“Amycare” Isn’t Stephens’ Only Problem

Amy Stephens.

A great story from the Colorado Independent's John Tomasic late Friday explores another significant problem for GOP U.S. Senate primary contender Amy Stephens. Despite a growing amount of support for Stephens from local GOP insiders (and, most suspect, DC-based Republican heavies like the National Republican Senatorial Committee), Stephens' candidacy has failed to gain traction with rank-and-file Republicans. A major reason for this is Stephens' support in the Colorado legislature for Senate Bill 11-200, the bill that created Colorado's new health insurance exchange. Even though Colorado's health insurance exchange appears to be working well after a rough start, and was supported by business interests across the state in addition to Democrats, its origins as a key part of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare has made the insurance exchange a critical liability for Stephens with GOP primary voters.

And as Tomasic of the Independent reports, "Amycare" isn't the only base relations hurdle for Stephens:

It’s in [the context of "Amycare"] that, when Udall announced at the end of last year that he had helped negotiate the end to the rough eight-year battle around the U.S. Army’s proposal to expand its Pinon Canyon training site in southeastern Colorado, the Stephens campaign must have breathed a sigh of relief. Because, as far as conservative Colorado voters go, Stephens was on the wrong side of that litmus-test issue, too.

Ranchers have worked the wide brushland around Pinon Canyon for generations. And for nearly a decade, they watched with grave concern and growing anger as the Army sought to acquire enormous swaths of the area for its expansion plans. The ranchers had good reason to be wary.

The existing 240,000-acre maneuvering ground was seized by the Army in the 1980s through eminent domain from residents who refused to sell. It was a bitter pill to swallow at the time but it seemed only an early small dose of a larger toxic prescription when in the mid 2000s the Army floated a proposal to gobble up 7 million more acres and establish the largest training site in the country. The plan would have bought out or seized acreage from an estimated 17,000 landowners, according to government documents…

State legislators introduced bills aimed at prohibiting the Army from using eminent domain to condemn and seize land around the site. In 2009, a bill to prevent the state from even leasing land in the area split Republicans at the capitol. Stephens, an El Paso Republican, was one of only 17 members of the House to vote against the bill. [Pols emphasis]

Tomasic cites the example of then-GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott McInnis, who also sided back in 2009 with El Paso County military supporters against landowners in southeast Colorado to support the expansion of Pinon Canyon. We took note of McInnis' choice of the Army over private property rights at the time, and McInnis' primary opponents hammered him over the issue with Republican voters. Local voters in turn promised to never support McInnis. And this 2009 vote wasn't the only stand taken by Rep. Stephens against landowners in Pinon Canyon. In 2007, Stephens was one of just a few representatives to vote against House Bill 07-1069, a bill withdrawing the state's consent for Pinon Canyon to expand. That bill was signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter.

Last November, incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall took action to end concerns over the expansion of the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site for the long term. From his statement:

Mark Udall, who serves on the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee, and Assistant Secretary of the Army Katherine Hammack announced today that the U.S. Army will not seek to expand the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site and will withdraw its request for a land acquisition waiver that had been a longstanding concern for area residents. The Army's decision followed a request by Udall to study the issue and ends years of uncertainty over the possibility that the Army would expand its footprint at the site. The announcement came as Udall, Hammack and southern Colorado leaders met today following months of negotiations.

"This announcement is a win for Southern Colorado ranchers and residents who have long worried that they could be displaced from their land if the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site were to be expanded. It's also helpful for Fort Carson soldiers who need assured access to the existing maneuver site to prepare for combat. And by proving that we can put aside our differences to resolve controversial issues for the good of all, it's a big win for Colorado," Udall said.

Sen. Udall's actions have by all accounts settled the issue of Pinon Canyon for the foreseeable future, and on the side of landowners who made their cause a focus for property rights supporters across the state. Outside the military bastion of El Paso County, property rights are sacrosanct among conservative Republicans. There is a strong crossover between private property rights activism and conservatism, so much that even ex-Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and her successor Rep. Cory Gardner have fought the Army over Pinon Canyon. That's we we always believed McInnis made a terrible mistake siding with the Army over landowners.

And now, like it or not, it's Amy Stephens' mistake too.

View the original article here

Stephens says she was fighting for CO, & Amycare opponents were maybe tweeting or “getting a tattoo”

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Conservative activist Kelly "ish" Maher, who was a guest host on KNUS' Kelley and Company Friday, asked gubernatorial candidate Amy Stephens a question that's been an obsession on conservative talk-radio lately:

Maher: "Potentially, let's say, you make it out of the primary. And you are in a primary with some people whom many here consider to be friends. But once you get to that point where you are theoretically running against Udall, how are you going to separate yourself from him and create a contrast because a lot of people are putting the exchange creation on you. As soon as you announced that you were running, Twitter blew up and called it Amycare. So that's an important contrast. How are you going to clarify that for people."

Stephens: "…I'm not sure with my opponents–I don't know if they were tweeting. I don't know if they were getting a tattoo. Or whatever. I was in the weeds, you know, with John Suthers and others, trying to make the best decision for the people of Colorado." [BigMedia emphasis]

If you know Maher, you know she self-identifies as a seeker of the lighter moments in politics, and so you have to be surprised that Maher didn't jump all over Stephens' "getting-a-tattoo" line.

Does Stephens think her Tea-Party opponents, like KLZ talk-show hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley, are tattoo-covered? Is there a correlation between tattoos and Tea Party types?

Or was it simply the tweet-tattoo alliteration that Stephens was going for? It sounded like Stephens may have been reaching for a joke. But why tattoos?

Maher missed a chance to have some fun with Stephens, with acid undertones, but maybe KLZ morning show host Randy Corporon (560 KLZ-AM 5-7 a.m.) can pick up the baton.

At a meeting of the Arapahoe Country Republican's Men's club in early January, Stephens told Corporon, who chairs the Arapahoe County Tea Party, that she'd appear on KLZ's morning show to discuss the issues, Corporon said on air Friday.

Corporon: "As her time was ending, I told her she'd be welcome to come to the Arapahoe Tea Party and speak, and that anyone who was rude of vile would be asked to leave–and that she would be welcome to come in to the studio and sit down and for an interview on the morning show on KLZ. And she said that she would do it. Now, when I went and gave my card to her scheduler, he didn't seem quite so sure. We'll see how that plays out."

..It will be very, very interesting to see if Rep. Stephens follows through and comes to speak to you at the Arapahoe Tea Party and comes in here to talk to us, where we can really get her to try to explain her decision-making on Amycare and on some of the other bills and statements that she has made."

Listen to KLZ's Corporon Discusses Amy Stephens 1.24.14

During her speech, Stephens said she'd been treated "vilely" by Tea Party members, according to Corporon. So if Stephens comes on Corporon's show, they'll have a lot more to discuss than tattoos.

View the original article here

Talk-radio host should fact check Stephens’ statement that GOP would rally around Stephens but not Buck

("Amycare" haters take note – promoted by Colorado Pols)

KNUS talk show host Dan Caplis sat silently behind his microphone last week while his guest, GOP Senate candidate Amy Stephens, said the Republican Party would not get behind her opponent, Ken Buck, if he wins the Republican nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Mark Udall. But Republicans would rally around her, she said.

Stephens: "I also believe nationally, and I have heard this in my travels, that there is not going to be — You know, when somebody wins a primary, people rally, come around. The party goes, whatever. I do not believe that’s going to happen should Ken be the nominee. I do believe this would happen should I become the nominee, because I think there will be a lot more interest in this race and a lot more support." [BigMedia emphasis]

You wish Caplis had asked for the names of the folks who've been telling Stephens, during her national "travels," that they won't back Buck, even if he were the one left standing. Presumably it wasn't anyone associated with the rainmakers at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and it's likely Stephens wouldn't have told Caplis about her sources, if he'd asked.

But, at least, Caplis could have fact-checked Stephens on her statement, delivered during a Jan. 15 interview, that "people would rally, come around" and support her if she gets the nomination.

So, to fill in the media gap left by Caplis, I decided to see if Stephens was correct. I didn't think so, because I thought I'd heard Ken Clark, co-host of KLZ 560-AM's flagship Tea-Party talk show, Grassroots Radio Colorado, say that he would not only never support Stephens but would never vote for her as well.

"I will never under any circumstances vote for Amy Stephens," Clark said via email when asked about Stephens. "She is the epitome of what the GrassRoots despises in some Republican Party candidates and elected officials. She is a big government, statist Republican and does not represent Conservative Values. Her arrogance is beyond measure, and I really don't see much difference between her and Udall. The Party had better come up with a candidate that is more palatable to the GrassRoots, or they will deliver yet another loss."

Before I had a chance to ask him about the veracity of Stephens' statement, Randy Corporon, who's hosting a new "Wake Up" show on KLZ (5-7 a.m.) announced Jan. 17 on air that he wouldn't vote for Stephens.

"Amy Stephens is running for Senate in Colorado on the Republican ticket, but she is the mother of Obamacare in Colorado," said Corporon. "I cannot support her. I have said publicly, and I will say again: If she is the Republican nominee, I will find a Libertarian. I won’t vote for the Democrat. But there are certain lesser-of-two-evils choices that I am no longer willing to make. Is the Republican Party paying attention to that?

Does the Republican Party understand that they cannot win without the Liberty Movement, without those of us who knock on doors and make phone calls, and write small checks regularly and consistently to try and support the candidates that we believe in? Do they understand that they can’t win without us? And if they promote—if they attack our people, the constitutionally principled conservatives that are running, if they promote the big government, establishment Republican-type candidates over our own, they’re not going to win, because they can’t win without us. Amy Stephens should just get out of the race." Listen to KLZ host Randy Corporon explain why he won't vote for Amy Stephens (1.17.14)

Certainly Stephens could be correct that Republicans will get behind her if she wins the nomination, while Buck would repel fellow Republicans away from him, if he's the nominee. But if you're tuned in to talk radio, and Caplis certainly is, you know there's two sides to that story that deserve to be aired.

View the original article here

Norton’s loss doesn’t come up when Stephens names Stapleton as GOP model of successful caucus skipper

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

In her appearance on KNUS' Dan Caplis show last week, Rep. Amy Stephens, who's running for U.S. Senate, said she "would not be able to go the assembly route" and "win a statewide election and to take on an incumbent."

Stephens pointed to State Treasurer Walker Stapleton as her poster child of a Republican who petitioned on the primary ballot and won. And she named Rep. Doug Lamborn, even though he didn't win statewide.

Absent during the conversation, however, was the name of Jane Norton, whom Caplis should have mentioned as having successfully petitioned onto the U.S. Senate primary ballot in 2010 before losing to Weld County DA Ken Buck.

Arguably, Norton serves as a better poster child for why Stephens should participate in the caucus process than Stapleton does for why she should petition on.

Stephens @ 5 min: "We had a very contentious 2010 Senate race that we should have been won against an unknown. And I was on the receiving end of that, because we were trying to take the House Majority. And we saw our numbers, as the top of the ticket begin to go down, down, down, down, when my opponent, Ken, exploded, and then we had the governor's debacle…

"I have understood, and the team that is with me, we believe that in order to win statewide and to take on an incumbent, that I would not be able to go the assembly route. I am going to petition onto the ballot through the petition process. Walker Stapleton did it. Others have done it. Doug Lamborn. My reasoning here is to reach a broader audience. You know you have to get a minimum of 1,500 signatures per congressional district. Let's just say you're getting 14,000 for the sake of the argument, out of 7 districts. That's 14,000 you've reached versus, in the case of our assembly, which is good, but we have 4,000 very committed Republicans. If you come out of this, and then you get on the ballot, what you do is you target this on a broader level. I believe that has to been done to take on an incumbent. Others may not. It's a strategy issue."

On KNUS 1-15-14, Rep. Amy Stephens explains why she's skipping the GOP caucuses

Asked by Caplis why she has the best chance to win, whatever ballot route she takes, Stephens said:

Stephens @6 min: "Because I know what it is to win. I win. I was in the most-watched primary in the state, as you know, through redistricting and re-apportionment, with a fellow Republican, which was awful. And I was outspent 3-1, and I won by 20 points. And I did that by working smart and disciplined and really reaching out to people. I think we're going to have to have the same thing this time."

View the original article here

Stephens touts her gender as asset but she shares Buck’s extreme anti-abortion stance

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

In an article yesterday, The Denver Post's Kurtis Lee reports Rep. Amy Stephens' response to Ken Buck's comment Monday comparing pregnancy with cancer:

"It's Ken again being Ken," Stephens, who is among several Republicans vying to unseat U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, insisted Thursday. "Just like in 2010, we have high-heels comments, we have alcoholism and homosexuality, now we've got cancer and pregnancy."

Buck in 2010 was the nominee for U.S. Senate against Democrat Michael Bennet. His statement on "Meet the Press" comparing homosexuality to alcoholism was considered the turning point in a campaign he had been expected to win.

Before telling Lee about "Ken again being Ken," Stephens was on KNUS' Dan Caplis Show Wed., where she made her opinion of Buck's candidacy even more clear, saying she does not believe Colorado Republicans will unify around Buck if he wins the nomination, and saying, based on what Buck's offered so far, it would be the "definition of insanity" to run Buck again.

Stephens @10 min: I am not convinced Ken has given us an argument as to why we should go down this path again. And I call the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over with the same results….

I also believe nationally, and I have heard this in my travels, that there is not going to be — You know, when somebody wins a primary, people rally, come around. The party goes, whatever. I do not believe that's going to happen should Ken be the nominee. I do believe this would happen should I become the nominee, because I think there will be a lot more interest in this race and a lot more support. [BigMedia emphasis]

Listen to Rep. Amy Stephens tout herself as a woman and slam Buck on KNUS 1-15-14

On the radio, Stephens went on to say that she'd be better able to "take on Sen. Udall on issues that they normally love to hit our men with, and I think as a woman, I have a very strong voice to speak about."

But as Caplis should have pointed out, Stephens' anti-abortion record, including ten years on the staff of Focus on the Family, sets herself up for the same criticism Buck has faced.

Stephens voted in favor of last year's version of an anti-abortion bill that's under consideration again this year in the Legislature. (This year's bill has the exact same summary as last year's.)

In his article about Buck's pregnancy-cancer comment, The Denver Post's Lee pointed out that Buck and Stephens both "oppose abortion." He also reported that Buck's wife, Perry Buck, is a co-sponsor of this year's abortion-ban bill, sponsored once again by Rep. Stephen Humphrey, but Lee did not include the fact that that Stephens voted for it last year.

In 2012, she also supported a Colorado Right to Life-backed "fetal homicide" bill that could have banned abortion in Colorado.

Asked by Caplis directly whether she thought she had an advantage as a woman in her Senate bid, Stephens cited her position on "the life issue," saying:

Stephens: "I do. I actually do, because of the time and the year in which were are, and because of the issues that Democrats bring up. I think I have a unique ability to speak to that. I have a unique ability to speak to the life issue and/or family and other issues such as health care, public safety, all the things I've advocated for. So, yes, I do. In this election, I think it's going to matter."

But it looks like Buck's and Stephens' extreme records on abortion are about the same.

View the original article here

Amy Stephens: Not Even Playing That Assembly Game

Rep. Amy Stephens (R).

As the Denver Post's Kurtis Lee reports today:

At a moment when two of the state's most powerful Democrats appear vulnerable heading into 2014, at least one candidate so far in the crowded field of GOP hopefuls plans to bypass the assembly process and take her message straight to a broader demographic of the party…

"Petitioning on is strategically the best move," said state Rep. Amy Stephens, a Republican from Monument who is vying for the U.S. Senate. "If you're going to win a general election, you have to appeal to a wider audience, and that starts with the primary."

The decision of whether to forgo a contentious state assembly where intraparty squabbles can prove difficult to escape when the general election comes around, or engage in broader outreach to more Republican voters, is one that candidates are weighing right now — well before the calendar flips to 2014.

Kurtis Lee cites a number of examples of successful Republican officeholders who chose to bypass their party's assembly process, such as Treasurer Walker Stapleton and Rep. Mike Coffman. We would also note a recent unsuccessful example of ditching the assemblies, that of failed 2010 GOP Senate candidate Jane Norton. And there's a big difference Lee misses: in 2008 for Coffman and 2010 for Stapleton and Norton, the decision to bypass the party assembly was made much later in the election cycle. Norton's decision to pull out of the assembly process, which she went to great lengths to explain "did not come lightly," didn't come until April of 2010.

Also noteworthy is the very different reaction of Colorado GOP chairman Ryan Call today to his predecessor Dick Wadhams. In response to Norton's decision to not participate in the caucus process, Wadhams angrily declared that Norton would not be allowed to speak or even display signs at the state assembly.

“Any candidates for statewide office who forgo the caucus assembly process will not be allowed to speak,” Wadhams said. “They will not be allowed to have banners or signs or literature at the state convention. If the convention is not good enough to participate in, it’s not good enough for them to have a presence. That’s their decision.”

Compare that to Ryan Call, when asked this week about the legitimacy of candidates forgoing the assembly to petition onto ballot:

"Both are legitimate and respectable processes," Ryan Call, the state GOP chairman, said.

And with that, Chairman Call meekly writes off the value of his party's traditional nominating process. If you think about it, that's a pretty stunning development. With that said, there's an obvious reality underlying this shift: around the country, today's Republican Party apparatus has been heavily co-opted by the "Tea Party" far right–including Call's own Colorado Republican Party. The election in September of Douglas County GOP chair Mark Baisley, a former opponent of Call's for the state party chairmanship, is broadly seen as a push by the far right "Vicki Marble faction" to undermine Call.

As everyone knows, Rep. Amy Stephens faces a very tough road to the GOP nomination for Senate in 2014, in large part due to her (erratic) support for the legislation that created Colorado's health insurance marketplace. If Norton had prevailed against eventual nominee Ken Buck in 2010, and she nearly did, this undermining of the institutional Republican Party by legitimizing bypassing the assembly process would have occurred then.

Instead, Amy Stephens would like to undermine it now–and it looks like the party's chairman is ready to help.

View the original article here

How Amy Stephens Might Become A Meme

SUNDAY UPDATE: A few great emailed examples after the jump. Send yours to webmaster@coloradopols.com, or post them in comments below.

—–

Visiting the website of newly declared GOP U.S. Senate candidate Amy Stephens, we were immediately struck by the initial "splash page's" image:

Looking closely at the site's cover portrait of Rep. Stephens, obvious signs of Photoshopping are visible. The setting is outdoors, but the neutral interior lighting of the photo of Rep. Stephens doesn't match the background at all. At the edges of Rep. Stephens' likeness, telltale "scalloping" and jagged edges consistent with Photoshop editing are easy to see.

As it turns out, looking at the source code of the page, there's a very straightforward reason this image looks fake:

 

That's because the site's designers produced a cut-out Amy Stephens we can all easily place in any setting we like! No doubt this was convenient as hell for the purposes of web design, but the joke fodder of placing her on a fake "natural" background, or for that matter any background, means we would have definitely not made this ready-made object of ridicule available to the public. To wit, click either of the above images for their full-size originals. Once you've downloaded your own Amy Stephens Anywhere™ (we want credit if this takes off) image, and opened it up in Photoshop or your favorite image editor, the real fun begins! Where would you like to see Amy Stephens?

 

As you can see, the possibilities are endless. On the internets today, it's perilously easy to fall victim to the most unforgiving sense of humor of the online masses, sometimes even becoming what is known as a "meme." By taking an image of a person or object and placing them in all manner of odd locations, or putting whatever words you like into someone's mouths, millions take acontextual delight in totally random acts of denigration.

This concludes today's lesson on how not to design your campaign website.

 

?

View the original article here

Republican Amy Stephens Will Run for Senate

Rep. Amy Stephens (R-Focus on the Family).

And then there was…Amy.

It was just a few weeks ago that Democrats locally praised state Rep. Amy Stephens for her help in creating the state's piece of the Affordable Care Act, while Republicans in Washington D.C. were busy drawing silly lines in the sand over defunding Obamacare. Given those very different storylines, and with the entry of Weld County D.A. Ken Buck in the race for Senate, it was beginning to look like Stephens had decided against running for Senate despite being courted to take the leap in June (as Pols first reported). But now, according to The Denver Post, the former House Majority Leader has decided to jump in the race for Senate after all:

Stephens will formally announce her candidacy Saturday to challenge Democratic U.S. Sen. Mark Udall in 2014 — a move that increases the GOP primary field to four candidates vying to unseat an incumbent who, for now, many political observers view as relatively safe.

"Coloradans are exceptional people and we deserve a federal government that reflects our values by upholding the Constitution, exercising fiscal discipline and respecting the privacy of law-abiding citizens," Stephens said in a statement to The Denver Post.

Stephens, alongside former Republican U.S. Sen. Hank Brown, will make her announcement at the Classical Academy in Colorado Springs, before embarking on a four-stop tour along the Front Range this weekend to meet with voters.

The fact that Stephens is being backed by former U.S. Senator Hank Brown, one of the most respected Republicans in Colorado, says a lot to us about Republican concerns over the current field of candidates (Buck, state Sen. Owen Hill, and The Mustache). In fact, we wouldn't be surprised if the Q3 fundraising reports for Buck and state Sen. Owen Hill turn out to be unimpressive, an impetus for Stephens to enter the field with confidence that she can secure the GOP nomination.

View the original article here

Democrats Lavish Praise on GOP Rep. Amy Stephens (Yes, Really)

Rep. Amy Stephens (R-Focus on the Family).

A press release from the Colorado House Democratic Majority today celebrates the opening of Connect for Health Colorado, the state's new health insurance exchange and a major component of the federal Affordable Care Act:

“The window to a healthier future for Colorado opened today,” said Rep. McCann (D-Denver), who is chairwoman of the Health, Insurance & Environment Committee and vice chair of the Health Insurance Exchange Legislative Oversight Review Board. “Because our state will be healthier, it will be more productive and more prosperous.” 

Rep. McCann credited the legislators who supported the 2011 bill creating the new system. 

“I want to express again my thanks to Rep. Amy Stephens and the bipartisan majority that made this day possible,” [Pols emphasis] Rep. McCann said. “We have a bipartisan Colorado solution to implement the Affordable Care Act.” 

Rep. Stephens (R-Monument) and former Sen. Betty Boyd sponsored the bill that produced Connect for Health Colorado. Rep. Stephens and 12 other House Republicans, including then-Speaker Frank McNulty, joined House Democrats in support of the bill. The exchange also has strong business support.

It's useful to recall the bipartisan support for the new health insurance exchange when it was passed in 2011 today, since Republicans are doing their level best to portray inevitable startup glitches as catastrophic failures. FOX 31's Eli Stokols reports:

Colorado’s new health care exchange, an online marketplace offering more than 500 policies, experienced problems Monday morning just hours after it went live, as did exchanges in other states.

While opponents of the Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s landmark health care reform law, viewed the news as evidence the law isn’t ready for primetime, backers of the law argued that the high demand, which they blame for overwhelming computer servers, shows that the law is actually quite popular. [Pols emphasis]

In Colorado, it's undeniably a bipartisan success–even if Republicans who helped create the exchange in Colorado would probably rather not take credit for that today. Remember, today is only the first day the exchange is live for the public to see. Insurance purchased through the exchange takes effect on January 1st of next year, and Coloradans have until December 15th to sign up. Today's startup glitches will get worked out, and we expect there will be a day soon when Rep. Amy Stephens will be delighted to refer to Connect for Health Colorado by its once-derisive name "Amycare."

View the original article here