I like watching how Tea Party radio plays a role in the care and feeding of radical ideas. Here’s a small example.

This summer, I had a good honest conversation with Ken Clark, co-host of Grassroots Radio Colorado (KLZ 560AM), about what would happen to kids if the state of Colorado required their parents to pay more for their children’s government health insurance.

Clark agreed with me that there’s a risk that some kids’ health would suffer, but he said there are risks with running up more government debt too. (Sen. Greg Brophy has said the same thing.)

Then my on-air conversation with Clark moved to the bigger picture. He talked about how individual generosity, not government, should replace the safety net in America. That’s a theme you hear a lot on conservative talk radio, and often Ayn Rand’s name gets tossed in the mix.

Around the same time I had my conversation with Clark, Rep. Mike Coffman published an op-ed in the Littleton Independent taking a similar stand, but pointing to a place, a model, where the economy is booming in the absence of the economy-killing safety net.

Coffman refers to the China, which he presents as a model free-market economy, saddled unfortunately with political repression.

Here’s what he wrote in the Independent May 22 about a trip he took to China:

Coffman: “No doubt, it felt strange to travel to a country that is the largest holder of U.S. debt, continues to expand its industrial base at the expense of ours, and has enjoyed sustained economic growth based on the free market principles that we have long abandoned in favor of the redistributionist policies of a welfare state. The ruling elite of China are communists in name only but cling to power based solely on an ideology of economic growth that most of the population accepts in exchange for a complete lack of political freedom. The government knows that if they are unable to sustain economic growth then the Chinese people will question their authoritarian rule and unrest will follow. The Chinese are nationalistic in their pride; in only three decades this economic experiment has already lifted a third of their nation out of abject poverty.

Coffman voted for the Ryan budget, which, among other things, phases out Medicare, but this sounds like Coffman wants to go further, to the Grassroots-Radio-Colorado zone, where freedom means the poor and sick and lowly folks rely on donations.

And, lo, who picked up on Coffman’s point in early November? Michele Bachmann! For those of you who haven’t been paying attention to her lately, here’s what she said:

Bachmann: “The ‘Great Society’ has not worked, and it’s put us into the modern welfare state. If you look at China, they don’t have food stamps. If you look at China, they’re in a very different situation. They save for their own retirement security…They don’t have the modern welfare state and China’s growing. And so what I would do is look at the programs that LBJ gave us with the Great Society and they’d be gone.”

Bachmann puts more meat on Coffman’s China concept. No Social Security. No food stamps. No pesky Great Society programs to sink the economy and hold back the poor from thriving.

Now I’m expecting Grassroots Radio Colorado to start talking about the beauty of economic freedom in China, to bring things full circle in the Tea Party echo chamber.

The Chairman of the El Paso County GOP Eli Bremer appearted on Grassroots Radio Colorado Tuesday to disucss various issues roiling El Paso Republicans.

For those of you who’ve been following the story of the El Paso GOP, nothing has changed much there, but El Paso GOP Secretary Sarah Anderson is hoping that an upcoming mediation session among her, Bremer, State GOP Chair Ryan Call, and others will resolve the issues.

A chunk of Tuesday’s segment with Bremer was dedicated to discussing the definition of a “country club Republican.”

Here’s a partial transcript below. You may think as a progressive, I’m just trotting this out with amusement. Yes, there’s some of that, but having voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, I understand why people fight the party establishment, and no one would dispute that Democrats have their own “limousine liberals.” So I think you’ll find this discussion thought provoking no matter where you sit on the political spectrum. And it made for a great radio segment.

The day after this discussion occurred, on the same radio show, Anderson said Bremer himself was a country club Republican.

Bremer: We had a caller [on another radio show] who mentioned country club Republican. And this has been something that, to a certain extent, I’ve scratched my head over for a while and questioned what is it that people are attacking. So there was part of that, but I kind of wanted to get to the root of, who are we attacking as a country club Republican, and so I raised the question, somewhat in jest, would Dagny Taggart, in some people’s minds, be considered a country club Republican.

Now I actually went on to Wikipedia afterwards and looked this up, because it was the best definition, or the only definition I could find, and it said, a country club Republican is an expression emplyed, usually pejoratively, to describe certain members of the United States Republican Party. Some of the characteristics attributed to a country club Republicans are a higher than average income or wealth, a lack of sympathy with the lower income citizens, and liberal views on abortion, gay rights, and other social issues. They are also said to put less emphasis and value on religion and have attended more prestigious colleges than most other Repbublican Party members.

And so I was trying to open up the debate of, what does this actually mean? Are we turning on ourselves in a way we shouldn’t be. And who is it that we are opposed to with these folks? More to open up a debate than anything else.

Jason Worley, Grassroots Radio host (KLZ 560-AM): Then, let me ask you. Is that what you think is a country club Republican, Wikipedia’s definition, because I have my own.

Bremer: This is what I wanted to bring out in the discussion is, what does it actually mean? Because, by that definition, which is the one most people would look to first. When you Google something, that’s what you do in this day and age. By that definition, Dagny Taggart would be a country club Republican. But I don’t think that’s how a log of people are using it. But I do think there is so much confusion out there that we in the conservative and Liberty movements could potentially  run the risk of running into class warfare as opposed to saying, you know what we want, whether you are a high earner, a medium earner, or a low earner, we want government to get the heck off our backs and get out of our way.

Worley: …If you honestly just think the government to get out of our way, I’m kind of surprised at some of the people who come out of El Paso County. But let me just say, a country club Republican is someone who votes Democrat most of the time because they’ve made their money. They are all for the kind of corporate welfare or government schemes…You know what, they don’t care if they have to pay slightly higher taxes. Thatt’s not a big deal to them. What they care about is they have their position, and pretty much to hell with everybody else.

Bremer: Well, I think that’s a valid critique. I don’t think it’s the most common colloquial definition that the average person would know. Because the average person would go Google it, and see what’s out there. And, again, I’d agree with you on that. Republicans who are out there pushing for bigger government are bad Republicans. I’m totally with you on that. But one of the concerns I have, is are we looking at people like the Dagny Taggarts and saying if you are out there and you run a big business, and you’re successful, and you’re putting hundreds of thousands of people to work, you must be somehow bad. I don’t agree with that. I think the people who are out there leading industry and providing goods and services. They are good people. So long as they are in agreement with us that want less governmentr and they want the freedom to do what they want with their business.

Worley: That I would agree with…but when you talk about big-government Republicans, it seems to me that we’ve got some of those coming out of El Paso County in the form of Rep. Amy Stephens putting SB 200 down our throat. …

Bremer: The less confusing term would then be big-government Republicans, as opposed to country club Republicans. Because what my concern is, is that it’s fair game, and one of the best things that’s come out of the Liberty Movement and Tea Party, is to hold Republicans’ feet to the fire and say, you all should be for smaller and more efficient government. But what I’ve seen ocassionally, and what I don’t want to see this converted into, is class warfare, saying if you’re a country-club Republican, you have a lot of money, you drive a nice car, you live in a nice house, somehow you’re a bad person because of this.

Worley: Eli, I can guarantee you that nobody in the Liberty movement or Tea Party is making that argument…. We have a problem with Romneys of the world…

Bremer: If you guys got Internet, I just pulled it up on my Blackberry, Google country club Repbublican and one of the first hits you are going to get is an accusation that Rand Paul is a country club Republican, which, again, the term is not being used in the same way, and you can see the damage that can be done by a term being misunderstood. Look no further than Congressman Lamborn and I think he would tell you how destructive that can be at times. My point was to bring up the discussion of what we stand for. And I think we stand for less government. We stand for people going out and being entrepreneurs, creating jobs, creating goods and services that don’t exist and doing it without the help of the government. And if you Google country club Republican, which I think most people would do, that’s the definition you’re going to find of a country club Republican. So i think it’s important maybe to change the lingo or to make sure people get it because the average person who hears it thinks if you belong to a country club, or if you’re a fiscal conservative, and that’s your point for being in the Republican Party, you’re somehow a bad Republican.

Worley: And let me be very clear why the term country club Republican has been used by the Liberty Movement. It is because the old school Republicans who don’t want new players in the field, like the anarchists, out there…You have a Representative, Larry Liston. I stood within 10 feet of Larry Liston and heard him put down as losers who shouldn’t take part in the Party, and I am paraphrasing. Now that’s a Republican? That’s a Republican at an Independence Institute event? Seriously Eli…I’m getting worked up here because this is a straw man..

Bremer: I would agree with you. I think the whole idea of a country club Republican is a bit of a straw man. And that’s my concern. I am totally with you, big government Republicans are bad folks to have out there.

Worley: Then why are we going after people who attack big-government Republicanism within the El Paso Country Republican Party?

Bremer: We’re not. The short answer is, we’re not. The long answer is, I view, and many others view, that the party’s job, and  that I as the head of the Party, and that the party establishment, should not be out there as an unaccountable arbiter of ideology. You know, dictatorships seem like a great idea when you first set them up. If you set up Mother Theresa as a dictator, 30 years later you’re going to come back and people are getting their heads cut off. …

In an old column for the Rocky, I asked KOA radio-host Mike Rosen about his oft-repeated opinion that The Denver Post has a “liberal bias on its news page.”

Can Rosen cite a study to prove this?

“I’d love to see one,” he said at the time. “I’m never going to have a study because I don’t have the time.” But he had no doubt about the leftward tilt of The Post, he told me, because he’s “documented dozens and dozens of incidents over 25 years.”

That’s the kind of thing conservatives, who go on about “liberal media bias,” tell you when you ask for proof.

The media is biased because they say so.

Lefties make the same undocumented claims about “conservative bias” in the media, I know, but not quite so often or loudly, it seems.

But, to be fair, a lot of lefties and righties don’t seem to understand that sweeping allegations of media “bias” can only be proven with in-depth studies that show a pattern of lapses over time. Not to mention the fact that bias implies a conscious effort to skew you, the reader. So it’s a tall task to prove bias, unless you just assert it because you think highly of yourself.

Good media criticism, which contributes to meaningful public debate and doesn’t mindlessly tear down professional journalism, focuses on specific stories or instances of coverage that we can debate and get our arms around. It points out inaccuracies, omissions, sloppy sourcing, unfairness, and the like, found in actual coverage in an actual news outlet, not alleged stories out there in the “media.”

Statements like the media is biased against “people who believe in smaller government” don’t fall in the category of good media criticism, and are pretty dumb, destructive, useless, and otherwise not befitting of a member of the media or a public figure.

Enter Grassroots Radio Colorado host Jason Worley and Rep. Cory Gardner.

They had the following cozy exchange about the media Thursday on KLZ AM 560, which airs Worley’s (and Ed Clark’s) Tea Party radio show from 5 p.m. t0 7 p.m. weekdays.

Gardner: The press likes to blame the Tea Party for a lot of things, because there’s a bias in the media against people who believe in smaller government.

Worley: You mean people like us.

Gardner: People like us.

I called Gardner’s office to ask what he meant by this but did not get a response yet. Does he really think the media are biased against him?

But Worley quickly answered my request for proof of the bias he and Gardner were upset about:

Worley: I think it’s pretty obvious.  Cutting government can mean a lot of things, but why does the media always run to Social Security and Medicare.  Why not stop all foreign aid, especially to our enemies.  Why not tell the U.N. that instead of America funding 23% of its budget we are going to fund 2%.  The media never seems to mention that the Dept of Energy was created to get the US away from importing oil.  Why do they still exist? There is a ton of waste in Cabinet level depts, but that never is brought up. I will back off on the media bias when they take an honest look at what we are spending and lay off the scare tactics.

Salzman: There are huge generalizations about the news media. Can you cite a report or study to support your view that the media “always run to Social Security and Medicare?

Worley: Turn on ABC, CBS, NBC during the evening news and study.  Do you need a study to be intellectually honest?

If you’re going to throw around the word “bias,” you do. To criticize the media, you should use facts, evidence, proof, and examples of the kind of coverage you’re talking about.

These things allow people to communicate in a meaningful way.

The conservative talk-radio world erupted in anger a few weeks ago, when Gov. John Hickenlooper vetoed a bill that would have required families near the poverty level to pay more for state-subsidized health insurance for their kids.

On KLZ’s “Grassroots Radio Colorado” June 1, Rep. Brian DelGrosso told hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley that families need to “have some kind of skin in the game.”

On Regis University Radio’s (KRCX) “Seng Center” June 2, state Rep. Kathleen Conti told host Jimmy Sengenberger: “It’s my experience, especially as a parent, that if people don’t have any investment, they don’t appreciate what they have.”

On the same show, Conti’s colleague Rep. Robert Ramirez added that it’s “not a big deal” to ask families earning between 205 and 250 percent of the poverty level, making $45,000 to $55,000 per year, to pay between $240 and $600 per year for health insurance, as stipulated by the bill vetoed by Hick.

But the talk-show hosts didn’t ask a question that might keep you up at night if you had to vote on the bill:

What if families are required to pay more for their children’s health insurance, and they don’t pay?

And what if, as a result of not ponying up, they don’t take their kids to the doctor for checkups and something goes wrong? And their kids, not their parents, ultimately pay the price?

On the radio, DelGrosso said he thinks families making about $55,000 per year have enough money to pay more for their kids’ health insurance. “…They are not taking trips to Mexico on that, probably,” he said. “But quite frankly, they are not living in a cardboard box on the side of the road either.”

DelGrosso is partially right here.

The Colorado State Legislature’s bipartisan staff, in its fiscal analysis of the bill vetoed by Hickenlooper, estimated that 80 percent would pay the higher premiums. And a report by the Colorado Center on Law and Poverty shows that half or more of the families in question have some disposable income.

But what about the half who don’t? And what about that pesky 20 percent?  The state’s fiscal analysis assumed that 20 percent of kids in families from this income group  would drop off the health insurance rolls.

On KLZ radio, DelGrosso questioned the 20 percent drop-off figure, saying it wasn’t based on a study of what happens to kids from families making 206 to 250 percent of the poverty level.

“So they were seeing a 20 percent drop off with the very low income,” DelGrosso told Worley. “But it wasn’t a true apples to apples. It wasn’t people making $50,000 a year, are we going to really see a 20 percent drop off. So even some of their statistics are wrong.”

I called Joint Budget Committed Fiscal Analyst Melodie Beck, who arrived at the 20 percent figure, to find out if DelGrosso was right.

Turns out, he was.

“Different states and different studies have shown different rates of drop off,” Beck told me. “There wasn’t an apples-to-apples study. We honestly don’t know for sure. In my professional judgment, we picked a fair and defensible assumption of 20 percent based on the available studies. But there is uncertainly. You could have differing opinions.”

She told me she believes one thing is certain. Some parents will drop their kids’ health insurance. 

“There’s going to be a drop off, whether 20% is correct drop off, maybe not. Maybe it’s 10 percent. Maybe it’s 25 percent. Maybe it’s 30 percent.”

So this gets back to the unasked question. How do legislators like DelGrosso, Conti, and Ramirez feel about the children who are going to lose their health insurance if Colorado makes families pay more?

I decided I’d do Jimmy Sengenberger’s job for him and call Ramirez myself to find out what he thinks.

““The bad parent, it’s still their responsibility to take care of their kids,” he told me, adding: “If there are parents who aren’t going to take care of their kids, Jason, that’s where child services comes into play.” (Back in March, Sen. Greg Brophy suggested foster care for kids in this situation.)

Is he concerned that this approach puts kids at risk?

“When you’re talking about risk, I keep hearing, we need to take care of our children,” Ramirez replied. “Not true. We need to make sure that people having children are being responsible. And that’s where social services comes in.”

Ramirez, who points out that uninsured children still have treatment options in America, told me he wants to lessen risk to kids in the long run by addressing the financial problems now.

“I think it [the bill Hickenlooper vetoed] was the right thing to do to save the program. Let’s save the program and pass on some of the costs, because we don’t have the money to run it.  And with the increase in Medicaid, it just killed us all the way around.”

Overall, he said: “I accept the responsibility that as a community we should watch out for people and help people when we can as a community. That’s what churches and charities are for. That’s where I give my time and money. I’m involved in several organizations. That is not a function of government. It is not constitutional.”

Sengenberger, along with Clark, Rosen, and other conservative talkers, should really start asking their guests about the risks of dismantling government programs. This might add more spice to the shows.

KLZ’s Worley, for example, told me via email:

BTW, the endgame on this is that if parents don’t take care of their kids they go to jail.  We have laws against child abuse.  But unless you want to put a govt monitor in every house there is no easy answer.

It seems Worley’s guests are thinking along the same lines, but Worley and his counterparts should do us and their ratings a favor and talk about it.

It’s one thing for Tea Party talk-radio hosts to assault my ear drums with noise about the federal budget deficit. I can handle that.

But my head starts to spin when they say Colorado has a budget deficit, forgetting the small detail that we have a state constitution that specifically disallows deficit spending.

Last week (5/17), for example, the angry guys on KLZ’s Grassrooots Colorado (560 AM, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m.) stated:

Co-host Ken Clark: The state of Wisconsin has a budget deficit. Until Walker took over they were running a budget deficit. Same is true for California. Same is true for Colorado. Same is true for New York. Probably better than 30-40 states are running a budget deficit. There are a very few that are in the black.

Co-host Jason Worley: I think there are between three and five that are in the black.

Actually, a majority of states are in the black, like CO.

So I emailed Worley to ask that he correct his erroneous statement on his next show.

“I’m gonna run with facts as I research them,” he replied via email. “Given, we adjusted spending, but see attached.  Also Tell Sen Heath we don’t have a deficit.”

He sent me a link showing that Colorado and other states have projected deficits but failing to prove his point that Colorado  is actually running a deficit.

I pointed this out to Worly in an email, and he responded:

I noted on the show yesterday that we said budget deficit, not deficit spending.  I get the subtle difference, but it should be noted that if revenue changes in a negative direction all that work means nothing.  We will be more precise in the words we choose.

On the air, Worley said he got a “fact-check” email from me noting that Colorado is not “deficit spending” and that he replied to me by saying, “no, we have a budget deficit; I understand the structural differences between the two, thank you.”

Not exactly the correction and explanation you’d want, but it’s something. I’m waiting for Worley and Clark’s on-air explanation of projected versus actual spending at the state level.

The elected Secretary of the El Paso Republican Party said her inappropriate remarks to a reporter in March led to last week’s passage of a Republican resolution suggesting that GOP officers from El Paso County not criticize elected Republicans.

The Secretary, Sarah Anderson, told Grassroots Radio Colorado host Jason Worley yesterday that she regrets telling The Colorado Springs Gazette in March that some Republicans were calling Rep. Amy Stephens’ health-insurance exchange bill “Colorado’s presecription for federal crack addiction,” as well as the relatively mild moniker,  “Amycare.”

“That’s what started this,” she told Worley.

Anderson said she later apoligized to Stephens for her comments to the Gazette, and she agreed with Worley that it was a mistake to make those statements to a newspaper reporter who identified Anderson as the “secretary of the El Paso County GOP.” She said she never took a stand using her title again.

But Anderson argued on the radio that she does not think her position as an officer of the El Paso GOP should preclude her from speaking out against health-insurance exchanges, for example.

It would have been interesting if Worley had asked Anderson if she thinks the El Paso County GOP should pass a reverse resolution, if you will, suggesting that elected Republicans not criticize elected GOP officers.

Such a resolution might have stopped Stephens from telling the Colorado Springs Gazette that the uproar over her health-insurance bill was caused, in part, by “anarchists.”

The Gazette: Why do you think there’s been such an uproar from part of the conservative community and the Tea Party?

Stephens: Let’s be clear—it’s not the conservatives. I’d say it’s more libertarians, and other people I view as anarchists, some people in the Tea Party and the 9/12 group. I think there are numerous factors. There’s not one answer.”

Activists mocked Stephens for this remark.

For example, here’s what Mike Krause of the Independence Institute said about it Monday on Grassroots Radio Colorado:

Worley: Oh wait, Mike are you an anarchist?

Krause: Oh no, that’s you guys.

Clark: You’re not going to stand with us brothers in arms in anarchy.

Worley: Independence Institute didn’t back up SB 200, so you must be an anarchist.

Krause:  It’s interesting, and I’ve been listening to you guys talking about this. It’s interesting to us. Let me tell you how we view this. We’ve worked with Amy Stephens in the past and we assume we will again in the future. We are simply having a policy disagreement over this SB200, and so for us, it’s simply principle over politics. We assume we’ll get past it…but I guess we fall in the anarchy wing as much as… look, if you guys are anarchists, you know what, we’re just going to put on black masks with you and go break some windows and burn some stuff.

… Hopefully everyone can make up and move forward, but we’ll see what happens.

UPDATE: Ryan Call, Chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, responded to my request for a comment on the topic of this blog post. His response, in its entirety, follows:

I believe Sarah is a bright, talented young individual who has a great deal to offer the Republican Party in a leadership capacity. Her duties and role as a County Party officer are different than an activist or volunteer, or even as other members of her county’s Executive Board. Her elected Party leadership role as an officer includes certain important obligations and duties to her fellow officers, to her County Party Executive Board, and to the Republican Party’s elected officials, candidates and prospective candidates. Like an officer within any organization, her first duty is to that organization and to furthering the mission of the organization, which for the Republican Party is helping to elect Republican candidates, supporting Republican elected officials, and advancing Republican principles and our philosophy of government.

As an example, it would be entirely inappropriate for Mike McCoy, the Denver Bronco’s offensive coordinator and assistant coach, to hold a press conference or issue a statement that is critical of head coach John Fox or takes shots at Kyle Orton, the team’s designated starting quarterback. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for a corporate officer to issue statements or take a position that is contrary to the expressed decisions of the corporate board of directors or the company’s president.

It’s perfectly appropriate for a county party officer to express contrary positions, or engage in rigorous debate on issues and discussion on the best way to advance the Republican Party’s agenda within the Party, or to privately express his or her views and suggestions to elected officials on matters of policy or legislation at anytime—in fact, the Republican Party encourages such debate and discussion. But once a decision on a matter of policy or approach has been made by that county party’s Executive Board following such debate and discussion, it is every county party officer’s duty and obligation to faithfully implement the decision made by the group as a whole.

I have had a couple of conversations with Sarah regarding her duties as a county party officer, but at no time did I tell her to resign, nor will I. I shared with her that as a party officer, when expressing herself publicly she is not just representing herself but also the EL Paso County Republican Party. As such, I expressed my opinion that as an elected officer she has certain obligations to her county party members, fellow officers, and to the Party’s elected officials and candidates, and suggested that if she does not feel she can separate her personal opinions from her role as a County Party Secretary than she should consider resigning her position as a Party officer and thereby be free to speak out and be an advocate for whatever issues or causes, or for or against whatever candidates or Republican officeholders, she felt was most appropriate, free of the duty of loyalty and obligatory support that is a necessary corollary to official Party leadership.

Republican Party district captains, precinct leaders, volunteers, activists, and all Republican voters all should be encouraged to actively be involved in the debate and discussion of ideas within our Party, and in the discussion of how best to advance our Republican principles and ideas, and are free to support (or oppose) their candidates of choice. Dissent, discussion, and debate is not stifled within our Party – it is encouraged.

But the roles and duties of Republican Party officers are somewhat different; I am hopeful that Sarah will come to recognize that, and will choose to continue to faithfully serve as Secretary of the El Paso County Republican Party.

_________________

You know a talk radio show is hitting its stride when it starts breaking news bits.

That’s what Colorado’s flagship Tea Party talk-radio show, Grassroots Radio Colorado, did yesterday. Maybe no one but the Tea-Party ground troops heard the news bit, but it was still newsbitworthy.

Hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley had El Paso County Republican Party Secretary Sarah Anderson on the show to talk more about the El Paso GOP’s resolution suggesting that party officers should not criticize elected Republicans.

On Grassroots Radio last week, Anderson had agreed with Clark, when he said the resolution was intended to shut up GOP activists, like Anderson.

Over the weekend, Anderson said, Colorado Republican State Chair Ryan Call told her her to “strongly consider” resigning as Secretary, because of her opposition to the resolution.

“Interesting enough, over the weekend, I had it suggested to me that I strongly consider resignation, and I want to say right now that I will not be resigning,” Anderson told Clark and Worley.

“It was suggested to me by a couple different people, most prominently by our State Party Chairman, Ryan Call,” she said. “I do want to stress I was asked to strongly consider it. I was not asked to resign, but I was asked to strongly consider it.”

“I’m irate right now,” Worley said to Anderson after she told him about Call’s suggestion, and he said he was texting Call immediately to find out more about it. On the radio, Worley inaccurately describes the El Paso resolution as a “gag order.”

Call did not immediately return my phone message or email seeking his side of the story. I’ll update this blog post if he responds.

If true, Call’s intervention could be an indicator of how he plans to conduct himself as GOP State Chair, settling disputes by pushing troublemakers like Anderson out of leadership positions instead of trying to bring factions of the party to the table to compromise.

Of course, there may be more to the story than meets the eye. Anderson may have acted in a way unbecoming to the elected office of the Secretary of the El Paso County Republican Party. I’ll try to reach Call and possibly others to find out.

Meanwhile, listening to Anderson talk to Clark and Worley, it sound like Call’s alleged attack hasn’t stopped her from speaking out.

Anderson told the radio audience that El Paso Republicans were trying to enforce the nonbinding resolution asking that party officers not criticize elected Republicans, even though it passed (by a vote of 13 to 3) as a suggestion, not a mandate. And so, she announced, she would continue to speak out.

“I don’t start fights, but I also don’t back down from them when others start them….” Anderson said.

“They want us to shut up and go away,” she said. “The problem is, I know very well, I’ve been involved in politics for a long time, way too long for my age, and we have to stand strong, and we cannot back down.”

“To me this is not about people. I’ve been accused of being other people’s enemy, such as [El Paso Country Republican Party President] Eli [Bremer]. And I don’t. This isn’t a battle about people. It’s a battle about ideas. My enemy, if we’re going to call it that, is the ideology that insulates and protects power in elected officials at all costs. I have to stand for principle. And you have, unfortunately, to pick a side in this. This is now a public battle. Are you going to stand for a Republican Party that stands on principle or are you going to stand for a Republican Party that protects and insulates power. It’s power versus principle. It’s that simple.”

To which one of the hosts replied, “Well, you know, I appreciate that stance because that’s the exact same stance we share here at Grassroots Radio and throughout all the Liberty groups in the state of Colorado.  When we see something wrong, we are going to call you on it.”

The hosts announced that El Paso Chair Bremer was scheduled to be on the radio show, but had to cancel at the last minute. But he promised to appear on the show at a later date, they said.

People on the left tend to lump all “conservative talk radio” in the same category. Hate-filled, ill-informed, contrived.

That’s not the case at all. The shows differ a lot from one another. Some are filled with passion and authenticity. Others, ironically, bring the Politburo or psychedelic drugs to mind.

Some hosts like Republican insider Dan Caplis stick like epoxy to GOP talking points and others, like Tea Partiers Jason Worley and Ken Clark of “Grassroots Radio Colorado” could care less about partisanship, so their show is almost always raw. That’s really the best word for it. And interesting.

Before tuning in, I like to to predict which Republicans (and Democrats) Clark and Worley will be going after on their show on any given day, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 560 KLZ AM.

So it’s not surprising that Clark was incensed (not in my preferred patchouli way) about the El Paso County Republicans May 2 resolution recommending that party officers refrain from criticizing elected Republicans.

Clark had Sarah Anderson, who’s the Secretary of the El Paso Country Republican Party, on his radio show (560 KLZ AM) May 4 to air out his feelings on the topic:

Clark: So basically what they want you to do is be good little soldiers for the Republican Party. They want to pat you on the head, put you in the back of the bus, and say, shut up, sit down, and do what we tell you. Is that right?

Anderson: Absolutely.

Anderson later pointed out that the resolution, which passed 13-3 in a secret ballot, wasn’t mandatory, just a suggestion.

Still, Clark is entitled to his view, even if the sponsor of the resolution, Bob Denny, told me last week he wasn’t trying to stifle debate.

But Clark’s co-host on Grassroots Radio Colorado, Kanda Calef, who was substituting for Jason Worley, went overboard when she accused progressives of acting like the El Paso Republicans:

Calef: This is very progressive thinking, if I may say so. This is what the left does. They try to stop people from speaking their mind.

Calef was identified by Clark as the radio show’s “researcher,” but she offered no research to back up this claim. As a self-proclaimed progressive, who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and later repented, I don’t know what Calef was talking about.

So I called the Colorado Democratic Party to find out if it tries to button up its county officers.

“No, we don’t have anything coming close to broaching that subject,” new Communications Director Matt Inveo told me.

I’m trying to reach Calef, to find her examples of “progressives” acting like the El Paso Country Republicans, and I’ll report her answer later, I hope.

Listening to Clark, you get the feeling his un-Patchouli-like response to the El Paso resolution had a subterranean aspect to it. Like, maybe, there were some issues there, some other experiences with the Colorado GOP trying to shut up him or his allies?

Clark said on the radio: That [the El Paso GOP resolution] is not the only place things like this are happening, I can assure you.

Anderson told Clark: “The bylaws of the El Paso County Republican Party do prevent any officers or members of the executive committee from taking sides in primaries. And that’s always been the case, from my understanding, or certainly has been for quite some time. But it’s never precluded people from addressing issues or even specific legislators during session.”

But is there more than this? I called Worley to find out.

“We talked to people in other GOP counties, and there’s rumblings of stifling debate,” Worley told me today.

As for the Democrats, Inveo told me:

Anytime there is a contested Democratic primary, an office holder within the party cannot use his or her party title in making an endorsement. The party is required to provide the same services to all candidates.

CORRECTION: In an early version of this post, I attributed quotes to Worley that should have been attributed to Clark. Sorry for the error, which I corrected in the text.

The El Paso County Republican Party executive committee passed a measure last night recommending, but not mandating, that party officers refrain from criticizing elected Republicans.

ReclaimTheBlue blogger Al Maurer broke the story that a resolution was introduced by Republican Bob Denny “on behalf of Rep. Amy Stephens” and was “designed to stifle opposition to SB-200.” HB 200, which cleared the Colorado House today by a 44-21 vote, establishes health insurance exchanges and has been opposed by Tea Party organizations, while supported by business organizations.

Denny, who represents HD-20 on the El Paso County Republican Party executive committee, told me today that Stephens asked him to bring it up, but he did not introduce the measure on her behalf.

“It was precipitated by SB 200, but the issue was broader than that,” Denny said. “She was concerned about it, and I introduced the measure in general terms.”

Denny declined to say who helped draft the resolution.

“Not that we don’t have freedom of speech, but as party officers, when you’re talking to the press or sending a mass email or something, you shouldn’t undermine party elected officials,” he said. “Party officers don’t agree with everything all the time, but we should at least be neutral.”

“The purpose of our officers is to get Republicans into office, and not undermine the work of those we sent to Denver,” Denny said, adding that there’s no way a resolution like this could stifle debate on SB-200 or other issues people care about.

Denny said it wasn’t practical for a party officer to broadcast personal opinions, for example to reporters, outside of his or her role as a party officer, because the party officer would inevitably be seen as representing the Republican Party.

“I was in the Air Force,” he said. “When you put a uniform on and you start talking, you were seen a representing the Air Force. You might say, I’m speaking for myself, but the press are going to pick you up as representing the Air Force.”

The resolution, which Denny said was a recommendation to the GOP central committee, passed after amendments were added, among which was changing “shall” to “should,” specifying that no mandate was passed, only guidance to party officers.

Maurer wrote on his blog post, which was titled, “Stifling Debate in the El Paso County GOP:”

In the end, cooler heads prevailed, and the measure passed with amendments that made it clear that county officers should remain neutral but were not absolutely prevented from speaking out. A big thanks is due to those on the committee who, while recognizing the need for civility in discourse and party discipline and unity, also balanced that with concerns for free speech and reasoned, open debate. You can read the measure for yourself, with my handwritten edits, here.

But watch what you write on Facebook, Twitter or your blog–all mentioned specifically in the measure–Big Sis is watching. Clearly name-calling and personal attacks are simply rude and uncalled for, but no one in public office should have a problem with honest disagreements on policy. We’re not Democrats after all.