Rep. Mike Coffman announced last week that he’s joining “No Labels’ Problem Solvers — a group of 56 Democrats and Republicans committed to meeting regularly across the aisle to build trust and talk about solving problems.”

Some labels, like the label of “citizen” for Obama, have bugged Coffman in the past.

But mostly he’s been as label-friendly as a politician gets in Colorado, labeling Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” trying to add the label “forcible” to rape, labeling the flat tax as something that has “tremendous value,” labeling the expansion of Medicare under Obamacare as “very radical,” wanting to put the label of “president” of the United States on Gov. Rick Perry. (Conversely, Personhood USA labeled Coffman a “statesman” for standing firm against abortion for rape and for any other reason.)

All this heavy-duty labeling makes you wonder why Coffman would want to join a group called the “No Labels’ Problem Solvers.” Much less be able to get away with it, under scrutiny from the media.

I wondered if a journalist had challenged Coffman on it, and I found that almost nothing had been written about Coffman’s apparent decision to throw his sharp labeling skills out the window.

Some reporter has to call him on this. Coffman has built a reputation in Colorado for saying controversial stuff, often with serious partisan labels attached. What’s up?

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo and Rep. Mike Coffman have a tight political history, each endorsing the other at various points along the way. (Tancredo endorses Coffman here and vice versa here.)

They also share a history of hard-line stances against illegal immigration.

So I wondered how Tancredo felt about Coffman’s recent announcement that Coffman favors giving “legal status” to millions of undocumented immigrants, granting them permission to work here without granting them the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

I hadn’t seen Tancredo interviewed on the topic, so I called him up to fill in the media gap.

“It’s a distinction without a difference,” Tancredo told me, regarding the difference between “legal status” without citizenship and actual citizenship. “Five years, ten years from now, you think we can stop 11 or 12 million people from being citizens, no no.

“It’s kind of like the civil union issue. If they could only get civil unions through, then that would be it. But of course the day civil unions passed, they announced that was not it. It needs to be marriage.”

Coffman’s 6th Congressional District, which Tancredo represented from 1999 to 2009, was substantially changed after the 2010 census, making it one of the most competitive congressional seats in the country.

As a result, multiple journalists have essentially put Coffman on the Endangered Congressmen List, and Coffman has responded, they say, by singing a different tune on immigration and other issues, even if the overarching song remains the same.

“I don’t know if the new district is the reason for [Coffman’s] moves on immigration.” said Tancredo, “but if it is, it’s a mistake. If I had a chance to pounce on [Coffman], which I do not, I would tell him it’s not going to help.”

“We’ve seen that trying to woo the Latino is a losing proposition,” said Tancredo. “Latinos vote for Democrats because they want big government. It has nothing to do with immigration.”

“He’s going to have a tough race,” said Tancredo. “Romanoff is a good candidate. Mike has shown himself to be a good candidate. It will not be a presidential year, so the possibility of having a lower turnout will certainly help Mike.

“I want to see him re-elected, and that’s why I am concerned that he thinks he can mollify the Hispanic community due to his moves on immigration. It won’t help.”

On Friday, Politico corrected its January 26 article stating that Rep. Mike Coffman “came out in favor of establishing a pathway to citizenship for immigrants residing in the country illegally, and for their children.”

The corrected article now reads: “[Coffman] came out in favor of granting legal status to immigrants residing in the country illegally, and allowing their children to become citizens,” and Politico added the following correction to the end of its article:

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story stated that Coffman endorsed a path to citizenship for adult illegal immigrants. He supports granting them legal status but is unresolved on creating a path to citizenship.

As I explain in this blog post, Coffman has not come out for a path to citizenship for illegal-immigrant adults, only for their children.

The Los Angeles Times made the same mistake in a March 6 article and corrected it March 9.

Last week, in an otherwise excellent article about the Rep. Mike Coffman’s positions on gun-safety issues, The Los Angeles’ Times Mark Z. Barabak wrote:

Since starting to represent his new district — he barely survived in November against a weak opponent — Coffman has changed his position on immigration reform, endorsing a pathway to citizenship for those in the country illegally, as well as their children. [BigMedia emphasis]

If you’ve  been following Rep. Mike Coffman’s immigration position closely (details here), you know he supports offering young undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship through military service. He does not support a path for undocumented adults.

Over the weekend, the Los Angeles Times corrected its piece as follows:

For the record

Gun control: In the March 6 Section A, an article about the gun control debate in Colorado misstated Republican Rep. Mike Coffman‘s position on immigration reform by saying he had endorsed a path to citizenship for undocumented residents. While Coffman has expressed support for a pathway to citizenship for the children of people in the country illegally, he said he has not “resolved the question about a pathway to citizenship” for adults who have overstayed their visa or entered the country illegally. [BigMedia emphasis]

Coffman’s immigration position has been misreported by multiple news outlets, and I’m hoping this honorable move by the Los Angeles Times, to correct its piece, helps to stop the march of erroneous reporting.

On Feb. 10, at a public forum in Aurora, Rep. Mike Coffman told the crowd (See video here.):

“I haven’t resolved the question about a pathway to citizenship for (adults) who’ve overstayed their visa or crossed the border illegally,” Coffman said.

Coffman also said that 1) he supports granting undocumented children, brought to America by their parents, a pathway to citizenship (through military service) and also that 2) he supports granting “legal status” (not necessarily citizenship) to undocumented adults.

Since then, a number of news outlets reported Coffman’s new positions on immigration, and they speculated that he’s modifying his views because he’s now vulnerable (or desperate) in his new district with a large Hispanic population.

But some journalists and bloggers are creating the false impression, or actually misreporting, that Coffman supports a path to citizenship for undocumented adults, when as far as I know, he does not.

Yesterday, for example Politico’s Alex Isenstadt reported, in an article with the misleading headline of “Mike Coffman Does a 180 on Immigration:

“[Coffman] came out in favor of establishing a pathway to citizenship for immigrants residing in the country illegally, and for their children.”

I’ve requested a correction from Isenstadt, but he didn’t immediately respond.

In a blog post last week, I spotlighted a misleading headline atop a blog post by Denver Post Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard. It read, “Four Reasons why Rep. Mike Coffman, (R-Aurora), Saw the Light on the Dream Act.”

In fact, Coffman supports one of the DREAM Act’s two paths to citizenship (military enrollment) not the other path (high school or college graduation). So, he hasn’t seen much light on the DREAM Act. As of today, he’d vote against it, as he did in 2010.

I have to say that in a previous blog post, I also overstated Coffman’s new position on the Dream Act, and I tweeted that he flipped when he hadn’t. Long ago, I guess, I convinced my own self that he was sure to flip at some point, and when it looked like he did a 180, I rushed to my keyboard. But actually, he just modified his position, as explained above.

I corrected my blog post. I hope the bigger, badder journalists out there correct their stories or stop misleading us about, as AP put it, Coffman’s “change of heart” on immigration.

Last week, The Denver Post’s Curtis Hubbard wrote a blog post with the headline, “Four reasons Rep. Mike Coffman, R-Aurora, saw the light on the DREAM Act”.

But Coffman has not seen the “light” on the DREAM Act. He may be inching his way toward the light, but he’s still in the dark.

The Dream Act of 2010, which Coffman voted against, would have granted a citizenship path to some undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children, who graduate from high school or enroll in the military. (Other versions of the DREAM Act would make citizenship contingent on military service or graduating from college.)

Now Coffman is saying he supports one of the DREAM Act’s paths to citizenship (military enrollment) not the second path (high school or college graduation). So, he hasn’t flipped on the DREAM Act. Based on his current positions, he’d vote against it again.

In fact, on the key issue of citizenship, Coffman hasn’t moved much from the position he took last year, when told The Post:

“I certainly don’t support a path to citizenship for those that have violated our laws.”

Coffman doesn’t support a citizenship path for our country’s 10 million undocumented adult immigrants, preferring the approach of giving them “legal status” and thus creating an underclass of workers with no political voice.

And his citizenship path for young immigrants, through military enrollment, appears to be unworkable, because, based on the numbers of undocumented immigrants who might enroll, the armed forces could probably not handle so many new recruits. Which makes the argument for two citizenship paths (education and military), as envisioned in the DREAM Act, even stronger.

Here’s the bill summary from 2010 DREAM Act, which Coffman voted against. I include it partially because I reported it incorrectly in a recent post of mine.

This bill would establish a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants under the age of 29 who were brought to the U.S. by their parents before the age of 16 and have graduated high school or promise to serve in the military. Applicants for citizenship under the DREAM Act would have to meet certain criteria designed to prevent the bill from being exploited and to weed out applicants that have been in trouble with the law. Immigrants granted conditional citizenship under the bill, pending final status adjustment, would not be allowed to receive federal benefits like food stamps and Medicaid.

The idea of having a voice in government is so central to the ideals of America that you wonder how politicians like Rep. Mike Coffman can contemplate giving millions of undocumented workers “legal status,” without offering them the hope of becoming citizens and participants in the democracy that surrounds them, such as it is.

But reporters apparently haven’t asked Coffman the question of whether an underclass of workers should reside in America with no political voice. It would be interesting to hear what he has to say.

When questioned on this topic, conservative Helen Krieble, who advocates the “Red Card” guest-worker program for undocumented immigrants, surprised me by saying that political representation for immigrants is necessary but, she said, it can wait, perhaps years.

On KBDI Channel 12’s Studio 12 program last week, in response to Attorney Aaron Hall’s assertion that this class of workers needs a voice, and access to representation, and that citizenship would give them this protection, Krieble said:

(@ 48:45) I couldn’t agree with you more on that. I just think that it’s important to have that citizenship piece – it’s just so broken, and it is such a very serious issue, that there will be huge numbers of regulations and requirements that are associated with that….

(@ 53:45) Citizenship will be the tough part. At least a year more, two or three years, to get the citizenship part right. Work permits can be addressed this spring or fall… Let’s get this done. There is a pathway to citizenship currently, it is not linked to guest worker program. The pathway to citizenship is coming, but we’re going to take our time to get it right.

Recognizing the need for a path to citizenship is new territory for Krieble, whose plan has been endorsed by GOP strategist Dick Wadhams. There’s no mention of it on her website, and a recent Denver Post article explicitly points out that a path to citizenship is not part of her plan.

Krieble, who resides in Parker, said on KBDI that the need for legal workers is so great, and the complications of figuring out how to offer citizenship so numerous, that we should get going with work permits.

If you’re looking for proof that delaying a decision about citizenship will smooth things out, you better erase from your mind the debate about immigration reform over the past decade or so.

Still, especially in light of Krieble’s new thinking, it’s worth finding out what Coffman and others who are opposing a path to citizenship think about Krieble’s point, that new immigrants deserve a political voice.

Correction 2-22-13: The Dream Act of 2010, which Coffman voted against, would have granted a citizenship path to some undocumented children who graduate from high school or enroll in the military. College enrollment was not one of the Dream Act’s paths to citizenship, as erroneously stated below.

Here’s the bill summary from 2010:

This bill would establish a path to citizenship for some undocumented immigrants under the age of 29 who were brought to the U.S. by their parents before the age of 16 and have graduated high school or promise to serve in the military. Applicants for citizenship under the DREAM Act would have to meet certain criteria designed to prevent the bill from being exploited and to weed out applicants that have been in trouble with the law. Immigrants granted conditional citizenship under the bill, pending final status adjustment, would not be allowed to receive federal benefits like food stamps and Medicaid.

It is true, as written below, that Rep. Mike Coffman does not support the Dream Act, because he only supports one path to citizenship (military enrollment) not the second path (high school graduation).

—————————————–

A politician can change his or her mind. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but when it happens, a reporter should obviously ask about it.

And so it goes with the all the politicians, like Rep. Mike Coffman below, who are now acting nice to undocumented immigrants when not long ago they were big-time meanies.

Just today, Coffman announced that he wants to open military service to so-called “Dreamers,” young people brought to America illegally by their parents.

Trouble is, Coffman voted against the Dream Act in 2010, which would have allowed these same young people to attend college in the United States and eventually become U.S. citizens.

Today, Coffman sings a sweeter tune on Facebook:

Coffman: I am pleased that the President‘s immigration proposal included a plan aimed at expanding the eligibility for military service to the young men and women who were brought here as children through no fault of their own. Today, I introduced the Military Enlistment Opportunity Act that seeks to do just this. Regardless of the final outcome of the larger comprehensive package being discussed by the Senate, I strongly believe this piece of the plan must be adopted. This is a critical issue, not only because it gives these young people an opportunity to earn citizenship through service to our nation, but it will also broaden the pool of eligible recruits for our military.

What’s the evolution of Coffman’s thinking. Why the change of heart?

Would he still vote against a law allowing Dreamers to attend college in the U.S.? Or is military service the best fit for young immigrants, in Coffman’s mind, with no college opportunity?

You’d think the upcoming deadline to extend the U.S. debt ceiling offers the perfect moment for one, just one, congressional Republican from Colorado to pull on his big-boy pants and say something like, “Hey, we created stock market gyrations and induced the first-ever U.S.-credit downgrade when we held up the debt increase in 2011. We caused similar instability last year. Let’s get real, extend the ceiling, and debate budget cuts during the budget process.”

Which is what Democrats and Republicans have done over 100 times since 1940, with little opposition (until 2011). Reagan did it 18 times; G.W. Bush seven.

Instead, it looks like Coffman (here), Gardner (here, here) are readying themselves for a fight that could lead to an economic mini-tizzy if not a large one.

Or maybe not. Can a Colorado Republican step up and be reasonable? Any of them? That’s what editorial writers at The Denver Post and elsewhere should be asking.

In just the latest example of extreme craziness, Gardner used the debt-ceiling debate to raise the specter of the rise of Nazism in America. Here’s what he said on KFTM radio’s Big Morning Show Jan. 14:

Gardner: I think you’re going to see a whale of a fight over the next two months….

Host: Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And really, how is this any different than what Germany went through in the 1930s when you had to literally have wheelbarrows full of German Marks in order to even buy a loaf of bread?

Gardner: Well a period of hyper-inflation, of course, we all know what that led to, the instability economically and what that led to. And we see quantitative easing taking place in the United States. We see devaluation of the dollar. We see inflationary pressures and threats and how that’s being dealt with. And yet there is no clear path to address those concerns. This nation faces the real possibility of a debt depression if we don’t get a hold of the financial situation right now.

Listen to Rep. Gardner on KFTM Radio 1-14-2012 raising specter of Nazism in America .

Coffman has more incentive than Gardner not to go Nazi. Yet he told Fox 31’s Eli Stokols in early January:

Coffman: “But the real big deal is what’s upon us and going past the debt limit. I have to see a way out of this, real spending cuts, before I vote to raise the debt limit.”

The Denver Post’s Curtis Hubbard wrote a column recently pointing out that normal people in Aurora expect normal behavior from Coffman. Hubbard wondered if they’ll get it.

Hubbard was right about the expectation that Coffman should change his behavior.

But the same could be said of any of the Colorado Republicans serving in Congress, if they want to raise their party’s standing in blue (?) Colorado.

On the debt limit, which CO Repubulican Congressman will break from their comrades and act like a grownup?

You may recall one of the most effective organizations supporting the re-election of George W. Bush was Billionaires for Bush!

The billionaires trailed Bush and Cheney around the country, with signs like “It’s a Class War and We’re Winning” and “Widen the Income Gap.” The billionaires liked to say they paid for eight years of Bush, and so throwing him out after four years was a rip-off.

I was thinking about Billionaires for Bush when I saw a roundup of news coverage from around the country of protests Saturday against extending tax cuts for the top two percent.

They weren’t giant demonstrations, but you had 25, 50, 100 people in dozens of venues. In Colorado, there were about 25 folks in Grand Junction and about 50 people in front of Fava’s restaurant in Aurora.

Whether this impresses you or not, you’d agree that what you do not see are the top two percent in the streets, with signs like, “More Tax Cuts for Millionaires Now!” “What’s Good for the Top 2% Is Good For YOU,” “Keep On Tricklin'”, “Another Yacht, for the Good of the People,” or “Why Own Just One House When You Can Have Five?”

The fact that you don’t see those folks demonstrating at all adds news value to the protests by the folks like Fair Share Colorado and Protect Your Care, who were among the organizers of the protest in Aurora. Yet, Saturday’s demonstration got zero news coverage in Denver, as far as I can tell.

Reporters should not only cover events like the one in Aurora but also point out that the super rich aren’t in the streets over this. What’s up with them? Too busy? Embarrassed to put their faces out there?

I’m serious. The Denver Post ran a piece on its Spot Blog yesterday about 50 business leaders who signed a letter to Colorado’s congressional delegation asking them to solve the fiscal-cliff problem. They didn’t even take a position on extending the Bush tax cuts for the super rich. Overall it was a mushy letter, its impact derived from the compiled signatures of wealthy, powerful elites, who call for resolution and compromise. With only vague platitudes, agreeing with overall public sentiment, the letter is more appropriate for a story on the Society Page.

Yet, the Post found the letter more newsworthy than 50 folks actually standing in Aurora, who called on Rep. Mike Coffman, specifically, to prioritize the “middle class over millionaires,” and to end tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners.

“Representative Coffman should not hold out for tax cuts for the richest among us,” said Aurora real estate agent Jeanne May, an Aurora real estate agent and member of Colorado Fair Share. “He needs to vote for middle class tax cuts for people like me not tax breaks for millionaires who don’t need them.”

So Jeanne May has thrown down the gauntlet to super rich out there–and reporters. Will there be a response? When will we see the luxury street protests, or somehow, the faces of the top two percent?

Where are those Billionaires for Bush now?

Small business owners, veterans, and others ask Rep. Mike Coffman to end tax cuts to two percent of income earners.