Republicans Find Senate Candidate Willing to Run in 2016…Sort Of

Greg Lopez, apparently.

Greg Lopez, apparently.

UPDATE: Longtime Colorado politicos may remember that Lopez ran for State Senate (SD-30) back in 2000 and lost to John Evans after a pretty meek campaign.

—–

Republicans have unearthed another candidate for U.S. Senate in 2016, as Lynn Bartels reports for the Denver Post blog “The Spot”:

Greg Lopez, the former director of the Small Business Administration in Colorado, announced Monday he plans to run for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate.

Lopez said he’s not worried that other Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora and state Sen. Ellen Roberts of Durango, have already said “no” to challenging Democratic U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet next year.

A former Mayor of Parker, Lopez tells Bartels that “His Democratic friends have told him they would back him publicly and financially if he ran for office,” though we can’t imagine those friends ever thought Lopez might run for United States Senate. Lopez is bilingual and has served 10 years on the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, and along with his time with he SBA, he has an interesting resume…on paper.

Lopez is probably a better Republican candidate than Darryl Glenn — though that isn’t a very high bar to clear — but he’s certainly not a game-changer who will pose a serious threat to Democratic incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. Put it this way: If your campaign announcement for Senate is only picked up by the political blog of the Denver Post, you’re obviously not generating a lot of buzz or excitement.

It also doesn’t help Lopez that he left the U.S. Small Business Administration in April 2014 “because of clashes with his bosses in Washington over the Veterans Administration hospital project in Aurora that was beset by cost overruns…” Being involved in the mess that is the VA Hospital project in Aurora should be a big bonus!

GOP Donors Beg For Halt To Red-On-Red Infighting

Donald Trump. Mwah!

Donald Trump. Mwah!

The AP has a fascinating story up today about the increasingly nasty sniping between the growing gaggle of 2016 Republican presidential candidates, many of whom were recently in Denver for the Western Conservative Summit:

Worried about “Republican on Republican violence,” top party donors are taking action, with one firing off a letter calling for more civility and another seeking to block businessman Donald Trump from the debate stage altogether.

Foster Friess, a Wyoming-based investor and one of the party’s top 20 donors in the last presidential contest, issued a letter to 16 White House prospects and the Republican National Committee late last week calling for candidates to stay on the “civility reservation.”

Wyoming GOP donor Foster Freiss knows a thing or two about becoming a distraction from the GOP’s electoral aspirations, after his ill-advised comments about women “putting aspirin between their knees” as birth control helped validate “War on Women” stereotypes in 2012 that Democrats used to great effect in that year’s elections. But unfortunately for Freiss, Republicans presidential candidates don’t seem to care much for his cautionary example:

[Donald Trump] has lashed out at a growing number of Republican critics who have condemned his recent description of Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists. Trump over the weekend posted a message from another user on his Twitter account charging that former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush “has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife,” Columba, who was born in Mexico…

In an interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cruz refused to condemn Trump’s comments, saying he’s not going to perpetrate “Republican-on-Republican violence.” Christie, who entered the presidential race last week, wasn’t having it.

“I find it ironic, right, that Ted Cruz is giving lectures on Republican-on-Republican violence — the guy who put together a group that was sponsoring primary ads against Sen. Lamar Alexander is giving the rest of us lectures on Republican-on-Republican violence?” Christie said on Fox News. “I mean, all due respect, I don’t need to be lectured by Ted Cruz.”

Chris Christie and Bob Beauprez.

Chris Christie and Bob Beauprez.

Local readers will note with amusement that this is the same Gov. Chris Christie who waded into Colorado’s gubernatorial primary last year on behalf of Bob Beauprez. So, uh, Christie doesn’t need “lectures on Republican-on-Republican violence,” does he?

Donald Trump’s over-the-top derogatory remarks about Mexican immigrants almost certainly destroyed whatever viability he may have had heading into the GOP presidential primary–which wasn’t much. But the reaction to Trump’s comments by fellow Republican candidates may have more of an impact on the 2016 presidential race than Trump personally by forcing them to respond. It should be noted that Trump’s offensive comments are red meat for a significant percentage of GOP primary voters, who may take other candidates’ condemnation of Trump’s sentiments as an affront to their own views.

At the same time, for most people with a basic sense of decency, condemning Trump’s remarks is not optional.

In its way, red-on-red infighting in the GOP presidential race has parallels to the crisis in the Colorado Republican Party, which has split the faithful here between backers of state party chairman Steve House and Attorney General Cynthia Coffman. In both cases, you have a faction expressing “principle” as a reason to fight on publicly, while others are begging for the sides to play nice with each other for the good for the party as a whole. Not to mention avoiding felony extortion charges if possible.

And in both cases, cooler heads have not quite prevailed.

Get More Smarter on Monday (July 6)

MoreSmarterLogo-300x218Seriously, you can stop lighting fireworks now. Let’s Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols! If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example).

 

TOP OF MIND TODAY…

Douglas County officials are looking toward their next step in defending their nonsense “voucher” program after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled last week that programs were discriminating on religious grounds when they weren’t flat-out stealing taxpayer money. As Eric Gorski writes for the Denver Post:

In rejecting the vouchers, state Supreme Court Chief Justice Nancy Rice cited Colorado’s “stark constitutional provision” forbidding the use of public money to fund religious schools. That, she wrote, is exactly what the Douglas County initiative does, essentially working as a “recruitment program.”

Legal experts agree the U.S. Supreme Court typically does not get involved in state constitutional questions. But they differ on whether the circumstances of the Douglas County case put it in a different league.

Heather Weaver, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, an original plaintiff, said there is “really no grounds” for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

► In the “Ship’s That Already Sailed” department, opponents of LGBT rights and same sex marriage are planning a couple of idiotic ballot measures for 2016. We’d encourage the political geniuses behind these measures to take another look at just how dramatically these issues have shifted over the last decade. If you’d rather not read words, check out this amazing graphic from the New York Times.

 

Get even more smarter after the jump…

 

(more…)

Haters Gonna Hate (2016 Ballot Edition)

UPDATE: ThinkProgress reports, “traditional marriage” advocates may have gotten out a little over their proverbial skis this time:

A proposed amendment to the Colorado constitution appears designed to eliminate same-sex marriages. Yet it is so broadly drafted that it would most likely eliminate marriage entirely in the state of Colorado.

The proposed amendment, which would be subject to a ballot initiative if its supporters collect enough signatures, provides that “marriage is recognized as a form of religious expression of the people of Colorado that shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief.” It’s the last part of this text — the reference to “any particular religious belief” — that would prevent marriages from taking place in Colorado. [Pols emphasis]

Mr. Hater, call your office.

—–

Lord have mercy on our souls.

Two men on a cake! Lord have mercy.

As the Denver Post’s Joey Bunch reports:

A proposed ballot initiative filed Thursday would redefine same-sex marriages in Colorado as civil unions. A second initiative would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve the couples…

Dave Montez, the executive director of One Colorado, the state’s largest advocacy group for gay rights, said the initiatives are an attempt to undo the Supreme Court decision.

“This initiative is an unnecessary attempt to radically redefine all marriages in Colorado in order to undermine the Supreme Court’s recent decision,” he said. “Even before last week’s Supreme Court decision, the 37 states that already had marriage equality had proven that when loving, committed, gay couples share in the freedom to marry, families are helped and no one is hurt.”

The first of these two anti-LGBT ballot initiatives seems to have little chance of success. Redefining existing same-sex marriages after they have been validated by the U.S. Supreme Court seems like an incredibly gratuitous insult, not to mention pointless in the face of the court’s ruling that these are marriages like anybody else’s marriage. This initiative is in exercise in exactly the kind of discriminatory logic the Obergefell v. Hodges decision struck down–that there is a difference between rights two same-sex persons have versus heterosexual couples.

As for the second initiative, we expect to see many such attempts to chip away at newly-won rights for LGBT citizens in the coming months as the battle shifts to public accommodation instead of basic legal guarantees. Without protections against discrimination when doing business or obtaining publicly available goods and services, equality doesn’t really mean that much. At the same time, this is a more nuanced argument to make with voters who aren’t familiar with the issue.

Bottom line: the viewpoint of the state’s electorate has changed dramatically since 2006, when an anti-LGBT statewide measure passed and even modest civil unions failed at the polls. The public overwhelmingly supports the Supreme Court decision upholding marriage equality today, where they didn’t ten years ago.

So no, we don’t think LGBT rights supporters should be worried about these proposals. In fact, much like Republicans have painfully learned with the “Personhood” abortion bans over the years, the biggest worry could be blowback against their proponents.

Jeffco Recall Petition Drive Kicks Off Wednesday

Ken Witt, John Newkirk, Julie Williams (WNW).

Ken Witt, John Newkirk, Julie Williams (WNW).

That’s the word from Jefferson County school board recall organizers Jeffco United For Action:

YOUR 1ST CHANCE TO SIGN THE PETITIONS!

Petition Kick-Off Event

Wednesday, July 8th
Doors Open: 5:30 pm
Program Starts: 6:00 pm

Jeffco Fairgrounds, Rodeo Arena
15200 W. 6th Ave Frontage Rd
Golden, CO 80401

Come join us on Wednesday, July 8th, as we rally to recall the Jeffco School Board Majority!

After the huge protest rally against the Jefferson County school board’s right-wing majority at the end of May at Littleton’s Clement Park, attended by some 2,500 Jeffco residents, the biggest challenge for organizers was reportedly booking a venue large enough to handle the expected demand for recall petitions and instructions. Recall organizers will have 60 days from approval of the petition language, expected Monday or Tuesday, to gather the required 15,000 signatures for each of the three Jeffco board members being recalled: Ken Witt, John Newkirk, and Julie Williams. However, there’s a more practical need to get the required signatures in much sooner, to ensure the recall appears on the regular November election ballot along with the two open seats held by outgoing progressive minority members.

To that end, look for innovative signature gathering tactics like “sign and drive” events at high visibility locations around Jefferson County, and friendly door-knockers fanning out across Jeffco neighborhoods in the next few weeks. One thing we know about recall petition campaigns from recent experience is that they are high drama affairs–and right-wing supporters of the Jeffco school board majority, which includes large and well-funded media and field operative capabilities, will be out in Jeffco neighborhoods too with the goal of making mischief. This should motivate petition gatherers both paid and volunteer to be on their very best behavior at all times: to include ignoring hecklers and trackers no matter how much of an ignorant asshole they are, no smoking including weed, and probably get that haircut you were considering before you hit the pavement.

thursdayprotestsOn the upside, it’s possible we’ve never seen anything quite like the community’s anger–not to mention simple awareness–over this school board, as indicated by polling that looked at the viability of recalling the board majority after two rather shocking years of basically continuous bad earned media. In at least one case, last year’s ill-fated “review” proposal of AP history curriculum for various Glenn Beck-style political aims, we’re talking about one of the biggest media events in Colorado politics since Gary Hart set sail on the Monkey Business–covered by news outlets literally across the globe. This is not the manufactured outrage campaign of some political press shop, but the legitimate anger of ordinary Jefferson County citizens over what’s happened to this school board since far right candidates rode the Amendment 66 backlash to victory in 2013. You couldn’t buy that for a billion dollars, and this recall campaign wouldn’t have a prayer of succeeding if it wasn’t real.

With that in mind, there’s a plausible scenario in which getting these signatures in time for November’s ballot will not be a problem.

Vulnerable Mike Coffman Lays Low As Challenge Looms

Mike and Cynthia Coffman. And dog.

Mike and Cynthia Coffman. And dog.

For the last two weeks, a member of the Coffman family has dominated political headlines in Colorado, though not the Coffman most people think of. When we last left off with GOP Rep. Mike Coffman of Aurora, he was vowing to repeal Obamacare in the wake of last week’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and hurrying to pivot to “jobs and the economy” in response to the court’s ruling in favor of same-sex marriage equality–but still not getting anything like the press his embattled wife was receiving.

Which we fully assume he considers to be a good thing.

Just before the “Coffmangate” blackmail scandal involving Rep. Coffman’s spouse Attorney General Cynthia Coffman broke open in the middle of June, Mike Coffman’s remarks on a radio talk show comparing the Department of Veterans Affairs to the Middle Eastern terrorist group ISIS made the rounds with no small degree of controversy. But since then, we’ve seen very little in the way of earned media for Rep. Coffman beyond those brief statements, regarding either the overbudget Aurora VA hospital has had spent so much time grandstanding on as an election issue, or anything else.

And naturally, he’s had nothing to say about his spouse’s political implosion.

But the world moves on: just today, Mike Coffman’s name was mentioned again as one of the most competitive races in the Mountain West for 2016. Roll Call’s Rothenblog:

Coffman’s decision to seek re-election puts a wrench into Democratic plans to take over his open seat. But that doesn’t mean the party will give him a free pass. President Barack Obama won the 6th by 6 points in 2012 and 9 points in 2008, but Coffman easily dispatched former state Speaker Andrew Romanoff, 52-43 percent, in 2014. State Sen. Morgan Carroll has been mentioned on the Democratic side but the field is still fluid. As far out of reach as this race seems for Democrats, it’s probably the type of district the party has to win in order to get the majority in 2016…

After Andrew Romanoff’s unexpected shellacking at the polls in 2014, the second win for Rep. Coffman over resurgent Democratic opponents since his congressional district was remade into a closely divided battleground in 2011, conventional wisdom might have declared him safe. But the CD-6 electorate in 2014 seems to have almost uniquely punished Romanoff for running an uninspiring centrist campaign, sending him to defeat by a greater margin than overlapping Democratic candidates in other races. In 2012, low-budget underdog challenger Joe Miklosi came far closer to defeating Coffman than Romanoff did, a result that demonstrates the potential in this district for a candidate who can turn out the Democratic vote–or at least not demotivate base Democrats like Romanoff did with his milquetoast “balance the budget” message. And above all, the difference in the electorate between the 2012 presidential elections and last year’s midterms gives Democrats hope that 2016 may be the year Rep. Coffman’s number comes up.

Bottom line: Mike Coffman has proven a resilient incumbent, able to reinvent himself in dramatic fashion to appeal to a very different electorate than the hard-right conservative voters who originally elected him to Congress. But he has also benefited circumstantially from weak opponents, and a strong “Republican wave” in 2014. A combination of his starkly opposed past positions on the issues, continuing predilection for embarrassing verbal diarrhea like the ISIS/VA crack or his declaration in 2012 that President Barack Obama “is just not an American,” and the growing possibility of the right challenger in the right year, means that no matter how handily he was re-elected in the last election, Rep. Coffman remains vulnerable in the next one.

That perennial vulnerability is why Coffman chose not to run for the U.S. Senate next year, with his negatives potentially attracting much more attention in that marquee statewide race. His best career option, as we long expected he would decide, was to fight to hold CD-6–considered vital to either side’s aspirations for control of Congress.

The problem is, in 2016 Democrats may finally have the right combination of circumstances and human capital to take Coffman out.

Get More Smarter on Thursday (July 2)

MoreSmarterLogo-300x218Happy day after Canada Day! It’s time to Get More Smarter with Colorado Pols. If you think we missed something important, please include the link in the comments below (here’s a good example).

TOP OF MIND TODAY…

► Republican presidential primary campaigns in Colorado are setting up shop:

Campaign season, no doubt, is officially here, as Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul announced state campaign leaders to oversee their quest for votes for president in what’s likely to be a key swing state next year.

Fiorina’s picks are state Rep. Perry Buck of Windsor and businesswoman Heidi Ganahl of Boulder. Paul chose former state Sen. Scott Renfroe from Greeley and state Sen. Owen Hill from Colorado Springs.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina is in Aspen mouthing scary foreign policy slogans:

“I think [Iran’s leaders] are religious Nazis with an end-of-days view of their religion, and they’re dangerous as hell,” Graham said, adding a nuclear-armed Iran is far more dangerous than the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, although he has a plan for dealing with ISIS as well.

Rawr!

Department of Veterans Affairs officials are now saying there may never be a detailed account of why the troubled Aurora VA hospital project is more than a billion dollars over budget. You’d think we could ask the Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee’s Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, Mike Coffman about this, but he was apparently unavailable to grandstand comment for today’s story.

► The U.S. Supreme Court has sent a lawsuit challenging the 1992 Colorado Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights back to district court for reconsideration–the latest maneuver in a long fight to determine if the constitutional requirement to establish a small-r republican form of government has been usurped by convicted felon tax evader Doug Bruce’s labyrinthine creation.

► Former GOP congressional candidate and radio host Jeff Crank says it’s time to investigate Cynthia Coffman’s role in the alleged blackmailing of state GOP chairman Steve House:

Now, I just say this. If this happened, Cynthia Coffman, the Attorney General, needs to resign. She’s a Republican, and she needs to resign. Because if this happened, she either at worst, participated in it, and at best, was a witness to it, in her office – in your office, in the Attorney General’s office of the state of Colorado. It’s uh — this is what needs to be investigated. Not whether Steve House did this, that, or the other thing.

► Almost everyone agrees that Colorado needs more federal judges, and sooner not later.

Get even more smarter after the jump…

(more…)

Republican Talk-Show Host Calls for “Investigation” of Cynthia Coffman

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman.

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman.

UPDATE: In response to the request of a commentator, I asked Crank if he still holds the opinion below, which he expressed over two weeks ago. Here’s his response.

CRANK: Yes, I still believe that Cynthia Coffman should welcome an investigation by an independent authority.  I don’t know if what she did rises to the legal definition of blackmail or extortion.  Only a legal expert would know that.  There should be an investigation and, if she is cleared, she should apologize for using bad judgement.  If the investigation finds that she participated in an effort to extort or blackmail, she should resign. [BigMedia emphasis]

I try to hold the same standard regardless of party.  That is more than those on the left usually do.

Amazes me that the folks on the left who are calling for Coffman to resign were eerily quiet about Eric Holder’s gun running operation and the IRS targeting people based on their political views.  Perhaps you should write about that too, unless that just cuts too close to home. 

——-

Some of my friends might throw stones at me, but, love him or hate him, Colorado Springs radio-host Jeff Crank tries to hold the Republican Party to basic standards. 

When Crank, a Republican, ran for Congress back in 2006, Crank was the victim of GOP shenanigans himself, so he seems to really hate it when the Republican knives come out behind the scenes.

Shortly after the news broke that Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and others had allegedly threatened House in an effort to push him out of his position as state GOP chair, Crank took to the airwaves with this:

CRANK: “Now, to me, if that happened, that’s blackmail,” said Crank, who’s worked over the years for Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, during his June 20 KVOR show. “Could it be extortion? I don’t know what the law says about the threshold for extortion or blackmail, but I’m pretty sure that the Attorney General shouldn’t participate in it. I’m pretty sure of that. In fact, I’m pretty sure that an Attorney General would want to prosecute rather than participate in an effort to blackmail the chairman of the Republican Party.

Now, I just say this. If this happened, Cynthia Coffman, the Attorney General, needs to resign. She’s a Republican, and she needs to resign. Because if this happened, she either at worst, participated in it, and at best, was a witness to it, in her office – in your office, in the Attorney General’s office of the state of Colorado. It’s uh — this is what needs to be investigated. Not whether Steve House did this, that, or the other thing. What is really troubling here to me is that the Attorney General of the state of Colorado, who already played politics once and took the opposite side of her husband in supporting someone for Party Chairman, now shows up and decides that that’s, all of a sudden, — he needs to go because maybe he hasn’t hired somebody. But participates in a meeting like this – was either a witness to, or participated in blackmail. There you go.

Who in the world do people think they are, walking into the Chairman. The Chairman was duly elected as the Chairman of the Republican Party. He can hire or not hire whoever he choses as his Exectuvie Director. Tom Tancredo, who again, has been a friend of mine, supported me when I ran for Congress when he was a member of Congress. I appreciate his support. Tom, of all people, was the guy that everybody in the Tea Party hated because he ran against Dan Maes, left the Republican Party, ran as an Independent, and now he’s trying to tell the Chairman of the Party who he has to hire as the Executive Director. And it’s all unseemly.

But here is the biggest problem I have with this: Cynthia Coffman is the chief law enforcement officer of the state of Colorado. And it’s lonely when you’re a Republican calling out another Republican. And I’m sad to say that. […] But I will say this: I have built a career doing that, and I will call you out if I think you’ve done something unethical, if you’ve done something wrong. And I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or a Republican. And I think that’s what people respect about the positions that I take—is that I take them and I hold firm to them. And I’ve got to tell you, I need to know more about what Cynthia Coffman’s role was here. If she participated in or saw an attempt to blackmail the Chairman of the Republican Party, she needs to resign. Because if that’s the case, if that happened, she is Eric Holder of the state of Colorado. And I can’t think of anything worse to say about somebody than being the Eric Holder of the state of Colorado. She can’t just sit silently. There has to be an investigation. There should be an ethics complaint filed.

Barring a sentence or two, Crank actually sounds like a real attorney general here, unlike the one we have now, apparently.

Thursday Open Thread

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

–George Orwell

IUD Funding Not A Done Deal After All

UPDATE: Statement from Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado:

It is disgraceful that Republican Colorado Senators this session voted to leave low-income teenagers and young women without access to contraception that will help them achieve their goals and stay financially independent. Funding for the program expired today – that leaves a huge gap for hundreds of thousands of young women in Colorado.

The long-acting reversible contraception program (LARC) is recognized as a critical part of making Colorado #1 in preventing teen pregnancies (by 40%) and reducing abortions (35%). A relatively small investment of $5 million in LARC would have saved an estimated $50 million in Medicaid and public assistance programs.

The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment is searching for alternative funding to continue this vital service. Planned Parenthood is committed to supporting all programs like LARC that help teenagers stay in school and give them the opportunity to succeed.

—–

IUDs.

IUDs.

A story from KUNC community radio last month announced that a highly successful program to provide IUD contraception to low-income women in Colorado would be renewed for another year, despite the refusal by Republicans in the Colorado legislature to authorize public funds to continue the program:

Despite state lawmakers failing to pass a bill to fund the effort, a program to provide long acting reversible birth control to young, low-income women in Colorado is being extended for another year.

The long acting contraceptives, according to state figures, have helped cut teen pregnancy rates in the state by 40 percent. Abortions have gone down too…

[Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment Executive Director Larry] Wolk does want to come back to the state Legislature in 2016 and try to get the $5 million needed to again fund the program through the state – and even expand it to more clinics that serve lower income young women.

“It’s good public investment,” said Wolk. “It’s not fair that we have to keep going to the private or foundation community to fund something that is saving the state money.” [Pols emphasis]

But according to a press release today from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the lack of public investment in the Long-Acting Reversible Contraception program is a problem–making the previous declaration of victory problematic:

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment continues to search for funding for its successful Colorado Family Planning Initiative. To date, there is engaged conversation and expressed interest, yet no firm commitment. [Pols emphasis]

“We are working closely with our partners who believe in this initiative to find the funding necessary to continue providing contraceptive choices to young women across Colorado,” said Dr. Larry Wolk, executive director and chief medical officer for the department. “Making sure Colorado women have access to safe and effective contraception is an investment in their futures and ours.”

There’s reportedly still a possibility that private funds will come through to continue this program, perhaps on a reduced scale depending on how much they can get. But the situation could still affect single women in the interim if funding isn’t locked in soon, and in either case illustrates the uncertainty involved with trying to fund an important public health program of this kind with fickle private contributions. As CDPHE executive director Larry Wolk says, this is a program that saves the state tax money in the end, so to refuse to fund it as Republicans in the legislature did this year was textbook pennywise and pound foolish.

Talk-show hosts should release multi-page document outlining accusations against House

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Ted Harvey and Cynthia Coffman in House of Cards likeness.

Ted Harvey and Cynthia Coffman in House of Cards likeness.

Denver talk-radio hosts should release a multi-page document, apparently prepared for last week’s Republican executive committee meeting, detailing concerns about Republican State Party Chair, Steve House.

Tom Tancredo told KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles Monday that House refused to let him or Pueblo Country GOP Chair Becky Mizel distribute the “three-to-four pages” to committee members, even though Mizel sits on the committee.

On Saturday, former KLZ 560-AM host Randy Corporon told KNUS 710-AM’s Craig Silverman that he’d emailed what sounded like the same document to Silverman prior to his interview on Silverman’s show.

Corporon told Silverma on air: I sent you a four-page letter of the problems. You probably haven’t had a chance to see it. Neither did the executive committee, by the way, because Steve House did not allow anyone to distribute the four-page letter of concerns about Steve House for the executive committee (at 56:40 Hour 3).

But neither Corporon nor Silverman responded immediately to my requests for the document.

In the name of transparency, Silverman should place the accusations on the KNUS website post haste.

Corporon should read the document on the KNUS airwaves Friday, when he is guest-hosting beginning at 5 a.m. Corporon, along with former KLZ hosts Kris Cook and Ken Clark, resigned after KLZ management refused, at least temporarily, to allow Tom Tancredo to appear on KLZ.

What’s a better topic for conservative talk radio than the airing of a secret document written by conservatives attacking fellow conservatives?

  • RECENT COMMENTS