Just as Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo started pleading with Colorado Republicans to stop beating up each other, GOP strategist Dick Wadhams took to the radio waves to slam down Tancredo as unelectable.

On KNUS’ Backbone Radio show Sunday, Wadhams amplified on an a Sept. 1 Denver Post op-ed, where he made veiled references to GOP candidates who’ve lost previously and who, if nominated, would extend the Republican “losing streak” in Colorado.

Guest host Randy Corporon deserves credit for getting to the heart of the matter, when he asked Wadhams:

Corporon: “The two candidates who popped to mind for me who’ve lost state-wide office in recent history are Tom Tancredo and Senate candidate Ken Buck. Did you have them in mind?”

Wadhams: “Indeed I did. I cannot see how a candidate who has clearly had a history of rhetoric that has alienated Hispanic voters can get elected state-wide in Colorado. I don’t see it.”

[BigMedia intervention: One wonders if Corporon thought about asking Wadhams for the name of any GOP candidate, including Rep. Mike Coffman, who does not have a “history of rhetoric that has alienated Hispanic voters,” but let’s continue with the interview.]

Wadhams: In terms of Ken Buck, who I think would have been a marvelous U.S. Senator, and Ken, actually, was going into October with a lead. But he said some things that gave Michael Bennet the ability to come from behind and win that… And those issues don’t go away.

[BigMedia intervention: But Buck blamed his loss on Democrats, not on himself.]

Wadhams later in the interview: “I do not think that even if it had been a head-to-head with Hickenlooper and Tancredo, that Tancredo would have won in 2010. Hickenlooper never had to run a negative ad… He’s never been tested state-wide in a campaign like this. I don’t think he would hold up under scrutiny.”

Dick Wadhams on KNUS Backbone Radio 09-01-13

I respect the conservative talk-show hosts, like Corporon, who’ve been dedicating serious time to figuring out how to reform the Republican Party. Contrasting Wadhams’ attacks with Tancredo’s peace-offering is definitely part of this debate.

And again, Corporon took on the issue directly, asking Wadhams whether Tancredo’s “peace plan” is something he’d reject. Wadhams said “issues matter in campaigns” and ignoring them during the primary will just make Republicans go down in flames in the general election.

It’s a “bunch of bunk” that primaries hurt GOP candidates, Wadhams said, adding the bruising primaries benefit good candidates.

I started thinking about the U.S. missiles that are poised to bomb Syria. Peace is difficult to pull off, but at least they’re debating the topic, as it relates to the Colorado Republican Party, on conservative talk radio.

Update:   I posted Ross Kaminsky’s response to my questions at the end of this blog post.

——-

On KHOW radio Friday, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck said voters can “absolutely” count on him to vote his conscience. (Listen to Ken Buck @6:50)

Normally, you might think this would be a good thing. But when it comes to Ken Buck, and you recall his conscience-laden opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape and  incest, you realize that Ken-Buck-voting-his-conscience may not be so great for women.

Given how desired women are by political campaigns in Colorado, it’s astonishing that Buck is already doing what he did during the last election. That is, trying to say abortion doesn’t matter; no one cares about it.

As Buck told the Colorado Observer when asked if his abortion position had changed:

Buck: You know, what I believe is Congress has voted to ban late-term abortions, and I’m one who opposes late-term abortions, and voted to ban federal funding for abortion, and I’m one who opposes federal funding of abortion. I’m tired of people talking about issues that are not relevant to the public. I’m a pro-life candidate.

How is abortion not relevant when pretty much everyone agrees Buck lost last time because of abortion and women’s issues?

And politics aside, abortion issues are addressed in the U.S. Congress. In addition to countless bills that go nowhere, but create PR fodder, the issue gets real-time play. Remember in 2011, funding for Planned Parenthood was at the center of negotiations that almost led to a government shutdown. Federal money for the United Nations Population Fund, whose health services are a life saver for tens of thousands of impoverished people, was also under attack by Republicans with a conscience.

With any luck, reporters will respond to Buck’s nonsensical no-one-cares-about-abortion defense like Gloria Neal did during a televised debate on CBS4, when Neal asked Buck, “Will you really make a raped woman carry a child to full term?”

Buck said that “we need to stay focused on the issues that voters in this state care about, and those are spending and jobs.” Neal responded:

“Social issues are important to the voters in this state. I am one of them. So I need you to answer that question, because in addition to votes and jobs and all of that abortion is very important, and when you start talking about rape and incest, that is important to the voters. So, please, answer that question.”

Buck then said:

“I am pro-life, and I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape and incest.”

That’s the kind of questioning I’d like to have seen from KHOW’s Ross Kaminsky.

So what if Kaminsky is a fellow conservative. If he’s going to demand that Ken Buck vote his conscience, he should dig into what Buck’s conscience would do to women.

Partial transcript of Ken Buck’s appearance on KHOW Friday. (Listen to Ken Buck @6:50)

Kaminsky: Can I count on you, Ken Buck, that if you get in the U.S. Senate, and there’s some vote.. [and] you want to vote yes, and Senate leadership asks you to vote no, can I count on you to vote yes? Can I count on you to vote your conscience?

Buck: Oh, you absolutely can. I have to tell you. I think that’s a huge problem in Washington DC. And I’m not just talking about bipartisanship. I’m talking about people who are doing the right thing regardless of special interest groups, regardless of their future.

I asked Kaminsky why he didn’t ask Buck about abortion:

Kaminsnky: Although I do not share Ken Buck’s conservative views on “social issues,” the issue I was trying to raise was not abortion (though I knew it would come to mind for many people) but rather my impression that so many politicians (with Democrats seeming slightly worse than Republicans) vote the way leadership tells them to vote rather than casting a vote which fits both the legislator’s views and his constituent’s interest. Noting an amusing video from May, 2009, even ultra-liberal David Sirota complained about both Senator Udall’s and Senator Bennet’s vote flipping, where they both voted “no” on a measure then switched to “yes” after asking permission from Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY).

Republicans are far from politically pure, and I disagree with them on many things, but I prefer to elect someone whose votes are mostly predictable based on the candidate’s stated principles rather than someone who will be a marionette for leadership, regardless of party.

As for following up with an abortion question, three things: One, I ran out of time. Two, Ken made it clear that he learned from 2010 that he’s going to focus on issues he thinks the electorate cares most about, which right now (in my view) are economics/jobs, health care, and terrorism.

Three, what could Ken answer that everybody doesn’t already know about him?

I can see the veins bulging out on the necks of conservatives across Colorado when they hear that Denver Post publisher Dean Singleton thinks the Republican Party is “dead in Colorado” and that he doesn’t expect to see another Republican president elected in the United States in his lifetime.

If that’s not vein-popping enough, Singleton went on to say that Udall will win big in 2014, Colorado’s next Attorney General will be a Democrat, and there’s no one in the United States of America who won’t take his phone call.

That’s what Singleton told KHOW’s Peter Boyles March 1 during the 6 a.m. hour:

Boyles: The Republican Party, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

Singleton: I think it’s in trouble nationally. It’s not in trouble locally. I mean, Republicans control 30 State Houses.

Boyles: But I’m talking about in Colorado.

Singleton: I think it’s dead in Colorado.

Boyles: I think it’s dead in the country.

Singleton: It’s not dead–

Boyles: You think we’ll ever have another Republican President in our lifetime?

Singleton: Ahh, no.

Boyles: I agree with you.

Singleton: And it really doesn’t matter whom the Republicans put up. Republicans, in my view, won’t win another presidency in our lifetime.

Listen to Dean Singleton tells Boyles GOP is dead in CO 3-1-2013

Singleton amplified on these thoughts during 7 a.m. hour March 1:

Singleton: The Republican Party is not dead. The Republican Party controls 30 State Houses. Because of redistricting and gerrymandering, Republicans have the chance to hold the House from now on, because most their congressional members come from safe seats. But if you look where their electoral seats are, the Republicans just can’t play at a presidential level. They can’t win in enough states to have enough of the Electoral votes. So I don’t think we will see another Republican President in our lifetime.

Boyles: I don’t either….

Singleton: Republicans have two elected state-wide office holders, the Treasurer and the Attorney General. The Attorney General is not running for re-election, so that will go Democratic. .. [BigMedia comment: Colorado’s Secretary of State is also a Republican.]

Boyles: Is it because of the party or is it the candidates they choose?

Singleton: Well, it’s both. The party has shifted so far right that that’s the kind candidates they pick. And they pick candidates that aren’t in the mainstream. And you see the growth of Colordo, and where the growth has come from demographically. I think Colorado is probably a Democratic state from now on.

It is a Democratic state today, and I don’t think it’s going back. I’m an independent. I’ve never registered for either party, and, in fact, the first Democrat I ever I voted for for President was Barack Obama. So I’m not a Democrat, but when you go to vote you, you have the choice of two candidates. And you pick the best candidate if you’re thinking straight…

You’ll see a lot of Republicans trying to get back in the game statewide, but I don’t see it happening. I don’t think it’s necessarily good. I just think it’s what it is… The Republicans don’t have a candidate to run against Udall in 2014. They have nobody to run.

Boyles: It’s a year away.

Singleton: And they don’t have anybody to run against him. Part of it is, nobody wants to run against him, because he’s going to win big. So, why do it?.. I find it sad that in 2014 we won’t have a spirited Senate race. There just won’t be. That’s not the way democracy was supposed to be….

Boyles: Is there anyone who won’t take your phone call?

Singleton: Not that I know of.

Listen: Singleton on Boyles, says Udall will win, discusses prostitution-scandal reporting, explains why CO GOP dead, and more 3-1-13

As Publisher of the Post, and founder of MediaNews, Singleton can air his opinions, and he has strong ones, even tantrum-like explosions, one of which manifested itself in a front-page editorial screed against Bill Ritter and unions.

Still, no one who actually reads The Post would expect Singleton’s pessimism about the Colorado GOP to leak into the news reporting, in the form of reporting that would hurt Republicans.

So please, let’s not hear fresh cries of unsubstantiated media bias.

If I’m a conservative, and I read what Singleton has to say, I wouldn’t get mad. I’d take it seriously, thank him for the honesty, and re-subscribe.

You wonder how anyone could read former Colorado Senator Hank Brown’s recent comments to Republicans, that a federal candidate’s position on abortion really doesn’t matter, and not think of failed Colorado Senate candidate Ken Buck, Rep. Cory Gardner, and others who made similar statements, even though a quick Google search shows just how incredibly important abortion issues are in politics at the federal level.

Here’s what Brown said Thursday, as quoted by the Colorado Statesman:

Noting that he suspected most of the Republicans in the room disagreed with him about that — and adding that “Colorado, as you know, is the second-most pro-choice in the nation” — he argued that the [abortion] issue shouldn’t take center stage in elections because it’s out of the hands of politicians in Washington and just divides voters.

“The reality is, that’s a constitutional interpretation. The people you elect on that issue don’t have anything to do with that. You don’t vote on allowing or not allowing abortion in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. Congress. It’s never even an issue,” he said, adding that most Republicans agree the federal government shouldn’t subsidize abortions.

“So for Republican candidates, there isn’t any aspect of that pro-life, pro-choice issue that ever results in a vote in Congress,” he said, noting that in rare cases Senators can weigh in on the fitness of Supreme Court nominees and influence longer-term policy on abortion.

Thank goodness reporters in Colorado didn’t let Ken Buck get away with it when he said essentially the same thing last year.

Here’s a fine example of a reporter holding Buck’s feet to the fire in one televised debate, if you want to take a trip down memory lane. That’s just one case of Colorado journalists doing their jobs and mapping out the steps of the abortion buckpedal for citizens. The Ft. Collins Coloradoan didn’t let Gardner forget his stances on abortion either.

If you look at what happens in Congress, you can see that reporters are obviously right that these issues are not just abstract theoretical distractions, like Hank Brown would have you believe.

They make a big difference in politics as practiced in the Beltway, where you can’t predict what votes will be taken for what reason and when.

Remember that Obamacare almost fell apart over abortion wedge issues, with Democrats and Republicans falling on both sides.

And in March, abortion issues, including a dispute over funding for Planned Parenthood, nearly shut down the federal government, as negotiations stalled, with Gardner and Tipton among those digging in their feet on abortion. Also on the disputed chopping block were federal funds for international organizations that provide women’s health care in the world’s most impoverished countries, where the absence of these services translates into hundreds of thousands of deaths each year.

Maybe some people don’t want to take it seriously that the national GOP platform calls not only for an anti-abortion amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also for legislation changing the definition of a person under the 14th Amendment to include fertilized eggs, or zygotes. But how can you not take this seriously, given the strange unpredictability of abortion politics and that the GOP has a shot at controlling both houses of Congress and the White House in about a year?

Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Cory Gardner, Mike Coffman, Doug Lamborn, Scott Tipton, or any other federal candidate, can’t say they favor personhood and then expect it to mean nothing to reporters. Sorry.

Reporters know that one of their most basic functions is to air out issues so citizens can understand where the candidates stand and what they’ll do if elected.

And so, Hank Brown, with due respect, journalists were right in 2010 not to accept the GOP post-primary cries that abortion issues mattered so little compared to jobs that they need not be discussed. And they should continue to matter a lot to journalists today and every day.

GOP chair Ryan Call was on Jon Caldara’s “Devil’s Advocate” TV show on KBDI Friday, and the pestiferous Caldara was ribbing Call about how the Colorado GOP inevitably bungles things up when it comes to elections.

Call was mostly unflustered, and managed to stay on his central message, which was his desire to elect Republicans, with support from a rainbow of GOP tent dwellers.

But one of Call’s explanations for the GOP bungle in 2010, was at a minimum misleading, and Caldara, being the GOP gadfly that he can be, should have called him on it (no pun intended).

Call said:

“Our challenge was that we did not have the resources to effectively counter the millions of dollars that was flowing in from out of state to effectively paint Ken Buck as an extreme candidate, which he wasn’t.”

Interesting, I thought, given that former GOP chair Dick Wadhams told the Greeley Tribune that  outside groups spent as much in Colorado backing Buck as they did supporting Bennet.

And the Sunlight Foundations, which tracks communications expenditures, shows that Wadhams was right. The outside foes of Bennet and Buck spent about the same amount of money in Colorado. Among these outside groups, you recall, Colorado was the most popular place to spend money in 2010. Just under $33 million was spent. (Communications expenses constitute the he vast majority of campaign expenses by outside groups, which most often do little else other than buy TV ads.)

Asked if he knew that spending by outside groups backing Buck was about the same as the pro-Bennet side,  Caldara told me he “didn’t know it or didn’t know it the other way.”

“I’ve not gone through the reports for all the different groups involved in the Senate race,” he said.

I gave Caldara the facts on campaign spending by outside groups, and as someone who clearly doesn’t like anyone to make up excuses for the problems of the Colorado Republican Party’s problems, Caldara should record straight for his audience during his next show.

I listened to Call on KCFR’s Colorado Matters back on April 11, and he again suggested that the GOP was outspent on the Senate race, but he didn’t say it directly:

The challenge in the Senate race, quite frankly, had to do with spending from outside organizations that mischaracterized our district attorney’s record and position on many issues….

We saw a tremendous amount of spending by outside organizations, not the party committees, but outside groups that really are ultimately unaccountable to the voters, really weighing heavily in on that Senate race. Much of it was money coming in from out of state. I think they mischaracterized Ken Buck’s positions on many issues in a way that really hurt him, particularly among suburban women.

Call also acknowledged that Buck’s own bungles hurt him in the election, but I think here again he was at least creating the impression that the GOP was outspent by out-of-state interests

If he continues to make this suggestion, either directly or implied, journalists should clarify that this was not the case in 2010.

You have to wonder whether Dick Wadhams would have been re-elected this weekend, if he’d run for another term as CO State GOP Chair.

It’s a fun question, and reporters should try it out on some of the GOP insiders gathering Saturday to elect a new state party chair.

I don’t recall any Republican wishing Wadhams hadn’t resigned. You don’t hear it from the activists at the state chair forums. You don’t hear it from the state chair candidates themselves, some of whom will go as far as to say they consider Wadhams a friend.

You have to conclude that the Colorado GOP machine would have booted him out anyway.

Not as much for failing to unite the different Republican factions in the state, which you’re hearing a lot about these days, but for not doing the basic blocking and tackling (tracking, smacking, etc.) that he was supposed to be so good at.

The insinuation that the State GOP didn’t do its basic job during the last election cycle put Wadhams on the defensive well before he announced he wouldn’t run again for state chair.

Before he gave up, Wadhams tried to fight back, as he told the Greeley Tribune way back in January.

Wadhams, who said Buck ran a strong campaign and should be lauded for his accomplishments, said the role of outside groups can be overstated. He noted that conservative outside groups such as Crossroads GPS spent as much in Colorado as independent Democratic groups did. And, he said, trackers don’t always make a decisive difference in the campaign.

“Sen. Bennet was tracked. In 2009 after he got appointed, we had somebody filming him as he ran around the state. In 2010, the Republican Senatorial Committee did as well,” he said. “The tracking serves to remind candidates that there’s never a moment when they can let their guard down. A candidate has to be careful of what they say regardless of where or when in the process they’re talking. Tracking only works if you say something controversial.”

Could a man who felt he had to say this to a reporter be re-elected this Saturday. Probably not.

The 10 Commandments always make for good conversations. For example, do you prefer the version that includes “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife?” Or the version that shortens this to “Thou shall not covet?”

Trouble is, most everyone I ask, except my mother-in-law, can’t recite the Commandments. Most people remember some of them, but the middle group trips them up. The ones like, “Remember thou keep holy the sabbath day.”

In any case, I was asking people about the Commandments last week because a U.S. Court of Appeals in Ohio ruled Wed. that a county judge violated the constitutional separation of church and state by hanging a  poster listing the 10 Commandments in his courtroom.

Not a huge story, of course, but one that’s been dragging on for a while and has developed a following.  And it’s a story with a Colorado angle that local reporters missed.

During the 2010 primary U.S. Sen. candidate Ken Buck, U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner,  State Sen. Ken Lambert (SD 9), State Sen. Kevin Grantham (SD 2), Rep. Mark Barker (HD 17), Rep. Jon Becker (HD 63), Rep. Ray Scott (HD 54), and Rep. Libby Szabo (HD 27) apparently  filled out a survey indicating that they support “public posting of 10 Commandments.” It was the Christian Family Alliance Candidate Survey.

Buck’s back in Weld County, but the ones doing people’s work, do they still favor the public posting of the 10 Commandments, even though it looks even more definitively like the law does not?

Maybe you’re thinking this is a waste, and we should move on to a more timely topic.

But it’s obviously worth a reporter’s time to track back and find out what candidates are thinking about their election pledges, especially when the issues involved are in the news.

Much has been written about the trap Colorado Senate Ken Buck fell into when he positioned himself on the far right of the political spectrum, advocating, for example, a ban on common forms of birth control. These far-right positions helped Buck beat his opponent Jane Norton in the GOP primary, but they tied him in knots later, as he tried to say no one cared about the social-conservative issues that Buck had passionately endorsed in the primary.

Compared to a far-right pledge on abortion, a promise to support posting the 10 Commandments may sound like a throw away.

But just in case you’re like me, and you can’t seem to remember the Commandments, here’s one common version:

1. I am the lord your god.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the lord, thy god, in vain.
3. Remember thou keep holy the sabbath day.
4. Honor they mother and father.
5. Thou shalt not kill.
6. Thou shalt not commit adultry.
7. Thou shalt not steal.
8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

So, as can see, we’re not just talking about, Thou shalt not steal, here.  

My own atheism biases me, but can anyone explain how it possibly doesn’t mix church and state for the government to post this religious list. They best argument is, well, the government already allows public displays of religion on government property with government funds. But this is more extreme than, “Merry Christmas.”

Messages to Gardner, Szabo, and Becker were not returned on Friday.

One of the core functions of journalists, when you think about it, should be to track campaign pledges.  It helps people understand the election process, the dyanamics of a primary versus the general election, for example. It helps illuminate candidates’ commitments to doing what they say they’ll do, which is clearly a major concern of voters these days. Generally, reporting on campaign promises helps voters make informed decisions, which is, again, a big part of what journalism is about.

Regardless of where you come down on this, journalists should be in the business of tracking campaign pledges. And this is an interesting one.

Bob Kinsey came really, really close to becoming Colorado’s version of Ralph Nader this year.

As Colorado’s Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate, Kinsey got 2.1% of the vote Tuesday. Bennet beat Buck by a 1.1% margin, with 97% of precincts reporting.

Kinsey says many of his supporters wouldn’t have voted at all, and others might have voted for Buck. Still, if Green Party voters here reflect the Green Party voters in Floriday for Ralph Nader in 2000, then Kinsey took more votes from Bennet. Had the race been close enough, this could have swung the election to Buck.

Does Kinsey have regrets?

“Well you know what, Bennet is in favor of increasing military spending. Neither one [Buck or Bennet]  is going to challenge the military any more than Obama is. No I have no regrets. I have no regrets that I tried to get this country to talk about the military.”

Kinsey, who got about 2% of the vote when he ran for U.S. Senate in 2008, was almost invisible in the Denver media this election cycle. His name appeared once in The Denver Post over the past year. He said he got some decent coverage statewide, but not much, even by left-leaning outlets like KGNU radio in Boulder. I asked him what the media missed in not covering him.

“My major focus is foreign policy,” he said. “I want to cut the military budget by 75% and use that money to create jobs. If you include in miliatrey spending the drug war, Homeland Security, the CIA, and other agencies, that’s over a trillion dollars a year. The AFSC calculated that you could provide every unemployed person with a $50,000 job and the U.S. would still spend more on the military than any other country in the world.”

In 2008, Democrats worried that Kinsey could tip the election away from Mark Udall. They worried again this year. But Kinsey will be one Green candidate they won’t have to worry about when Udall is up in four years.

“I am 73-years-old,” Kinsey told me when I asked if he’d run again. “Next time around for Senate, I’d be 77. What I plan on doing is trying to get the Green party to get some other good candidates and build a party. I don’t think so. I’ve done it three times, once in the 4^th Congressional [2004] and twice for Senate, and  I gave people the opportunity to vote against militarism, and I got 35,000 votes.

I don’t have the energy at 77 to do it again, but I will continue to speak out against militarism.”

Tough follow-up questioning is so much more fun to watch than the wimpy kind…-and it makes for better informed voters besides.

Case in point: CBS4’s Gloria Neal’s exchange Saturday night with Ken Buck over the question, “Will you really make a raped woman carry a child to full term?”

Fair question, but Buck didn’t answer it, prompting Neal to ask it again.

Buck responded by arguing that “we need to stay focused on the issues that voters in this state care about, and those are spending and jobs.”

Neal responded:

“Social issues are important to the voters in this state. I am one of them. So I need you to answer that question, because in addition to votes and jobs and all of that abortion is very important, and when you start talking about rape and incest, that is important to the voters. So, please, answer that question.”

Buck then said:

“I am pro-life, and I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape and incest.”

As a debate moderator, Neal gets credit for noticing that Buck said voters don’t care about social issues. It’s a lot harder than it looks to realize that, yes, Buck had just said voters don’t care about social issues, like choice.

Was Neal right to tell Buck that voters do care about social issues? Absolutely. Plenty of polls show that voters, especially women, care about these issues. Otherwise, you can bet Bennet wouldn’t keep harping on them.

Was she right to say that she is one of those voters who cares about social issues? Yes, she’s entitle to say this, as  a journalist representing the public.

Neal just needs to be fair to both candidates, which she was.

A headline in today’s Denver Post reads, “Buck clarifies comments on global warming ‘hoax.'”

One problem: As you know if you read the article, Buck never clarified his comments on the matter. His campaign spokesman, Owen Loftus, did.

So the headline, most likely written by an editor, didn’t accurately reflect the article, written by a Post reporter.

It’s a significant error to someone like me who likes candidates who talk to reporters themselves. (And I like reporter who insist on this when possible.)

But I might not bother to point the headline out if not for the fact that Buck himself hasn’t been quoted in The Post much lately. Instead, he mostly, relies on his spokespeople. (To be fair, so does Bennet.)

But the headline gives readers the impression Buck is out there fighting for himself with reporters, when, in fact, in this instance–and in by far most cases in Post articles published in October–his spokespeople were the ones to talk to reporters.