing is, science welcomes attacks, especially from real-life Congressman like Coffman, because they force scientists to justify their work.

Except Coffman isn't explaining himself, and journalists aren't forcing him to.

Who's to blame for this? Radical environmentalists?

View the original article here

In Denver Post interview, Coffman affirms opposition to birthright citizenship

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

How fun it would be to sit on a newspaper's editorial board and interview all the candidates who traipse by the office begging for an endorsement.

Over the years, The Denver Post has dabbled with putting those interviews online, where they'd be a valuable public resource, but this isn't done in any systematic fashion, unfortunately.

But, moving its nose slowly in the right direction, The Post's editorial-page staff produces an online video-interview, called the Roundup, which proved its worth this week with an illuminating interview with Rep. Mike Coffman.

Yesterday's program broke news when Coffman affirmed his opposition to the longstanding U.S. law granting citizenship to people born on American soil, even if their parents are not citizens. This is commonly referred to the policy of birthright citizenship. 

Coffman: I mean, the current law is, and the United States is separate from other countries, is that if you are born in the United States, you are, in fact, a citizen of the United States. You know, I think we should probably be, adopt the policies of other countries, that you are a citizen of your parents. But the fact is, that we have children who were born under current U.S. law. And therein lies the challenge that I have, particularly in meeting families up in what is a very new district. And that –

Denver Post Editorial Writer Tim Hoover: You’d see that changed, right? Is that what you’re saying?

Coffman: Sure. I mean, I think we ought to look at that. But , the fact is, what we have to understand, the fact is, we don’t revoke citizenship once it’s given. [BigMedia emphasis]

Watch this portion of the Post's Coffman interview here. And the entire interview here.

During his interview with Hoover, Coffman, who's considered one of the most endangered Congressman in the country, also for the first time offered a vague explanation of how his immigration position is different from the bipartisan bill passed by the Senate. Coffman said:

Coffman @7:30: Where I differ from what the Senate did is, to go beyond that [temporary] legal status, you really do have a trigger. And you really do have to demonstrate that we’ve secured our border. And you really do have to demonstrate that we have mechanisms in place and the will to enforce all of our laws. And that’s a real concern of mine…”

Coffman also said he wants tougher English-language standards and other qualifications for citizenship:

Coffman @10:05: I think we really ought to raise the standards for citizenship across the board. I think citizenship really is sacred. I think between myself and my late father, we have 42 years of military experience and four wars. And I think we understand the value of American citizenship. And so, I think that when we say that somebody ought to know English to become a United States citizen, I think we really ought to mean that they ought to know English and we should raise bar on that. When we say that somebody ought to understand the civic culture of our country, we really mean they ought to understand that to include a firm knowledge of the Constitution of the United States. I think we need to raise the bar on citizenship , period.

And Coffman also offered a new option for Dreamers to attain citizenship, saying he's drafting a bill to allow young people, who entered the U.S. illegally, @8:40, "to achieve citizenship through military service and through higher education." Previously, Coffman only supported allowing so-called Dreamers to achieve citizenship through military service.

Obviously, many questions flow from The Post's interview with Coffman:

Will he be introducing a bill to stop birthright citizenship? What specifically are his proposed triggers for citizenship? What does sufficient immigration enforcement look like? How else does his immigration position differ from what's in the Senate bill? Does Coffman support a path to citizenship for adults? (After speaking with Coffman, The Post's Hoover doesn't think so, because he wrote that Coffman "favors legal residency, but not citizenship, for adult illegal immigrants.") What does Coffman think of the accusation that he's changing his positions on immigration and other issues simply to get re-elected in a more moderate new district?

That's the point of the editorial page, partially, to raise questions. The Roundup did so this week, by putting good questions to Coffman. The Post should offer more long-form interviews on its editorial-page website. In addition to the weekly Roundup show, why not post all issue and endorsement interviews?

View the original article here

Leadership Unites on Syria While Coffman Flops Like a Fish

Rep. Mike Coffman.

Politico's Reid Epstein reports today that GOP Speaker of the House John Boehner has signed on to the President's request for congressional authority to attack Syria after that nation's alleged use of chemical weapons:

Boehner announced his position after a Tuesday morning meeting with congressional leadership in the Cabinet Room. In a 90-second statement to reporters, Boehner echoed Obama’s earlier sentiment that the United States has a unique responsibility and capability to enforce international law forbidding chemical weapons.

Boehner was joined in his support by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), putting the onus on House leadership to secure enough votes to pass a use-of-force resolution that remains unpopular among both the American public and rank-and-file members of both parties.

As we discussed this weekend, Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado is providing little in the way of leadership on an issue he should be an expert on as a former Marine officer. Instead, Coffman has seemingly reversed full circle from his original statement last week:

Since the United States is not in danger of an "imminent attack" the President must follow the Constitution and the War Powers Act of 1973 and come to the Congress for support before going forward with a military strike of any kind. [Pols emphasis]

To, as CBS4 reported yesterday:

Coffman says the delay in striking Assad has wasted precious time. [Pols emphasis]

“The Assad government has had all the time in the world to move their assets around so they don’t present themselves as easy targets,” he said.

If we're reading this right, Coffman has gone from demanding President Barack Obama obtain approval from Congress before attacking Syria to criticizing Obama for doing so, since "the delay in striking Assad has wasted precious time." We've been trying to figure out a way that President Obama could have made Coffman happy here, but between Obama being obliged to ask Congress, but having "wasted precious time" by asking Congress, we've basically got nothing. It would appear that Obama can do nothing right at all in Coffman's eyes.

And you know what, folks? He might really be that infantile.

View the original article here

On radio, Coffman says “radical environmentalists” control a lot of climate-change research grants

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Responding for the first time to a League of Conservation Voters' ad portraying him as an "Ostrich," with his head in the sand, for denying that humans are contributing to global warming, Rep. Mike Coffman told Denver radio-host Mike Rosen Wed. that "a lot" of the research grants on global warming won't go to scientists unless they submit to the "orthodoxy of climate change by the radical environmentalists."

Coffman: And one thing that I certainly read from viable sources is that a lot of the research that’s being done—when you put your application in to get a grant, if you don’t submit to the, you know, orthodoxy of climate change by the radical environmentalists, you’re not going to get a grant.

Listen to Rep. Mike Coffman responding on KOA radio Denver on 08-21-13 to LCV ostrich ad

Rosen didn't ask Coffman for the specific "viable sources" Coffman read on climate-change research grants, or whether Coffman thinks the National Science Foundation, for example, a major provider of climate-change research, is in the pocket of radical environmentalists.

To his credit though, Rosen asked Coffman at the beginning of the interview, "How come you’re not doing anything publicly to defend yourself?" But Coffman ignored the question, choosing instead to attack the League of Conservation Voters, which paid for the ad.

Coffman went on to contradict his previous statement, quoted in the ad, that it's "subject to debate" whether humans are causing global warming at all. 

Perhaps tweaking his position in response to polls showing him to be endangered in his new district, Colffman told Rosen:

Coffman: My view is that it’s naturally occurring, number one. But certainly man-made activity influences it at the margins, and I think it’s debatable how much that is. But certainly, you know, we know that carbon emissions are bad, and we ought to do everything responsible to bring them down in a balanced approach between environmental concerns and economic concerns.

Rosen failed to ask why Coffman had changed position slightly on global warming, now saying there's human influence "at the margins," or whether he'd misspoken on the radio show. Rosen didn't ask, after Coffman said "carbon emissions are bad," why Coffman voted for a measure just last year that would have prevented the EPA from regulating carbon emissions.

In response to Coffman's comments on the radio, League of Conservation Voters' spokesman Jeff Gohringer emailed me: “Clearly Congressman Coffman is choosing to double down on his extreme views, and is now apparently going so far as to call into question the credibility of scientists.”

Coffman concluded the interview by saying, "I hope that [the LCV ad] certainly mobilizes conservatives across the state of Colorado and across the country to get involved in the campaign."

It was ironic that Coffman invited outside money into Colorado to support him, after he'd just criticized the influence of out-of-state money, but Rosen didn't burp out any sound of surprise.

Neither did Rosen ask whether Coffman is worried that his extreme position on global warming won't mobilize out-of-state conservatives but instead will affect soccer-mom environmentalists whose kids play at the Aurora Sports Park.

Rosen said on-air that he and Coffman are "friends," and Rosen admitted that he's "biased" toward Coffman. It showed in this interview; that's for sure. I'd like to think Rosen could do better.

View the League of Conservation Voters ad here. LCV released a second ad today.

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog.

View the original article here

Why New Coffman® on Immigration, You Ask?

Politico's James Arkin supplies the answer:

Voters in seven GOP-held congressional districts would be less likely to vote for their current representative if he doesn’t support immigration reform, according to the poll from Public Policy Polling. The number of voters who would be less likely to support their current congressman ranged from 40 to 47 percent, while the number of voters who would be more likely ranged from 19 to 31 percent.

Voters also said they were less likely to support Republican candidates in general next year if the GOP House members block the current immigration reform proposal.

The Hill's Cameron Joseph:

The districts surveyed include five with high numbers of Hispanic voters, represented by Republican Reps. Jeff Denham (Calif.), Gary Miller (Calif.), David Valadao (Calif.), Mike Coffman (Colo.) [Pols emphasis] and Joe Heck (Nev.).

And from Public Policy Polling's memo:

The reason voters would hold it against their officials if immigration reform does not pass is that there’s overwhelming support for it in each of these highly competitive districts. Anywhere from 61 to 69% support the proposal the Senate passed last month. There’s also a sense of urgency on the issue with 75 to 78% of voters in each district saying they think it’s important the US fix its immigration system this year.

The poll confirms something our readers already understand, which is that Rep. Mike Coffman is one of the most endangered incumbent Republicans in America–primarily due to redistricting that transformed his former Republican stronghold into a diverse battleground. The problem for Coffman is, his new moderate view on the issue of immigration has not made the jump from rhetoric to votes–and based on Coffman's recent weasely vote against DREAMer students, there's little confidence that New Coffman® can suppress Old Coffman long enough to actually vote in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. We'd say the odds are at least even that he won't.

Well folks, here's a poll saying that could mean the end of Coffman's political career.

Full story: Why New Coffman® on Immigration, You Ask?

View the original article here

Coming Soon: Paul Ryan Stumping For Coffman?

Hey Girl, meet my friend Mike Coffman.

? Take note of this brief report from Politico:

Rep. Paul Ryan has committed to dramatically ramping up his fundraising appearances to help fellow House Republicans, a move that will help boost his political muscle among GOP lawmakers and bring piles of cash to the party’s election arm.

Ryan, the former GOP vice presidential candidate and current chairman of the House Budget Committee, has 20 political events scheduled between now and the end of 2013, according to a Republican aide…

“House Republicans are thankful for Chairman Ryan’s dedication to growing the House majority and his generous commitment to his colleagues and the NRCC,” said Andrea Bozek, a committee spokeswoman. “As one of the biggest draws in politics, it’s not surprising that Ryan’s approval rating is rock solid with independents, conservatives and our donor community.”

We'll be very curious to see if Rep. Paul Ryan, 2012's GOP vice presidential nominee, makes an appearance on behalf of Colorado's most endangered Republican incumbent Rep. Mike Coffman. A Ryan/Coffman joint event might make for a good fundraiser with conservatives, but Ryan could serve as an uncomfortable reminder of so much of Coffman's record that he is now trying to leave behind. Coffman no longer represents the deep red constituency formerly the stomping ground of the hard-right Rep. Tom Tancredo, and barely survived last year against a weak opponent in a district refashioned into one of the most competitive in America.

This means that when the local pro-choice "Fertilized Eggs" show up to protest Ryan, as you can be assured they will, they'll also protest Coffman's co-sponsorship of a bill with Rep. Todd Akin to restrict federal abortion coverage to cases of "forcible," or if you will, "legitimate" rape. And Ryan with Coffman can't help but call to mind Old Coffman's view that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme." To be fair, we haven't actually heard if that is also the view of New Coffman®.

You know, folks, maybe Ryan should just steer clear of Coffman altogether. This is a bit of a minefield.

Full story: Coming Soon: Paul Ryan Stumping For Coffman?

View the original article here

New Coffman® Continues Epic Battle with Old Coffman

We've written before about how the various versions of CD-6 Republican Rep. Mike Coffman continue to battle each other for Coffman supremacy. Last week New Coffman® was a featured player in a story from the National Journal about members of Congress who are double-dipping (and we aren't talking about potato chips):

Mike Coffman tries to explain the difference between New Coffman and Old Coffman (hint: New Coffman has more money)

To solve the debt crisis, Americans—who are already suffering in these tough economic times—will have to make even more sacrifices, Rep. Mike Coffman told his House colleagues last year. So, leaning on his military service, the 58-year-old Colorado Republican argued that members of Congress should take the first step and abolish their congressional pensions. “If there’s one thing I learned in both the United States Army and the Marine Corps about leadership, it was leading by example,” Coffman lectured them, pointing to his chest at a committee hearing. “Never ask anyone to do anything that you yourself would not be willing to do.” [Pols emphasis]

What Coffman left unsaid that day in a speech about his bill’s “symbolic” importance was that he was collecting a $55,547 state-government pension in addition to his congressional paycheck. Having spent two decades as an elected official in Colorado, he has received retirement benefits since 2009, the year he arrived in Congress.

New Coffman® claims that he is trying to "reform the system," but unfortunately for him, that message doesn't jibe with Old Coffman. Again, from the National Journal:

Reforming that system, Coffman says, is the point of his legislation to eliminate congressional pensions. “The part that I oppose is having a defined-benefit retirement plan for members of Congress—and have argued against a defined-benefit program when I was at the state level,” he tells National Journal.

But isn’t he taking part in a defined-benefit program?

“I am,” he replies. “I am.” [Pols emphasis]

Coffman’s $55,547 retirement benefit is a pittance in the scheme of the state’s pension-fund finances, but, as he argued when he presented his pension-axing bill in committee, symbolism matters. Colorado’s pension fund has been under duress in recent years. State workers there must now contribute more, work longer, and receive less after retirement under a 2010 law, says Katie Kaufmanis, a spokeswoman for Colorado’s retirement system.

A former state treasurer who had a seat on Colorado’s pension board, Coffman had previously taken on the most extreme cases of “double-dipping” at the state level, in which state or school employees would retire, collect a pension, and then be rehired by the exact same employer. “The state’s pension fund is bleeding red, and the little things like this are aggravating it,” Coffman told the Colorado Springs Business Journal in 2004. “Maybe we should suspend pensions [when people go] back to work,” he added.

Coffman’s situation isn’t exactly the same: He’s collecting state benefits and a federal paycheck, not double-dipping with the same employer. (“I’m a military retiree too,” Coffman notes. He resigned his state treasurer post in 2005 to rejoin the Marines and serve in Iraq.) Still, he stumbles in defending his decision to draw both a paycheck and a state pension. “I fought for reform when I was in state, and I’m fighting to reform the system now,” he says. “At states, they ought to end the defined-benefit portion programs.… I’m certainly a beneficiary of it, but at the state level that’s unsustainable, too, and that’s going to have to change.” [Pols emphasis]

Here's how Old Coffman explained his ethical anger to the Colorado Springs Business Journal back in 2004:

"Taxpayers deserve better from those serving in government," said Mike Coffman, Colorado’s state treasurer in a news release. "I will propose legislation next session to stop this abusive practice"…It might be legal, but Coffman maintains "there is no question of its lack of ethics." [Pols emphasis]

Old Coffman once said that there was "no question" that it was unethical to double-dip. New Coffman® has been doing it for years. Or, is that Old Coffman?

We're trying to joke a bit here, but in truth, this looks really bad for whichever Mike Coffman you choose to believe. You could run a million-dollar ad campaign based on the quotes here alone.

Full story: New Coffman® Continues Epic Battle with Old Coffman

View the original article here