Archive for the 'KFKA radio in Greeley' Category

Gardner’s attack on Udall for supporting Senate immigration bill is part of immigration spin cycle

Tuesday, July 29th, 2014

Senatorial candidate Cory Gardner has been hitting the radio airwaves recently with his thoughts on immigration, and I’ve discerned a pattern, nothing too complex, but a pattern nonetheless:

Start with point number one here: 1. Sound like you’re for immigration reform. 2. Attack others for immigration-reform failures. 3. Sound like you have an actual factual immigration-reform plan, when, in fact, you have nothing specific to offer. 4. Go back to point number 1.

Here’s how it works in action, as delivered during a Hot Air interview July 26, so real reporters can be prepared, if they interview Gardner on immigration.

Gardner: We have a humanitarian crisis at our Southern border that underscores the broader need for responsible immigration reform.

[That's point one: He's sounding like he wants rational reform.]

Gardner: My opponent, Senator Udall, voted in favor of the Senate legislation that the Congressional Budget Office estimates would decrease illegal immigration by as little as 33%. Our current problems require long-term reform, not short-term Washington fixes.

[Point two: He's blaming others. And, by the way, the bill would cut illegal immigration by 33-50 percent.]

Gardner: I believe we should move forward with an immigration policy that prioritizes border security, and that includes a viable guest-worker program that capitalizes on the benefits of legal immigration to this country.

[Pont three and four: He's sounding like he has a plan. But where is it? Judging from his utterances, you'd think he supports the bipartisan Senate bill, which he's just slammed Udall for supporting. What does Gardner support?

In another recent interview, on KFKA's Amy Oliver show, Gardner rattled off his immigration spin cycle in a slightly different order, but the points were there.

Gardner, sounding like he's for immigration reform: "First we have to have Senate, House, and president working together to solve these problems."

Gardner blaming others: "We have the Senate saying, 'Our way or the highway." This is the bill. They refuse to work with the House, saying this is the only thing we can have. We have certain members of the House, including Republicans, who are refusing to work with Democrats, and that’s unacceptable. And we have a president who just wants to blame people.

Gardner sounding like he has a plan: "And I think we have to have people willing to work together to work with our neighbors to make sure we put policies in place that don't end up with them sending family loved ones to have this horrible journey because the conditions in their country are so bad."

Similarly, back in February, Gardner said:

Gardner: I think there is need for reform [point one], but the bottom line is the President has to show a willingness to make sure that the law is enforced and to be able to work with Congress. And really, it’s unfortunate that the fact, this president put no effort into building relationships with Congress over the past four years on either side of the aisle. It’s really starting to hurt his policy efforts now.

So the  pattern is pretty obvious, but the question is, will Gardner be challenged, even by talk-radio hosts, when he tries to roll it out?

Radio-hosts should have pointed out that Gardner’s abortion position is more like Buck’s than Schaffer’s

Monday, April 7th, 2014

In a blog post Friday, I tipped my hat to a Greeley talk-radio show for being the first media outlet to report that Cory Gardner’s new position on abortion, in the wake of his un-endorsement of the personhood amendment, aligns with dogmatic religious views against abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

But KFKA hosts Tom Lucero and Devon Lentz let me down by not questioning Gardner when he told them he holds the same position on abortion as “many pro-lifers in Colorado, including Congressman Bob Schaffer.”

But Bob Schaffer never endorsed the personhood initiative at all, much less collected signatures for it. Personhood leaders would never have called Schaffer one of their “main supporters.”

In Congress, Schaffer never co-sponsored federal personhood legislation, which would have banned all abortion, even for rape and incest, like Gardner did less than a year ago.

You can bet Schaffer never sent a constituent a letter saying, “Throughout my life, I’ve been committed to protecting human life, beginning at conception.” Gardner wrote this just last month.

So, actually, Gardner’s abortion position is significantly to the right of Schaffer’s, which obviously carries serious political baggage for Gardner, as Lucero and Lentz should have pointed out.

On abortion policy and politics, Gardner is much more like Ken Buck. Afrwe being an enthusiastic supporter of the personhood amendment, Buck un-endorsed the measure in much the same way Gardner did,  saying he still supported it “as a concept” but he hadn’t fully understand it. Gardner, you recall, said the personhood initiative was motivated by “good intentions.”

Buck’s flip did nothing to stop him from, arguably, losing the election due to his position on women’s issues. Schaffer would neither have been as vulnerable as Buck was nor as vulnerable as Gardner remains.

These are the issues that should be raised, if Gardner continues to downplay his personhood flip flop by comparing himself to Schaffer.

Talk-radio scoop: Gardner says his abortion position is same as Archbishop Chaput

Friday, April 4th, 2014

When Rep. Cory Gardner dumped his longstanding support of the Personhood amendment two weeks ago, reporters failed to tell us about Gardner’s new position on abortion.

It turns out, Gardner now holds the same abortion stance as Archbishop Charles Chaput, who left Denver for a Vatican post in Philadelphia in 2011.

That’s what Gardner told KFKA (Greeley) talk-show hosts Tom Lucero and Devon Lentz March 27. They get the intrepid-talk-show-host prize for being the first to ask Gardner the logical follow up to his March 21 bombshell about ditching personhood:

LUCERO:  So, Cory, has your position on life changed, or just your position on – with regards to the Personhood initiative?

GARDNER:  Yeah.  I mean, if you look at my record, it still is a pro-life record.  And many pro-lifers in Colorado, including Congressman Bob Schaffer, the Archbishop Chaput of the Catholic Diocese, hold the same position.

LENTZ:  So, it’s really, it’s more along the lines, if I’m understanding correctly, on what contraception is available for women, not – not abortion — for being abortion– it’s just more having the choice of birth control itself.

GARDNER:  Well, that’s one of the consequences that we looked at in terms of contraception, but this issue [personhood] is, I think, a settled issue in Colorado and something that pro-lifers – you know, like I respect peoples’ difference of opinion on this, and I think there are a lot of differences of opinions on this, but I happen to agree that, with the things that I have learned, that I did something that was the right position to take.

https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/gardner-says-his-abortion

So what does this tell us about Gardner’s newly minted abortion views?

The Vatican, along with Catholic Bishops, like Chaput, support the personhood concept, with life beginning at conception. They oppose all abortion, even for rape and incest.

But, as Gardner said, Chaput did not back the personhood amendment. I couldn’t find Chaput’s specific explanation for his opposition to the personhood initiative.

A decade ago, Chaput himself wrote, in describing church teachings, that Roe v. Wade is a “poorly reasoned mistake” and “abortion is wrong in all cases, even rape and incest.” (News Release, “CFJ: Many See the Anti-Religious Implications of Dem Questions on Pryor,” July 3, 2003″).

Vatican watchers will undoubtedly recall that Chaput directed Catholics to vote according to their faith, and he called abortion a “foundational issue” that’s not open to debate.

On his “AM Colorado” show last week, Lucero also asked Gardner for “a little more insight” into his decision to abandon personhood:

LUCERO: You got a little bit of heat this last week in an interview you had with The Denver Post. Give our listeners a little more insight into what you were trying to tell them over at The Denver Post. 

GARDNER:  Well, you know, if you look at my position as a pro-life member of Congress, if you look what we did four years ago during the 2009, 2010 run up to the election [inaudible] the number of initiatives on the ballot, I had stated then that I supported an initiative known as the Personhood initiative.  But since that time, I have done a lot of work, done a lot of studying, and learned that that is actually something that many pro-lifers agree, could ban contraception and is a step back for the pro-life effort.  And I believe the voters of Colorado have spoken –that they said ‘no’ to this on multiple occasions, and we ought to be working together on common goals that we can achieve, instead of fighting over a separate issue.

https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/rep-cory-gardner-explains-why

Interestingly, in August, before Gardner flipped on personhood, former CO Republican Chair Dick Wadhams cited Chaput as a model for a GOP candidate–as someone who is both “pro-life” but anti-personhood amendment. Wadhams said at the time that a pro-life candidate who embraces the personhood amendment can’t win in a statewide election.

Media omission: Conservative talk-radio host gets all excited about critique of Republican Senate candidate

Monday, December 16th, 2013

KFKA talk-radio host Amy Oliver urged Republicans last week to read a Facebook post by former State Senator Shawn Mitchell, in which Mitchell wrote that he’s “somewhere between distressed and appalled that GOP luminaries think it’s a good idea for [Rep. Amy Stephens] to bear the party’s standard into a campaign for federal office in 2014.”

Stephens is one of six GOP candidates vying to take on Democratic Sen. Mark Udall next year.  Also running are Tea Party favorite and recycled Senate candidate Ken Buck, mustachioed state Senator Randy Baumgardner from northwestern Colorado’s District 8, state Senator from El Paso County Owen Hill, as well as Jamie McMillan and Tom Janich.

Oliver, who doubles as a staffer for the libertarian Independence Institute, was really excited about Mitchell’s Dec. 9 Facebook post, telling listeners that “the entry of Amy Stephens in the race, and some of the subsequent endorsements that she has received, have got conservatives saying privately what Shawn Mitchell put out publicly.”

Oliver dedicated two segments of Tuesday’s show to the Facebook post, pouring over Mitchell’s writing, like you might read a religious text, slowly and respectfully analyzing it in loving detail, re-reading portions of it, pausing, and building up to what she called one of Mitchell’s “most important lessons:”

Mitchell: “Pushing Amy Stephens to the nomination will guarantee bitter debate and resentment that demoralizes the base, escalates recrimination, and urging toward party fracture, and accelerates the GOP’s recent death wish to impersonate the Whigs.

And that speaks only of the primary. If the elders and donors can carry her across the line to the nomination, what exactly do you think the Media Democrat team will do to the former employee of Focus on the Family, the co-architect of the infamous end-of session civil-buster, that killed dozens of bills on the calendar, in order to block a vote on civil unions? Whatever the merits of that move, it will be blood in the water come October. And it will be just about the only thing that unpolitical, tv-watching Coloradans ever hear about Amy Stephens.”

Oliver accurately provided context, pointing out that Mitchell’s post, which has amassed 264 comments on Facebook, states that Stephens is not a “bad Republican,” but she agreed with Mitchell’s view:

Mitchell: “In sponsoring SB-200, the Obamacare exchange, Amy Stephens bet wrong in a big way on a defining, existential battle, perhaps the biggest of the decade, maybe in our lifetime. She sided with party appeasers and corporate accomodationists against a vital, surging grass roots movement for liberty and smaller government. Even at the time she made her bet, the picture was murky, and ambitious politicians could be forgiven for being uncertain. (Once upon a time, it took me days to sort out right from wrong when Referendum C’s assault on TABOR was put before the people.).”

“I highly recommend that Republicans read it,” Oliver told listeners, even after she’s already said Mitchell’s post is a “must read” and “a great read.”

Oliver should obviously have Stephens on the show to get her side of the story.

Has Buck flipped, like Gardner has, and now think that blocking debt-ceiling extension is now a bad idea

Monday, November 4th, 2013

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.

 

Radio hosts should have asked Brophy for more details on the undocumented valedictorian milking cows

Wednesday, October 23rd, 2013

Conservative talk-radio hosts agreed to disagree with State Sen. Greg Brohpy  last week on his support of a new Colorado law offering undocumented students, who were brought to our country illegally, in-state tuition.

Asked to explain the evolution of his thinking on the topic (from for it to against it), Brophy said in part:

There is a real problem that some kids in the state of Colorado are locked into permanent impoverishment when there is a better path for them.  So, you know the kids down here in Kersey, for instance, a kid named Everado who was the valedictorian of his class and a great football player and baseball player, had a scholarship to go to college but couldn’t get in-state tuition.  He is now milking cows instead of going to college.

Nicely put, but why won’t this kid be able to stop milking cows and go to college, now that the ASSET law has been passed? KFKA co-hosts Devon Lentz and Tom Lucero didn’t ask. Maybe Brophy himself can help this kid, and differentiate himself further from fellow gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo?

But the AM Radio Colorado Show hosts were apparently too upset about Brophy’s support for ASSET to sympathize with Everado. Instead, they pushed on, asking Brophy where he stands on the immigration bill passed by the U.S. Senate but being held up by the Republican-controlled House.

Brophy said he’d oppose the bill, explaining:

BROPHY:  I would oppose that bill.  I would say, you know, first and foremost, secure the borders.  Make sure that we stop, as much as possible, the inflow of people coming into the country illegally.  And then second, and almost immediately, put in place a two-track visa system where people that want to come here to become Americans have a path to do that, that they can actually see, that takes away the incentive to cheat.  And another path – a visa path – that let’s people come to this country to work.  And again, it’s a relatively easy path to see, to take away the incentive of coming here illegally.  I look at this like a problem to solve, a little bit like a police chief in a small town.  If you’re having a lot of trouble with kids late at night, you enforce the curfew.  The kids that are inclined to not cause problems, will be at home.  The ones that are going to be problematic, there won’t be nearly as many of them for you to watch.  So, if you have a visa system that actually works, that allows people a pretty clear path to get here, to become an American or to get here to work, then you don’t have to watch so many people trying to sneak in to the country illegally.   That solves that problem, and I would be pushing for that as governor.  I think that’s a—you know, that’s an American way of doing things.  We want people to come here.

Lentz and Lucero should have someone on the show to defend the immigration bill, since Brohpy won’t do so.

 

Reporters should ask Gardner to explain his statement that Obama is doing “everything he can” to stop America from abiding by “the rule of law”

Wednesday, October 9th, 2013

Rep. Mike Coffman said that too big a deal was made of his line about Obama is not an American “in his heart.” But reporters were right not to think so.

Here’s another case of over-the-top extremism that deserves to be picked up by the press, because it’s fundamentally disrespectful.

On KFKA’s Amy Oliver Show Friday, Rep. Cory Gardner leveled this attack on Obama:

Gardner: This is a president who is doing everything he can to make this nation no longer abide to the rule of law.

Oliver: Wow. What does that do to the rule of law?

Gardner: It weakens it tremendously.

Listen to Gardner on KFKA 10-4-13

I guess Gardner would advise me not to let people like Obama hang out with my teenage son? Unless I want anarchists hanging around the house?

Admittedly, it’s hard to know sometimes when the extremism threshold has been passed. But reasonable reporters should agree that this is an example.

Talk-radio host should correct House Minority Leader’s assertion that Amendment 66 would raise taxes on small business

Monday, September 16th, 2013

On a Sept. 5 show, KFKA talk-radio host Tom Lucero told Colorado House Minority Leader Brian DelGrosso that government shouldn’t be an obstacle to small business.

Agreed. But talk-radio hosts shouldn’t be an obstacle to small business either. Or to educating our children.

But Lucero established himself as such an obstruction by failing to correct DelGrosso when the new Colorado House Minority leader claimed that Amendment 66, which would raise income tax to support education, would be a burdensome tax on small businesses:

DelGrosso: Well, the reality is, I think it’s mid- to upper eighty percent of all businesses in Colorado are small businesses.  And close to eighty percent of those small businesses are set up either as a sole proprietorship, an LLC, or an S Corp., which means that their taxes that their business makes flows through onto their personal income tax.  So, you will see about 80% of businesses in Colorado see a tax increase as a result of this.  [Listen here.]

But Amendment 66 doesn’t affect Colorado taxes on businesses. It’s a tax on “individuals,  estates, and trusts.”

It’s true that some business owners (like me) choose to take profit from their businesses (e.g., in the form of dividends) and account for it on their personal income tax filings.  But that’s because it’s their income! So they pay personal income tax on it, just like they would income from any other source or employment.

If you make income from a business, whether you own the business or not, you pay income tax. The individual would be taxed, not the business, under Amendment 66, and no one will be taxed twice.

With Lucero apparently agape at the fictitious thought that small businesses could be facing a new tax, DelGrosso went on to say:

DelGrosso: When the taxes go up, not only does that get passed along to the consumer, another way that that affects folks is that affects pay raises for the business.  So maybe, because the taxes went up, I’m not going to be able to give pay raises this year.  I’m not going to be able to hire somebody, or I’m going to have to let somebody go, or I can’t expand.

It’s hard to imagine a small business owner who would look over his personal budget, including the income from his LLC or S Corp, and decide not to invest more in his business due to the tax increase under Amendment 66.

ColoradoCommitsToKids calculates that an individual making the gross median income of $57,000, will pay an additional $211 in tax. A small businessperson who claims gross income on his individual income tax return of $150,000 will pay an additional $24 per week. Double that and it’s still not enough for the greediest capitalist to do much with.

But, collectively, it’s enough to give our kids the opportunity they deserve to succeed on Colorado.

That’s why media figures like Lucero, whose background as a former CU Regent should sensitize him to the educational needs of our kids, should counter DelGrosso’s misinformation with facts. Or have an educator on the show who can.

When a political operative says an issue is a “distraction,” it’s a cue for media figures to start asking questions

Friday, August 30th, 2013

For a reporter, or even a talk-radio host, when a political operative says something is a “distraction,” then that’s the exact moment to start asking questions.

So Laura Carno, whose organization has raised over $50,000 to recall state Sen. John Morse, invites scrutiny when she says on KFKA’s Amy Oliver Show Aug. 27 (hour two @20:25):

Carno: It’s just been this series of distractions, with the Planned Parenthood mail pieces being the latest distraction. This isn’t about abortion. Supreme Court Justices are not decided in Denver. There’s nothing that’s going to happen here that’s going to harm women. And as a woman…stop trying to manipulate women by saying in 2013 all of these terrible things are going to happen, and they are just not going to.

As I’ve discussed a couple times recently, abortion issues are not a distraction in state politics. Ask a woman just across the CO border in Utah (and 11 other states), if she thinks it’s a pesky distraction to be required, before she can obtain an abortion, to get counseling on the ability of a fetus to feel pain. Read about distractive state abortion laws here and proposed laws in Colorado here.

Carno herself helps run the Colorado Women’s Alliance, whose mission includes supporting “research, education and advocacy in areas of concern to women voters.” Since when is reproductive health, including abortion, not a concern to women?

Still, Carno feels so strongly about eliminating the abortion distraction from the CO Springs recall election that she and KVOR talk-show host Jeff Crank are pressuring CO Springs TV stations to stop running ads stating, accurately, that Republican recall candidate Bernie Herpin supports the personhood “plan” to codify life as beginning at conception and thus outlawing all abortion and common forms of birth control.

One TV station manager has declined to withdraw the ads, and the others aren’t responding, suggesting they agree that the ads are factual.

But this hasn’t stopped lawyers associated with Carno from shooting off an Aug. 27 letter, obtained by your humble blogger today, threatening to sue in an apparent attempt to scare broadcasters and Herpin opponents into stopping a radio ad:

Carno-associated lawyer: “I can quickly draft an injunction complaint based on the false ads…. I can have a lawsuit drafted and served by the close of business today. Your measure of damages is probably on the order of several times the cost to run the ads in order to educate the viewers on the truth.”

Carno implied that KFKA’s Oliver agrees with her that abortion issues are a distraction in the recall election. Regardless, Oliver owes it to women–and the rest of us–to air out why it’s not a legitimate topic to discuss.

Radio host and TV station don’t mention that sheriffs were actually standing with gun criminal

Tuesday, June 11th, 2013

On Greeley’s KFKA radio June 7, gun activist Laura Carno asked:

Does [Senate President John Morse] stand by the Colorado Senate Democrats’ tweet that sheriffs, including the Democrats, are standing with criminals for challenging these gun control measures in court?

Host Amy Oliver, who doubles as a staffer for the Independence Institute and is promoted by KFKA as “conservative,  intelligent, and sexy,” jumped in (@22:30):

We’ve talked about that.  They tweeted out, “Sheriffs stand for criminals and against law-abiding citizens.”

Oliver neglected to mention that, in reality, CO Senate Democrats tweeted that pro-gun sheriffs stood “with criminals” because a man who shot a gun at his wife was actually standing (physically with both feet planted) on stage with the Sheriffs, when they announced their lawsuit aiming to overturn new laws banning on magazines holding more than 15 rounds and requiring background checks for most gun purchases and transfers.

As reported by ColoradoPols May 17, Clint Webster was standing with the sheriffs at a May 17 news conference at the Independence Institute.

Webster has a criminal record stemming from threatening his wife and shooting at her and another person.

The Post reported in 2010 that Webster, who was running for State House, “threatened to kill his ex-wife and fired two shots from a Colt semi automatic pistol at her and another person as they drove away from his house.”

Webster “pleaded guilty in 1992 to second-degree assault, a felony, two counts of felony menacing and a misdemeanor assault charge,” according to The Post.

Colorado Springs TV station KRDO made the same mistake in May 29 putting the standing-with-criminals comment in context on its website but completely omitting a reference to Webster and his gun crime in its broadcast story.

This is a serious error, because without the reference to Webster, you’d think Democrats were accusing sheriffs of standing with criminals just because the sheriffs oppose gun-safety laws. This was clearly not the intent of Democrats.

Just so you know, here’s the statement issued by Senate Democrats in response to questions about why sheriffs would stand with criminals.

“The statement was pointing out the irony of the sheriffs protesting legislation that prevents criminals from getting guns while standing with a man who shot at his wife and another unnamed person who was with his wife.

In the photo below, there is Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith (wearing glasses) at the press conference. Next to him is Clint Webster, who was convicted of felony assault and menacing for shooting twice at his wife. So the Sheriffs are quite literally standing with a criminal, and not just any criminal, a domestic violence offender who fired two shots from a Colt semi-automatic handgun at his wife.”

Hard to miss the point, isn’t it?