Gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez can try to get on the GOP primary ballot through both petitions and the assembly, despite news reports in 2010 stating that Republican candidates could not pursue both routes simultaneously.

Ditto for Beauprez opponents Tom Tancredo and Owen Hill, who are trying both the assembly and petition avenues.

“Access to the Republican primary ballot by political party assembly or by nominating petitions signed by a sufficient number of registered party members are not mutually exclusive,” GOP Chair Ryan Call emailed me, in response to my request to clarify the rules. “Whether a candidate seeks access to our Republican primary ballot by assembly, by petition, or by both methods, all routes are legal, legitimate, and permissible under state law and the rules of the Colorado Republican Party.”

Media stories produced during the 2010 election, cited below, stated, apparently incorrectly, that a GOP candidate had to choose between the assembly process and the petition route.

When he joined the governor’s race Monday, Beauprez first told reporters he’d petition onto the Republican primary ballot. Then he told KHOW talk-show host Mandy Connell that he might also try to get on the ballot through the vote of Republican activists attending the party’s assembly April 10.

When Jane Norton ran for U.S. Senate in 2010 and bypassed the GOP assembly, she was not allowed to speak at the event. Beauprez could face a similar ban if he decides against submitting his name for nomination at the assembly.

News articles at the time do not cite sources for their assertions that GOP rules forbid candidates from using multiple avenues to get on the primary ballot.

The Pueblo Chieftain, from April 14, 2010, reported:

Under Republican rules, candidates either go to the convention to win a place on a primary ballot or use petition drives, but not both.

A 2010 Grand Junction Sentinel article, referenced in ColoradoPols post states:

…Democratic Party rules allow candidates to go both routes at the same time. Only the Republican Party requires its candidates to choose one over the other.

The Colorado Statesman had the same information:

Party rules allowed Bennet to field a petition while still pursuing nomination through the assembly process, unlike rules forbidding both methods on the Republican side.

Call stated in his email to me:

Call: Ultimately, the choice of who becomes our Republican nominee and candidate for any race will be made by our grassroots Republican voters and by all voters who wish to join our party in order to have their voice heard in our primary process. Interested citizens may register to vote and declare or update their party affiliation by visiting www.govotecolorado.com.

We invite all who share our concerns about the erosion of individual rights and opportunity, who recognize the failures of leadership by Gov. Hickenlooper and Sen. Udall, and who disagree with the hurtful policies and broken promises of the Democrats in Washington and in this state, to join us in voting Republican this year to get Colorado and our nation back on the right course.

In a scoop that deserves more media attention, KOA’s morning drive show, Colorado Morning News, broke news this morning when Tom Tancredo told co-hosts April Zesbaugh and Steffan Tubbs that Bob Beauprez told Tancredo during a conversation Saturday that Beauprez will be running for governor.

Tancredo told KOA that he will not be stepping out of the gubernatorial race, even if Beauprez enters.

Tancredo: Yes, I think he is stepping into the governor’s race, or at least that was the conversation I had with him on Saturday. No I will not bow out. And that was not part of the conversation we had. I had called him because I, like everyone else who’s involved politically here, had heard that he was thinking about it very seriously again. And so I called him on Saturday, and I said, ‘Listen buddy, get in! The water’s fine. It will be fun. He’s a great guy and a good friend. And he would add to the whole mix….No, I’m not getting out. There’s certainly no reason to. From my point of view, I’m ahead of everyone I’m running against right now by about 2 to 1. We’ve raised more money, again by about 2 to 1, than anyone else. So I don’t see why I’d be thinking about such a thing. And I’m not. I’m certainly going to pursue it. And do my very best. The addition of another person like Bob Beauprez to this race certainly does not harm my position. It only enhances the debate that will go on, and I think that is a good thing. I think he’s a great guy. I really like him. He’s been a good friend.”

Tancredo praised Beauprez for being the first Republican to support him in 2010 when Tancredo ran as the Constitution Party candidate.

“He had absolutely nothing to gain from doing it,” Tancredo told KOA. “Every Republican and their brother was upset with me…He was the guy that broke the dam.”

Asked by Tubbs who’s “calling the shots” for Republican Party, Tancredo said:

Great question. I haven’t the foggiest idea…It beats me buddy. But, all I can say is they don’t call me and ask about these things.”

Colorado Springs radio host Jeff Crank thinks the Tea Party Express, which claims to be “the most aggressive and influential national Tea Party group in the political arena,” endorsed senatorial candidate Owen Hill in exchange for big donations from Hill’s Colorado backers.

On his KVOR radio show Feb. 15, Crank said:

Crank: “Here’s what I think happened.  I’m just going to throw it out there, okay?  I think a big pile of money wound its way out to the Tea Party Express from Colorado, from a donor or two, who are supportive of Owen Hill, and somehow that endorsement just happened to go to Owen Hill.”

Crank, who used to work for Americans for Prosperity, went on to say that the Tea Party Express is “running the ads with that money” in support of Hill. Click here to see a Tea Party Express ad touting its endorsement of Hill.

“So, in other words, you just buy an endorsement from a group,” Crank said on air. “Rent-a-group.”

“You know, far too often this kind of stuff happens in politics, and people get away with it because nobody calls them on it,”  Crank continued. “And we have to call them on it.”

If you listen to Crank’s show, you know that, indeed, he regularly calls out fellow conservatives on their bad behavior. I admire him for it.

But these latest salvos are of such a serious nature that even though he’s just a talk-radio host, as opposed to a real journalist, Crank should have provided concrete evidence of his accusations before leveling them.

Via twitter, I asked Crank for his proof that cash donations led to Hill’s Tea Party Express endorsement and for the names of the Hill donors he had in mind. I’ll update this post if he responds. See Crank’s extended comments on the topic, along with audio, here.

Crank, who twice ran for Congress as a Republican, apparently made the allegation based, in part, on his personal knowledge of the people involved.

“The folks that [Hill has] surrounded himself with are notorious for going out and trying to hijack a movement,” Crank said on air.

Crank: : “Yeah, look, there’s a history of this, both, I think, in the consultants that are working for Owen Hill. There’s been a consistent effort over the years to do this – to kind of create groups and kind of hijack names, if you will. I mean, certainly, they did it in my race by kind of hijacking the name of the Christian Coalition, when I ran for Congress. But they’ve done it several other times. They did it last year in Colorado. They formed a group called the ‘Colorado Tea Party.’ And they were about ready to send out a bunch of mailers endorsing candidates, and again, it’s just hijacking the name of the Tea Party. We saw it about three weeks ago, when the same candidate and his consultants sent out a press release saying that the movement – the recall organizers, the people that organized the recalls, were supporting a petition effort to get Owen Hill and Tom Tancredo on the ballot. Well, you know, I talked to a couple of the real organizers of the recall effort, and they said, ‘We’re not involved in that! We’re not supporting either of them.'”

On his Saturday show, the president of the Colorado Tea Party Patriots Regina Thompson told Crank that the Tea Party Express endorsement of Crank “certainly looks suspicious.”

And Loren Sheets, President of 285 Corridor Tea Party added that it’s “very likely” that money was involved in the Hill endorsement.

“You know,” Thompson continued on air, “Why else would this particular organization? I mean, they introduced him at their press conference as ‘the Tea-Party grassroots candidate.’ I mean, they said, ‘he is the grassroots candidate’ when in fact he’s not.”

So maybe if Crank doesn’t have evidence himself, he can get it elsewhere.

On KNUS’ Kelley and Company a few weeks ago, Rep. Cory Gardner said:

Gardner: “I would gladly bring Barack Obama and take him around the state of Colorado, introduce him to the 335,000 Coloradans who lost their health insurance thanks to Barack Obama’s bill that Mark Udall passed.”

Gardner would have a tough time with these introductions because 335,000 such people do not exist. It’s not true that 335,000 Coloradans lost their health insurance thanks to Obamacare.

I wondered how Gardner could make this egregious mistake, because The Denver Post reported that the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) wrote a letter specifically to Gardner, informing him that 335,000 Coloradans were sent letters stating that their health insurance policies were cancelled. They were advised of other health-insurance options, one of which, for 92 percent of these people, was to renew their existing policies or choose from other options.

I thought, maybe The Post got its facts wrong about the letter to Gardner. So I contacted DORA, and Communications Manager Vincent Plymell confirmed that DORA sent Gardner a letter stating that “92% [of 335,484] were offered the opportunity of early renewal and continue their plans into 2014.”

Just to make sure I wasn’t missing something in Gardner’s logic, I asked Plymell what “early renewal” meant:

Plymell: “‘Early renewal’ meant that instead of renewing their policies when the policies expired, they could renew early.  These would have been non-ACA compliant plans.”

Asked via email about the price for the renewals, Plymell wrote, “Some may have been at the same price, but as is common with renewals of policies in general (early or not), many would have been for higher premiums.” He added:

Plymell: Remember that for people receiving cancellation letters, they were required to be told by the carriers about all of their options – early renewal, if it was a possibility (and for 92% it was), other plans from that carrier, switching to another carrier, or Connect for Health Colorado.  If people didn’t like the renewal price, they had other options for coverage in 2014.  Also remember that prior to the plans for 2014, people with individual plans (as opposed to employer plans) did not tend to explore those options, because they did not want to have to apply again and go through underwriting, which could mean they could be denied or have their particular conditions excluded.  Going into 2014, they could realistically explore those options because they could not be denied for health reasons or have their pre-existing condition excluded from coverage.

So it looks like The Denver Post got it right, while KNUS and Gardner somehow missed the boat.

On his radio show Saturday morning, Jeff Crank told listeners that when conservatives have an “effort so pure and so true, there always seems to be someone who comes along and tries to steal it for their own personal ambition.”

Who are the ambitious political thieves today?

State Sen. Owen Hill and former Congressman Tom Tancredo, according to Crank.

Crank said those Republican candidates, for governor and U.S. Senator respectively, are using the pure-and-true recall activists to collect signatures to put Tancredo’s and Hill’s names on the primary election ballot.

And then Hill and Tancredo are pointing (through news releases) to their work with the recall organizers to show that they’re running “grassroots” campaigns.

Crank: “Both Tom Tancredo and Owen Hill should be embarrassed that they have… given the impression that the organizers of this patriotic, pure movement to recall Colorado State Senators who voted for gun control, that somehow that movement is now behind their candidacies. It’s frustrating when you see politicians do this, and I just vow that I’m going to call people out when they do this kind of nonsense.”

“The most grassroots way to get on the ballot is to go through the assembly, not to petition onto the ballot,” Crank continued on air. “You petition onto the ballot when you can’t get through the grassroots process in Colorado. That’s the reality of it. When you don’t feel you can go through a caucus or the assembly process in Colorado, and you can’t get 30 percent to get on the ballot, then you go petition. But don’t say it’s grassroots.”

Crank insisted on air that he’s not attacking Tancredo or Hill.

“They are the ones going out and saying that this recall effort is somehow behind their campaign,” Crank told listeners. “It’s not.”

Some recall organizers “may support Owen Hill and Tom Tancredo” but others do not, said Crank, who ran for Congress in 2008 and whose real job is running Aegis Strategic, GOP a consulting firm, linked to the Koch bothers and recently spotlighted in Politico.

Listen to KVOR’s Crank say recall activists co-opted by Tancredo & Hill 2.1.14

Partial Transcript of Comments by KVOR’s Jeff Crank on KVOR Feb. 1, 2014

Crank: “Two politicians trying to use the good work of the recall organizers, some of which may support Owen Hill and Tom Tancredo, and by the way, I’ve always liked Tom Tancredo. Tom supported me when I ran for Congress. I think the world of Tom Tancredo. But he’s being manipulated here. These guys should be embarrassed. Both Tom Tancredo and Owen Hill should be embarrassed that that their campaigns, and by the way they both have the same person behind their campaign who’s organizing these efforts, they should be embarrassed that they have put this issue out there, that somehow that they have given the impression that the organizers of this patriotic, pure movement to recall Colorado State Senators who voted for gun control, that somehow that movement is now behind their candidacies. It’s frustrating when you see politicians do this, and I just vow that I’m going to call people out when they do this kind of nonsense.”

Conservative activist Kelly “ish” Maher, who was a guest host on KNUS’ Kelley and Company Friday, asked gubernatorial candidate Amy Stephens a question that’s been an obsession on conservative talk-radio lately:

Maher: “Potentially, let’s say, you make it out of the primary. And you are in a primary with some people whom many here consider to be friends. But once you get to that point where you are theoretically running against Udall, how are you going to separate yourself from him and create a contrast because a lot of people are putting the exchange creation on you. As soon as you announced that you were running, Twitter blew up and called it Amycare. So that’s an important contrast. How are you going to clarify that for people.”

Stephens: “…I’m not sure with my opponents–I don’t know if they were tweeting. I don’t know if they were getting a tattoo. Or whatever. I was in the weeds, you know, with John Suthers and others, trying to make the best decision for the people of Colorado.” [BigMedia emphasis]

If you know Maher, you know she self-identifies as a seeker of the lighter moments in politics, and so you have to be surprised that Maher didn’t jump all over Stephens’ “getting-a-tattoo” line.

Does Stephens think her Tea-Party opponents, like KLZ talk-show hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley, are tattoo-covered? Is there a correlation between tattoos and Tea Party types?

Or was it simply the tweet-tattoo alliteration that Stephens was going for? It sounded like Stephens may have been reaching for a joke. But why tattoos?

Maher missed a chance to have some fun with Stephens, with acid undertones, but maybe KLZ morning show host Randy Corporon (560 KLZ-AM 5-7 a.m.) can pick up the baton.

At a meeting of the Arapahoe Country Republican’s Men’s club in early January, Stephens told Corporon, who chairs the Arapahoe County Tea Party, that she’d appear on KLZ’s morning show to discuss the issues, Corporon said on air Friday.

Corporon: “As her time was ending, I told her she’d be welcome to come to the Arapahoe Tea Party and speak, and that anyone who was rude of vile would be asked to leave–and that she would be welcome to come in to the studio and sit down and for an interview on the morning show on KLZ. And she said that she would do it. Now, when I went and gave my card to her scheduler, he didn’t seem quite so sure. We’ll see how that plays out.”

..It will be very,  very interesting to see if Rep. Stephens follows through and comes to speak to you at the Arapahoe Tea Party and comes in here to talk to us, where we can really get her to try to explain her decision-making on Amycare and on some of the other bills and statements that she has made.”

Listen to KLZ’s Corporon Discusses Amy Stephens 1.24.14

During her speech, Stephens said she’d been treated “vilely” by Tea Party members, according to Corporon. So if Stephens comes on Corporon’s show, they’ll have a lot more to discuss than tattoos.

KNUS talk show host Dan Caplis sat silently behind his microphone last week while his guest, GOP Senate candidate Amy Stephens, said the Republican Party would not get behind her opponent, Ken Buck, if he wins the Republican nomination to take on Democratic Sen. Mark Udall. But Republicans would rally around her, she said.

Stephens: “I also believe nationally, and I have heard this in my travels, that there is not going to be — You know, when somebody wins a primary, people rally, come around. The party goes, whatever. I do not believe that’s going to happen should Ken be the nominee. I do believe this would happen should I become the nominee, because I think  there will be a lot more interest in this race and a lot more support.” [BigMedia emphasis]

You wish Caplis had asked for the names of the folks who’ve been telling Stephens, during her national “travels,” that they won’t back Buck, even if he were the one left standing. Presumably it wasn’t anyone associated with the rainmakers at the National Republican Senatorial Committee, and it’s likely Stephens wouldn’t have told Caplis about her sources, if he’d asked.

But, at least, Caplis could have fact-checked Stephens on her statement, delivered during a Jan. 15 interview, that “people would rally, come around” and support her if she gets the nomination.

So, to fill in the media gap left by Caplis, I decided to see if Stephens was correct. I didn’t think so, because I thought I’d heard Ken Clark, co-host of KLZ 560-AM’s flagship Tea-Party talk show, Grassroots Radio Colorado, say that he would not only never support Stephens but would never vote for her as well.

“I will never under any circumstances vote for Amy Stephens,” Clark said via email when asked about Stephens. “She is the epitome of what the GrassRoots despises in some Republican Party candidates and elected officials.  She is a big government, statist Republican and does not represent Conservative Values.  Her arrogance is beyond measure, and I really don’t see much difference between her and Udall. The Party had better come up with a candidate that is more palatable to the GrassRoots, or they will deliver yet another loss.”

Before I had a chance to ask him about the veracity of Stephens’ statement, Randy Corporon, who’s hosting a new “Wake Up” show on KLZ (5-7 a.m.) announced Jan. 17 on air that he wouldn’t vote for Stephens. 

“Amy Stephens is running for Senate in Colorado on the Republican ticket, but she is the mother of Obamacare in Colorado,” said Corporon. “I cannot support her. I have said publicly, and I will say again: If she is the Republican nominee, I will find a Libertarian. I won’t  vote for the Democrat.  But there are certain lesser-of-two-evils choices that I am no longer willing to make.  Is the Republican Party paying attention to that? 

Does the Republican Party understand that they cannot win without the Liberty Movement, without those of us who knock on doors and make phone calls, and write small checks regularly and consistently to try and support the candidates that we believe in?  Do they understand that they can’t win without us?  And if they promote—if they attack our people, the constitutionally principled conservatives that are running, if they promote the big government, establishment Republican-type candidates over our own, they’re not going to win, because they can’t win without us.  Amy Stephens should just get out of the race.” Listen to KLZ host Randy Corporon explain why he won’t vote for Amy Stephens (1.17.14)

Certainly Stephens could be correct that Republicans will get behind her if she wins the nomination, while Buck would repel fellow Republicans away from him, if he’s the nominee. But if you’re tuned in to talk radio, and Caplis certainly is, you know there’s two sides to that story that deserve to be aired.

In her appearance on KNUS’ Dan Caplis show last week, Rep. Amy Stephens, who’s running for U.S. Senate, said she “would not be able to go the assembly route” and “win a statewide election and to take on an incumbent.”

Stephens pointed to State Treasurer Walker Stapleton as her poster child of a Republican who petitioned on the primary ballot and won. And she named Rep. Doug Lamborn, even though he didn’t win statewide.

Absent during the conversation, however, was the name of Jane Norton, whom Caplis should have mentioned as having successfully petitioned onto the U.S. Senate primary ballot in 2010 before losing to Weld County DA Ken Buck.

Arguably, Norton serves as a better poster child for why Stephens should participate in the caucus process than Stapleton does for why she should petition on.

Stephens @ 5 min: “We had a very contentious 2010 Senate race that we should have been won against an unknown. And I was on the receiving end of that, because we were trying to take the House Majority. And we saw our numbers, as the top of the ticket begin to go down, down, down, down, when my opponent, Ken, exploded, and then we had the governor’s debacle…

“I have understood, and the team that is with me, we believe that in order to win statewide and to take on an incumbent, that I would not be able to go the assembly route. I am going to petition onto the ballot through the petition process. Walker Stapleton did it. Others have done it. Doug Lamborn.  My reasoning here is to reach a broader audience. You know you have to get a minimum of 1,500 signatures per congressional district. Let’s just say you’re getting 14,000 for the sake of the argument, out of 7 districts. That’s 14,000 you’ve reached versus, in the case of our assembly, which is good, but we have 4,000 very committed Republicans. If you come out of this, and then you get on the ballot, what you do is you target this on a broader level. I believe that has to been done to take on an incumbent. Others may not. It’s a strategy issue.”

On KNUS 1-15-14, Rep. Amy Stephens explains why she’s skipping the GOP caucuses

Asked  by Caplis why she has the best chance to win, whatever ballot route she takes, Stephens said:

Stephens @6 min: “Because I know what it is to win. I win. I was in the most-watched primary in the state, as you know, through redistricting and re-apportionment, with a fellow Republican, which was awful. And  I was outspent 3-1, and I won by 20 points. And I did that by working smart and disciplined and really reaching out to people. I think we’re going to have to have the same thing this time.”

In an article yesterday, The Denver Post’sKurtis Lee reports Rep. Amy Stephens’ response to Ken Buck’s comment Monday comparing pregnancy with cancer:

“It’s Ken again being Ken,” Stephens, who is among several Republicans vying to unseat U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, insisted Thursday. “Just like in 2010, we have high-heels comments, we have alcoholism and homosexuality, now we’ve got cancer and pregnancy.” Buck in 2010 was the nominee for U.S. Senate against Democrat Michael Bennet. His statement on “Meet the Press” comparing homosexuality to alcoholism was considered the turning point in a campaign he had been expected to win.

Before telling Lee about “Ken again being Ken,” Stephens was on KNUS’ Dan Caplis Show Wed., where she made her opinion of Buck’s candidacy even more clear, saying she does not believe Colorado Republicans will unify around Buck if he wins the nomination, and saying, based on what Buck’s offered so far, it would be the “definition of insanity” to run Buck again.

Stephens @10 min: I am not convinced Ken has given us an argument as to why we should go down this path again. And I call the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over with the same results. …

I also believe nationally, and I have heard this in my travels, that there is not going to be — You know, when somebody wins a primary, people rally, come around. The party goes, whatever. I do not believe that’s going to happen should Ken be the nominee. I do believe this would happen should I become the nominee, because I think  there will be a lot more interest in this race and a lot more support. [BigMedia emphasis]

Listen to Rep. Amy Stephens tout herself as a woman and slam Buck on KNUS 1-15-14

On the radio, Stephens went on to say that she’d be better able to “take on Sen. Udall on issues that they normally love to hit our men with, and I think as a woman, I have a very strong voice to speak about.”

But as Caplis should have pointed out, Stephens’ anti-abortion record, including ten years on the staff of Focus on the Family, sets herself up for  the same criticism Buck has faced.

Stephens voted in favor of last year’s version of an anti-abortion bill that’s under consideration again this year in the Legislature. (This year’s bill has the exact same summary as last year’s.)

In his article about Buck’s pregnancy-cancer comment, The Denver Post’s Lee pointed out that Buck and Stephens both “oppose abortion.” He also reported that Buck’s wife, Perry Buck, is a co-sponsor of this year’s abortion-ban bill, sponsored once again by Rep. Stephen Humphrey, but Lee did not include the fact that that Stephens voted for it last year. In 2012, she also supported a Colorado Right to Life-backed“fetal homicide” bill that could have banned abortion in Colorado.

Asked by Caplis directly whether she thought she had an advantage as a woman in her Senate bid, Stephens cited her position on “the life issue,” saying:

Stephens: “I do. I actually do, because of the time and the year in which were are, and because of the issues that Democrats bring up. I think  I have a unique ability to speak to that. I have a unique ability to speak to the life issue and/or family and other issues such as health care, public safety, all the things I’ve advocated for. So, yes, I do. In this election, I think it’s going to matter.”

But it looks like Buck’s and Stephens’ extreme records on abortion are about the same.

Apparently trying to connect to women voters, who arguably cost him a U.S. Senate seat in 2010, Ken Buck appeared on a Denver radio station Monday and discussed the differences and similarities between pregnancy and his recent bout with cancer.

Asked by 560-AM KLZ talk-show host Randy Corporon about his abortion position, Buck, who’s running again for U.S. Senate this year, said:

Buck: “Yes, I am pro-life. While I understand a woman wants to be in control of her body.–it’s certainly the feeling that I had when I was a cancer patient, I wanted to be in control of the decisions that were made concerning my body–there is another fundamental issue at stake.  And that’s the life of the unborn child. And I hold that life dear and precious and believe we have to do everything we can to protect the life of the unborn.” 

So Buck is saying that his successful battle with cancer is like pregnancy insofar as they both require decisions affecting a human body. But for a cancer patient like Buck, they are personal medical decisions, and Buck was glad to be able to make them. But for a woman who is pregnant, difficult as it may be, she shouldn’t be afforded the same freedom to make decisions affecting her body.

In 2010, Buck made no secret about his strong anti-abortion position, enthusiastically repeating his opposition to all abortion, even for rape or incest. In one radio interview, he expressed his opposition to abortion, even for a girl raped by her teen brother.

Now Buck drives his anti-abortion point home in the starkest of language by saying how happy he is that the government didn’t dictate his health decisions when he had cancer. But pregnant women should have no choice.

I was waiting for Corporon to offer a peep of an opposing view, to bring up the complexities surrounding a decision to have an abortion, and to ask Buck about all the women who don’t see this as a one-size-fits-all issue.

I’m still waiting.

On the political side, Corporon could have asked Buck if he’s worried, by comparing his cancer to a woman’s pregnancy, of looking like Todd Akin, whose thoughts about “legitimate rape” sunk his 2010 bid for a Senate seat in Missouri. But Corporon moved on, leaving listeners wanting more explanation from Buck.

Listen to Buck on KLZ 1-13-14 say he wants state control over women’s bodies but not his body