As a resident and voter in Aurora, I have been carefully watching the campaign advertisements of both Mike Coffman (the Republican) and Andrew Romanoff (the Democrat). I paid special attention to Congressman Coffman’s newest TV ad, which depicts him as someone who is a strong voice for women’s issues. I was surprised at Coffman’s ad because most of what I had read and heard was about how Romanoff was a much better candidate in this regard.
So, I did my own research. I couldn’t believe what I couldn’t find.
I had little trouble learning about Romanoff’s stance on a variety of issues. I won’t get into the details of those positions – you can look it up yourself. I actually started my research with Coffman, but the more I read, the more confused I became. Coffman has changed his position on issues so often that I found it virtually impossible to understand what he actually believes. My notes were a jumbled mess.
For example, in a candidate debate that took place in August, Coffman was asked about the Personhood issue (a policy idea which holds that life begins at conception). His response was a simple, “I do not support Personhood.” That seemed like a straightforward answer, but then I found that Coffman was a vocal supporter of Personhood in 2008, 2010, and 2012.
I couldn’t find anything from Coffman explaining why he changed his position on Personhood after years of support, so I could only try to deduce the answer on my own. Was it because he opposes restrictions on birth control? Nope. Coffman has long supported legislation to allow companies to opt-out of providing birth control even though they offer health insurance, and he supported the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision on the same issue.
Is Coffman’s change a result of a shifting opinion on abortion? Nope. Coffman says he opposes abortion even in the case of rape or incest. He’s actually been pretty consistent on that. From here I learned that Coffman co-sponsored a 2011 bill by Rep. Todd Akin that would have changed the definition of “rape” to mean only “forcible rape.” I remembered hearing about this in 2011 and 2012, and I had no idea that Coffman was a co-sponsor.
This information led me down another path as I thought back to Coffman’s TV ad about his support for women’s issues. I went back and re-watched the ad online, and this time I viewed it with a new scrutiny. I was astonished to hear that Coffman was “protecting victims of sexual assault in the military,” and had fought to end “gender discrimination in health insurance pricing.”
Did I miss something? Was I reading about a different person earlier? I returned to my computer to take another look, searching for information about Coffman and women’s equality issues. I found no clarity here, either.
Coffman voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in Congress, which was intended to close the pay gap between men and women. Coffman has consistently voted against the Paycheck Fairness Act, and as recently as March, he voted to give tax breaks to companies that don’t guarantee equal pay for women. That’s not the message I got from watching his TV ad.
It’s not just on women’s issues that I found disparities in Coffman’s record. He wrote an editorial for the Denver Post last summer in which he called for “comprehensive immigration reform,” but when asked about immigration in that August debate, Coffman said clearly that comprehensive reform was absolutely the wrong approach to dealing with illegal immigration. Which position does he really hold? I have no idea.
Look, I’m not naïve. I realize that many politicians are probably pretty cagey about taking firm positions on certain issues. But Coffman is a different breed entirely. I’m not sure it’s even possible to understand what he truly believes, and that concerns me more than anything.
I don’t expect that my Congressman will share my opinions on every issue, but it shouldn’t be so difficult to figure out those positions.
You started your research with the wrong premise. You need to ask for RESUME of both Andrew Romanoff and Mike Coffman. Then compare the two as to which has lived the life most of us have, and can talk about life as it is. Other one has been on public dole, after education ended, and can only talk about life as recorded in books, or studies. I prefer a candidate who lived the life, not just read about it. And also compare who has produced in all phases, at many levels, to one who lives on promises. One has performed globally in military, life, state and federal levels. Other one has only existed in Denver Metro area. That should make it much easier. Remember the one who promised Hope and Change. How is that working for you?
While you are at it, also ask for resume of Mark Udall and Corey Gardner. You will find that Mark has followed his father’s footsteps in setting aside public lands as wilderness. However, I have a problem with that, since we are not growing more land in Colorado, and by setting aside these lands, they are much more difficult for we, the public, to visit or be on these lands. No development possible, which means closer living in the cities, more fights over the water, and US government gets any revenue off them. Tax payers have higher taxes to pay, to ensure we have all the services we think we need, even if we can no longer afford them. Now women seem to be concerned with their sexuality since fight is for tampons, birth control, abortions on demand, and real worry about PERSONHOOD. Now if that law had passed, IT HAD THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT BIRTH CONTROL, AND OTHER SEXUAL STUFF WOULD BE OUTLAWED. KILLS ABORTION, BUT IF WOMEN WANT TO REALIZE CAREERS, NOT GET MARRIED, NOT HAVE CHILDREN, they would find no way to stay employed. Could that be why we now have same sex unions/ Just asking. Somehow in earlier years we co-existed with folks of color, gender, religious views, and other distinguishing factors, without all the division – in fighting we have now. Wonder why that is. At age 85, wife 79, we cooperated and family business was just that. She had her friends, sewed, attended classes of her choice, stayed home with children by choice, but worked outside home after they were in high school. We were and are partners, after 62 years of marriage. We even paid for our own personal needs, and did not ask others to pay for them. In military and civilian work, we cooperated. Had ups and downs, which is normal in family, if you love and trust each other. If no fights as some say, I suspect they had problems that perhaps were not discussed or realized. I could be wrong. Have been many times.
I suspect that Mr Frank2525 would be supporting Major General Irv Halter (USAF Ret) in Colorado Springs also – Right? NOT! Living the military life is not enough to be in Congress. Some smarts and integrity are required both of which Mr Coffman lacks. Like the research shows, Coffman is willing to say (or not say) whatever is needed to be elected and Coffman cannot be trusted.
SEE…..this is what both democrats and republicans do…they switch positions to appease whoever they are talking to at a given moment to get their vote. SEE….you the suckers believe them every time.
Mike Coffman’s position on woman can be summarized as follows: Hard to live with them, but much harder to live without them.