Just after the November election, a chastened Cory Gardner told Fox 31′s Eli Stokols:

Gardner: “Republicans have always talked about having a big tent, but it doesn’t do any good if the tent doesn’t have any chairs in it. Bringing Latinos to the forefront, bringing women in, is absolutely critical.”

So you’d think Gardner, who represents Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, would, over the ensuing six months, at least make room in the GOP tent for the children of undocumented immigrants, who were brought to this country through no fault of their own.

You’d think Gardner would get on board with Colorado’s ASSET law, which allows colleges to offer these so-called “Dreamers” the normal in-state tuition rate.

But on Monday, the same day that Gov. John Hickenlooper signed ASSET into law, Gardner told KNUS’ Steve Kelley, that he still opposes Colorado’s new policy of granting in-state tuition to the Dreamers, because Gardner does not believe the U.S. borders are secure enough, and that’s his first priority.

Kelley: Comments on Colorado, now. The Governor, last Friday, rescinded a bill, repealed a bill on notification of illegals. This all ties together, by the way, the Boston bombings and all of these are connected. Obviously, you deal with these things on a federal level, but as a state, now, we’ve repealed this notification thing. And then, in-state tuition for illegals in Colorado, you must have a comment on that.

Gardner: I think we’re actually doing everything backwards. The solution has to come from the federal government on border security with an immigration policy that actually works to identify those who want to come into this country legally, who want to work here legally. But we can’t start putting in place in-state tuition, whether it’s other things that are being in placed [sic] by the states, without actually addressing the root problem that will only continue more illegal immigration into this country. And so, that’s why we’ve got to have a policy that actually works, and I believe it starts with border security.

Gardner, who’s long opposed ASSET, isn’t the only GOP muckety muck who promised to be nice to Hispanics after the 2012 election collapse. Who can forget former GOP lawmakers Josh Penry’s and Rob Witwer’s clarion call for a more loving Republican Party or a dead one. They wrote of the Dreamers: “These kids grow up in households where parents work hard and attend church on Sunday. These are American values. But yes, some of these kids — through no fault of their own — were not born American citizens.”

If Kelley won’t ask a guy like Gardner about the substance of his promise to open the GOP tent to Hispanics, I’m hoping real journalists won’t forget next time they’re standing in front of Gardner and others like him.

You get the feeling that some Republicans are trying to sneak Hispanics into the GOP tent through the back tent flaps, for fear that welcoming them though the tent’s front door will offend the dwindling number of Republicans already in the tent.

That’s what I was thinking when KFKA morning show host Devon Lentz insulted the entire country of Mexico last week, and Rep. Cory Gardner, who was a guest on the program, acted as if he’d heard nothing rude or inappropriate.

“We’re going to deal with this immigration thing,” said Lentz, who’s a former Larimer Country GOP official. “Except that, how do we also keep from advertising in countries like Mexico that when you come here, here’s how to get on the food stamps, here’s how you take advantage of this system, and get housing assistance, and food assistance?  How do we at least keep from advertising how to take advantage of our system?”

Who knew the hard-working people from Mexico are out to freeload on America? Are Italians similarly inclined? Brits?

Rather than throw that question back at Lentz or, perhaps, even praise Hispanics’ current contributions to our nation, Gardner said:

“Well, and those are questions that are being asked regularly to the administration about how they’re doing it, and what they’re doing, and how they’re marketing various programs.”

Gardner has said he wants Hispanics in the GOP tent, but with Lentz lurking around inside, and Gardner refusing to stand up for a country like Mexico, will Hispanics want to enter?

It’s a question reporters should discuss with the Gardners of the GOP. Can they make progress if they don’t stand up for Hispanics when fellow Republicans insult them? Kind of like John McCain did when he defended Obama after a woman said he was an Arab she couldn’t trust.

On the radio, Gardner told Lentz: “But I think we all recognize that the values that make this country great.  And those are the two values that I talk about that we have to balance in any Immigration reform.  And that is the first, balance the first value—that this country is and must remain a beacon of hope for the world.  And the second value, that we are a nation of laws. And so, any immigration policy must meet those two stated values.”

Got it. Beacon of hope. Nation of laws.

How does that square with making sure not to tell Mexicans how to get food stamps and housing assistance?

On Fort Morgan’s KFTM radio this week, host John Waters missed a chance to pin down Rep. Cory Gardner about whether he agrees, in retrospect, that Sarah Palin was right that Obamacare put the fate of Americans in the hands of “death panels,” with the power to decide who lives and who dies.

Remember Palin said her own child with Down Sydrome would “stand in front of Obama’s death panel” for a verdict.

As you can see below, Gardner neither stared down this craziness nor embraced it. Gardner managed to leave the casual conservative listener with the impression that, yes, he agrees with Palin. And unfortunately Waters didn’t ask him to clarify.

It’s a pattern with Gardner that a right-wing host like Waters should want to dig into. In front of conservative groups, Gardner presents himself as one of them, but when a mainstream audience is peeking in, he moderates. Where does he really stand?

Will Gardner stand behind his support for the personhood ban on abortion, for rape, for example, even as he says he wants more women in the GOP tent?

Will Gardner continue to stand with the Tom Tancredos of the GOP in opposing in-state tuition for young undocumented immigrants? Or a borader path to citizenship?

These are the questions I’d be asking if I were Waters. Instead, Waters lets Gardner slide:

Host: I remember, Cory, three or four years ago when Sarah Palin came out and talked about “death panels” that would be put in place as part of Obamacare, she was absolutely crucified and vilified in the media because of this assertion of death panels. And now it’s come out that she was absolutely right.

Gardner: Well, you have this Independent Payment Advisory Board that was set up to look at how healthcare is going to or is not going to be delivered. It’s not a decision that’s going to be made between a patient and a doctor but it’s a decision that’s going to be made between the bureaucrat and the health care provider, and what they can do and what they will not be able to do, particularly the case for Medicare. The Board is an unelected group of bureaucrats. It actually has a bipartisan opposition, both Republicans and Democrats have tried to repeal the IPAD board, but so far without luck.

Listen to Cory Gardner on KFTM 3-11-2013

In case you’re wondering, the 15-member Independent Advisory Payment Advisory Board, appointed by the president and the U.S. Senate and established under Obamacare, would recommend Medicare cost-savings measures, which could be rejected by Congress.

Politifact.com explains:

The health care law directs a new national board — with 15 members who are political appointees — to identify Medicare savings. It’s forbidden from submitting “any recommendation to ration health care,” as Section 3403 of the health care law states. It may not raise premiums for Medicare beneficiaries or increase deductibles, coinsurance or co-payments. The IPAB also cannot change who is eligible for Medicare, restrict benefits or make recommendations that would raise revenue.
What it can do is reduce how much the government pays health care providers for services, reduce payments to hospitals with very high rates of re-admissions or recommend innovations that cut wasteful spending. Some argue that because the IPAB can reduce the money a doctor receives, this could lead to an indirect form of rationing. But the board wouldn’t make any health care decisions for individual Americans. Instead, as PolitiFact Georgia reported, it would make broad policy decisions that affect Medicare’s overall cost.

It’s obvious that KHOW’s Michael “Heck’ve-a-Job” Brownie is not a journalist.

But his conversation with Rep. Cory Gardner yesterday on the immigration issue is instructive to reporters who interview anyone, Republican or Democrat, on the topic.

They key issue in this debate is the path to citizenship. Will one be offered to undocumented immigrants? How long would they have to wait to become citizens, and what will their rights be during this period? How many new citizens should our country accept and by when? Is anyone concerned that a long waiting period would create an underclass of pseudo Americans?

Brownie doesn’t bother to get Gardner’s views on the citizenship issue at all, much less the details.

Instead, Brown’s focus was border security (surprise!) and how to avoid getting “rolled over like President Reagan did back in the 80’s?”

This is a real issue, but it’s one that the players appear to agree on.

Gardner argued for “putting a policy in place that doesn’t just delay a problem or create a problem in ten to twenty years. And I don’t know that we’re there yet with the policies that have been put forward. But that’s a very serious point that you bring up and something that is going to have to be addressed and people have to feel satisfied with it, [that] it’s not just delaying a bigger problem.

Gardner sounds like border security is all that’s needed. So let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that his can be done. Would Gardner, who opposed offering citizenship to undocumented immigrants just three years ago, please offer up some details on what an acceptable path to citizenship would look like?

Transcript of Rep. Cory Gardner’s comments on immigration on KHOW’s Michael Brown Show, Jan. 30, 2013.

BROWN: What’s happening on the Hill with immigration, and what’s your personal feelings?

GARDNER: Well, my personal feeling — you know, my family—our last name used to be ‘Gardiner’ [spells it out]. They moved to England so that they could get into soup lines, that—to get food. They took out the ‘I’ in our last name to get into those lines. And I would like to believe that every single one of us, if we were living in a world that faced civil unrest, that faced murders, that faced mob control, –we would do anything and everything we could to get our families into the greatest country on the face of the Earth, the United States. But we have got to make sure that we have a system that is based on law, that is legal, that has border security, that promotes fairness. And I want to make sure that any proposal that we have, that comes forward out of Congress, meets the requirement [inaudible] of fairness, border security, to make sure that we are not penalizing people who are actually trying to get through the system legally.

BROWN: One of the things that came up last night, and I don’t even know if you can answer this in the next minute in a half, but, what’s different, and what assurances would I or anybody else who think the this issue at least ought to be addressed, that we’re not going to get rolled over like President Reagan did back in the 80’s?

GARDNER: Well, and that’s where we [inaudible] do the right job of putting a policy in place that doesn’t just delay a problem or create a problem in ten to twenty years. And I don’t know that we’re there yet with the policies that have been put forward. But that’s a very serious point that you bring up and something that is going to have to be addressed and people have to feel satisfied with it, [that] it’s not just delaying a bigger problem.

BROWN: Do you have any opinion or thoughts on how we can literally secure the borders?

GARDNER: I think there are a number of ways that we can secure the borders. We are doing it right now with additional personnel, and do we need additional personnel on the border; whether we need some kind of electronic enforcement; do we need a better system of knowing who’d coming in and out, those can be done electronically, those can be done physically, with personnel on the border. But they’re all parts of a broader solution that I think needs to be put in place.

With an immigration-reform compromise coming soon, including some path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, the question is, how willl the GOP base respond?

On the Democrats’ side, immigration reform moves their leaders more closely in line with their base voters.

But on the GOP side, if you recall the last GOP primary and the name Rick Perry rings a bell, things are different. The GOP base is in the Tancredo camp, for the most part.

Just a few days ago, on Friday’s KRMA-TV Channel 6′s “Colorado State of Mind,” you had Colorado State Sen. Ted Harvey trashing a path to citizenship:

Harvey: The problem is, we did that once. Ronald Reagan  did it in the 1980s. When he gave amnesty to about 10 million people, saying, “All right, this is the last time we’re going to do this. We’re going to stop the illegal immigration. And we’re going to allow this population to be normalized.

Well, that didn’t work. We now have upwards to 50 million illegal immigrants in the United States looking for help. And it is a tough situation. You know, a lot of these kids have been here a long time. They think of themselves as American. But if we do this, it’s just going to encourage an entire ‘nother generation. Just like the Reagan policy did. And that’s something that is not good for America. We are a country of laws.” (BigMedia emphasis)

So how will a guy like Harvey, and GOP activists who share his views, respond to fellow Republicans, like Rep. Cory Gardner, who told Fox 31′s Eli Stokols he’s reviewing an immigration compromise, despite Gardner’s history of opposition to proposals involving a path to citizenship?

That’s the story to watch for, as the immigration compromise unfolds. How will it be received by the GOP base?

Correction Jan. 31, 2013. Michael Brown’s quote below was imprecise. The actual quote should read: On Denver radio station KHOW Jan. 16, Michael “Brownie” Brown, George W. Bush’s FEMA Director, told his talk-show listeners, “You hear these sob stories…. I don’t care whether they were two years old or they were 16 years old when their parents brought them across the border. They’re here illegally…. I really don’t have any sympathy.”

—————-

As civil-unions legislation hits the home stretch at the State Capitol, along with a bill granting in-state tuition to undocumented college students, let’s take a moment to encourage reporters to recall a jump-up-and-down-arms-waving op-ed that appeared in The Denver Post, just days after the election:

Rupublican thinkers Josh Penry and Rob Witwer wrote about the problem with the Colorado GOP:

Now, two short months later, most Republicans at the State Capitol are lining up against the ASSET bill, offering reduced tuition to undocumented college students.

The Post’s Lynn Bartels is calmly pointing out that even fewer Republican lawmakers appear to support a civil-unions bill this year than last year, because the GOP moderates were booted out by voters.

Rep. Cory Gardner is proudly telling the media how much he’d love to fill the GOP tent with women and Hispanics, without saying he’s against all abortion, some forms of birth control, as well as comprehensive immigration reform. Ditto for the rest of the CO GOP delegation, at least with respect to a path to citizenship.

Republicans are NOT jumping-up-and-down-arms-waving to denounce bills, introduced by fellow Republicans at the State Capitol, attacking abortion rights, including a bill banning all abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.

On the radio, you have Michael “Brownie” Brown, W’s FEMA director with deep Republican connections, effectively thumbing his nose at Penry and Witwer by saying: “You hear these sob stories… I don’t care if they were two-years-old when they came. They’re illegal.. I have no sympathy.”

Secretary of State Scott Gessler may not see the irony that, just as ASSET is debated in Colorado, he’s scheduled to join a panel tomorrow at the Heritage Center with Kansas SOS Kris Kobach, who played a big part in creating the much-maligned anti-hispanic, anti-immigration law in Arizona. They’ll be talking about how to get tough on voting, but tough talk about immigration may pop up given the venue and the audience.

I could go on here, but why make a blog post long when a short one makes your point–and you have other stuff to do, like go on a walk with your 83-year-old mother in Commons Park, where you can relax and watch the GOP self-destruct?

In his 5280 Magazine article Jan. 3, taking on the difficult topic of “What’s Wrong with Colorado Republicans?” Fox 31 political reporter Eli Stokols writes:

Stokols: “What the GOP needs to realize is that the immigration issue offers Republicans themselves a sort of political amnesty, a chance to forge a solution that legitimately and thoroughly addresses questions of border security and citizenship without alienating Hispanics.”

And who’s his example of a Colorado Republican who’s leading the charge? Rep. Cory Gardner.

Stokols: “Only clear-headed Republicans such as Gardner are beginning to internalize this new reality.”

Stokols, who’s widely regarded as the leading political journalist on TV in Denver, quotes Gardner:

Gardner: “Republicans have always talked about having a big tent, but it doesn’t do any good if the tent doesn’t have any chairs in it. Bringing Latinos to the forefront, bringing women in is absolutely critical.”

That sounds good, but it’s hard to find anything about Gardner’s record that supports what he told Stokols, and you have to wonder why Stokols failed to point this out. (See Stokols’ response below.)

With respect to women, Gardner not only voted to redefine rape, but is a full-on supporter of the personhood amendment, which would ban abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest, as well as common forms of birth control.

In this video, Gardner says: “I have signed the personhood petition. I have taken the petitions to my church, and circulating into my church. And I have a legislative record that backs up my support for life.” Personhood initiative leader Kristi Brown (formerly Kristi Burton) called Gardner “one of our main supporters” during the 2008 initiative campaign.

Stokols should have asked Gardner why, with these views and others, Gardner’s own presence in the GOP tent wouldn’t scare away women.

Gardner’s position on immigration would send Hispanics fleeing from the GOP tent along with the female humans.

In the Colorado Legislature, even when illegal immigrants were routinely attacked by both parties, he took some of the cruelist positions against illegal immigrants, including a 2006 vote against allowing state funds to be used for undocumented children to receive preventative care, like immunizations.

More recently, in 2010, in his race against Rep. Betsy Markey, Gardner made it clear he opposes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, unless you’d call no path at all reasonable. As first reported by Huffington Post blogger Jesse Benn, and confirmed by me, Gardner wrote:

Gardner: Over the weekend, Markey told the Coloradoan newspaper she opposes amnesty but believes that immigration reform should include a path to citizenship.

The problem with Markey’s position is that “amnesty” and a “path to citizenship” is the same thing. Any proposal that allows people who are here illegally to cut to the front of the line is amnesty.

America is a nation of laws, and it is wrong for Congresswoman Markey to propose bending the rules for a group of people whose first act in this country was to break the law.

Congresswoman Markey is sending a clear message to millions of illegal immigrants that coming to America illegally carries no penalty. That is the wrong message.

Is that a sample of the friendly messages Gardner will be sending Hispanics?

Just this past June, he not only bashed Metro State University’s plan to reduce tuition for the children of illegal immigrants, he also again condemned the concept of helping any undocumented college student anywhere:

Gardner: And, of course, I oppose in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. I think it’s the wrong policy. It sets the wrong kind of message to people who are in the country illegally. And I think we’ve got to work on border security before anything else, and I think Metro State has it backwards.

Maybe Gardner has changed over the past two years–or over the past six months? You wouldn’t think so, from looking at his position on immigration on his congressional website:

Gardner: Our first line of defense against illegal immigration is the border, and it is the federal government’s job to make sure that it is secure. Americans are tired of watching the political establishment lack the will to enforce our nation’s laws when it comes to border security and immigration policy.

The solution to the problem isn’t for the Justice Department to file a taxpayer-funded lawsuit against the Governor of Arizona for responding to a law enforcement crisis. It isn’t giving amnesty to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country, or giving those people benefits that will only encourage more illegal immigration.

The time has come to enforce the rule of law and end illegal immigration. To that end, I will support legislation that ensures employers only hire people who are here legally and that guest workers are here temporarily. The technology exists to accomplish this in a sensible way, and it is time that we implement that technology.

Where’s the Hispanic love here? If anything, Gardner’s putting himself in the teeny-weeny tent occupied by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who’s mad at Obama for, for among other things, standing up for basic civil rights for Hispanic-American citizens.

Gardner’s current position says nothing about the comprehensive immigration reform that Gardner told Stokols will pass this year. Nothing about a path to citizenship or the Dream Act. Nothing about families and the great history of immigration in America. It’s just a bunch of meaniness, some thinly disguised, some not.

So (deep breath), why didn’t Fox 31′s Stokols ask Gardner about some of this stuff, instead of just praising him as “clear-headed” and writing that he’s “beginning to internalize” the need for the GOP to change its ways.

Stokols: “Rep. Cory Gardner’s past votes on women’s issues and positions on immigration are well worth examining and do seem to mirror those espoused by Mitt Romney, Todd Akin and other prominent Republicans who have collectively alienated women and Latino voters from the GOP generally,” Stokols told me via email. “I could have chosen to point that out but did not, this being a piece focused on the state’s shifting political persuasion and the lessons to be learned from the 2012 election results. My recent conversations with Cory took place following that election and, his past votes and statements notwithstanding, he indeed seemed to have learned those lessons and to be newly ‘clear-headed’ about the challenges now facing his party. Whether his own votes and statements have contributed to or exacerbated those challenges is another issue, but a relevant one — and an issue that I’m sure Democrats will be exploring further as long as Gardner’s stock continues to rise.”

It’s fair enough to report that Gardner recognizes the need to diversify his party, but, still, Stokols’ long-form article on why such change needs to happen would have been better had he asked Gardner for a scrap of substance showing what change looks like for Gardner himself, given his record.

Everyone remembers Gov. Rick Perry’s magnificent “Oops moment,” during the Republican presidential primary, when he suggested cutting three, count ‘em, three federal agencies: the 1) Education Department, 2) Commerce Department, and 3) ???????????????.

Who remembers the last one?

It was the Energy Department!

It looks like Rep. Cory Gardner would have been able to get the words “Energy Department” out of his mouth if he’d been in Perry’s shoes, because our Congressman from the 4th Congressional District has the Energy Department on his own list for possible elimination.

On KFKA radio’s Amy Oliver Show Tuesday, Gardner suggested that the federal Energy Department is “something we ought to look at and see whether or not they are actually justified to be there anyway.”

OLIVER: Give me your thoughts on – and I’m sure you’ve heard—you served with him when you were in Legislature and he was the governor of the state of Colorado, the idea that Governor Bill Ritter is on the short list for Energy Secretary.

GARDNER: [chuckles] Governor Ritter is a nice guy. And I’m sure, you know, he is somebody you’d love to have a beer with. I was never invited, I don’t think, [laughing] to have a beer with him, but if you were I’m sure he’d be a nice guy to have a beer with! But I don’t think he’s the right person for the Secretary of Energy. In fact, Energy Department is something we ought to look at and see whether or not they are actually justified to be there anyway. So, let’s have a conversation about what we can do to consolidate and eliminate some of these spending programs, especially programs that aren’t working because of Solyndras and other wasted program spending. And I don’t think Bill Ritter is the right one to lead that conversation.

Full transcript and audio here.

You’d think KFKA host Amy Oliver, who rails against federal agencies like the EPA, would have been ecstatic, after hearing Gardner’s comments. I thought she might have said something like, “I was dying when Rick Perry couldn’t spit out ‘Energy Department,’ and you did it so eloquently, with no oops or hesitation. Thank you.”

But she stayed calm, like she did in 2011 when Gardner suggested on Oliver’s program that the Department of Transportation should be eliminated. He later changed his tune.

Oliver asked Gardner if there was sufficient political will to eliminate the Energy Department:

OLIVER: …I know that there isn’t the political will to eliminate the Department of Energy, even though I would love that. Is there ever any conversation about at least, not just reducing the amount of growth, but simply cutting a department’s budget?

GARDNER: That’s exactly what I meant by saying a decrease in the rate of increase isn’t enough. We have got to cut department spending, and I think that yes, if you look at the budget that we passed out of the House, we eliminated entire agencies and programs. Now, there were conversations early on last year about eliminating the Department of Commerce, or consolidating Department of Commerce with various functions.

It’s no fun to talk about specifics when you’ve got the budget ax out, but right then, at that point in the interview, would have been a great time for Oliver to get specific with Gardner about what Energy Department programs might be cut.

The renewable energy research budget? Nuclear weapons production and maintenance? Energy conservation? Fossil fuel and nuclear research programs? All of it?

Oliver knows a fair amount about energy issues. She had a great moment to trot out an intelligent question, or a specific question on what she’d cut, but she failed us, leaving the job to a reporter who cares about meaningful public-policy debate, not just bloviation.

Oops.

Rep. Cory Gardner likes to point his finger at the media when things don’t go his way, blaming Romeny’s loss on “television stations,” and once complaining that the “media” is biased against people like him who allegedly want smaller government.

Reporters have yet to ask Gardner for the evidence supporting his media bashing. They just lie there and let Gardner trash them.

Why not fight back? It would make good content, and it’s the right thing to do.

Gardner provided another opportunity for a fight, if journalists are brave enough cast off their chains and step up, this morning in a conversation with Steve Kelley on KNUS’ morning show, Kelley and Company, about the failure of House of Repblicans to pass full support for the victims of Hurricane Sandy:

KELLEY:  It should be scrutinized.  But it just looks bad.  Doesn’t it?  I mean, — and the way it is being played in the media, unfortunately, [is] Boehner, this mean guy doesn’t — and you guys in the House — don’t care about those Hurricane Sandy victims out there.

GARDNER:  Look, the media is going to criticize the Republicans every time we turn around, because we are not in lock-step with the President.  And they are going to criticize any time they get a chance.  Now, should this have been handled in a different way?  Uh, there’s always going to be speculation about that.  But the bottom line is this:  John Boehner is not a – nor is the House Republican majority going to turn a blind eye on the victims of a horrible natural disaster.

That’s nut-head nutty, isn’t it? The media wants Gardner to be in lock-step with Obama? What’s he talking about?

It would be fun to hear Gardner explain himself, wouldn’t it?

Sometimes KNUS’ Steve Kelley seems embarrassed by his own morning rants and rages against Obama and the nasty Democrats. The other day he asked, “Do you really want to hear a rant from middle-aged white guy?”

Kelley’s current behavior looks different from what you heard during of his 19 career at KOA, where he at least acted like he didn’t have the answers.

But Kelley’s more level-headed roots return when he conducts interviews, which usually feature straight-forward questions you’d want, but don’t expect, from someone seated behind a microphone.

This morning, for example, during his Kelley and Company show, he asked Rep. Cory Gardner this really good question:

Kelley: Why do you guys [Republicans] seem to be losing the PR battle [on the fiscal cliff]? I mean, it’s so easy to blame a Republican, but it seems to stick to you?

Gardner: Well, you know, it’s tough. We’ve got to do a better job of messaging and explaining to people who are in the middle class, people who are lower income earners, that people who will be affected by this tax increase are people like you, people who are working hard to make ends meet, people who are struggling to pay the mortgage, because their business are going to be hard hit. That’s going to result in lower take home pay because the businesses they work with are suffering and struggling to bear the burden of the tax increases. That’s the bottom line and so the President controls the bully pulpit, regardless of who it is in the White House, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican. They have a tremendous opportunity to shape the outlines of the message.

Listen to audio of Rep. Gardner talking fiscal cliff on Denver radio station KNUS 710 AM on 12-11-12

Kelley was on the right track, but to get to the heart of the GOP’s fiscal-cliff problem, Kelley should have contrasted Gardner’s head-spinning response with Obama’s crisp lines on the topic, which he delivered at a rally Monday:

Obama: “We can solve this problem. All Congress needs to do is pass a law that would prevent a tax hike on the first $250,000 of everybody’s income,” he said. “When you put it all together, what you need is a package that keeps taxes where they are for middle class families, we make some tough spending cuts on things that we don’t need, and then we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a slightly higher tax rate.”

In another question, which Kelley didn’t acknowledge actually related to his previous question about the GOP’s PR problem, Kelley asked Gardner whether he’d compromise on a tax increase:

Gardner: “We cannot agree to a tax increase. That is not the solution. That is not going to solve our $16 trillion debt. That’s what I am urging our leaders, Speaker Boehner and others, to make sure they are adhering to…I think he knows that the [Republican] conference does not support a tax increase, that there is no will to increase taxes amongst the Republican Party and the House majority.”

That’s obviously part of the Republican PR problem on the fiscal cliff, but Kelley didn’t get into the fundamentals. Maybe he thinks it would be bad PR.