On KNUS radio last week, Rep. Cory Gardner was pressed on whether he’d try again to block an extension of the debt limit to stop Obamacare. His answer surprised me:

Gardner: “I don’t think threatening with the debt limit is a good idea. I think that has proven to not work.”

Afternoon KNUS host Steve Kelley, who was interviewing Gardner, seemed to think Gardner should go down the debt-ceiling-government-shutdown road again, and not blink this time. So I thought Kelley would remind Gardner how fierce an advocate he’d been for using the debt ceiling in the past.

Kelley may not be a regular listener of KFKA’s Amy Oliver Show, but I am, and I remember when Oliver asked him (on Jan. 8):

Oliver: I want to ask you Congressman, are you willing to vote no against a raise in the Debt Ceiling if it doesn’t include significant spending cuts? 

Gardner:  Well, “Absolutely,” is the answer to that.

Gardner made similar comments to Kelley himself in January, saying, “We are not going to imperil the future generations of the country.  It is immoral.  It is wrong.” And on conservative KFTM, Gardner said that blocking the extension of the debt ceiling was an “opportunity to reduce the size and scope of government, and how we can require opportunities to look for savings, look for cuts, and what we’re going to do to grow the economy through common sense tax reform.  I think there’s great opportunities for us to get back on track.” (Listen here.)

So If I were Kelley, I’d wonder why Gardner’s moral outrage about the debt ceiling was so easily undermined by a tactical loss.

Same question would go to U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck, who said on KLZ Grassroots Radio Colorado Aug. 27:

Buck: I’m “absolutely against raising the debt limit, period, end of story”

Is Buck ready to give up the fight on the debt ceiling, like Gardner is? Kelley should consider asking him.

KLZ radio’s afternoon drive show, Grassroots Radio Colorado, deserves to be recognized as a regular news breaker. That is, for the five of us who are already following next year’s election.

The show broke news again in an Aug. 27 interview with U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck, when Buck said he’s “absolutely against raising the debt limit, period, end of story.”

Buck reiterated the point later in the interview:

Buck: “I’m not going to vote in any way to allow a[n] increase in the debt ceiling.”

Listen to Ken Buck say he’s “absolutely” against raising the debt limit

Strangely enough, Buck used a question about the budget bill to state his position on the debt ceiling, but it’s hard to believe that Buck confused the debt ceiling with the continuing-resolution budget bill.

In any case, all of Colorado’s congressional candidates should be answering questions from real reporters about the debt limit, as we approach next week’s Oct. 17 deadline for the U.S. to extend it or begin defaulting on our country’s debts.

With the stakes so high (stock market gyrations, U.S. credit-rating downgrade, economic slowdown), it’s a topic all congressional candidates and Members of Congress should address publicly.

Last month, Buck told KNUS radio’s Jimmy Sengenberger that it’s “legitimate” for the U.S. House to shut down the government to stop Obamacare.

Partial transcript of Ken Buck’s interview on KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado Sept. 27.

Ken Clark: [talking about Ted Cruz and his 21 hour speech on Senate floor] it wasn’t technically a filibuster.   And then you had the vote on cloture today, okay?  Where do you stand?

Buck: Where do I stand?  I am absolutely against raising the debt limit, period, end of story.  This country has too much debt.  It has too much spending.  We have taxed our people enough.  We have not – we have overspent, not overtaxed.  So, we need to get back to – actually, here’s a concept for both of you.  You ready for this?  You sitting down?  Thank you, very much.  How about let’s pass a budget in the United States Senate.  Would that be a  —

Clark:  What if – what if — ?

Buck: [facetiously]  Okay, we lost somebody!  We’ve got a fainter, over here!

Clark:  What’s a budget?

Buck: We got –.  No kidding!  What’s a budget?  And Mark Udall –

Clark:  I’ve never heard of it.

Buck: Mark Udall and Barak Obama have not passed a budget in a house of the United States Congress that they control now, for six years.  How on Earth is that possible?

Co-host Jason Worley:  But they’re pretty good at voting against Obama, which makes you laugh –

Clark:  But, wait a minute!  I thought it was all done by Continuing Resolution.

Buck: Yeah.  And that’s the problem.  All we do is this ‘stop and start’ kind of nonsense, and we need to actually plan on how we’re going to reduce this deficit over the next ten years, and have a plan in place.  And that’s what I would focus on.

Clark:  All right.  Very good.  So, how would you have voted on the cloture pay?

Buck: Well, I’m not going to vote in any way to allow a[n] increase in the debt ceiling.

Listen to Ken Buck say he’s “absolutely” against raising the debt limit.

I like it when conservative talk radio hits on this question: What’s the winning formula for a GOP candidate in Colorado?

On KLZ’s Grassroots Radio last Friday, gubernatorial candidate Greg Brophy talked about why he’ll triumph next year, and it made for provocative radio.

“Number one,” Brophy told Worley, “you’ve got to be able to hold the base together. I can do that. I’ve never let anybody down on the Second Amendment, life, or taxes. So, I can hold the base together just fine.” Listen to Brophy on KLZ radio.

That sounds like Brophy’s formula for winning the GOP primary. Maybe that’s why it was number one on his list, but Worley didn’t ask if Brophy thought he could “hold the base together” better than the other GOP candidates.

What about the strengths of the other Republicans in the GOP field: immigration and winnability (Tancredo), election fraud (Gessler).

Can Brophy win over the GOP base on those issues? Does it matter? What’s the priority?

And from the GOP base’s perspective, for the primary, it’s not just a matter of whether Brophy has really “never let anyone down” on guns, life, and taxes, but whether Tancredo has? Or Gessler? Or Kopp?

After talking about how to hold together the GOP base, Brophy described what you have to think would be his general-election approach:

Brophy: “But then you also have to be able to reach that middle of the road voter in the metro area, and I can do that too, based on my experience and the fact that I’m a farmer, and not your typical Republican – more like your typical Coloradan. I’m an avid cyclist – everybody knows that.”

I’m not sure everyone knows Brophy is a cyclist, but here’s a suggestion Worley might toss at him to boost his cycler profile: Brophy could take a page from Hick and make political ads showing Brophy riding around Denver’s bicycle trails, pedaling past Tancredo, Kopp, and Gessler, panting on their bikes as Brophy zips by, maybe with a pink gun in the water holder on his bike.

Correction: Also, an earlier version of this blog post stated that Debbie “Feeley” is on the list of people who are most detrimental to the Republican Party of Colorado. It is actually Debbie Healy, according to Sarah Arnold, who also told me she was not present at the GOP executive meeting last Friday, where the list was allegedly discussed but spoke directly to people who were there. Still waiting to hear from Ryan Call.

———————–

Serious accusations have been condensing in the air at KLZ radio this week and dropping on the head of Colorado Republican Party Chair Ryan Call.

On Monday, for example on KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado, former El Paso Republican Party Secretary Sarah Arnold said: “Ryan Call’s law firm is the only law firm that’s allowed to be used by the Republican State Party,  while he’s drawing a salary from that law firm and while he’s still making a huge salary off of the backs of grassroots people who continue to contribute to the party.”

Arnold, who’s currently writing an election-strategy book called In the Trenches, also said she spoke with fellow Republicans  who were present at an executive committee meeting of the state GOP last Friday where Call “put out” a list of the “six most detrimental people to the Republican Party in Colorado.”

Arnold said Call’s list, which she called a “Nixonian hit list,”  included Arnold, KLZ radio hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley, Clear the Bench’s Matt Arnold, Rich Bratten of Principles ofLiberty, Laura Bratten, and Debbie Healy. Arnold said people have asked if it’s possible to petition onto Call’s list. She added that it’s Call who’s the “number one” threat to the Republican Party in Colorado.

Call did not return my request for a comment on these accusations, but, KLZ guest host David K. Williams pointed out that Call was just re-elected, so he must have serious support within the State GOP.

Before Arnold was on Grassroots Radio Colorado, Victor Head, who’s the 28-year-old Pueblo plumber who founded Pueblo Freedom and Rights, and Tim Knight, Founder of Pueblo’s Basic Freedom Defense Fund, also aired complaints on KLZ about the Colorado Republican Party.

Call responded to some of these complaints in a Denver Post article Sunday and elsewhere, including in more detailed Colorado Statesman article today, but, to give you a full sense of the tone of the discussion, here’s a partial transcript of what the two GOP activists had to say on the radio.

KNIGHT:  When we had gotten through the signature phase and we were dead broke, we went in search of allies, and we asked to have a sit down with the state party chair.  And we asked for a little assistance on the legal. And, um, kind of, they never really got back to us.  A couple guys were selling things and – actually, a lot of guys were selling things, and we asked the good people of Colorado and elsewhere to help us get through that.  And, um, you know, we also found out through various means that the Republican party was trying to shut down the recalls, by calling various power players in the county GOPs and saying, “Look, you got to put a halt to this –slow this down.”  So, Victor and I both kind of ran into a brick wall there, when we thought we’d have some allies, and they didn’t come through.  As a matter of fact, they made it even harder for us.  So, yeah, it was a —  we wanted to make the– to get the record pretty straight today.  Victor probably has more to add to that.

GUEST CO-HOST DAVID K. WILLIAMS:  Yeah.  Victor, what was the rationale behind the state party not more actively assisting you?

HEAD:  You know, I’m not really sure what their thought was, other than that they didn’t approve of it, initially.  And so they were just upset that basically we sprung this as ad as ‘we, the people’ without asking for their blessing first…we were down to about where the recalls were about ready to shut down, because we were out of money and needed some help.  And then to go to them and get snubbed, it wasn’t a good thing to work through. It was pretty hard.  And then, to further it, now that we are successful, they then start sending out emails and raising money off of our work, saying, “Look at everything we did!  Give us money.”  And meanwhile, we still had outstanding legal bills and things.  And we’re like, “Whoa, whoa, whoa!  Not only did you not support us, you worked against us!  And now you’re making money off of our backs?”

…WILLIAMS:  Victor, let me follow up on a question, there, for you.  In The Denver Post, Ryan Call […] said that – or according to the paper, said that once the recalls were certified, the GOP donated about $40,000 – the maximum it could contribute to recruit and help senators-elect Bernie Herpin and George Rivera of Pueblo.  What is he referring to there, and is that true?

HEAD:  Right.  They absolutely did. What they did is they donated money to the candidates themselves.  And in that, they didn’t  even donate actual money, that I’m aware of.  They donated ‘in-kind’ donations to the maximum amount, being phone banks, flyers, door hangers, that sort of thing.  And that’s great, but that didn’t help the recall effort.  As you guys were saying at the beginning of the show, the candidates are kind of a secondary to the recall and everything. 

WILLIAMS:  Right.

HEAD:  It’s – you know, that’s expected.  Once the recall is there, they have to field a candidate.  That’s expected.  The point here was that we looked for some help, you know, as we were getting the signatures certified, we needed legal help.  And they didn’t think we had a chance.  You know, as a matter of fact, Ryan Call came down on election night, down to Pueblo to tell George Rivera how to graciously concede.  He wanted to help him on his concession speech.  Because he said, “You guys don’t have a chance down here.  We need to graciously concede, make sure there’s no sour grapes, and just move on!” 

WILLIAMS:  And he won by like 12 percentage points, didn’t he?

HEAD:  Yeah, then we blow it out by twelve percent!  And then, he tries to come down and give a big speech at our victory party!  And we shut him out!  We said, “NO!  Get the hell out of here!  Are you kidding me?  You were just here four hours ago telling us how we were going to lose!  You’re not going to take credit for this!”  So, it’s – you know, like you were saying, it’s probably politics as usual in the party.  But at this point, we have momentum.  We have some grassroots energy, and we’re going to demand some reform in this party and some reform in the leadership, or the party is going to die, I’m pretty sure.   I mean, they’re going to be wholly ineffective in 2014 and it’s just going to, you know —  it’s not going to help anybody.

On KLZ radio’s afternoon talk show Thurs., State Sen. Vicki Marble said that if Rep. Lori Saine brought fried chicken to a legislative hearing last week as a silent protest, it doesn’t matter because Marble is thrilled the chicken issue has returned to the news.

It must have been “angels from above” that caused Rep. Lori Saine to bring fried chicken to the hearing, Marble said on air, because it started an important dialogue, which, unfortunately, has been distorted by the “left” and the “news media.”

“The focus of this attack by the left and the news media has never been about chicken,” Marble told the radio audience. “It has been about spinning the narrative to destroy conservatives and our principles.”

Marble specifically called on Fox 31’s Eli Stokols to stop being an “ambulance chaser,” to “get to the truth,” and to “give all the people the information that they are literally dying for.”

Guest-host Stacy Petty asked Marble: “Here’s the thing, even if she did this as a silent protest? Does that matter?”

Marble: “No!”

Marble caused an uproar during an Aug. 21 hearing when she suggested that eating chicken and barbeque causes poverty among blacks. She also  said Mexicans who come to the U.S. gain weight because they stop eating as many “fresh vegetables.”

Partial transcript of Sept. 5 appearance by State Sen. Vicki Marble on KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado. Bolded segments are BigMedia emphasis.

Guest-Host Petty: We have Sen. Vicki Marble on the line, and she wants to continue our discussion on chickengate.

Marble: Yes, it is chickengate. And what a chicken they have turned out to be. The focus of this attack by the left and the news media has never been about chicken. It has been about spinning the narrative to destroy conservatives and our principles. The liberal media has been carrying the water for the left for decades. Every news outlet, including Eli Stokols, has always known that my statement—they were about lies. Why do our friends, neighbors, and family in the black community die younger? It was never about ‘chicken causes poverty.’ That was ludicrous. But, if they reported the truth, there would be no attack. And they control the narrative and their goal is to destroy conservatives. Democrats never ask why. Imagine giving someone the motivation to take charge of their quality of life through their everyday healthcare choices, which include diet and exercise. They won’t even bring it up. Democrats say they are offended by my asking why, why, why are they dying? I want to know why…. And I want to ask Eli Stokols right now, will you please begin the dialogue? And give all the people the information that they are literally dying for. This is a serious matter, and I wish that he would treat it as such because their childish behavior is doing nothing to help the people of Colorado achieve good, high-quality, life…

Marble: And I am so glad that Rep. Saine decided to have chicken, because what did it do? It opened up that dialogue again that has died. They thought they were done roasting me. All of a sudden, I don’t know, it must have been angels from above, telling her to pull in the Popeye’s, because it started the dialogue. Now we can have the newscasts from I believe it was Fox News. I believe it was Meagan Kelley’s segment that comes on at 12 o’clock in the afternoon. Everyone needs to hear this. And everyone can make those health care choices. We can manage our quality of life just through the diet and exercise. And yes, the doctor did mention fried chicken. I did not. Now, Eli Stokols, please take note. Please start reporting the truth. You’ve been an ambulance chaser in the news media. I think you’re better than that. I think you can really serve Coloradoans well. Get to the truth. Quit carrying the water for the liberal Democrats. And make some sense out of life and the people, and what we’re supposed to be trying to achieve here in Colorado. And that is economic opportunity….

Marble: I knew that the chicken was there. I walked, and she had the chicken lunch. That’s fine. But was really funny to me was when Eli Stokols tweeted that, I did see it. And I thought, this is a great way to re-start the dialogue. And boy has it….

Co-Host Stacy Petty: Here’s the thing, even if she did this as a silent protest? Does that matter?

Marble: No!

State Sen. Vicki Marble went on KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado Friday to discuss the controversy over her comments about the eating habits of minorities.

Radio is a particularly good medium for someone to explain a botched public utterance, but the radio hosts put zero effort into eliciting a meaningful explanation from Marble.

Marble focused on good health and nutrition for everyone, not just blacks and other minorities. She said you can have your “Big Mac,” but have some “veggies on the side.”

Here’s part of what she had to say:

Co-host Ken Clark: What do you make of all the controversy?

Marble: Well first, good afternoon everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here. And the controversy, I am excited. We are getting this dialogue going. I mean, just let it run because we are coming out with the real medical research that will show that yes—but you know, I don’t care about who says what. And I want no apologies. I just want people to have the chance to get the education on their genetic predispositions to certain diseases, and if they choose to change their diet in order to keep their quality of life, then great! And if not, it’s their choice. But at least they have the information out there that will help them make an informed decision.

Clark: …It doesn’t matter how rich you are…

Marble: You’ll lose your job. And if it is cancer or heart disease, it’s very possible that your medical costs will drain, very quickly, your assets, your life savings, and you may even lose your home. And you could be poverty-bound forever, because it is very hard to get out of the poverty level once you’re in it. And if you have a life-threatening issue like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, you are, I guess, you are chained to it. You are a prisoner to your own health. And if you have a predisposition in your family, you should know about it. You should at least have the information and eat accordingly. And we always see these advertisements on TV and sound bites on the radio about our health, and eat healthy. That’s what we’re talking about. At least, know what you’re up against. Know what some of those quiet shadows in your health history may be, and live accordingly, if you choose. I’m not up for legislating anything about eating. It’s just getting the information out there. ..

Clark: …Where does this go from here? … Let’s quit screaming racist. Let’s have the conversation.

Marble: It’s true. Quality of life is not a racist issue. It’s a life issue for all of us. And we all intend, and we all want, for each and every American, and I wish it could be every person on this Earth. But for every person, quality of life gives you economic opportunity. And if you lose that quality of life through a life-threatening disease, it’s over. You are poverty-bound. And that’s what I really want to address. If you can delay those life threatening diseases, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, you name it. If you can delay that just, by eating a little different, you can still have your–

Clark: Big Mac.

Marble: Big Mac.

Clark: You can have your Big Mac. You can have your Big Gulp.

Marble: [laughing] You can have all that in moderation, but eat a couple fruits and veggies on the side, and just be aware. But it’s your choice.

Clark: Let’s face it. There are very few people on the planet who have the genetic disposition who can eat whatever they want without consequence…

Marble: And you know what, they call that, they got good genes. …

Here’s a gross excerpt of a conversation yesterday between KLZ radio hosts Jason Worley and Stacy Petty (subbing for Ken Clark) about Vicki Marble’s comments about the eating habits of blacks and Mexicans. (Start at 34:24 on the podcast.)

WORLEY:  Don’t get me wrong, in Republican circles, if I was sitting right next to Vicki, I would say, right now, “Hey, you grew up in West.  You grew up all out here in the West.  You didn’t live in the South.  I get it.  There is a – the minute you say, and if somebody’s from the South, the minute you say ‘Black’ and ‘chicken’, it’s just not a good idea.”

PETTY:  Mmm-hmm. 

WORLEY:  It’s not a good idea.  But there’s nothing –.  It’s in-artful, and yes, you’re opening the door for an opportunist like Rhonda Fields, because that’s what she is. 

PETTY:  Mmm-hmm.

WORLEY:  I mean, I’m sorry.  Am I the only one who said it?  The only reason she got elected, is because her kid got killed. [BigMedia emphasis]

PETTY:  Yeah.  I agree with you.

WORLEY:   I said it!  I said it!  Her son died.  She’s a victim.  Diane Primavera in Broomfield ran on a “I’m a cancer survivor”. 

PETTY:  Yeah.

WORLEY:  Good for you.  Move on with your damn life, and actually show that you can legislate some stuff.

PETTY:  Well, and everybody in their life, I mean, granted, those are horrible challenges to have, but everybody has a significant challenge in their life that they overcome at some point.  In general, it makes them a better, stronger person.  They’re there for other people.  They don’t use it as a coattail to ride their way to reside under the Gold Dome. 

 later at @37:35

PETTY:  [talking about Jimmy the Greeks comments about black athletes being better because their ancestors were bred in slavery for big thighs and big bodies]  That’s a racist comment but the thing that always troubled me, is that was actually true.   If you go back and you look at history, slaves were bred because they were considered non-human work animals.  I mean, that’s what they were, and so they were intentionally bred to be more muscular.  And if you look at the individuals in Africa, how they are right now, they don’t have the same muscular build that our African Americans do.  And it’s—

WORLEY:  And it’s some!  And it’s some!  It’s not – I know skinny African American and I know athletic black Americans.  I mean, –.

PETTY:  Yeah.  But that one always drove me crazy.  It was – was it inappropriate to say?  Absolutely.

WORLEY:  It was just dumb.

PETTY:  But, you know, he lost his job over it, and –

WORLEY:  Well, then, who — we were talking about this before.  There was the very racist comment.  We think it was Howard Cosell

PETTY:  Yeah [laughing]

WORLEY:  “Look at the little monkey run!”

PETTY:  Yeah.  Yeah. 

WORLEY:  I can’t do that in his voice. I’ll get accused of – ColoradoPols is just like typing this up right now so they have a whole thing on how Grassroots Radio Colorado is racist.  I – you know what?  It’s when things like this happen, when – oh, who’s the legislator who made the racist—who said this was racism?  I can’t think of her name

PETTY:  Oh, Rhonda Fields.

WORLEY:  Rhonda Fields! For some reason, I get –.

PETTY:  “Rap-Sheet” Rhonda.

WORLEY:  “Rap-Sheet” Rhonda!  Looks good in orange!  Oh my gosh! [facetiously] That’s racist!

PETTY:  And wait! Tell the listeners why she’s called “Rap-Sheet” Rhonda. 

WORLEY:  She was arrested.  – Why I call her “Rap-Sheet” Rhonda –it’s not a black thing, it’s an orange thing.  She was actually arrested for shoplifting, I believe.

PETTY:  Yes.

WORLEY:  Look, that’s what she is.  She has a criminal record and you geniuses elected her!

Last Tuesday, KLZ radio host Ken Clark had a conversation with Jonathan Keyser, who’s running for CO House District 25.

Clark acted as if Keyser will be challenging Rep. Cheri Gerou in a GOP primary, even though Gerou hasn’t filed to defend her HD25 seat.

Clark described Gerou this way:

Clark:  “And for those of you that don’t remember, Cheri Gerou is the gal that got into that – oh, I don’t know, she was the one that had some expletives to say at Joe Neville, who is a lobbyist for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.  Her Principles of Liberty scores are just slightly better than the Democrats…  She was at the bottom of the barrel for Republicans.  She scored less than five points higher than the best Democrat.  Um, ya think that’s somebody screaming out to be primaried?  Yeah, I do.”

Later, Clark said of Gerou:

Clark: “She is the worst Democrat that has an ‘R’ next to her name, that we have in the state of Colorado.”

Keyser tried to correct Clark about the Gerou race, saying, “Right now I’m not challenging Representative Gerou.  She hasn’t filed.  You know, and so I don’t know what her intentions are.”

But Keyser couldn’t slow down the Grassroots Radio Colorado co-host:

Clark:  “All right.  Well, you’re running against Cheri ‘Stump the Chump’ Gerou, and those are her words, not mine.  Those are her words.  She called herself  ‘Stump the Chump’ Gerou, so I can only go off of what she says.”

One wonders if Clark had any inkling that Gerou might not face Keyser, whom Clark described as a fellow 2012 graduate of the conservative Leadership Program of the Rockies.

ColoradoPols speculated last week that Gerou might decide to “challenge former Sen. Tim Neville (father of RMGO’s lobbyist Joe) in a GOP primary for the chance to run in Senate District 16 against Sen. Jeanne Nicholson.” If so, Pols noted, the “clash between Gerou and Neville would be an acid test of the much-ballyhooed power of the RMGO in Republican primaries.”

If this happens, you think Clark would side with Gerou or Neville?

Three weeks ago, FOX 31 aired a story about Colorado’s state-owned jet, including the fact that Gov. John Hickenlooper flew on the plane, along with businessman Ken Gart and his son, to the 2012 Pro Cycling Challenge in Durango.

The FOX 31 story wasn’t received very well.

Denver Post editorial writer Tim Hoover reviewed the story and concluded that “the ‘concerns’ outlined in the FOX 31 report were just silly.”

Editorial Page Editor Vincent Carroll concurred, tweeting:

“Nice job by Tim Hoover deconstructing an overhyped Fox 31 story on usage of a state plane.”

In his piece, “Not airworthy: FOX 31 Piece on State Airplane Usage Was Pretty Lame,” Hoover noted that Gart helped organize the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, “a large-scale, high-profile event that is important to Colorado and one a governor would be wise to attend.”

Hoover: It doesn’t seem crazy that one of the key people behind organizing the event might attend it with the governor. But in any case, the report notes Gart reimbursed the state $431 for his travel costs after FOX 31′s inquiries.

Despite this, and the fact that Hickenlooper reimbursed the state for his son’s trip, Denver talk-show host Jason Worley was so impressed with the FOX31 story that he filed a complaint Monday to the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission, in part, he said on the radio yesterday, because “nobody else wanted to do it.”

“There’s a news story backing up every bit of what I’m saying,” Worley said on the radio yesterday. “This is not a frivolous claim. We didn’t do this on a lark.”

Worley’s complaint stated that KDVR did not report when Hickenlooper and Gart paid back the state, but the station flashed Hick’s $903.75 reimbursement check for his son, and it’s dated Jan. 30, 2013. Gart’s $431 check is dated Jan. 15. That’s about four months after the trip, during the period KDVR claims it was doing its investigation, as Worley pointed out to me.

Citing an alleged precedent set in a recent Gessler case, Worley’s complaint states that “subsequent reimbursement” of funds “cannot spare a liable public official from an IEC penalty.”

Ethics Watch Director Luis Toro, however, told me via email that “Team Gessler never actually requested that the IEC drop the case based on the payment (as I fully expected they would)” and the case did not establish the precedent that “late repayment should not prevent an ethics complaint from going forward.”

[See Toro’s answers to my other questions about the case below.]

Asked by KDVR about taking his son with him to Durango, Hickenlooper said:

“The hard part about this job is I never get to spend time with my son. I feel like I’m missing his childhood. He’s about to turn 11…. We always pay his pro-rated share. So we pay the state back when he’s on there.”

“I’m glad he pays the state back for his son,” Worley emailed when asked to respond to Hick’s statement.  “Not sure why it took an investigative reporter to prompt him to do so.”

In his complaint, Worley asks the state to investigate, among other things, whether Hick used the plane to take him and his guests to Durango for non-state or political business.

“I do see that this trip could have been a ‘perk’ of being Governor,” Worley emailed me. “However taking a campaign contributor means this was a least in part, questionably political.  How much was business, how much was personal and how much political.  Why didn’t he allocate for that as was decided in the Gessler case.  It is a requirement.”

On the radio Tuesday, Worley said he plans to bring a live microphone to any ethics hearing, if one takes place, raising the question of whether this is a publicity stunt by a talk-radio host, not unlike throwing live chickens out the studio window.

“Ken and I make no bones that we are activists first,” Worley said. “No one else stepped up to file this complaint, why not me?  If publicity were our main focus we’d go off and purposely say outrageous things.  We don’t do that, we give our honest opinion.”

Luis Toro, Director of Colorado Ethics Watch, answered questions yesterday via email regarding Worley’s complaint to the Independent Ethics Commission:

Was it ok ethics-wise for Hickenlooper himself to use the state plane to go to the race?

I believe it is pretty standard for governors to attend high-profile events like the USA Pro Cycling Challenge. In this case, the governor is lucky to be the governor of Colorado where events like that happen in places like Telluride and Durango. Undoubtedly it is one of the better parts of his job, but one that fits very comfortably into what governors are expected to do. There is actually a specific Fiscal Rule (11.6) regarding travel by the Governor that says “In the case of travel by the Governor, security, protocol, ceremonial functions, and time demands may require considerations not accorded any other State official or employee.”

What about bringing Gart?

It’s always fair to question whether some people get better access to the governor than others. Arguably it’s worse if only those who can afford a trip on the state plane can ride with the Governor. From the stand point of the use of public resources, which is the focus of this ethics inquiry, once the governor is taking the plane to an event, the incremental additional cost to the state of more passengers is likely very small – like the additional fuel cost from that much more weight on the plane. On the other hand, it’s obviously a big benefit to Mr. Gart to be able to travel to Telluride without having to buy a private plane ticket. It’s appropriate that he reimbursed the state for the value of the flight to him.

What about bringing his son on the plane?

It’s pretty much the same analysis as for Mr. Gart. It’s not as though the state is a private carrier looking to fill every seat with a ticketed passenger. If the child didn’t come along, the seat would likely have been empty, and the flight would likely have been slightly less expensive for the state, but we are talking very small amounts of money, maybe not even measurable. On the other hand, it’s obviously a great personal benefit for the governor to get some quality time with his son. It’s appropriate that he paid the state back for this.

Does it matter that Hickenlooper and Gart reimbursed the state for the airfare (Hick for his son)?

Of course it matters a great deal. The element of personal financial gain is essential to prove an ethics violation based on misuse of public funds, but if the money is paid back, there is no personal financial gain.

If reimbursement makes a difference, then why didn’t the IEC drop the complaint when Gessler reimbursed (at least partially) his office?

I’m the one who brought the partial repayment to the attention of the IEC and asked them for guidance. It was on May 21, 2013, seven months after we filed the complaint and just a little more than two weeks before the hearing. The Chair, Matt Smith, instructed Ethics Watch and Gessler’s attorneys to get together and see if we could reach an agreement that could be presented to the IEC for approval. That’s not unprecedented – we worked out a stipulation with the Public Trustees Association of Colorado after 32 of their members accepted a free hotel night in Black Hawk that was worth over the gift ban limit. The Trustees agreed to pay the full amount of the fine and the IEC approved the stipulation at a public hearing after making some changes. In this case, Gessler’s attorneys never offered to make the whole hearing go away, and our view was that if we were going to have a hearing, we might as well try the whole case. As it turned out, Gessler was found to have improperly used not only the $1,270 he paid back at the eleventh hour, but more money as well such as the end of year “reimbursement” to himself out of the discretionary fund. So our decision to go to the hearing was vindicated. From the IEC’s point of view, I certainly understand that it would be a bad precedent to allow a public official to spend tens of thousands of dollars of public money on legal fees, only to pay the money back after months of dragging out the process and avoid the fine of double the amount of improper personal gain that is set forth in the state constitution.

Does it make any difference, in terms of how serious the IEC should take this case, that it was filed by a radio host, who could be accused of using the EIC to promote his radio show?

It shouldn’t. The state constitution says “any person” can file a complaint “asking whether” an ethics violation has occurred. If a public official has violated ethics standards, why should it matter who filed the complaint? Personally, I welcome this filing because we at Ethics Watch are often criticized for not filing this or that hypothetical complaint, but none of our critics has ever put their money where their mouth is by actually filing a complaint themselves, which is their right under the state constitution.  For years, we have advocated a less adversarial process at the IEC, where the complaining party is not expected to put on a case like a prosecuting attorney. That would take the focus off the person who filed the complaint and on to what really matters, which is whether an ethics violation has occurred.

Anything else that you want to add?

I’m looking forward to seeing the process unfold. Assuming the Ethics Commission doesn’t simply dismiss the complaint as frivolous, will the Attorney General sign off on outside counsel for the Governor? Will the Governor run up a legal tab anywhere near the $122,000 Scott Gessler’s legal team billed to the state? Will he use public money to ask a court to declare Amendment 41 unconstitutional, as Secretary Gessler has done? It will be interesting to watch.

If you choose staid National Public Radio over the rollicking and squirmy world of conservative talk radio, you may not know about the war brewing over how Republicans would pick a candidate to oppose Senate President John Morse, if a recall election takes place in the peaceful land of El Paso County.

Two Republicans, Jaxine Bubis and Bernie Herpin, want to take on Morse, which leaves inquisitive minds on conservative talk radio to wonder how to choose between the two.

KVOR talk-radio host Jeff Crank, along with Rep. Doug Lamborn, Sheriff Terry Maketa, Laura Carno, and Steve Schuck, signed a letter suggesting that the “duly elected Republican Central Committee of Senate District 11 decide which candidate shall be the best candidate to face the Democrat.”

On KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado Wed., co-hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley discussed the Crank, et al., letter on air, as well as former State Sen. Shawn Mitchell’s Facebook reaction, which included the line that the letter amounted to “the establishment telling the grass roots to get lost.”

Worley said he doesn’t “like the idea of the ‘those-that-be’ coming in with money and choosing who the person is going to be.”

Co-host Ken Clark added that he thought Herpin would “just barely” be a better legislator than Morse.

Clark, who doubles as the Colorado Director of Freedom Works, told listeners that Crank and Colorado GOP Ryan Call refused to help in the Morse recall effort.

Clark: Jaxine Bubis was one of those people who was out there gathering signatures.  She gathered thousands of them herself, on her own. [Bigmedia note: Was she paid like many others?]  Okay?  She was part of that effort.  She was neck-deep in that effort.  She was making phone calls.  She was going door to door.  She was working on the recall effort….

Then you’ve got the Jeff Cranks of the world; you’ve got the Ryan Calls of the world. Everybody starts flooding El Paso County, running down there, going, “Oh! Me, too!  Me, too!  We’re going to put in our candidate.  Now that you guys did all the work, we’re going to put in our candidate.  We’re going to take this thing over, and you are going to vote for ours, because we say so!”

You know what, a lot of people are pissed off about that.  And it’s wrong!  In my opinion, there is no reason why the El Paso Republicans and the Colorado Republicans couldn’t get involved in that recall.  But they didn’t!   And Jeff Hays ran for cover.  He did not help with that recall effort.  Neither did Ryan Call.  So now, if they want to come in and put in their candidate, I’m crying – I’m saying, “Foul!” I’m saying, “Go back home! You didn’t start this!  We will finish it!”  That’s what I’m saying….

Worley:  Where was Jeff Crank?  I realize some of Crank’s allies came in at the last minute to help. understand that.   [Bigmedia note: paying for signature gathering, for example] Great.  Good news.  But the people who got it off the ground did it on their own.  And they didn’t get a whole lot of help.  So, it does kind of look like, “You know what?  You guys did all the heavy lifting.  Now we’ll come in and we’ll grandfather you.  We’ll grant you a candidate who we think can win.”  Now, you know what?  You didn’t get your hands dirty in the first place, so I do have a problem with that.  This is the same thing that pisses people off and gets them out of the Republican Party in the first place.

Clark:  Well, and I can tell you that the candidate that they’re working on, this Bernie Herpin, when he was a city councilman, you know, we’re talking train wreck.  We’re talking Waller.  He’s worse than Waller.  I mean, this guy is the – even the fact that he’s got an “R” next to his name.  My opinion, he was the only guy that said that Jeff Hays and Ryan Call could find out there that was willing to say, “Okay.  I’ll be your stooge….”

Worley:  You know what?  This grandstanding, this paternalism from the Republican Party here in Colorado, sucks!  And you know what?  I’m – for those who know me, they know I’ve been a Republican my whole life.  My grandfather would roll over in his grave if I [inaudible].  But you know what?  I’m damn close!  I am damn close!

The radio show then ended abruptly, and I found myself thinking, maybe these talk radio hosts, Crank, Clark, and Worley, should get together and urge the GOP to just drop the Morse recall campaign. Who knows if they’ll survive it.