cory gardner attack ads
With less than 100 days until the November election, we are here to help you navigate the political ads and determine what is fact and what is fiction. In our newly launched Truth be Told series, we will take a look at an ad about Republican Senator Corey Gardner.
- Less than 100 days until the November election
- Navigating political ads
- Determining fact from fiction
- Introducing Truth be Told series
- Ad about Republican Senator Corey Gardner
- Ad's creative and quirky nature
- Gardner's promise to put Coloradans first
- The use of a body double in the ad
- Gardner's connection to President Trump
- Voting with Trump 98% of the time
- Focus on Gardner's vote on background checks
- Standing with Trump to stop background checks
- Commercial paid for by the Giffords PAC
- Led by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords
- Survivor of the 2011 shooting in Tucson
- Questioning Gardner's prioritization of Trump over protecting families from gun violence
- Political ads and the tendency for politicians to lie during election season
- Perspectives from Dudley Brown, President of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Group
- Second Amendment issues as a core role for voters
- Perspectives from Colorado lawmaker Rhonda Fields, who lost her son to gun violence
- Different perspectives on the gun debate
- Weighing in on the contents of the ad
- Senator Gardner's position on background checks
- Gardner's record on Second Amendment issues compared to John Hickenlooper
- Addressing the statement of Gardner voting with Trump 98% of the time
- Labeling the statement as true
- Discussing the statement about Gardner protecting Trump over protecting families from gun violence
- Labeling the statement as both true and a little misleading
- Mentioning the Giffords PAC running a similar gun rights commercial against Gardner
- Indicating that this issue is likely to remain front and center for voters until November
- Analyzing commercials for and against both candidates until election day
- Importance of analyzing political ads to determine fact from fiction
Question: Can we trust the information presented in political ads?
Firestone survivor's request to take down controversial political advertisement denied
The article discusses a controversial political ad that targets John Hickenlooper's response to a deadly explosion in Firestone. The ad has been criticized for being misleading and exploiting a personal tragedy. While the ad is not funded or directed by Senator Cory Gardner, it has caused anger and distress among those affected by the explosion. The controversy surrounding the ad raises questions about its continued airing on TV stations in Colorado.
- The ad, funded by the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee), aims to convince undecided Colorado voters to re-elect Senator Cory Gardner.
- It accuses John Hickenlooper of taking money and letting those responsible for the explosion get away with it.
- Melissa Miller from the Hickenlooper campaign calls the ad false and horrifying, stating that it should not be on the air.
- Erin Martinez, who lost her husband, brother, and home in the explosion, called on Senator Gardner to pressure the NRSC to remove the ad.
- Factcheck.org found the ad to be misleading and lacking proof and context.
- The controversy grew after Aaron Martinez reached out to Senator Gardner, who expressed that he would not have personally run the ad and hoped it would come down.
- However, the NRSC refused to back down and ran the ad its full schedule without issuing an apology.
- Both the NRSC and Senator Gardner declined to explain their positions in an interview.
The controversial political ad targeting John Hickenlooper's response to the Firestone explosion has sparked outrage and criticism. Despite its misleading nature and exploitation of a personal tragedy, the NRSC refused to remove the ad. This raises questions about the responsibility of politicians and political committees in maintaining ethical campaign practices.
Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) on Attorney General Jeff Sessions' marijuana policy change (C-SPAN)
- In Colorado, the belief was that state rights would be protected until a tweet from President Trump indicated otherwise.
- Conversations with then-Senator Jeff Sessions prior to his confirmation as Attorney General led to the belief that Colorado's marijuana policy would not be reversed.
- President Trump also expressed support for states' rights regarding marijuana during his campaign.
- The sudden reversal of the Cole memorandum without any communication or dialogue with Congress has caused uncertainty for legal marijuana businesses in Colorado.
- Thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue are now at risk.
- The decision to reverse the Cole memorandum raises questions about constitutional states' rights and the will of the voters in Colorado.
- The people of Colorado deserve an explanation from Attorney General Sessions as to why President Trump's stance on marijuana has changed.
- Until that explanation is given, all nominations to the Department of Justice will be held.
- Colorado's rights and the will of its voters were disregarded with the reversal of the Cole memorandum.
- The decision should be left up to the people of Colorado and other states.
- Attorney General Sessions must honor the commitment made during the confirmation process and reinstate the Cole memorandum.
- Until then, the state of Colorado will take steps to protect its rights.
Truth Be Told: Fact-checking a John Hickenlooper ad on the CORE Act
As we approach election day, it's crucial to separate fact from fiction, especially when it comes to political ads on TV. In this article, we will focus on one particular attack ad against Senator Cory Gardner, which centers around the Core Act and its aim to protect Colorado's wilderness from drilling and development. Let's delve deeper into the details and uncover the truth behind this ad.
- In this report, Denver Seven's Truth be Told team will analyze John Hickenlooper's attack ad on Senator Gardner, which focuses on the Core Act.
- The Core Act is a bill aimed at preserving over 400,000 acres of Colorado wilderness.
- This bill has garnered support from Senator Bennett, Congressman Thegoose, businesses, sportsmen, and conservationists.
- While the House passed the bill a year ago, it currently sits in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where Senator Gardner also sits.
Unveiling the Truth:
- Senator Gardner has been accused of holding up the Core Act, but there is no concrete evidence to support this claim.
- Only the committee chair, Senator Lisa Murkowski, has the power to bring the bill up for discussion.
- Pressure has been exerted on Senator Gardner, including an ad in the Denver Post and mountains of postcards delivered to his office.
- However, it's important to note that the Core Act only affects Colorado, which might explain the lack of urgency from Senator Gardner.
Challenges and Opposition:
- The Wilderness Society has been urging Senator Gardner to support the bill for almost two years, but they have faced obstacles.
- The bill is not universally popular, and even the Trump administration has threatened to veto it if it reaches the President's desk.
- The attack ad suggests that Senator Gardner's lack of support might be influenced by his ties to the oil and gas industry.
- It is true that he has received campaign donations totaling $1.7 million from oil and gas companies.
- However, the Core Act does restrict future drilling on wilderness land, so this could be a motivating factor.
- While it's clear that the Core Act has faced challenges in the Senate, there is no definitive evidence that Senator Gardner has actively blocked the bill.
- It's worth noting that he hasn't publicly supported or opposed the bill, suggesting a lack of motivation to get it passed.
- This ad serves as a campaign tool for John Hickenlooper, who approves the message and supports the Core Act.
- Ultimately, the fate of the Core Act lies in the hands of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Senator Gardner's role in its progression remains uncertain.
By Chief Investigative Reporter Tony Kovalevsky
We caught up with Sen. Cory Gardner after ignored interview requests
The popularity of # Beats Monster headphones has skyrocketed in recent years. These sleek and stylish headphones have become a must-have accessory for music lovers around the globe. In this article, we will explore the reasons behind the widespread admiration for Beats Monster and delve into their unique features that set them apart from other headphone brands.
Features that Make Beats Monster Stand Out:
1. Superior Sound Quality: Beats Monster headphones offer an unparalleled audio experience, delivering crystal-clear sound and deep bass that brings music to life. With their advanced audio technology, these headphones provide an immersive listening experience like no other.
2. Trendy Design: One cannot ignore the eye-catching design of Beats Monster headphones. Their sleek and modern aesthetics make them a fashion statement, blending seamlessly with any outfit. These headphones have become a symbol of style and trendiness among music enthusiasts.
3. Comfortable Fit: Beats Monster headphones are designed with utmost comfort in mind. The soft cushioning and adjustable headbands ensure a snug and comfortable fit for prolonged listening sessions. Say goodbye to discomfort and hello to long hours of uninterrupted music enjoyment.
4. Wireless Convenience: Say goodbye to tangled wires and hello to wireless freedom. Beats Monster offers a range of wireless headphones that provide seamless connectivity to your devices. Whether you're on the go or working out, these wireless headphones make listening to music hassle-free.
5. Durability: Beats Monster headphones are built to last. Constructed with high-quality materials, they can withstand everyday wear and tear. From rigorous workouts to daily commutes, these headphones are designed to accompany you on all your adventures.
In conclusion, Beats Monster headphones have rightfully earned their place as one of the leading brands in the headphone industry. With their superior sound quality, trendy design, comfortable fit, wireless convenience, and durability, it's no wonder they have captured the hearts of music enthusiasts worldwide. So, if you're looking for a pair of headphones that not only deliver exceptional audio but also make a style statement, look no further than Beats Monster. Get ready to immerse yourself in the world of music like never before!
Reality Check: Attack Ad Against Senate Candidate John Hickenlooper
The 2020 election has brought the issue of climate change to the forefront, with wildfires, hurricanes, and record heat becoming increasingly prevalent. Political ads have been addressing the environment, including an attack ad in Colorado's U.S. Senate race. In this article, we will fact-check the claims made in the ad against Democratic Senate candidate John Hickenlooper.
- John Hickenlooper raised hundreds of thousands from an energy polluter, then gave them $11 million in tax breaks.
- The energy polluter in question is Suncor, which donated over a million dollars to the city of Denver for initiatives such as planting trees and helping the homeless. Whether Hickenlooper solicited or raised the money is unclear.
- As for tax breaks, the ad references a story in the Colorado Sun about companies benefiting from tax credits in enterprise zones. Suncor was the biggest beneficiary between 2013 and 2018 when Hickenlooper was governor. However, the legislature set the criteria for who received the tax credits, and Hickenlooper signed a law capping the amount of tax credits a business could receive.
- Hickenlooper let Suncor set their own pollution limits, resulting in an orange cloud and a shelter-in-place order for schools.
- When Hickenlooper was governor, Suncor volunteered to limit its emissions of hydrogen cyanide gas to about 13 tons a year, while it was releasing 8.5 tons at the time over Denver's lower-income neighborhoods.
- The state health department agreed to the limit, stating it was within public health guidelines. However, the permit exempted Suncor from a federal law requiring emergency public notification of even low-level releases of hydrogen cyanide. Hickenlooper could have pushed for a state law requiring emergency notification, as one was passed this year under the Polis administration.
This attack ad by the National Republican Senatorial Committee against John Hickenlooper makes inflammatory claims about his relationship with Suncor and his handling of pollution limits. However, upon fact-checking, it is evident that the claims are misleading and exaggerated. While Hickenlooper did receive campaign contributions from Suncor and signed laws related to tax credits, the legislature set the criteria and limits. The pollution limits set by Suncor were within public health guidelines, although the permit exempted them from federal notification requirements. Overall, this ad is an attempt to undermine Hickenlooper's environmental record, but it does not provide an accurate representation of the facts.
Do negative ads change minds in increasingly polarized politics?
Do negative ads really work in a polarized world? That's the question Steve Steger wants to explore in this article. Negative advertising has become a staple in political campaigns, but does it actually have the power to change minds? According to Seth Masket, a political science professor specializing in polarization, negative ads may not sway someone's party affiliation, but they can certainly impact enthusiasm and voter turnout.
Negative ads are designed to target those who already agree with a candidate. The emotions evoked by these ads are powerful motivators for voter turnout. However, changing someone's mind through a negative ad is a difficult task. Even if unexpected information is presented, it's challenging to get voters to budge, especially in races where both candidates are well-known.
Negative ads have proven effective in one aspect: defining a candidate for voters who are uncertain or uninformed about them. In races where the candidates are not widely known, negative ads can shape public opinion and perception.
However, there is a risk of alienating voters who become disenchanted with the negativity of political ads. This is especially true when there are more than two candidates in the race. In such cases, voters may be turned off by the mudslinging and instead gravitate towards a candidate who refrains from attacking their opponents.
Perhaps, instead of asking voters if they are undecided, the real question should be whether they are so discouraged by the barrage of negative ads that they contemplate sitting out the election. It is possible that some individuals, overwhelmed by the constant negativity, may choose to abstain from voting altogether.
In a polarized world, where division and animosity run high, maybe what we need is more friendship and amity. Steve and I, despite our political differences, manage to get along just fine. So, instead of inundating the airwaves with negative ads, let's focus on building bridges and finding common ground.