Colorado Senate Nominee’s Big Retreat On Personhood Enrages Right

FILE - In this April 12, 2014 file photo, Rep. Cory Gardner delivers a speech to Republican delegates at the state GOP Congress, in Boulder, Colo. It wasn’t all that long ago that Republicans used gay marriage as a... FILE - In this April 12, 2014 file photo, Rep. Cory Gardner delivers a speech to Republican delegates at the state GOP Congress, in Boulder, Colo. It wasn’t all that long ago that Republicans used gay marriage as a tool to dive Election Day turnout. But as public opinion on the issue has turned and courts strike down same-sex marriage bans, gay rights is evolving into a wedge issue for Democrats. In Colorado, Udall is hitting his Republican challenger Gardner for casting votes that denied gay people protection from discrimination. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, File) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

One of the first things that Rep. Cory Gardner (R-CO) did after officially announcing his candidacy for Colorado’s Senate seat in March was disavow his previous support for the “personhood” cause, the anti-abortion movement to define life as beginning at conception.

While his opponent Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) and other Democrats labeled Gardner as a flip-flopper, social conservatives felt a deep betrayal. Gardner had advocated for a personhood amendment to the state’s constitution since 2008.

“Republicans are so thirsty for victory they’re ready to drink saltwater,” Ed Hanks, a personhood activist who lives in Douglas County, a Republican stronghold, said at the time, according to the Denver Post. “Cory Gardner has just renounced the party platform and embraced abortion.”

Months later, the personhood movement is still unhappy with Gardner’s change of heart.

“Cory Gardner is a big disappointment, since he was firmly on our side, and now he’s throwing that away for greater political aspirations,” Jennifer Mason, a spokeswoman for Personhood USA, told the Wall Street Journal late last month.

Why did Gardner do it? The answer is simple, Seth Masket, a political scientist at the University of Denver, told TPM. He had to. The state’s 2010 personhood initiative lost 71 percent to 29 percent, per the Post. In purple Colorado, where Republicans haven’t won a major statewide race since 2004, GOP candidates must appeal to the middle.

“If he hadn’t, his whole campaign would have been a non-starter,” Masket said. “That’s the position that really would alienate him with all the mainstream voters. It kind of had to be done.”

Some conservatives warned at the time that Gardner had taken a risk by distancing himself from reliably conservative voters. “It was politically stupid for him to do that,” Keith Mason, president of Personhood USA, told the Post. “He’s not going to lose all of them. People are pretty ticked by Obamacare, guns and all the other stuff. But Cory needs those votes.”

“I think those folks were pretty annoyed. He was one of the people they could count on,” Masket said of the backlash. “Those people are almost uniformly very conservative Republicans. They’re consistent voters.”

But then there’s the $64,000 question. Will they make Gardner pay for it? They might already have missed their chance, Masket said. Gardner ran unopposed in the GOP primary. Forced to choose between a personhood heretic and Udall, conservatives will still likely back Gardner, Masket said. Lost enthusiasm could be a problem, though. At the moment, Udall maintains a 1-point edge, according to TPM’s PollTracker.

“I don’t think it poses a long-term danger to him. They will be annoyed. If there had been a more competitive primary, it could have been costly,” Masket said. “But there is so much they like about Gardner and so much they despise about Udall. They’re ultimately going to rally to his side.”

Latest DC

Notable Replies

  1. In the end the voters angry with Gardner will hold their noses and vote for him. To do otherwise would be unthinkable. They simply can’t not vote for him.

  2. Avatar for jw1 jw1 says:

    Even when ® pols overtly grift the ®ubes–
    in merely asking for their votes–
    then rubbing their noses in in it–
    the ®ubes are willfully blind to the entire grift machinery.


  3. Twas ever thus. This was always going to be a close one. The key is going to be who’s so locked into the personhood argument that they either stay home or vote for a write-in candidate. (No way they vote for Udall. Like other elections in this country, Obama’s on the ballot whether his name is there or not.)

  4. One of the following things is true about Gardner:

    1. He’s done a 180 on the issue, because he’s reconsidered the facts.

    2. He’s playing dumb in order to attract middle-of-the-road voters, only to govern like a right-wing hack, if elected.

    3. He has no core beliefs and will change his mind any time it’s politically expedient.

  5. Avatar for lio lio says:

    Man, I wish Democrats were impervious to any political impediments instead of being utterly ruined by even the slightest setback.

Continue the discussion at

46 more replies


Avatar for system1 Avatar for scavok Avatar for jw1 Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for ichthus Avatar for meri Avatar for radicalcentrist Avatar for leftflank Avatar for fargo116 Avatar for buford Avatar for mantan Avatar for sniffit Avatar for weatherservo9 Avatar for docb Avatar for magster Avatar for 538liberal Avatar for tao Avatar for apotropoxy Avatar for khaaannn Avatar for azjude Avatar for zlohcuc Avatar for denverretiree Avatar for ahumbleopinion Avatar for LACodger

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: