Mitt Romney apparently isn’t making himself available to real journalists in Colorado, in advance of Tuesday’s GOP caucus, but he called into conservative talk-radio shows today, where, predictably, he found a copasetic environment, free of annoying follow-up questions.

That’s unfortunate, because Romney said a few things that deserve a closer look by reporters, if they ever get access to Romney.

On KOA’s Mike Rosen this morning, Romney suggested that he didn’t like the insurance mandate that was included in the Massachusetts health care bill, and he would have vetoed it in favor of offering tax breaks to people with insurance.

Romney told Rosen:

“In one important respect, the incentive to get people to have insurance in our state was associated with a penalty, which is if you don’t have insurance, you have to help pay the cost of your health care in our state. I would’ve rather given a, if you will, a benefit — a tax break — to people who had insurance. So you’d give people a, if you will, a positive, as opposed to a negative. When you do that you accomplish the same objective, which is to get people insured and have people take responsibility for their own health care.”

Romney said, “There were a number of features in the [MA] health care bill I vetoed, and those vetoes were all overridden by a legislature which is 85 percent Democrat.”

Romney has tried to separate himself from the mandate before, though you may not believe it given that it’s central to the Massachusetts policy.

But as this New Yorker article shows, and others have documented, Romney agreed with the policy and sold it.

Romney’s appearance on the Cari and Rob Show, with hosts Rob Douglas and Cari Hermacinski, was similarly pleasant for Romney, with a few questions that were leading toward difficult territory but went nowhere with no follow-up questions asked from two conservative hosts who’ve asked tough questions of Rep. Scott Tipton in the past.

Romney trashed Obama’s entire economic record, literally “everything” Obama has done for the economy, despite this morning’s news that unemployment is heading toward a three-year low.

“I’m delighted that we’re seeing some job growth finally,” Romney told Douglas and Hermacinski. “It’s taken a long, long time. This has been the slowest recovery since Hoover, and one of the reasons it’s been so slow is because this president has frankly done everything wrong when it relates to building an economy. [BigMedia emphasis].

Douglas and Hermacinski might have asked Romney if he supported extending unemployment insurance or cutting the payroll tax, or some itty bitty thing Obama did, but alas, nothing like this flowed from the two hosts.

I hoped Craig Silverman on KHOW would have the courage to ask uncomfortable questions of Romney, like he did of Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck in 2010. But his questions, like should Colorado host the Olympics and does the GOP want pro-choice voters, were easy for Romney. Dan Caplis, Silverman’s co-host, was his usual GOP-mouthpiece self.

So, Romney’s apparent plan of talking to friendly radio hosts in Colorado, and avoiding journalists, paid off this time, though I hold out hope for Silverman and Cari and Rob, if he tries it again.

Ironically enough, Scott Tipton is refusing invitations from Douglas to appear on his show, which is known for its Tea-Party bent, but that didn’t scare off Romney or Sal Pace or Rick Santorum, and others who’ve been on Cari and Rob Show recently.

You wonder where that puts Scott Tipton.

I asked Douglas if he’d tried to land Tipton lately.

We’re very pleased that Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Michael Reagan, Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Doug Lamborn, Sal Pace and many others are coming on our program to speak to our audience about the current campaigns and issues that are important to our audience. From the start, our goal has been to provide a venue for Coloradoans and others to have their voices heard and to hear from elected representatives and others who impact public policy.

To that end, we always welcome elected representatives and legitimate candidates on our program.

While we have not extended an invitation to Congressman Tipton recently, he is always welcome on our program and we expect he’ll want to speak with our audience between now and the time when he must stand before the voters in his district. Given Congressman Tipton’s interaction with our audience as both a candidate and as a elected representative over the last several years, we assume he knows he has a standing invitation from our program.

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog

Rep. Mike Coffman is in The Denver Post today telling us again that he led the charge for the Balanced Budget Amendment, which would have, in Coffman’s words, held “Congress’ feet to the fire with a Constitutional amendment requiring that they, like every family and nearly every state in the country, balance their budget.”

Coffman’s proposal specifies an exception. Deficits would be allowed during war or serious military conflict. (Families don’t get such an exception, in case you’re wondering whether your warring family can spend willy nilly.)

But Coffman himself has advocated for another crisis situation during which, he’s said, deficit spending by the feds should be allowed.

On KHOW radio, back in April, 2009, Coffman said he “would certainly support deficit spending,” if it were “truly stimulative” during the dark years of the great recession, 2009 and 2010.

In February, 2009, Coffman was equally clear on KHOW radio that the recession, which was slamming the country, was “so severe” that Coffman supported more deficit spending to stimulate the economy:

Silverman: So what are you suggesting? That we not do it? That we not have the stimulus package? Because Barack Obama said last night, hey, I didn’t come up with this $800 billion figure on my own. This is what the Republicans and the Democrats are talking about. The size of the stimulus package that is necessary given the dire condition that we are in. I like to live within my means. I am not big on borrowing for anything other than to buy a house. Are you saying we shouldn’t borrow money? I am not big on borrowing for anything other than to buy a house. Are you saying we shouldn’t borrow money?

Coffman: I do think that the situation is so severe that it warrants it. And obviously, from my point of view, that the greatest stimulus to the economy is by allowing individuals, small businesses owners, and corporations to keep their money in their pockets. And let the individual spend it versus the government spend it. So they can spend it their way. [BigMedia emphasis]

Here’s what Coffman told Caplis and Silverman April 15, 2009:

Coffman: I think it’s all about today politically and not about tomorrow. And so it’s kind of whatever happens tomorrow happens tomorrow. Let’s see how much influence we can buy or how much political support we can buy today. It’s a sad process. And I certainly support deficit spending, if it’s wise, if it’s truly simulative in this year and next year. I think the problem is that there is no effort in the budget plan that I see to close the deficit. We are going to be running trillion dollar deficits, you know, in the next ten years.

Later, as Coffman amped up his campaign for the Balanced Budget Amendment, KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman should have had Coffman back on their show to find out why an exception for deficit spending, to stimulate the economy during bleak economic downturns, was not included in the Balanced Budget Amendment that Coffman helped craft. (It died in the House in November.)

Reporters are all about consistency, and so they should ask Coffman, who helped form the 70-member House Balanced Budget Amendment Caucus and then chaired it, to explain his view in favor deficit spending “if it’s truly stimulative.”

And while they’re questioning Coffman about fiscal matters, reporters might ask to hear more about his unusual proposal, which he made on KHOW in 2009, to put Marines on U.S. merchant ships that might be threatened by pirates. Coffman claims this will save money, but further questioning about the risks of such a military presence are warranted.

Coffman: We don’t have the naval resources to patrol this area, which is a little over a million square miles. And so we need a fly swatter instead of a sledgehammer. And it would be much more cost effective to put small military detachments on the US-flagged merchant ships in order to deal with the pirates. And it wouldn’t take very many. We did this during World War II. And we can do it now. So we just deal with the problem and we write rules of engagement to where any of these pirate crafts approaching US merchant vessel that demonstrate hostile intent would be taken out.

Coffman could be right about the cost savings from the deployment of Marines, as he’s a budget maven when it comes to military spending, having advocated sensible cuts in the past.

Equally bold, from a political and fiscal perspective, are Coffman’s positions, aired on talk radio, against the Bush prescription drug plan and against using federal money to construct new DPS schools, because the DPS doesn’t “need to build more schools” due to enrollment declines.

There’s clearly public-interest value in airing out views of Congresspeople representing safe seats. But the time and space for political reporting, from serious journalists, is at a premium these days. So the media spotlight naturally should shine most brightly on politicians in competitive districts, especially guys like Coffman, and his likely opponent Joe Miklosi, whose words mean more because more voters with different opinions are listening to them now as they decide who to vote for in November.

You don’t have to spend much time on Google to find out Rep. Mike Coffman hates Obamacare and has voted to repeal it, though he says he likes parts of it.

But what’s Coffman’s alternative, beyond vagaries about wanting to make the health-care market more competitive?

You have to look hard, but one of his suggestions, as articulated in a 2010 radio interview, is to get the state of Colorado into the catastrophic health-insurance business.

Yes, you read that right.

Coffman believes that “Colorado could come up with a great health insurance plan that would focus on catastrophic care.” This plan, under Coffman’s proposal, would be snapped up by health-insurance buyers nationally and bring a windfall of business (and tax revenue) to our state, creating, if you will, a mini catastrophic health-care economy here.

(Coffman may be thinking of a Colorado company, not the state, but Coffman did not correct the radio host when he seemed to interpret Coffman’s statement as I did. And even if this is a private sector proposal, it raises many questions requiring explanation.)

Central to Coffman’s plan is our state’s existing tax on health-insurance premiums. Coffman envisions a windfall of tax revenue from this “premium tax” as sales of catastrophic health-care policies soar.

And if you’re wondering how this could possibly constitute an alternative to Obamacare, here’s your answer: Coffman proposes using the tax dollars collected from the premium tax to help lower the costs of health insurance for “people that have chronic health care needs that are just priced out of the market.” (Everyone else apparently should buy a catastrophic plan, with a deductible appropriate, depending on individual circumstances.)

Oh, and some of the new tax revenue would boost Colorado’s general fund.

Now this proposal of Coffman’s has got to catch the attention of more journalists than a measly progressive one like me.

Conservative journalists will want to know more about why Coffman wants to get the government into the health-insurance business, and why he wants to expand the state’s general fund. Business reporters will want to know how the government of Colorado will compete with the private sector. Health reporters will want to know if the chronically ill would really be able to better afford insurance, under Coffman’s proposal to help them, and whether catastrophic care will work for many people. Political reporters will want to know if Tea Party activists would turn against Coffman for advocating a government expansion into health insurance. Legislative reporters will want to know how much of the state’s budget hole could be filled and whether Colorado’s law mandating basic standards of care for catastrophic plans would be overturned in the state legislature, since part of Coffman’s proposal involves deregulating the state health insurance industry.

I mean, there’s plenty of feed here for the media beast.

But apparently no one’s dug into his idea since Feb. 22, 2010, when Coffman said it on KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show. Here’s the transcript from which the quotes above quotes from Coffman were taken:

Coffman: What we need is market competition. The President is right when he says there is inadequate competition among private insurance companies. But we do that through government regulations. We say that you cannot purchase health insurance across state lines. It has to be somebody that is licensed in your state. I think that if we opened up the market, if we could deregulate it some, and I think the role of the insurance commissioner is to make sure that these policies are transparent and that they cover what they say they are going to cover. But if we could open up market competition. When I was state treasurer, I  looked and wondered why all the publically traded corporations were moving out of Colorado and incorporating in the state of Delaware. And it turns out that Delaware had a court system that specialized in hearing business cases. And I think they provided a better environment, even though they charged a lot more for their incorporation.

I think if Colorado could come up with a great health-insurance plan that would focus on catastrophic care and opened it up to the rest of the country, if in fact we opened up the market, and we charge a premium tax here. Part of that goes to the general fund but part of it goes to cover a high-risk insurance pool with people that have chronic healthcare needs that are just priced out of the market, and we subsidize that here in Colorado, we could bring down the cost further. If we could sell a policy that would appeal to the country that would be more cost competitive, and other states could do the same. Let’s open it up to competition. [BigMedia emphasis.]

Craig Silverman: Isn’t that part of the deal behind the public option? Make the insurance companies compete with government?

Coffman: Well, what the public option says is, we are not going to do the deregulatory parts that I mentioned that allows competition across state lines. So we are just going to leave it in place and now we’ll say that the only one that can provide competition is the government? No, we need to open up competition to the private sector to bring down prices.

Dan Caplis: Congressman Mike Coffman our guest. And doesn’t this go back to the lead question that I had for you, which is the idea of the federal government now being able to dictate rates for private insurance companies. Because behind this, can’t the intellectually honest agree, that the left for a long long time, and now they are in control of the Democratic Party, has been out to kill private insurance companies, health insurance companies, and replace them with a single-payer government-provided health insurance plan? Isn’t that their holy grail and wouldn’t this be a big stem toward that?

Coffman: Yeah, it really would. And let me tell you one other thing. There are some real constitutional questions here. The notion that the federal government can impose an individual mandate. Certainly I think states can do it constitutionally, but I don’t see where in the U.S. Constitution it gives the power to the federal government the power to do that.  I think that there are other constitutional questions about the power of the federal government to do the things we are taking about doing. And clearly we understand the Commerce Clause and what is involved in that. I think that there are aspects in this legislation that clearly goes beyond that….

Silverman: Hey Congressman, what is the argument offered for not allowing competition state-to-state?

Coffman: Well, I suspect that the argument would be this: In 1946, the Congress of the U.S. pretty much gave, if you are not a multi-state employer that falls under the exemption, then you are subject to state regulation, particularly in the small group market and the individual market. Each state has different criteria, and so I think that they are saying there would be a race to the bottom if you opened up the market? And a given state had a catastrophic policy without all the bells and whistles. First of all, I think that we insure for much too much. I mean, insurance is about the providing oh…

Caplis: Catastrophic-type coverage.

Coffman: Yeah, really for catastrophic. And so, the fact that we’ve gone beyond that where people don’t have skin in the game.

I found this interview as part of my year-end review of Coffman’s talk-radio appearances, which I’m doing to encourage media types to take another look at some of Coffman’s unexamined views now that he’s in a competitive district.

Leading Democrats and Republicans have said competitive districts make politicians more accountable. One way that plays out in the real world is that when Congressmen like Coffman throw out big ideas, like the one about getting Colorado into catastrophic health-insurance business, he’s more likely to be questioned about it. Now it’s up to the media to do their part.

Yesterday I suggested in a blog post that reporters should look again at Rep. Mike Coffman’s reasons for opposing the repeal of the military’s Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell policy, in light of extreme statements Coffman made on the radio.

On the same radio program, KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show Dec 21, 2009, Coffman expanded on his reasons for voting against the so-called 9/11 compensation bill, which became law nonetheless and set up a health fund for ground zero workers.

At the time, Coffman made no secret of his opposition to the bill, saying it was unnecessary and expensive.

But on the radio, talking with Bob Beauprez, Coffman went further, saying the bill was being used for “vote buying” in New York.

Coffman [at 26:10 in the recording]: This is really just about money for New York City. It’s not about, really I think, helping the first responders because we have already done that.

Beauprez: It is a very difficult vote to be no on though, isn’t it?

Coffman: Oh it’s hard. Politically it’s tough. And they know it. And that’s why this is really the [inaudible]. This bill is so vital to them politically. Because it’s obviously vote buying in New York City. But more importantly, I think…nobody mentions, not even the mainstream media, that we have already done this.

Beauprez: No, I’ve been watching a lot of reports and waiting for somebody to bring it up. And I see absolutely nothing. Where are you going to be on the vote if you have to take one?

Coffman: I’m voting against it. I voted against it the first time and I’ll vote against it this time…. But this is really expanding this to create a long-term entitlement program. A multi-billion dollar program. And I think it’s wrong. It’s open ended.

Coffman is in a competitive race now, and reporters should ask him about this, since Beauprez obviously didn’t bother to educate himself on the issue before interviewing Coffman. If he had, he’d surely have seen that Coffman’s view that the bill was unnecessary was widely reported, and, still, the bill cleared the House and Senate overwhelmingly.

But Coffman’s other position, as serious accusation, that the bill was “vote buying” for New York, wasn’t reported, per se, and reporters should ask Coffman about it.

Now that Rep. Mike Coffman’s congressional district is widely regarded as more competitive, reporters should take another look at Coffman’s media appearances over the past years, and ask questions where none were asked before.

Of course, the low-hanging fruit is on local talk radio, where questions about Coffman pile up in your head so quickly you start forgetting good ones unless you write them down.

So I’m going to roll out a series of these interviews over the holiday season, to lay out some questions that linger about him.

Coffman has made no secret of his opposition to repealing the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, for example, at least for combat troops, who are, as he puts it, “at the tip of the spear.”

He’s argued:

“Interjecting sexuality into a ground combat team potentially creates an emotional divide between Marines that undermines confidence and prevents that interdependent bond from forming, ultimately compromising the combat effectiveness of the unit.”

That may sound extreme, but on the radio, mostly with, you-go-dude style enthusiasm from hosts, Coffman has gone further, arguing that combat troops can “just tell” when a fellow fighter is gay.

He dumps the qualifiers, like gays could “potentially” create problems, and goes straight to declarative assertions about the destructive impact of putting gay men in combat situations.

Below, former Bob Beauprez, subbing on the Caplis and Silverman show Dec. 21, 2009, got into the topic with Coffman:

Beauprez: You brought up something that I think is often forgotten. Outward displays of sexuality, however we want to, I guess, let our mind figure out what that really means, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, they create a problem on the battlefield.

Coffman: Well they really do. And I think it’s hard for people to understand that. But it’s young people. And it’s not you punch out and go home at 5 o’clock. And even if it is no overt sexuality, there is an emotional tension there where people can tell.

Beauprez: Yeah, and that is not a good place for emotional tension.

Coffman: No it’s not.

Beauprez: You have enough of that going on.

I wish I could send one of those WTF Jon Stewart faces out of this blog, because reporters should ask Coffman how combat troops know who’s gay and who isn’t.

And if they think they do, how is that any different from them believing something else about a fellow soldier, like his race, class, or what have you? I mean, soldiers could suspect anything and everything, positive or negative, about  fellow soldiers, and either they’d get over it or they’d get disciplined, end of story.

Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll wrote last week that it’s a “cheap left-wing talking” point for Denver Rep. Joe Miklosi to point out that Rep. Mike Coffman called Social Security a “ponzi scheme.”

Carroll usually expresses himself as clearly as any columnist out there, but here he should have given us a few more details.

As it is, Carroll sounds like he’s using the “cheap left-wing-talking-point” line as a cheap right-wing talking point against Miklosi.

I mean, Carroll might have a point if Coffman had burped out the “ponzi-scheme” comment, and then said something like, “Excuse me. I didn’t mean it.”  Or even if Coffman said it just once.

But Coffman has embraced the ponzi-ssheme concept not once but twice with his trademark intellectual air of certainty, first calling it “obviously” a “ponzi scheme” and then confirming his view in a second interview.

What Coffman is saying here, unless you believe Bernie Madoff is innocent, is that Social Security is a big piece of fraud, designed by the Madoffs in Washington to rip us all off.

Actually, Social Security is a government program that’s completely above board and transparent, about as different from a ponzi scheme as you can imagine. It’s been tweaked a number of times during its existence, but it remains hugely successful. It will remain solvent for 25 more years with no changes at all, and minor changes will keep it going much longer. It’s no ponzi scheme, as explained here.

Now, to be fair to Coffman, he goes on to say in interviews that he wants to reform Social Security because unless changes are made, it won’t be there for the under-55 set.

But how does this square with his view that it’s a ponzi scheme? If it’s a ponzi scheme, you’d want to get rid of it and put the perpetrators in jail.

It’s a question someone should ask Coffman, why he wants to save a ponzi scheme, because his repeated use of the phrase seems to show that part of him must really hate the program or, in the bigger picture, government itself, because Social Security represents a successful effort by the federal government to collect taxes and design programs to improve our lives.

Coffman wants to have it both ways, allegedly believing in Social Security, yet calling it–and by implication government itself–criminal.

So, it’s not a left-wing talking point for Miklosi to highlight the fact that Coffman has repeatedly called Social Security a ponzi scheme.

It’s a legitimate statement about Coffman, and it should make columnists like Carroll wonder where Coffman really stands not just on Social Security but the basic functions of government.

Under normal circumstances, I’d slam KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman for letting Colorado’s Secretary of State breeze onto their show Wednesday, assert that there’s a “pretty high incidence of fraud” among one type of Denver voters, and then depart without being forced to explain what in the world he was talking about and what evidence he had to back it up.

But maybe Caplis and Silverman have heard Secretary of State Scott Gessler make so many unsubstantiated accusations of election fraud by now that it sounds normal, so normal that they think there’s no need for boring follow-up questions.

Whatever they were thinking, KHOW talk-show hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman listened in silence Wednesday as Scott Gessler made the startling assertion that “Denver itself admitted” that sending election ballots to inactive voters has resulted in a “pretty high incidence of fraud.”

The issue arose last week when Gessler’s office sued to block Denver from mailing ballots for the Nov. 1 election to voters who haven’t cast a ballot since 2008 and did not respond to a letter asking if they wanted a ballot.

Gessler took the action partially to “reduce the potential for fraud,” according to the lawsuit.

But on the radio, Gessler sharpened his accusation, saying he was fighting fraud itself, not just theoretical fraud.

Gessler said [at the 37 minute point in the podcast]: But Denver itself admitted, there’s a pretty high incidence of fraud in inactive-voters returned ballots. They rejected in their municipal election well over 200. So we know fraud exists. The question is, what’s the extent and what’s the proper balance. The Legislature struck that balance. I’m going to respect it.

Denver has not admitted that there was any fraud resulting from ballots submitted by inactive voters, much less a “pretty high incidence” of it.

“I’m not sure what he [Gessler] is saying is fraud,” Denver Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson told me. “He’s using the word fraud loosely.”

She said about 200 ballots in the 2011 Denver municipal election were found to have “signature discrepancies,” meaning the voter’s signature on the paper ballot was determined not to match the voter’s signature in Denver’s database. If a signature discrepancy is found, a voter is sent a letter and given eight days to clear up the matter.

“Every one of those is sent to the District Attorney,” Johnson told me. “And none of those has been identified as fraudulent by the DA.”

Johnson pointed out that it’s not just the inactive voters who have signature discrepancies, it’s also the active voters. ‘We pulled our numbers from the last election, and they were the same, in terms of the percentage of ballots returned,” she said.

The history of election fraud in Denver, it turns out, is deadly dull, even to a political junkie. And you’d have to think even Gessler, who seems to get excited about fraud even when it’s not really fraud, would find it dull as well.

The last case of election fraud in Denver that was actually prosecuted occurred in 2005 and involved a single voter, according to Amber McReynolds, Director of Elections for Denver. She added that, in 2009, a circulator of a petition was found to be fraudulently signing names, and turned over to the DA, and in 2010, the state of Arizona asked Denver for information about a person who voted in Denver and also attempted to vote in Arizona.

Gessler’s interview on Caplis and Silverman stands in stark contrast to comments he made Aug. 31, 2010, on KFKA’s Amy Oliver Show.

At the time candidate Gessler was attacking then Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buesher for allegedly failing to ensure that Colorado complied with a federal law requiring overseas military personnel be sent election ballots 45 days before the 2010 election. In the end, Buescher found a way for Colorado to comply.

Radio-host Oliver laughed it up with Gessler, who said something that Caplis and Silverman should play back to Gessler next time he’s on their show:

Gessler said: “You’re the Secretary of State. What the heck is your job? Your job is to make sure people can vote. That’s one of your jobs!”

On Caplis and Silverman Wed., about a year after his appearance on KFKA, Gessler hadn’t completely forgotten this notion of trying to make sure people can vote.

Asked by Caplis what he thought Denver was trying to accomplish by sending ballots to inactive voters, Gessler said, “I’m guessing they are trying to increase the number of people who vote in the turnout from inactive voters.”

Silverman then asked Gessler why it “isn’t a good thing, if more people vote.”

“It’s good if you don’t have fraud,” he replied.

And since there apparently is no fraud, where does that leave Gessler?

I’m hoping Caplis will ask him next time he’s on the show. Letting him depart with a”keep-up-the-good-work” slap on the back is pretty hard to listen to.

KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show is drifting rightward these days, as Silverman talks about registering as a Republican so the GOP will select an electable prez candidate in 2012.

But Silverman, who leans right but says he’s an independent, can’t convince GOP-talking-point-machine Caplis that Rick Perry is unelectable. Caplis seems warm to Perry and is keeping an open mind.

Silverman put his sharp questioning skills to work on this topic Sept. 9, when GOP National Committee Chair Reince Priebus was on the show. Silverman was hoping Priebus would agree with him that Perry’s views on Social Security make him look more like a loser.

But Pribus wouldn’t bite. He rejected Silverman’s assertion in this exchange.

Silverman: Mitt Romney went on our KHOW colleague Sean Hannity’s show today and said, “If we nominate someone who the Democrats can correctly characterize as being opposed to Social Security, we will be obliterated as a party.” Romney’s read Perry’s book, Fed Up. So did I. I watched that debate the other night. Didn’t Rick Perry make himself unelectable or at least start down that road.”

Priebus: No. You know, first of all, refereeing between the candidates, that’s a pretty dicey spot for me to be in, and I try not to do that.

Maybe he tries not to, but Priebus turned against Romney here by disagreeing with Silverman. He sided with Perry, who obviously thinks his position on Social Security will not obliterate him from being POTUS.

Radio Hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman were mum yesterday as Denish D’Souza told them (at about minute 32) that “Obama views not Iran, not North Korea, but America as the bad guy.”

At the same time, Caplis eagerly promoted D’Souza’s appearance today at a GOP fundraiser at Magianno’s at the Denver Pavilions, posting a flyer about the event on the show’s KHOW web page.

Caplis and Silverman could at least have discussed whether it’s intelligent, much less appropriate, for the Colorado GOP to give a microphone to D’Souza who says that the President of the United States thinks our country is worse than Iran or North Korea.

I know the Colorado GOP has to be thick-skinned to hold up its tent, and I’m not saying D’Souza should be censored, but is this the right platform for him?

Asked about his questioning of D’Souza today, Silverman told me:

“There are time constraints in that I have a co-host. In an ideal world, I could have spent three hours individually interrogating Denish D’Souza because I listened to his book cover-to-cover. I don’t agree with his one-size-fits-all theory of Barack Obama, but I do find it interesting…

I didn’t have anything to do with putting up that promo for the luncheon, but I don’t have a big problem with it either. If I had time, I might go see him today. I don’t have to agree with a book to find it interesting…

Denish D’Souza is probably far right, and definitely conservative. I think he’s entitled to his point of view just as Jason Salzman is entitled to your  far-left view. I don’t think either of you should be censored. And if the Colorado Democratic Party wants to have a program with you, I have no problem with it. And if we cover it on KHOW, I would have no problem if we decided to post a promotion for your event.”

D’Souza’s thinking is reminiscent of Tom Tancredo’s comment last year at an appearance with U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck:

“The greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life, everything we believe in, the greatest threat to the country that was put together by the Founding Fathers is the guy who is in the White House today,” Tancredo said.

Buck felt the need to put some space between him and Tancredo, saying at the time:

“I don’t agree,” [Buck] said. “I think there are a lot of threats to the White House and I don’t think the man in the White House is the greatest threat to this country at all. I am concerned about the direction of the country, but — I love Tom, but I don’t always agree with him.”

But later, you recall, after Jane Norton, gently embraced Tancredo’s comment, Buck also warmed up to Tancredo’s position a bit.

In any case, I think Caplis and Silverman should have called out D’Souza’s extremism more forcibly and questioned its place in the political debate here in Colorado. Silverman isn’t scared to do this, but he missed an opportunity yesterday.

Last week, KHOW’s Dan Caplis asked State Sen. Ted Harvey, who’s one of the people vying to be the next Dick Wadhams, “Do you believe if someone supported Ref C , it shows they are not a real conservative?”

 ”I believe that Ref C was a poor initiative to put forward for Republicans and that those who supported it obviously are going to have to defend their positions on why they supported it. It is an issue, and we can’t deny it,” Harvey replied, adding that “I’m not going to be saying which issues are off limits and which issues are on limits.”

Ref. C allowed the CO state government to keep for five years tax dollars that would otherwise have been returned to taxpayers under TABOR rules.  Critics, including the Independence Institute, celebrated the end of Ref. C in July.

Caplis told Harvey earlier in the interview, which aired Feb. 8, that the Ref C “hatchet needs to be buried” because it’s causing us to “eat our own” and “costing us elections.” On his radio show, Caplis frequently whines that Jane Norton would have easily beaten Sen. Michael Bennet last fall.

One “particularly destructive” attack against Norton, Caplis said to Harvey, was that because Norton supported Ref C, she “wasn’t a real conservative.”

Harvey replied, “I don’t believe the Ref C issue is what lost the election for Jane Norton, nor do I believe that Ken Buck beating Jane Norton is what lost us the election to Michael Bennett. ”

The next day on his radio show, Caplis was asking similar questions of Ryan Call, another candidate for the job of Colorado State Republican Chair.

Call told Caplis: “It was interesting; you obviously had one of my principle opponents in the race on yesterday. When you asked him if he would stand up as party chairman and encourage Colorado Republicans to bury the hatchet on Ref. C, which is what I think you referenced, and other divisive issues, he kind of dodged that question.”

I asked Call to explain in more detail why he thought Harvey dodged Caplis.

“You can still support Referendum C and be a good Republican,” he told me, adding that he personally voted against Ref. C and is pro-life. “You can support referring matters to voters on TABOR and still be a good Republican. You can vote in favor of civil unions and still be a good Republican, as long as you share, by and large, those core principles. You can be a good Republican and be in favor of banning gay marriage and cutting the size of government down pea stamp, if that’s what you want to do. ”

“That’s what I was going for,” he said, “and I think it was a fair criticism with respect to, when asked from multiple angles and in questions on the show, whether Sen. Harvey would be a unifying force for Republicans, or would he take sides on who is a true conservative?… Despite the recent news reports that claim that I’m friends with Democrats, I hope I can be their worst enemy. I want to put them in the minority for good.”

The dispute between Harvey and Call reminds me of paragraph from Dick Wadhams’ good-bye letter to Republicans, in which he said he’s tired of GOP activists who see “conspiracies around every corner” while simultaneously “saying  …uniting conservatives’ is all that’s needed to win tight races” in Colorado.

To me, and apparently to Dan Caplis and others, Ref. C. gets to the heart of the matter. No one will say it’s a litmus test. But which candidate sounds like they’re having it, ahh, Both Ways?

In addition to Harvey and Call, Bart Baron r and Leondray Gholston are in the race for Wadhams’ job. Others are considering entering the race, according to the Colorado Statesman.

As to who will win, Wadhams recently told The Post that, “If Harvey thinks he has the votes now to be elected, he is delusional.”

You might think Wadhams was posturing, given that he would have faced Harvey if Wadhams hadn’t resigned and  because the Tea Party seems to have control of the Colorado GOP, at the grassroots level anyway. (See Maes, Buck.)

But as Patricia Calhoun explains nicely in Westword, it looks like the grassroots wing of the GOP will be sending fewer “bonus delegates” to sit on the Republican State Central Committee, which will meet March 26 to select the new chair, than in the past.

In 2009, the GOP central committee had about 400 delegates. This time, it will be closer to 300, because so few Republican votes were cast in 2010. As Calhoun reports, the group of 300 will include 90 GOP elected officials, 192 Republican Country Party representatives, plus state GOP officials, like Wadhams, and other bonus delegates.

So the campaign to be the next Dick Wadhams could be as intense an insider brawl as the Colorado GOP has seen in years, and we all know its insider brawls have been monumental of late.

This presents reporters, and media types like Dan Caplis, with the chance to pin down the candidates on the key issues. Would Harvey, for example, vote for a candidate who supported Ref. C, if another GOP candidate in the same race did not? That’s the kind of question that might bring some of the Both-Ways candidates out of the closet.