You get the feeling that some Republicans are trying to sneak Hispanics into the GOP tent through the back tent flaps, for fear that welcoming them though the tent’s front door will offend the dwindling number of Republicans already in the tent.

That’s what I was thinking when KFKA morning show host Devon Lentz insulted the entire country of Mexico last week, and Rep. Cory Gardner, who was a guest on the program, acted as if he’d heard nothing rude or inappropriate.

“We’re going to deal with this immigration thing,” said Lentz, who’s a former Larimer Country GOP official. “Except that, how do we also keep from advertising in countries like Mexico that when you come here, here’s how to get on the food stamps, here’s how you take advantage of this system, and get housing assistance, and food assistance?  How do we at least keep from advertising how to take advantage of our system?”

Who knew the hard-working people from Mexico are out to freeload on America? Are Italians similarly inclined? Brits?

Rather than throw that question back at Lentz or, perhaps, even praise Hispanics’ current contributions to our nation, Gardner said:

“Well, and those are questions that are being asked regularly to the administration about how they’re doing it, and what they’re doing, and how they’re marketing various programs.”

Gardner has said he wants Hispanics in the GOP tent, but with Lentz lurking around inside, and Gardner refusing to stand up for a country like Mexico, will Hispanics want to enter?

It’s a question reporters should discuss with the Gardners of the GOP. Can they make progress if they don’t stand up for Hispanics when fellow Republicans insult them? Kind of like John McCain did when he defended Obama after a woman said he was an Arab she couldn’t trust.

On the radio, Gardner told Lentz: “But I think we all recognize that the values that make this country great.  And those are the two values that I talk about that we have to balance in any Immigration reform.  And that is the first, balance the first value—that this country is and must remain a beacon of hope for the world.  And the second value, that we are a nation of laws. And so, any immigration policy must meet those two stated values.”

Got it. Beacon of hope. Nation of laws.

How does that square with making sure not to tell Mexicans how to get food stamps and housing assistance?

Even before the bill requiring universal background checks on gun purchases clears the State Legislature, as expected, the head of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, Dudley Brown, is promising to challenge the law in court.

No surprise there from an organization that puts “no compromise” atop its website. But it deserves reporting because of the sweeping impact that Brown says he lawsuit could have.

Brown says his organization will use a legal strategy that would not only overturn the would-be universal-background-check law, but also the existing Colorado Brady Act, which requires limited background checks. So all background checks would be eliminated.

Brown made these comments on KFKA radio’s Scooter McGee show last week:

Scooter (@13:20): Unfortunately, the fight is not working. They are going to pass this. Conservatives are now saying, well, even if it passes, it won’t work in the courts. Well even if it goes–

Brown: I disagree. Look, I was quoted in the McDonald decision by the United States Supreme Court, directly quoted by Justice Alito in the majority decision. I will tell ya that some of those decisions, unfortunately, both Heller and MacDonald, justify gun control. You’ve been told a lie, if you think that Heller or MacDonald, are going to overturn any of these bills. I don’t believe they are. Is it possible that we could overturn the expansion of Brady in the universal background checks because of Article II, Section 13, that says ‘the right of no person to keep and bear arms shall be called in question?’ Well, we’re going to try. But it’s not just going to just repeal that bill. It’s going to repeal the entire Colorado Brady Act, if it’s actually successful. Because we don’t believe that you should be required to go through a background check. The truth is, the NRA isn’t going to supoort us on that. They never have. They’ve actually been in favor of Brady checks–and expand Brady checks, including mental health provisions. And here’s a news flash to you, Scooter, if they have mental health provisions, you’ll never be able to pass a Brady check, because they will call you crazy.

Scooter: News to you, Dudley?

Brown: So will they me. So will they Kevin Blake, who is listening. So they will most gun owners.

Scooter: They are going to do it to all of us, and that is ultimately the crux of this…

I’m hoping McGee treats his conservative audience to a conversation with the NRA about its legal plans if the background-checks bill passes, and he invites Brown to keep things interesting.

Conservative talk radio is reverberating with misrepresentation, confusion, and falsehoods about the gun safety legislation moving through the State Legislature.

Now would be a good time for fact-based listeners to call into these fear-based shows to straighten out the hype-based hosts and their back-scratching guests.

For example, Sen. Kevin Lundberg said the following on KFKA’s Amy Oliver Show Feb. 11:

“You know, I remember decades ago, somebody said, ‘I will not give up my gun rights, you know, until you pry my cold dead hands away from it.’  We all thought, ‘Well, That will never happen.’ Well, boy, we are so close, so close to that.”

I hope Sen. Lundberg isn’t digging a bunker in preparation for his own death in a final righteous gun battle, which he believes to be “so close.”

In reality, no proposed bill in the Colorado Legislature would make it illegal for Lundberg to own a gun. Ditto for any law-abiding Republican talk-show host, despite the cries you’re hearing on the airwaves.

Lundberg continued:

“PBS NewsHour asked me: ‘Can’t you find a middle ground?’  And my answer was, ‘Yeah, it’s what we have in place now.  We have a concealed/carry law. We don’t have a Vermont-style carry, where every citizen is allowed to carry, just by virtue of being a legal citizen.  But So we have a permit system.’  Okay.  I can accept that as being a middle ground.  But the Left believes the only solution is pretty much a total ban on everything.  And so they’re just going for everything they can get.  It’s a very, very extreme position.”

Heading toward similar extremes, House Minority Leader Mark Waller told KHOW’s Michael Brown Wed.:

“And there’s no evidence that universal background checks, in any way, enhance public safety.”

No evidence? Zero?

Last month, the Washington Post’s Brad Plumer interviewed a University of Chicago Professor who studied the issue in-depth and concluded that universal background checks would likely enhance public safety, by requiring checks on the gun buyers who aren’t currently required to get them (up to 40% of gun purchases. The NRA believes the figure is 10%, but, still, Ludwig’s argument, below, still holds up.)

Ludwig cited studies in the late 1980s showing that 80% of people who committed a crime with a handgun acquired it from an unlicensed gun dealer and therefore didn’t have a background check.

“Most people who own guns are middle-class, law-abiding citizens,” he says. “If you tell them to do a background check, I think they’ll do it voluntarily.” And for those who prefer to evade the law, the government might have to provide more resources for police to do undercover gun buys on the secondary market—in order to ensure compliance. “That’s never going to be perfect, but anything you can do to tighten the secondary market will help.”

That’s fact-based, common sense. It makes a good starting point for a reasonable discussion on costs and benefits of background checks.

Waller’s and Lundberg’s hyperbole sends us in the opposite direction and should be called out by talk-radio hosts–or you, if you listen in.

You probably heard that GOP strategist Karl Rove pissed off lots of fellow conservatives this week when he unveiled a plan to prop up Republicans deemed more electable by Rove, when Rove’s candidates are under attack in primaries from more conservative upstarts

The New York Times Jeff Zeleny reports:

The strategist Karl Rove and his allies are under withering criticism for creating the Conservative Victory Project, their effort to help rebuild the Republican Party and win control of the Senate. Their pledge to take sides in primary races in an effort to pick candidates they see as more electable has set off a fierce backlash from conservative activists.

“This is not Tea Party versus establishment,” Mr. Rove said, defending his new project on Fox News. “I don’t want a fight.”

Yet a fight has broken out this week across the conservative media spectrum, with Mr. Rove drawing the ire of Tea Party leaders and commentators who suggest that he and other party strategists are the problem, rather than the solution, to the challenges facing Republicans.

Here in Colorado on Wed., former Larimer Country GOP Chair Tom Lucero reflected the sentiments of other conservative talkers when he told his listeners on KFKA’s “AM Colorado:”

“I think what Karl Rove is doing is absolutely, incredibly wrong-headed…The beltway politicians, those guys are telling Steve King, ‘You better not run for that Senate Seat in the state of Iowa. We will get behind the other guy.’ …I think Steve King would be a great U.S. Senator.”

Added Lucero’s co-host Devon Lentz, also a former Larimer County GOP official:

“Well, we’ve seen it in CO, when the establishment tries to vet the candidates, there is a lot of backlash, and that never ever benefits the party as a whole.”

Lentz continued on air that it’s unfair for the Republican establishment to focus on derailing conservative candidates because “any candidate can say something stupid.”

Lucero, a former CU Regent, responded:

“Thank you! Exactly! That’s the point. That’s why people are upset right now with Karl Rove and this group, trying to say, ‘We will determine the candidate most electable in a primary…’

But the reality of it is, –Let’s be honest about this, candidates all over the place — Joe Biden does it all the time, but the mainstream liberal media protects him. It’s when a Todd Akin or a Richard Mourdock says something stupid that the mainstream liberal media jumps all over it and tries to bury those candidacies. So there’s a double standard when it comes to ‘opening mouth and inserting foot.’”

Lucero then referenced an article by Matt Lewis in the Daily Caller, titled “Really Want to Stop the Next Todd Akin:? Don’t Attack Conservative Candidates, Train Them.”

Lucero liked Lewis’ suggestion that Rove and Company offer basic candidate training to all Republicans on how to answer questions, talk to the press, and not make “idiotic” comments like Missouri’s Todd Akin made [about "legitimate rape," your recall].

“Wouldn’t that be the better solution than starting an intra-party war between conservatives and establishment?” Lucero asked.

Everyone remembers Gov. Rick Perry’s magnificent “Oops moment,” during the Republican presidential primary, when he suggested cutting three, count ‘em, three federal agencies: the 1) Education Department, 2) Commerce Department, and 3) ???????????????.

Who remembers the last one?

It was the Energy Department!

It looks like Rep. Cory Gardner would have been able to get the words “Energy Department” out of his mouth if he’d been in Perry’s shoes, because our Congressman from the 4th Congressional District has the Energy Department on his own list for possible elimination.

On KFKA radio’s Amy Oliver Show Tuesday, Gardner suggested that the federal Energy Department is “something we ought to look at and see whether or not they are actually justified to be there anyway.”

OLIVER: Give me your thoughts on – and I’m sure you’ve heard—you served with him when you were in Legislature and he was the governor of the state of Colorado, the idea that Governor Bill Ritter is on the short list for Energy Secretary.

GARDNER: [chuckles] Governor Ritter is a nice guy. And I’m sure, you know, he is somebody you’d love to have a beer with. I was never invited, I don’t think, [laughing] to have a beer with him, but if you were I’m sure he’d be a nice guy to have a beer with! But I don’t think he’s the right person for the Secretary of Energy. In fact, Energy Department is something we ought to look at and see whether or not they are actually justified to be there anyway. So, let’s have a conversation about what we can do to consolidate and eliminate some of these spending programs, especially programs that aren’t working because of Solyndras and other wasted program spending. And I don’t think Bill Ritter is the right one to lead that conversation.

Full transcript and audio here.

You’d think KFKA host Amy Oliver, who rails against federal agencies like the EPA, would have been ecstatic, after hearing Gardner’s comments. I thought she might have said something like, “I was dying when Rick Perry couldn’t spit out ‘Energy Department,’ and you did it so eloquently, with no oops or hesitation. Thank you.”

But she stayed calm, like she did in 2011 when Gardner suggested on Oliver’s program that the Department of Transportation should be eliminated. He later changed his tune.

Oliver asked Gardner if there was sufficient political will to eliminate the Energy Department:

OLIVER: …I know that there isn’t the political will to eliminate the Department of Energy, even though I would love that. Is there ever any conversation about at least, not just reducing the amount of growth, but simply cutting a department’s budget?

GARDNER: That’s exactly what I meant by saying a decrease in the rate of increase isn’t enough. We have got to cut department spending, and I think that yes, if you look at the budget that we passed out of the House, we eliminated entire agencies and programs. Now, there were conversations early on last year about eliminating the Department of Commerce, or consolidating Department of Commerce with various functions.

It’s no fun to talk about specifics when you’ve got the budget ax out, but right then, at that point in the interview, would have been a great time for Oliver to get specific with Gardner about what Energy Department programs might be cut.

The renewable energy research budget? Nuclear weapons production and maintenance? Energy conservation? Fossil fuel and nuclear research programs? All of it?

Oliver knows a fair amount about energy issues. She had a great moment to trot out an intelligent question, or a specific question on what she’d cut, but she failed us, leaving the job to a reporter who cares about meaningful public-policy debate, not just bloviation.

Oops.

I wrote earlier this week about how hard it will be for conservative talk-radio hosts to modify their views, even if pressured by more moderate GOP factions to do so. Here’s an example of how this looks on the air:

About a month and a half before the election, on KFKA’s morning radio show, hosts Devon Lentz and Tom Lucero, who are prominent Larimer County Republicans, were more than happy to plug Dennis Lynch’s underground film, arguing, as Lynch put it, that people aren’t crossing the U.S.-Mexico border just “to cut your lawn” but “to cut your throats.”

The tone of the Greeley radio show changed last week when Lentz and Lucero talked to Michael Barrera of the conservative Libre Initiative, which is advocating that Republicans be nicer to Hispanics.

Barrera complained to the talk-show hosts about the nastiness of some Republicans when it comes to immigration:

Barrera: Some of the rhetoric that’s coming from some of the folks on this issue has been pretty bad. Like, you had a guy – a state legislator out of Kansas that came out and said, “We ought to shoot these illegal immigrants like pigs off a helicopter.” That’s horrible!

I would have asked if the “cut-your-throats” comment and Lynch’s fear-mongering movie, which had been so warmly received by the talk show hosts, was in the same ballpark, but who am I?

Barrera: The only thing that [Hispanic voters] did hear, you know, from candidate Romney, who I think is a good man, but you know, mainly his words regarding immigration that they remember were “self-deportation”. They saw him embrace Arpaio [Barrera pronounces it “Air-A-PEE-O] out of Arizona. They saw him embrace Kolbeck out of Arizona. [He] embraced Arizona law which many Hispanics felt was a bad law for immigration. So, they saw him embrace all these things, rather than embrace something like the DREAM Act. When that came up he actually attacked other candidates for supporting the DREAM Act. And even when Rubio tried to come up with his own act, again, he didn’t embrace that, he embraced these other [inaudible]. And so this is what they saw, this is what they remember. And when you feel like you’re not being — you feel like you’re dealing with a candidate you can’t trust, or a candidate doesn’t care about you, you’re not going to vote for him.

Lentz did not say she gets mad when she sees all the Spanish words in the packaging department at Wal-Mart. That’s what she said when Lynch was on the show before the election.

But she asked a good question, saying she thought jobs and the economy were the top issues for Hispanics, not immigration.

Lentz: … in my mind, it’s not just the DREAM Act, it’s continuing to let anybody come into our country that’s going to affect our jobs and our economy because it’s more people we need to supply jobs to and it’s a bigger drain on our entitlement programs, in some cases. How do you make that balance and how do the Republicans back up and say, ‘Are jobs the most important thing to you, because if we don’t have jobs, we don’t have jobs for anybody.’

Barrera said Republicans have to get the “immigration issue behind us,” but his amorphous suggestion of allowing undocumented immigrants to work here legally, as long as they aren’t criminals, didn’t seem to grab Lucero or Lentz.

They didn’t say, “That was phenomenal,” as Lucero had told Lynch when he was fear-mongering about undocumented immigrants just a few weeks back.

And that’s the problem Republicans will have going forward with talk-radio hosts and the GOP base that listens to them.

The problem will be exacerbated by people like Tom Tancredo, who’s a star guest on many Colorado talk shows where he loves to say stuff like:

“We can’t let those who actually believe the answer is comprehensive immigration reform…aka massive amnesty…take us back down that path again. We must stop them cold, as we did before–because we know that will be the end of the line for America,” Tancredo emailed his supporters Nov. 16, as reported by Fox 31′s Eli Stokols.

Tancredo, you recall, was a talk-radio host in Colorado Springs for a long stint after he ran for President, on an anti-immigration platform, and he still loves to make the talk-radio rounds–or any rounds where a microphone is present.

But even if Tancredo disappears, whose ideas do you think are more likely to win over the talk-radio hosts and audience, Barrera’s? Or Tancredo’s?

On the radio Monday, State Sen. Greg Brophy said there’s “element” of “folks who just don’t like Christians” in Colorado, and “they are well represented at the State Capital right now.”

Citing Obama’s victory, as well as the passage of a measure legalizing and taxing marijuana, Brophy said on the radio:

BROPHY: “That’s what leads me to say that we’re kind of a Libertarian/Left state. You know, and geez, I hate to say this, but it sure seems like there is an element of an anti-Christian bent in Colorado which probably does also play into that Libertarian/Left side of things…and they’re well represented at the State Capital right now.”

KFKA radio’s guest host Krista Kafer didn’t ask Brophy to reveal his list of anti-Christian folk up at the State Capitol. So I called him to find out whom he was thinking of.

Brophy referred me to an opinion piece he wrote arguing that Senate Democrats were attacking hospitals for their religious convictions. They passed a bill, which did not clear the House, that would have required hospitals to post services that they elect not to provide due to religious, not medical considerations (e.g., abortion and some contraception services), but Senate Democrats rejected an amendment requiring all hospitals to list services they don’t provide, Brophy wrote.

“If you remember,” Brophy told me, “when I was [on the radio], I said I don’t want to say this because it’s kind of a harsh thing to say, but I think it’s an accurate observation.

So it’s based on that? Or are there other things?

“That’s a very public observation that’s been out there,” Brophy said. “Other stuff is certainly more subtle. You never can tell for sure, Jason, what someone’s thinking or what motivates them. You can only tell what they do. And when I wrote that op-ed I specifically went into what they did.”

I thought it was ironic that Brophy was raising the specter of anti-Christian bigotry at the State Capitol, given his comments about gays in the same KFKA interview Monday.

Brophy said he believes civil unions are one thing, but it would go too far to require an adoption agency, for example, to award a child to a traditional couple over gay couple based on the adoption agency’s alleged religious beliefs about the morality of homosexuality.

BROPHY: “But isn’t there a happy medium here where you can also have an adoption agency that says, “All things being equal, we would prefer to have a male-female married couple work with our adopted children – all things being equal.” I mean, I think most people believe that too, and I would hope that we could find a happy medium. I suspect that we will end up settling this question at a U.S. Supreme Court level within just a couple of years, because there are some cases that are testing this. For instance, say, if you run a Bed and Breakfast and want to cater to folks who are on, you know, bible study-based family vacations, and you refuse to rent a room to somebody who isn’t married, or who is in a same-sex marriage, you can be sued for discrimination. And your– that’s a direct contradiction between the civil rights protection and the religious liberty protection.

We heard a lot about religious liberty during the election, as Republicans argued that restrictions on abortion and women’s health should be accepted as religious freedoms instead of as a war on women.

Brophy’s comments, about gays and Christian haters, leave me thinking that he’s not going to back away from the election rhetoric. He didn’t talk about Republicans working with each other or with Democrats, but instead about Republicans picking sides within their own party and fighting, building a movement of social conservatives prior to the next primary.

BROPHY: “And there’s an element, there’s a leg, or an element of the Republican Party that has always been rather embarrassed by the Christian conservative component of the Republican Party. I don’t know what to do with them. I mean, you know, we form our coalitions in U.S. politics before the primary and so, pick your side. And as for me, I’m going to be on the side that argues for fiscal restraint, and that argues for religious liberty and individual liberty, limited government and less spending by the government, but either people buy that argument or they don’t.”

If I’m a reporter, and I hear Brophy, I’d be watching to see if the election collapse had any impact at all on him and like-minded Republicans. It appears it did not.

In a run-of-the-mill interview Friday on KFKA radio’s “AM Colorado,” State House candidate Skip Carlson made this off-hand comment to hosts Devon Lentz and Tom Lucero:

“Do we need additional taxes? Unlike a lot of Republicans, I think we do on some things,” Carlson told Lucero, as an aside. “We just have to be careful. First of all, let’s make sure we are spending our taxes correctly. Then, let’s fix the infrastructure that needs to be fixed now, so that our children don’t have to pay for it later.”

Some Republican talk show hosts, like Lucero, would have simply ignored Carlson’s comment on the taboo topic of favoring a tax increase.

Other GOP hosts would have tried to talk Carlson out of it, saying something like, “Are you crazy? My entire audience and my Republican co-host will hate you if you really mean that.”

But Lucero, a former CU Regent, took the gentler approach of trying to clarify things. He just wanted to make sure the facts were on the table.

So he asked Carlson, whose running for House District 50, a clarifying question:

LUCERO: So the state legislature is required to prioritize on spending. Your number one priority is to figure out how we prioritize, how we get the [in]efficiencies out of government. And at that point, after you’re done going through it, you’re unsatisfied that we have the resources necessary, you would support raising taxes?

CARLSON: Oh, yeah! I mean, this is — that’s business. I’m in business.

LUCERO: Okay.

CARLSON: I ran my business, you’ve run a business. You get up to a certain point and you say, “Okay, business has gone so far with this. Do I have to increase my investment for my business to go even higher, to become even better?” And you say, “I can spend this now, and it will cost me a lot less than spending it later.” We have to, however, be very, very careful about that—very diligent about it and see to it that we don’t have the waste before, to start with.

I appreciate Lucero’s approach. He didn’t jump all over Carlson. He didn’t hyperventilate. He didn’t even let his own opinion be known. He tried to get it straight.

But, still, Lucero didn’t clarify the situation well enough for me.

Lucero should have asked, specifically, what “things” Carlson thinks we need to raise taxes on. Carlson stated that there are, right now, unnamed things that need funding through new taxes. At least that’s how I hear his statement.

[Listen here: Skip Carlson discusses taxes on KFKA AM Colorado 8-31-2012]

It sounds like bridge and highway repairs are two of those things, since Carlson’s comment about taxes came up in the context of the FASTER bill, which raised vehicle registration fees to pay for highway and bridge repair.

Asked by Lentz if he’d repeal FASTER, Carlson said, “Absolutely! I mean, if it’s going to be a tax, let’s make it a tax!”

So for Carlson, you’d guess that basic safety upgrades on roads and bridges might merit a tax increase. But what else?

This would make for a good conversation next time Carlson is on AM Colorado.

If you’ve been soaking up the sound waves from talk radio the past month, you know that Rep. Cory Gardner has been talking a lot about the horribleness of President Obama and the greatness of Romney vice presidential selection Paul Ryan.

For example, here’s Gardner on KFKA’s AM Colorado Aug. 23:

HOST TOM LUCERO: So, Cory, give us your thoughts on the selection of your colleague, Paul Ryan—vice presidential pick by Mitt Romney.

GARDNER: I think it’s a brilliant selection. This is a guy who understands the budget and the economy perhaps better than anybody other than Mitt Romney. This is a person who actually knows the numbers. He has –I’ve seen him personally, I’ve witnessed him personally explain to the president of the United States why his policies have been such a disaster, and why the policies we have pushed forward would actually get this country back on track, [and] do so in a way that was simple for everybody to understand across the country. I’m not sure the president understood it because he continues with his failed policies. But the fact is, Paul Ryan adds a level of excitement and certainly a level of solutions that we were missing. [Listen to the audio here.]

It would be nice if AM Colorado’s co-hosts, Lucero and Devon Lentz, aired out a couple of the controversial issues dogging Ryan.

A good one for Gardner would be personhood, because Gardner, like Ryan, supports it, and has left no doubt about it in the past.

Gardner didn’t co-sponsor it federal personhood legislation, like Ryan did, but he’s been a full-on endorser of personhood amendments in Colorado.

This means both Gardner and Ryan oppose common forms of birth control, as well as all abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

So, is this part of the reason Gardner thinks Ryan is a brilliant selection?

Or does the brilliance emanate from Ryan’s proposal to partially privatize Medicare? Is Gardner worried that a disproportionate number of healthy retirees would use their Medicare vouchers to buy health insurance from private companies, leaving Medicare to serve the less healthy population, which, in turn, could cause Medicare costs and Medicare premiums to rise, sending even more of the healthier retirees to the private sector as Medicare costs spiral out of control?

A report from the liberal Center on Policy and Budget Priorities concluded in March:

The budget resolution developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) would make significant changes to Medicare. It would replace Medicare’s current guarantee of coverage with a premium-support voucher, raise the age of eligibility from 65 to 67, and reopen the “doughnut hole” in Medicare’s coverage of prescription drugs. Together, these changes would shift substantial costs to Medicare beneficiaries and (with the simultaneous repeal of health reform) leave many 65- and 66-year olds without any health coverage at all. The plan also would likely lead to the gradual demise of traditional Medicare by making its pool of beneficiaries smaller, older, and sicker — and increasingly costly to cover.

How about Ryan’s votes against the Dream Act, which would allow the best and brightest undocumented teenagers, brought to the U.S. illegally by their parents, to become productive members of our society?

Why is that so brilliant?

The list of interesting topics goes on and on, and it’s more interesting to debate it than to hear Gardner’s platitudes about Ryan.

As it happens, I’ll be discussing “media bias” tomorrow morning at 7:40 on KFKA’s “AM Colorado,” with Lucero and Lentz.

Maybe I’ll be able to convince them to bring in more viewpoints on their show more often, or at least bring back Lynn Bartels, who was on their program weekly during the legislative session.