Now that Colorado’s review board for ballot initiatives has approved the wording of the proposed personhood amendment, and the race is on to find enough signatures to put it on the November ballot, you wonder if more reporters will get around to asking the measure’s former supporters, like Rep. Mike Coffman, Rep. Cory Gardner, and Rep. Doug Lamborn, whether they will go for it again in 2012.

Given what happened to failed Colo Senate Candidate Ken Buck, who un-endorsed the personhood amendment shortly after he won the GOP Senate primary in 2010 and was attacked nonstop on abortion issues during his campaign, you’d think it would be a no brainer for reporters to address the serious politics of this issue, pick up the phone, and call those guys listed up there (Coffman, Gardner, and Lamborn).

But it looks as if only the Colorado Statesman has tried to reach them so far, and it did so back in November.

Coffman was out of town when the Statesman tried to reach him, Gardner did not return the Statesman’s call, and Lamborn said he’s a “supporter of personhood.”

A spokesman for Coffman told me Thursday that he’d check to find out what his boss’ current position on personhood is.

The Colorado Right to Life blog states that Coffman, during the 2010 election cycle, was “on record supporting Personhood and is on record as Pro-Life with no exceptions.”

I asked Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks how her organization knew that Coffman supported personhood two years ago.

“Our blog reports on our candidate survey results,” she emailed me. “Congressman Coffman answered all our questions correctly to reflect he is a no exceptions pro life elected official who supports the personhood of the baby in the womb.”

I asked what “no exceptions” means in the context of the survey, and she said, among other things, that abortion would not be allowed in the case of rape and incest.

“Babies are persons, not ‘exceptions,’” she emailed me. “No innocent baby should be punished for the crime of his or her father. If mom’s life is in danger, the doctor has two patients & he should make every effort to save both. BTW, five of the Republican prez candidates have signed the PH pledge, so Mike is in good company.”

I called Denver talk-show host anti-abortion activist Bob Enyart to find out if he’d spoken to Coffman about personhood.

“I’m not going to comment for him,” Enyart told me, adding that he had a conversation with Coffman at a convention, and it was “not a significant conversation.” He did not specify if they discussed personhood, but if you know Enyart, you have to think they did.

Gardner, whose office didn’t return my call, has been described by a leading personhood activist as a “main supporter,” and the Colorado Right to Life blog showers praise on him for being “100 percent pro-life.”

Colorado Right To Life describes Lamborn’s position this way: “Incumbent Republican Doug Lamborn has always been solid on life issues, and has co-sponsored Personhood legislation at the national level.”

Personhood USA Legal Analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones told me he has no reason to believe his initiative will receive less support this time around than in 2010.

“I think a majority them [major CO GOP candidates] supported us last time,” he said. “And most of them were elected. I think the highest profile ones, like Ken Buck, who did waver, were the ones that suffered because they still got punished by the Democrats, and they didn’t have the benefit of the support of the base.”

Garcia Jones told me he welcomes an expected lawsuit from Planned Parenthood, trying to disqualify the ballot measure, because it motivates his base of supporters. “The only real concern for us was the fatigue of the base, and we rely on the base to get signatures,” he said. “So a lawsuit actually helps us. We’re not upset at being sued.”

State Sen. Scott Renfroe, who’s sponsored personhood legislation at the Capitol during his political career, said he supports the efforts to pass the personhood amendment in 2012.

“It’s never wrong to support life,” he told me. “Science is showing more and more that life is present at the earliest stages. And we have to give it a chance to prosper in this country.”

Renfroe said he thinks a ballot initiative is the “proper place” to bring the issue up, as the state legislature should focus on “jobs and the economy.”

Asked whether he thought past personhood supporters, like Coffman and Gardner, would support the measure in 2012, Renfroe said, “I don’t know. You’d have to ask them.”

Another attempt at passing a personhood amendment, defining zygotes as people, would almost certainly fail if it makes the Colorado ballot next year, given that it’s gone down decisively twice in a row.

So journalists covering the announcement today by personhood backers that they are petitioning  to put the measure on the ballot shouldn’t get bogged down in the old questions of which forms of the Pill this amendment would ban. It’s well-known to Coloradans that common forms of birth control would be banned.

The focus for reporters should be the politics of having a personhood measure on the ballot in 2012, in a swing state like Colorado.

So I attended today’s news conference announcing the personhood petition drive to make sure these issues were raised by reporters, and since they were not, I filled in the journalistic gap.

I asked Kristi Brown, who’s changed her name from Kristi Burton since she sponsored the first personhood amendment with her father in 2008, if she expected to get the same support from major candidates that her measure had gotten previously.

Kristi Brown announces effort to put personhood on 2012 ballot

I mean, you can argue that without a Republican primary, GOP candidates like Scott Tipton and Cory Gardner might not endorse the 2012 measure, given its apparent unpopularity with voters, especially women.

“I haven’t personally talked to [Tipton and Gardner],” Brown told me.

“I know Cory Gardner is very conservative, has really good stands. I talked to him on the 2008 amendment. He was very, very supportive. He was one of our main supporters. So I would guess that he would.”

When she says a main supporter what does she mean?

“Very supportive,” she said. “He would come to events for us. He talked about it.”

Here’s Gardner at one personhood event.

Colorado Right to Life’s website lists Mike Coffman as a supporter of personhood 2010 as well, with the statement: “Incumbent Republican Mike Coffman is on record supporting Personhood and is on record as Pro-Life with no exceptions. However, he does not appear to have co-sponsored the Personhood legislation introduced in Congress. We hope that he would vote to support such legislation if he had the opportunity, as he has pledged.”

I asked Gualberto GarciaJones, who wrote this year’s amendment, which has more expansive and precise language than last year’s, if he thought presidential candidate Mitt Romney would support his amendment this time, given that he’s changed his position over the years. GarciaJones said Romney is known as a flip flopper and that his group would persevere regardless of the positions of Democratic or Republican politicians. (No major Democrats support the effort, as far as I know, but Michele Bachman, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich back personhood, and it’s endorsed in a plank of the national GOP platform.

Asked if he thought he’d get Tipton and Gardner on board for personhood this time, former gubernatorial candidate and “Generations Radio” host Kevin Swanson, said, “I think so,” adding that he hopes to get Democrats as well. (In his prepared remarks, Swanson repeated his view that said Dr. Suess summed up the amendment best when he wrote, “A person’s a person no matter how small.”)

“I think it’s real possible we could get some strong Republican support,” but he said he hadn’t been in touch with Tipton or Gardner.

In response to the personhood petition drive, Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains’ President Vicki Cowart said in a statement: “Colorado voters spoke loud and clear in the 2008 and 2010 elections when they voted down the so called “personhood” amendments by a 3-to-1 margin each time. No means no, yet Personhood USA and Personhood Colorado continue to ignore the wishes of Colorado voters. Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains will for the third time since 2008, work with our over 90 coalition partners to educate Colorado voters about this initiative which aims to ban abortion in all circumstances.”Historically, Colorado has been a state that votes in favor of trusting women and doctors. At the end of the day, Coloradans trust women to make personal, private decisions about their own body with their doctor, their family, their faith and without interference from the courts or lawyers.”

“We had Scott Tipton from our district stand in our studio while he was campaigning, and…he said he would go to Washington DC and, night and day, night and day, that he would fight to cut the government in half,” said co-host Cari Hermacinski Oct. 18 on her syndicated Cari and Rob Show.  “He would cut it down by 50 percent. And what has he done, every time it’s come down to cast a difficult vote? He goes with [House Speaker] John Boehner. He goes with the leadership.”

Tipton isn’t standing in Hermacinki’s studio any longer.

“I sent him an email,” Hermacinski’s co-host Rob Douglas told listeners on the same day. “I said, come on the show. We’re going to hold open any time slot you want. I don’t care who’s on air; we’ll bump them, put you on so you can explain to the people of Colorado and this nation why we sent you to Washington, why you are spending more than Nancy Pelosi.”

But, they told their radio audience, no word from Tipton.

“We have not heard back from Congressman Tipton or any member of his staff, his chief of staff, his press secretary, his scheduler, and Scott Tipton himself,” Douglas told his listeners. “I have his personal email address. I’ve emailed them all, not a peep back.”

“We warned our audience that there would be chameleons and charlatans amongst those the Liberty Movement sent to Washington in 2010. Unfortunately, Scott Tipton proved our point,” Douglas wrote response an email. “The bottom line is that we believe Congressman Tipton violated his pledge to voters in the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado that he would go to Washington and work to place the country on a more sustainable fiscal path and therefore is not worthy of support from true fiscal conservatives.”

On the air Oct. 18, Douglas pointed out repeatedly that Treasury Department figures show that there have been no spending cuts at the federal level since Republicans took control of the U.S. House. He said Tipton and House Republicans had chances, through votes on government-funding bills and the debt ceiling limit, to change this.

“There have been votes where Tipton did not stand with the true fiscal conservatives in Congress and instead aligned himself with Speaker Boehner and establishment Republicans who played a major role in creating our nation’s fiscal crisis during the Bush administration,” Douglas wrote to me.

As a result, Douglas promised his audience Oct. 18 that he will not be voting for Tipton.

“At the end of the day,” he said, “we all control one vote. The show is about the whole country. But we can only vote where we can vote. Scott Tipton will never get my vote again.”

Asked how the audience of his show, which airs on 10 stations in Colorado and Utah, including KFKA in Greeley and KRDO in Colorado Springs, reacted to this stand against Tipton, Douglas wrote me, “Indications are that many in our audience agree with our view.”

But Douglas wrote that he has no plans to back a candidate that might challenge Tipton next year.

During his last few appearances on the Cari and Rob Show, which originates in Steamboat Springs, Tipton faced the kind of hard questioning you rarely hear when conservatives interview conservatives or, for that matter, when liberals interview liberals.

In April, under tough questioning from both Douglas and Hermacinski, Tipton acknowledged that he had lost trust in House Speaker John Boehner. And he promised to return to the radio show to explain why Boehner had agreed to a budget compromise shaving just $352 million from the federal budget instead of a promised $100 billion.

Douglas complemented on the April show Tipton for answering questions on his radio show, saying on the air after Tipton hung up:

“I gotta hand this to Scott Tipton. He has come on this program every time we asked him to come on.”

As far as I know, Tipton never returned to the show to explain why Boehner didn’t cut $100 billion. But questioned by a Washington DC reporter, Tipton’x office later issued a clarification regarding his commenis on the radio, stating that he was, in fact, confident in Boehner’s leadership, even though he didn’t actually say he trusted Boehner.

Tipton returned to the Cari and Rob Show in May, and again was subject to intense questioning. Douglas grilled Tipton about whether his daughter, a government-relations officer for Broadnet, used the Congressman’s name as she tried to drum up congressional business for firms that use technology licensed by Broadnet, which is owned by Tipton’s nephew.

At the time, Douglas told the Colorado Independent that Tipton’s answers were “Clintonian.”

Tipton apparently hasn’t appeared on the Cari and Rob show since then, marking the end of a relationship with the hosts that, as Tipton entered office, promised to be close and illuminating.

“He said he was happy to be the canary in the coal mine for the Cari and Rob Show,” Douglas said on air Oct. 18. “He would be a representative in Congress who would explain what the Republicans were doing.”

Douglas continued: “Why is Congressman Scott Tipton, why is Speaker of the House John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, why are the Republicans lying to the American people, lying to the Republican Party, lying to the men and women who break their backs every day in this country to send their hard-earned money to Washington to have it wasted publicly, have it wasted secretly…to have it wasted, while these fat cats enrich their families, enrich their wallets, and do not do what they took a pledge to do?”

I was glad to receive an email this morning from Matt Hildner, The San Luis Valley Correspondent for the the Pueblo Chieftain. He commented on my recent post arguing that reporters should question Rep. Scott Tipton about how his request that the U.S. Postal Service take a thoughtful approach to cutting rural post offices squares with his heavy-handed demand that the federal discretionary budget be cut by 10 percent, across the board.

Here’s our exchange.

Hi Jason,

My name is Matt Hildner. I cover the San Luis Valley for the Chieftain and I wanted to contact you about your post on the post offices.

While I don’t disagree that politicians should always be questioned on why certain budget decisions are justified when they normally pound on the need for cuts, I think the post office issue doesn’t apply, since the postal service hasn’t been funded by congress since 1982. I’ve linked to the semi-annual report of the agency’s inspector general below if you want to verify that.

Obviously, it’s on me as a reporter for not including that information in the story and it’s a worse story because of it.

If you feel like sharing this, feel free to quote from any section of this e-mail or attribute to me by name.

Inspector General report (see the introduction, page 3, seventh page overall including table of contents, etc.)

My response:

Hi Matt –Thanks very much for getting in touch.

I agree that this is different than your typical story about a politician who, say, voted to eliminate federal funding for military bases but then fights to keep all the bases open in his district.

That’s why I asked Fred Brown about it. It was an inconsistency in Tipton’s approach, not a flip flop, that was the problem, so it wasn’t necessarily an obvious point for a journalist to bring up.

Previously, Tipton advocated a 10 percent across-the-board cut for the federal budget, which is a heavy-handed approach to budget cutting. He didn’t suggest targeted cuts that would be less disruptive or possibly even more efficient.

Then, when it comes to the Post Office, he’s suggesting a highly detailed analysis, with special concern for rural economies, transportation issues, safety, etc.

Why is he being so much more careful about budget cutting in this case, whereas before he was acting like the clichéd elephant in a china shop?

Maybe Tipton’s “cut-the-federal-budget-across-the-board-by-10-percent” line made a good campaign slogan, but actual budget cutting hurts people and should be done with more care, like he’s advocating now with respect to the Post Office?

So the fact that the Post Office isn’t funded by Congress doesn’t matter.

Do you see what I mean?

Thanks.

Jason

Hildner’s response to my response:

Jason, Thanks for the reply. I understand where you’re coming from. If someone repeatedly uses a meat cleaver but then questions why someone else isn’t using a scalpel, it merits a question from reporters.  At the same time, I believe reporting needs to make clear that Congress doesn’t hold the purse strings here, which, again, is something I failed to do in the story linked in your post. I think both the question and the funding fact have a place in the story.

At any rate, I appreciate the exchange and am always glad to read your posts. 

Matt

My response:

Thanks.I wish I’d called you prior to posting. I will do so next time.

I’d like to post our exchange if you are willing?

J

The U.S. Postal Service, as you may know, is trying to save money by closing  post offices in rural areas, like the district of Rep. Scott Tipton.

This prompted Tipton and fellow Congressman Cory Gardner to deliver a letter, electionically I presume, to the Postal Regulatory Commission, protesting the closure of so many Colorado post offices.

We are aware of the grim fiscal position of the Post Office, and the need to make changes in order to survive in today’s competitive environment and adjust to the new means of communication in the 21st Century. However..Our constituents are concerned that retail discontinuance of some of these post offices could negatively impact their own businesses, especially during these tough economic times. Additionally, we are concerned that closing certain facilities will lead to costly and time-consuming commutes. Traveling to distant postal facilities in the 3rd and 4th Congressional Districts during winter months could be extremely difficult, expensive and dangerous. Some post offices that appear to be in geographic proximity are in reality not readily accessible. Finally, some of these post offices that seem to service a proportionately small population are essential to the existence of small isolated communities. The potential effect of these closures should involve significant consideration of the individual or unique characteristics of the respective communities served…. We would prefer to see a bottom-up approach that utilizes actual cost savings rather than a top-down approach focused on an arbitrary revenue figure.

So, what Tipton and Gardner are saying here is, don’t just close post offices willy nilly. Be smart about it. Think about economic costs and benefits, and use a selective approach to closing post offices.

Except…isn’t Tipton the guy who’s called for a 10 percent across-the-board cut in federal budget discrtionary spending?

He is, but you wouldn’t know it from reading press coverage of his efforts to save post offices. None of the coverage I’ve seen (e.g., Montrose Press, Pueblo Chieftain, The Craig Daily Press, The Denver Post’s Spot blog) explains how Tipton squares his chain-saw approach to cutting the federal budget (10 percent cuts for all) with his touchy-feely, wonky recommendation for post-office cuts.

But should a reporter raise this point with Tipton? Or would this be a snarky attack?

It’s clear that journalists should report a “flip-flop” by a politician. So if Tipton had said that the U.S. Postal Service should be closed, and then he said, keep it open, that would an obvious matter for a journalist to raise.

But Tipton’s inconsistency on this isn’t really an in-your-face  flip-flop. It’s more of a sleight-of-hand.

So were journalists right not to question Tipton about why he thinks the post office deserves careful budget cuts while the federal budget does not?

Via email, I asked Fred Brown, a veteran Denver joiurnalist and columnist who’s nationally known for his ethics work with the Society of Professional Journalists, “Would it be unfair for a reporter to ask Tipton about this? Or would this be seen more as an attack by someone out to get Tipton?”

I think that’s a legitimate question to ask, at least in the initial report. Is it worth a follow-up story? There, I’m not so sure. It is more likely then to come across as an attempt at “gotcha” journalism. But if the question is asked, and answered, as part of the story about Tipton’s (and Gardner’s) request to keep post offices open, it’s certainly pertinent — and it shows a nice bit of research and recall on the reporter’s part. Tipton may say it’s a silly question, or that this isn’t part of the 10 percent he was talking about, or that he’d be perfectly happy if each little post office cut its budget by 10 percent. But if the question and answer are reported in full, then I’d say leave it to the reader (or viewer or listener) to decide whether it’s a fair question. I think it is.

That’s what I thought, too. I don’t think it merits a stand-alone story either, unless this turns into a trend, with Tipton asking for lengthy cost-benefit analyses of cuts proposed for stuff in his district, while throwing everyone else under the across-the-board-cut bus.

But reporters won’t have to wait for a possible stand-alone story. They will probably have a chance to query Tipton during the normal course of reporting the post office woes.

In Silver Plume Nov. 16 and elsewhere on other dates in November and December, public meetings will be held on proposed branch closures in Colorado.

One of the beautiful things about journalism is, you never know what someone will say when you throw a question at them, especially when you preface your question with factual background information.

For example, when just-elected Rep. Scott Tipton was interviewd by KVNF Community Radio in Paonia, the host posed a question with information that may have affected Tipton’s answer:

KVNF: “Our station receives about a third of our budget from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and that’s because we are a rural station. Urban stations, it’s more like 5 percent of their budgets or 10 percent of their budgets. But there has been a proposal to cut off funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which would have an effect on rural stations in Colorado, particularly this district. Do you have a position on Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding yet?”

Tipton: You know, we’ll take a look at that. I happen to have a little more empathy, obviously, for our rural stations, as opposed to urban stations, which have resources that they are able to draw from and other outside sources. A lot of our local public radio stations do provide a valuable service and serve our local communities. Will it be at the same amount? I don’t know. We’re all going to have to tighten our belts.

Unfortunately KVNF hasn’t aired a follow up interview with Tipton to discuss why he voted to defund CPB, once he got into Congress.

So I called the station and spoke with reporter/producer Ariana Brocious, who said:

I hadn’t thought about doing that, but maybe we will follow up with him and see how he’s going to act on our behalf.

It’s also worth asking Tipton what he meant when he told KVNF that the health care system in Grand Junction and Mesa Country could serve as a national health-care model.

You can watch for interviews with Tipton and others on KVNF’s website, and Brocious told me that KVNF is now podcasting its local news show, in addition to special interviews and programming, so it’s accessible to us flatlanders and anyone else who’s interested.

In another exemplary radio interview on the Glenwood-Springs Cari and Rob Show yesterday, hosts Rob Douglas and Cari Hermancinski grilled Rep. Scott Tipton, whom they call a House-freshman “canary in the coal mine,” about his daughter’s job with technology company whose licensed products are sold by other companies to congressional offices.

The two hosts were particularly direct with Tipton about the offer and start date of his daughter’s job with the Washington DC firm.

On April 7, on the same radio show, Tipton said the company “offered it [the job] to her [his daughter] before the election.”

To make sure he had it straight April 7, host Rob Douglas asked Tipton if his daughter had started her job “before the outcome of the last election.”

Tipton said, “Yes.”

But The Denver Post reported Friday that Tipton’s daughter started full-time in January, when Tipton took office.

Douglas tried unsuccessfully yesterday to get the story straight.

Douglas: Your daughter went to work for Broadnet officially when?

Tipton: I think she started right after the Christmas term.

Douglas: When was she offered that job?

Tipton: It was my understanding after she had done her internship here a year or so ago, that when she was getting ready to graduate from college, that they had a job for her.

Douglas: Was there an official offer made to her from Broadnet?

Tipton: You know Rob, I can’t tell ya. We’re getting into the weeds of family business and her personal business as well. I can’t give you the date because I don’t monitor it that closely.

Douglas: Can you get us that date after you get to Washington?

Tipton: I can probably ask her if she chooses. This has been very difficult on her because she hasn’t done anything wrong.

Douglas is right to be annoyed by the strange squirrelliness on Tipton’s part. (And he expressed his frustration in greater detail to the Colorado Independent.)

Douglas  should ask Tipton directly if his daughter’s job was tied to his congressional victory. It’s a reasonable question, given that Tipton’s daughter has been using her father’s name in letters to members of Congress.

You might think Douglas is going nowhere with his questions about when the job offer was made to Tipton’s daughter, and you may be right, especially since Broadnet is owned by Tipton’s nephew and Tipton’s daughter had a part-time job with the company before she started work full-time.

Still, it’s a reasonable question and Douglas should stay after it.

My guess is that Douglas will follow-up, especially because his show apparently was the first media outlet to question Tipton, in an April 7 interview, about his daughter’s job with Broadnet.

Instead of crediting the Cari and Rob Show with raising the issue first, Tipton’s spokesperson blamed Democrat Nancy Pelosi for sending a “lap-dog” to Colorado to “fire up the rumor mill with a cheap Washington political attack on a 22-year-old girl,” according to Politico.

Asked by Douglas and Hermancinski for evidence that Pelosi was pushing the story about his daughter and Broadnet, Tipton acknowledged he had no such evidence. “Maybe it was an assumption,” he said.

The Cari and Rob Show’s questioning of Tipton is getting noticed. Last month, Tipton admitted he’s lost trust in House Speaker Boehner, after he agreed to a budget compromise opposed by Tipton.

Tipton later backtracked, saying to a national blog that has confidence in Boehner, but he never returned to the Cari and Rob Show to explain why he has a more positive view of Boehner, despite promises by both Douglas and Tipton that he would do so.

A lot of my friends tell me how difficult it must be for me to have to listen to conservative talk radio as part of my job.

But they don’t know how interesting it can be, and I’m guessing you don’t either. Some of the better conservative hosts can be fearless questioners, even if their queries have everything to do with their political agenda and nothing to do with exposing the whole truth. Here’s an example from yesterday’s “Cari and Rob Show.”

Co-host Rob Douglas had Rep. Scott Tipton on the program to discuss the budget bill passed yesterday by Congress cutting $38 billion from the federal budget and funding the federal government through Sept. 30.  A Congressional Budget Office analysis concluded that the bill would cut non-war federal “outlays” by $352 million, meaning that most of the $38 billion is cut from planned spending, not this year’s budget.  Tiption voted against the bill, along CO Congresspeople DeGette, Gardner, Lamborn, and Polis. 

Douglas gave a brief hello to Tipton then asked:

Douglas: We’ve gone from in essence a Pledge to America, that I’m holding in my hand, of $100 billion in cuts, that became $61 billion in cuts, that became a $38.5 billion cut as of last Friday night, that is now scored by the Congressional Budget Office, we are told by numerous sources, as only reducing what will still be increased spending in 2011 by $352 million. Did the Pledge to America mean anything?

Tipton: “Well, we have not followed through for only cutting $352 million as a body…. Three hundred fifty-two million dollars is far short, obviously, of the $100 billion, and what we’ve likened it to time and again, even $100 billion when we’re looking at the massive debt, deficit and even the spending during this fiscal year, $3.7 trillion….”

Douglas: “Scott, you probably recall, I think you were even in studio one of the times with us, when we expressed to you our great concern with John Boehner becoming Speaker of the House. The language I’ve used time and time again is, why would we put somebody who’s been at the scene of the crime of the spending binges in Congress in charge of the House of Representatives. Erick Erikson of Redstate has called on any member of the House who votes with Boehner on this today to be, well, probably language we don’t want to use too much on air, but basically to be publicly flogged and that they should have a primary challenger. Now we know you are going to vote no on the bill today but why should Speaker Boehner continue?… Now we know that a $100 billion pledge meant nothing and it turned out to be $352 million this year. I’ve got to imagine that the level of trust between the House Freshman and the Speaker has been damaged perhaps I would argue, beyond repair. Why should he not be removed as Speaker of the House by the House of Representative Republicans forthwith?”

Tipton: “There’s going to be a lot of frustration…because the one thing that you have that you value to the best of your ability is, what you’re saying is the truth. And I think the moving shell game, and it’s the problem I have with the CR [temporary budget extension supported by Tipton] is originally, and you kind of ran through the numbers Rob, $38 billion, well, not really. Then it was taken down to about 20. Now we’re all the way down to $352 million, according to the CBO. I think there needs to be some questions answered.”

Douglas: “The 64-billion-dollar question, or should I say the 100-billion-dollar question, instead of the old game show, is. was Speaker Boehner straight with the conference? More specifically, do you think he was straight with you? Do you trust Speaker Boehner going forward given what this has turned out to be?”

Tipton: “Yah, I’ve got a lot of questions. I’m not trying to stick up for him at all in this sense. They are dealing with some different sides, but you get a sense of the politics as usual that are going on.  And we’ll just keep playing with the numbers until they say what we want them to say…I can’t think of a defense for going down to $352 million.”

Douglas: “Finally, as clear as you can say it, I guess, yes or no, has your trust in [House] Speaker Boehner been damaged?”

Tipton: “You know, I would say yes, but I will give him the caveat as I always give somebody an opportunity to explain. And I want to hear how we went from $100 billion down to $352 million.”

Douglas: Let us know when you get that explanation…On behalf of the Liberty Movement, I think i can say with great confidence that I hope the folks there in Congress, particularly the 87 freshman that we just sent down there, are cognizant of how angry the atmosphere is out here, and how much people feel that we got to the first major test in the House of Representatives, after backing you all, and that this is a complete failure.”

Here’s the section of the Pledge for America Douglas referred to above:

Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels
With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to prestimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.

There’s an entertaining and illuminating article in the Craig Daily Press today, titled “McConnell campaign counts on contituents’ anger, tea party principles.” The story profiles Republican Mark McConnell who’s competing against State Representative Scott Tipton for the chance to run against Congressman John Salazar.

The story explains that McConnell campaigns tirelessly, describes himself as the “‘Cowboy Colonel,’” and has $6,000 in the bank versus $102,000 for Tipton. One of his apparent supporters was quoted as saying that McConnell has “‘done a lot of rat killing in his life, and I think he’ll do a lot of rat killing in Washington.’”

I was looking forward to reading about his policy positions, and I encountered these paragraphs:

McConnell, 63, summed up his policy ideas quickly Monday.

“We need a massive reduction in spending,” he said.

McConnell said that could mean abolishing the federal Department of Education …- an idea floated by Republican U.S. Senate candidate Jane Norton …- moving poverty programs “back to neighborhoods” to reduce dependency on federal programs, and even reorganizing the federal Department of Defense to cut its spending. That’s a rare position for a retired colonel who is the son of a U.S. Navy fighter pilot and said national defense is “the ultimate federal responsibility.”

It wasn’t clear that McConnell favors abolishing the Department of Education and reorganizing the Defense Department, because the reporter used the phrase “could mean.” So I called the reporter to clarify things, but he wasn’t working today.Then I called McConnell himself, and he was happy to tell me that, yes, he does favor abolishing the Department of Eductation.