HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Senate bombshell: Cory Ga...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Mar 21, 2014, 09:55 PM

Senate bombshell: Cory Gardner says "I can't support personhood now"

Source: Denver Post

Congressman Cory Gardner, who has been hammered for his position on social issues ever since he jumped into the U.S. Senate race, dropped a political bombshell Friday with his revelation that he was wrong to have supported previous personhood efforts.

He said after learning more about the measures, which would have had the impact of outlawing abortion, that he realized the proposals also could ban certain forms of contraception, a prohibition he does not support.

"This was a bad idea driven by good intentions," he told The Denver Post. "I was not right. I can't support personhood now. I can't support personhood going forward. To do it again would be a mistake."

...Udall's campaign spokesman, Chris Harris, pointed out that Gardner the last two years co-sponsored the Life Begins at Conception Act, which defines a human being as "a member of the species homo sapiens" at the moment of fertilization. He said it was basically a federal version of the personhood amendment, a position with which Gardner's campaign disagrees.

"Coloradans will see through this cheap election-year stunt," Harris said. "Gardner is showing a profound lack of respect for Colorado voters. Coloradans want a senator who always promotes and protects women's health, not one who simply pretends to during election years."

Read more: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_25395470/senate-bombshell-cory-gardner-says-cant-support-personhood



Read more: Friday "Bombshell"--Gardner Flips on Personhood Abortion Ban

Cory Gardner claims that he started rethinking his support for the Personhood abortion ban "after voters rejected it by 3-to1 margin in 2010." As reported by Lynn Bartels, that appears very hard to believe, in light of the fact that Gardner signed on as a co-sponsor on July 23rd of last year to H.R. 1091: the federal Life at Conception Act. Like Colorado's Personhood abortion bans, this bill would extend "the right to life" to "every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization."

This is just another item confirming what should be glaringly obvious at this point: Gardner's Personhood problems are going to get worse, not better. His explanation for this wholesale flip-flop is plainly belied by facts like the 2013 legislation above–which makes Gardner look like a craven "say anything" politician with no personal values at all. If there's anything worse than dogmatically clinging to an unpopular position, it's being trusted by no one.

It is not hyperbole to suggest that this may be the decisive event in 2014 U.S. Senate race.

36 replies, 6167 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 36 replies Author Time Post
Reply Senate bombshell: Cory Gardner says "I can't support personhood now" (Original post)
angka Mar 2014 OP
marble falls Mar 2014 #1
rhett o rick Mar 2014 #3
politicat Mar 2014 #16
Iliyah Mar 2014 #2
pffshht Mar 2014 #4
FiveGoodMen Mar 2014 #36
Cha Mar 2014 #5
paleotn Mar 2014 #6
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #11
paleotn Mar 2014 #17
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #18
niyad Mar 2014 #19
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #20
niyad Mar 2014 #21
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #22
niyad Mar 2014 #23
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #24
niyad Mar 2014 #25
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #26
niyad Mar 2014 #27
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #28
mountain grammy Mar 2014 #7
niyad Mar 2014 #8
Orsino Mar 2014 #9
Javaman Mar 2014 #10
BlancheSplanchnik Mar 2014 #12
notadmblnd Mar 2014 #13
okaawhatever Mar 2014 #14
calimary Mar 2014 #15
Zambero Mar 2014 #29
madamesilverspurs Mar 2014 #30
otohara Mar 2014 #31
otohara Mar 2014 #32
catbyte Mar 2014 #35
bulloney Mar 2014 #33
catbyte Mar 2014 #34

Response to angka (Original post)

Fri Mar 21, 2014, 10:04 PM

1. Maybe ol' Cory's starting to come around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 21, 2014, 10:19 PM

3. Or maybe he is lying. Guess which one I choose? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #1)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 05:35 PM

16. Is his mouth moving?

He's back pedaling. He knows he can't get elected unless he denies that -- personhood fails in Colorado by a 3-1 margin that just keeps getting bigger with every poll.

Gardner is subject to The Doctor's first rule.

(Fortunately, Mark Udall is willing to twist this particular knife that Gardner stuck in his own ribs.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Fri Mar 21, 2014, 10:04 PM

2. Can't support personhood "NOW"

meaning he will right after the elections. Beware COs, a wolf in sheep clothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Fri Mar 21, 2014, 10:31 PM

4. The title left me wondering : personhood for corporations, or fetuses?

Since those are the only two kinds of entities whose personhood anyone seems to give a damn about these days.

(ok, unless it's a PETA member and they're talking about personhood of livestock, but I don't think we have any of those in Congress...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pffshht (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 12:02 PM

36. Had the exact same thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Fri Mar 21, 2014, 10:55 PM

5. K&R..thanks, angka

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Fri Mar 21, 2014, 11:51 PM

6. so fertalized eggs ....

....that fail to implant due to contraception use aren't "real" people now? If you want to go down that primrose path of biological idiocy, you've gotta stick with it, buddy, even when it's inconvenient. Otherwise, you just piss off damn near everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 01:08 PM

11. are you trying to say that fertilized eggs are?

Real people?

I mean, if that's what you're saying, then it sounds like you're supporting the guy's prior stance…and want to push him back to it. Am I misunderstanding you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #11)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 06:23 PM

17. yep, misunderstanding me.....

....sorry for the lack of clarity. My point is, it's biological stupidity to grant a fertilized egg the same rights as you and me. However, by not sticking with his original stance, Gardner is pissing off the forced pregnancy ass hats, while pro choice folks easily see through his gross hypocrisy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paleotn (Reply #17)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 06:36 PM

18. ohh, I see...thanks for clarifying

I don't know anything about the guy, but isn't it possible he had a moment of realization? Or is he constitutionally incapable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #18)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 09:03 PM

19. read his wiki entry and see what you think:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #19)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 09:27 PM

20. well…definitely hate his economic and environment stances.

I'm good with his intention to bring a bill to prohibit executives of state healthcare exchanges from getting bonuses.

I don't see anything about his ideology regarding women. so, hard to say whether he's a women's issues extremist or not.

I'm aware that was just a cursory glance, not a full picture of the guy.

on edit---I'll take people's word for it--he's not sounding good. Seems there are folks here that know much more than I do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #20)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 09:47 PM

21. he has sponsored anti-choice and personhood amendments. think his views on women are

pretty clear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #21)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 09:52 PM

22. yep. That's pretty clear.

yecch!

Didn't see anything about it in the wikipedia article.

edit to add---I don't know what's really going on in his head. It sounds plausible that he looked into the ramifications of personhood laws and realized it went too far. I just don't know--only his actions will tell the truth.

Meanwhile, I'd rather see Democrats GOTV



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #22)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:02 PM

23. would love to believe you are correct, but wayyyy too familiar with this smiling bastard.

sadly, he is only slightly less nuts than the previous "front-runner" one ken buck.

. . .



But the left noted that Gardner sponsored legislation in both the Colorado legislature and in Congress to outlaw abortion, and in 2010 he circulated petitions in Colorado for the "personhood" amendment that critics contend would have outlawed some forms of birth control.

Read more: Udall vs. Gardner: Whose voting record will appeal to Coloradans? - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25389383/udall-vs-gardner-whose-voting-record-will-appeal#ixzz2wkNtBYwm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #23)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:09 PM

24. ugh…that article gives a much clearer picture

and it's not pretty.

sounds like you live in the guy's district? My sympathies…..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #24)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:18 PM

25. no, doug lamborn's, ughhhh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:40 PM

26. don't know him,

but I'm in NY state. When I was out in the NY hinterlands, my rep was this teapuke named Tom Reed.

Now the excellent Louise Slaughter is my rep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlancheSplanchnik (Reply #26)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 10:50 PM

27. you are not missing anything-- here is a short review of doug "tar baby" lamborn:

. . . .

Taxes

Lamborn is a signer of Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge.

"Tar Baby" Remark

On July 29, 2011, Lamborn appeared on a Denver radio program to discuss the debt crisis and the failure of Democrats and Republicans to reach a compromise on the problem. Lamborn stated "Now, I don't even want to have to be associated with . It's like touching a tar baby and you get it, you're stuck, and you're a part of the problem now and you can't get away." The term tar baby is a known racial slur used towards African-Americans. Former Colorado House Speaker Terrance Carroll, himself an African-American, replied "“Looking beyond the fact that Congressman Lamborn’s entire comment is nonsensical, his use of the term ‘tar baby’ is unfortunate because the historical connotation of that term when used in conjunction with African Americans."

On August 1, 2011, Lamborn apologized for his use of the slur, explaining ""When I said 'tar baby', I was talking economic quagmire that our country is finding ourselves in because of poor economic policy from the White House. I could have used a better term."

Refusal to attend 2012 State of the Union Address

On January 23, 2012, Lamborn announced he would not be attending the President's State of the Union address. According to his spokeswoman Catherine Mortenson, "Congressman Lamborn is doing this to send a clear message that he does not support the policies of Barack Obama, that they have hurt our country," and he believed Obama was “in full campaign mode and will use the address as an opportunity to bash his political opponents."

Leak of classified national security information

On April 11, 2013, Lamborn read out in an open session broadcast on C-SPAN what he thought to be an unclassified section from a classified report on North Korean nuclear capabilities. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs refused to confirm the classified report.

Role in 2013 government shutdown

Doug Lamborn is one of the 80 members of the House that signed a letter to the speaker of the house, urging the threat of a government shutdown to defund Obamacare. This group was named the "Suicide Caucus". He voted against the measure that finally ended the shutdown on October 16, 2013

. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Lamborn

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to niyad (Reply #27)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 11:09 PM

28. hooo boy. What a peach.

barf.


I'll bet he's pals with Rep. Reed of NY.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Fri Mar 21, 2014, 11:56 PM

7. Gardner is a snake. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 12:07 AM

8. yeah, right, cory--we believe you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 07:41 AM

9. Stand back, folks...he's...he's...evolving! n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 09:30 AM

10. Why is it always after the fact.

don't they think things through or, you know, actually read the bill in question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 01:11 PM

12. because they don't read and think abstractly? I don't know, just tossing ideas out there….

they don't think of real world consequences of their ideologies. But then, sometimes, the consequences of stupidity get tangible enough to see, and then….. there's a chance another bit of evolution happens.

Just thinking out loud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #10)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 03:51 PM

13. he's just attempting to appeal to moderates to get elected

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 04:32 PM

14. The second extrememly important issue that should come from this is legislators shouldn't sponsor

bills they know very little about and when they do should never be re-elected. Even more so if you're sponsoring bills that are relying on science as a basis for the claims.

Not only has Gardner revealed himself to be a rights-when-convenient type, he is fundamentally a bad legislator who isn't concerned for the truth, science, or the process of writing laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sat Mar 22, 2014, 05:10 PM

15. Is there an "R" after his name?

Then 'nuff said. You know he can't be trusted, and that he's going to err in favor of the Dark Side. AND he could very easily be lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 01:27 AM

29. What he really meant to say was:

Forget my heretofore deeply held "core values". I won't allow myself to go down in flames like Todd Aken or Richard Mourdock did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 12:38 PM

30. riiiiiight . . .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:22 PM

31. What Will His Church Say NOW

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 02:24 PM

32. Will He Flip On Preexisting Conditions Too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to otohara (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 08:53 AM

35. BTW, that cat gif is HILARIOUS!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to angka (Original post)

Sun Mar 23, 2014, 06:17 PM

33. Maybe a close friend or relative would be adversely affected from such personhood policies.

People like Gardner don't look past their noses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bulloney (Reply #33)

Mon Mar 24, 2014, 08:52 AM

34. Or he realized he owns stock in a company that makes oral contraceptives.

It's either one or the other with these heinous excuses for human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread