I like this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
As part of its ongoing offensive against Senate candidate Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), the super PAC NextGen Climate Action Committee teamed up with the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way to launch an environmental ad this week aimed at Colorado's Latino voters.
The 30-second, Spanish-language spot, which began airing Monday, attacks Gardner's record on climate issues, saying he does what is best for himself and and "only helps the rich."
"Republican Cory Gardner wants to deceive us," the ad says, according to an English translation provided to The Huffington Post. "He says he values our community, but he supports polluters who poison our air and water, pollute our neighborhoods, and put our children's health in danger."
Gardner does not, in fact, have a strong environmental record. He made headlines in 2010 when, as a House candidate, he accepted money from a fundraiser hosted by BP lobbyist Dan Meyer, just months after that company caused a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. During Gardner's time in Congress, he has voted against clean energy research and protection from harmful air pollution, and voted in favor of cutting the Land and Water Conservation Fund by 90 percent.
NextGen Climate's ad notes that more than 60 percent of the Colorado residents affected by "dangerous water" are Latino, a statistic the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment reported last year.
The ad goes on to criticize Gardner's campaign donors, suggestively juxtaposing a picture of the congressman with a picture of billionaire conservatives David and Charles Koch.
"Values? Please. Gardner's campaign accepted thousands of dollars from rich Republicans and he's always done what's best for them," the ad says. "But we aren't fooled. That's why we're voting against Cory Gardner."
Carlos Sanchez, Coordinator of Political Campaigns for People for the American Way, said that Latino voters are an important demographic to reach on environmental issues.
"The fact that [Gardner's] policies pollute the water our kids drink, the air they breathe -- those are issues that matter to every family. Latinos are no exception," said Sanchez. "Progressives can earn the Latino support we need to win elections, but only if we're having a conversation to make sure Latino voters know the facts." - Huffington Post, 10/13/14
This is a good move on NextGen's part in getting Latino voters engaged on environmental issues. Especially since Gardner can't give a straight answer on climate change:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Gardner, who’s running neck-and-neck with Udall in the polls, began the week a firm climate denier. During his 2010 congressional campaign, Gardner asserted that humans are not “causing [climate] change to the extent that’s been in the news,” and he voted against an amendment this year affirming that climate change is occurring.
The congressman naturally made headlines, then, after he conceded in a Monday debate that climate change is happening and that “pollution contributes” to it. His admission seemed like political posturing aimed at attracting more moderate voters to his campaign, for even as Gardner acknowledged humans’ role in climate change, he attacked Udall over his support for policies to actually address the problem. But Gardner’s statement represented a change nonetheless.
But just a day later, Gardner adopted the GOP’s “I’m not a scientist” tack on the issue. As the Huffington Post’s Elise Foley reports, Gardner refused to give a yes-or-no answer in Tuesday’s debate after moderator Cuck Plunkett of the Denver Post asked if humans contribute to climate change.
“I believe that the climate is changing, I disagree to the extent that [humans’ role] been in the news,” Gardner replied.
Pressed to give a yes-or-no answer, Gardner challenged Plunkett.
“This is a serious debate,” the congressman said, “we’re both running for the United States Senate, and this is a serious issue. And I don’t think we should shortchange serious issues with yes or no answers without being able to talk about them now.” - Salon, 10/8/14
And Senator Mark Udall (D. CO) and Democrats have continued to hit Gardner on this issue:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Where they have hammered him hardest is on social issues and, particularly, his past support for two Colorado “personhood” ballot measures, which declared that rights begin at conception.
Gardner now says he has changed his mind on the issue, after becoming convinced that the measures would have outlawed some forms of birth control. And in a jujitsu move that a number of Republican candidates are making this election season, he now advocates making some forms of prescription contraception available over the counter.
As Gardner worked the crowd at the Air Force-Navy football game, one man he met joked: “You got any birth control pills on you?”
However, Gardner has continued to support a federal “personhood” bill and has deflected questions about the apparent inconsistency.
Why all of this matters is the women’s vote. In 2010, Bennet won in part because of what the exit polls showed to be a 16-point gender gap, one of the largest of any race in the country. Democratic strategists say privately that Udall must do nearly as well.
“This is the playbook that they ran in 2010, and it worked. They did it again in 2012,” Gardner said. “It’s a tired, old playbook. And as a result of the failures of the policies of this administration, it’s not going to work again, because people can see right through it.”
Winnetta Mahaffey, a retired Lakewood woman who supports Gardner, added: “Hopefully, the women will get a brain and realize the economy and jobs and immigration are top priorities, not abortion.”
The Denver Post — which had endorsed Udall in his 2008 run, Obama twice and Bennet in 2010 — gave its nod this year to Gardner.
What the Post had to say about the candidate it did not endorse was brutal. In its editorial, the newspaper scorched Udall as having run an “obnoxious one-issue campaign” and wrote that he is “not perceived as a leader in Washington and, with rare exceptions such as wind energy and intelligence gathering, he is not at the center of the issues that count — as his Democratic colleague, Sen. Michael Bennet, always seems to be.”
Asked in an interview prior to the Post editorial whether he risks being a one-note candidate, Udall argued that reproductive issues speak to a broad swath of women’s concerns.
“This is about fundamental freedoms. It’s about economic opportunity. It’s not a social issue,” Udall said. “The irony is that my opponent has been a social-issues warrior, and the reason this keeps coming up is that he’s built his entire political career on attempting to limit women’s access to reproductive health services.”
“He’s on the wrong side of the freedom and opportunity and respect debate,” Udall said. - Washington Post, 10/13/14
And Gardner is clearly afraid to run on his record:
http://www.usnews.com/...
The problem for Gardner is not just that his non-answers tell voters something, but that Obamacare has become a non-issue for anyone besides the hardcore Republican base in a state with a lot of unaffiliated voters. Today’s Denver Post puts it bluntly: “While the [Affordable Care Act] has aided Gardner in some ways, such as fundraising, the issue has not fulfilled its potential as a knockout punch. … During the critical month of September, the last full month before ballots go out to Colorado voters, the Gardner campaign ran four television ads; not a single one focused on the ACA.”
With the central pretense of his campaign falling apart, Gardner finds himself constantly arguing that the policy he does support – the federal personhood bill that would ban all abortion and many forms of birth control – doesn’t exist and doesn’t matter. Gardner has denied the existence of the Life at Conception Act to (at last count): Fox31 Denver, KUSA/Channel 9 Denver, the Grand Junction Sentinel, Josh Green with Bloomberg News, MSNBC and at the Denver Post debate. Colorado’s BigMediaBlog tallied up the clips.
Even primary bill sponsor Sen Rand Paul, R-Ky., states that the Life at Conception Act is designed to overturn Roe v Wade. But Gardner keeps insisting that the Life at Conception Act is just a “statement” that won’t actually do anything.
Which begs the question: If Gardner thinks his votes and policies don’t affect real peoples’ lives, why is he running? - U.S. News, 10/9/14
What's really baffling is the Denver Post recently endorsed Gardner (they also endorsed Governor John Hickenlooper (D. CO)) and their endorsement is getting some major blowback:
http://www.salon.com/...
“Congress is hardly functioning these days,” the Post laments, right before it proceeds to endorse the government shutdown-supporting Tea Partier. The paper’s editorial board has decided that Gardner is somehow the answer to this dysfunction, because incumbent Sen. Mark Udall is an incumbent and “is not perceived as a leader,” they guess. So maybe “the time has come for change.”
What most impresses the paper about Gardner is what a young whippersnapper he is. “In every position” the congressman has held, the editors write, “he has quickly become someone to be reckoned with and whose words carry weight.” Pair him with Colorado’s other senator, Democrat Michael Bennet, and the state will have “two young, energetic” voices in Washington!
And what of Gardner’s hard-right positions? There is that inconvenient bit about his support for “personhood” legislation, but, the paper writes, now he wants to make birth control available over the counter. (Never mind those poor women who can’t afford it and require insurance coverage for their contraceptives.)
Moreover, the paper writes, Gardner actually “has sound ideas on tax reform that could help the economy take off.” How? Just trust them, it will. Plus, he’s “expressed willingness to compromise on immigration despite a fairly hard line over the years.” How Gardner could actually convince fellow Republicans to cease their obstructionism on the issue – and whether his newfound “willingness to compromise” is genuine or election-year pandering – doesn’t much concern the Post.
Gardner’s social views, including opposition to abortion rights with no exceptions and steadfast opposition to LGBT equality? Well, the Post editorial board writes, Gardner isn’t a “culture warrior”; instead, he “has emphasized economic and energy issues.” His retrograde views don’t matter, you see, because he has enough media training to know to be quiet about them!
The notion that this right-wing congressman could help usher in a new era of bipartisan goodwill and policy innovation seems far-fetched, but the Post begs to differ. Citing Gerald Seib’s absurd Wall Street Journal column this week, the editors speculate that a unified GOP Congress, together with President Obama, could actually be more productive than one-party government would be. Try not to think too much about the past four years, lest you disabuse yourself of this comforting thought. - Salon, 10/10/14
And here's another reason why the Denver Post's endorsement of Gardner is insanely hypocritical:
http://www.newrepublic.com/...
In October 2013, the paper chastised the GOP for using the debt ceiling as a hostage-taking device and proposed giving the president the unilateral authority to lift it. In February, Gardner voted against lifting the debt ceiling. He also supported the party's foolish strategy of shutting down the government in the hopes of defunding Obamacare, which the Denver Post called a “hopeless quest” by “Republican hardliners.”
On immigration, the Denver Post commends Gardner for showing a “willingness to compromise on immigration despite a fairly hard line over the years.” Yet, the paper has heavily criticized House Republicans for blocking the Senate legislation on the issue, which Udall voted for. Somehow, Gardner receives praise for a "willingness to compromise" while Udall actually voted for a bipartisan piece of legislation.
Health care is nowhere to be found in the editorial, although Obamacare was supposed to be the midterm’s top issue. As a Republican, Gardner is an opponent of the law. The paper isn’t. Last October, after the terrible launch of the federal health exchange, the Denver Post published an editorial titled “Give Obamacare a chance to work.” - New republic, 10/13/14
Now the Denver Post has a good track record of picking winners but that shouldn't discourage Udall's chances:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The two exceptions were in 2000 and 2002. In the first, the Post backed Al Gore for president. While he won the popular vote (as Democrats will quickly point out), he lost the electoral vote (as Republicans will quickly reply).
In 2002, the Post backed Tom Strickland (D) over incumbent Sen. Wayne Allard (R). The paper had endorsed Allard in 1996, when he and Strickland first faced off. Back then, the Post dismissed Strickland largely due to his negative campaign, which "has created considerable doubt about what kind of senator he would be." By 2002, the doubt had evaporated. Strickland was "more of his own person" than Allard turned out to be, and would be "unlikely to reflexively follow his party on every issue." Strickland got the endorsement, but Allard got the win, for a second time.
That's the silver lining for Udall. Allard ending up winning by about five percentage points, despite the paper's objections. The critiques of Udall in the Gardner endorsement are strident, focused on his lack of leadership and, more forcefully, the campaign he has run. "Udall is trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision," the Post writes. "His obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those he seeks to convince." - Washington Post, 10/10/14
It should also be noted that while President Clinton won re-election in 1996 he failed to win Colorado which went for Bob Dole. These types of endorsements are suppose to help the candidate win the state. But it won't be the Denver Post that decides who win this race, it's the voters. Click here to donate and get involved with udall's campaign so he can beat Gardner:
http://markudall.com/