Archive for the 'KNUS' Category

Buck called Trump a “fraud” but now says will vote for him

Thursday, August 25th, 2016

After once calling Donald Trump a “fraud,” and then remaining silent on the GOP presidential nominee for months, U.S. Rep. Ken Buck has now thrown his endorsment to the celebrity mogul.

“What we have to do as Republicans, in my view, is we got to get Donald Trump elected, and then we got to hold him accountable,” Buck told Randy Corporon and Steve Kelly on KNUS yesterday afternoon. “We got to surround him with good, sensible people who will give him the best advice on how to move this country forward.”

Earlier this year, however, Buck slammed Trump, after Trump proposed a temporary ban on allowing Muslims to visit the United States. Buck told CBS 4:

“Trump’s proposal violates the Constitution, the values of our nation, the Republican Party platform, and my conscience. He should withdraw from the Presidential race. He is a fraud,” said Buck.

Yesterday, Buck sang a different tune, pointing out that “we have a system of checks and balances in this country which allows Congress and the Supreme Court to rein in the power of the president,” and that’s what Congress may have to do with “either president.”

If Trump doesn’t behave, “there are remedies,” said Buck, calling Buck a “strong person” who has “never been tested in office.”

“We have an unknown entity that we are going to be taking a risk on,” Buck said, adding that Hillary is “known entity” that he wants to reject. “I don’t think anybody can argue that Donald Trump isn’t an unknown quantity, to a cerntain extent.”

“There is one thing I know for sure,” Buck said on KNUS, in what appears to be Buck’s first public endorsement of Trump.  “If I call the White House, and President Clinton is in the oval office, no one is going to take my call. If I call the White House with a President Trump, I have a chance of influencing policy in the executive branch.”

Listen to U.S. Rep. Ken Buck on KNUS Aug. 24

Tancredo says he’d vote for Morgan Carroll but later changes his mind

Tuesday, August 23rd, 2016

At this point, nothing about Tom Tancredo should surprise me, but my jaw bounced off the floor when he said Saturday he’d vote for state Sen. Morgan Carroll over U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman.

After Tancredo lashed into Coffman for caring about nothing except staying in office, KNUS’ Saturday host Craig Silverman asked Tancredo if he’d vote for Carroll over Coffman, if Tanc lived in Aurora where the Coffman and Carroll are battling each other in one of the closest congressional races in the country.

And Tancredo, whose Congressional seat was won by Coffman (with Tanc’s support) after Tancredo stepped down, said he’d vote for the Democrat.

Silverman: Former Congressman Tom Tancredo says, ‘Vote for Morgan Carroll over Mike Coffman.’ Do I have it right?

Tancredo: You got it right.

But, I told Tancredo in a subsequent phone call, Coffman is much more hostile to immigrants than Carroll.

Coffman opposed a 2013 bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill, which included a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and Coffman still stands against the measure. Coffman is opposed to birthright citizenship, which allows children of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil to be citizens. Coffman is also against a provision in the Voting Rights Act that requires some jurisdictions to provide dual-language ballots.

I told Tancredo I couldn’t see how he’d favor Morgan Carroll, who, for example, has attacked Coffman for opposing the bipartisan immigration bill, and she supports a path to citizenship.

But didn’t Carroll vote against the “Dream Act” in Colorado, Tancredo asked, reminding me that he’d referenced this on the radio, when he said, “Who knows, we may have something better [with Carroll].”

I told Coffman that Carroll had initially voted against providing in-state tuition for undocumented students in Colorado, but she later joined state lawmakers in passing the measure.

So, today, even with Coffman’s shifts on immigration, Coffman is much more in Tancredo’s immigration camp than Carroll, who’s now as immigrant-friendly as they get, I told Tancredo.

“With that in mind,” Tancredo said after hearing this, “I guess I’d write somebody else in. That would probably be my fallback position.”

So Tancredo changed his mind. He wouldn’t vote for Carroll.

“My point is this, more than anything else,” said Tancredo. “… I am absolutely convinced that [Coffman] is a fraud. If Trump were [running] even in the district, or if [Trump] were ahead, I know that Mike Coffman would be putting ads on TV talking about how wonderful Trump is.”

But does Tancredo think Coffman is sincere about his past and present opposition to the comprehensive immigration bill that Carroll supports?

“No. I don’t think there’s anything sincere about Mike Coffman,” said Tancredo, whom Coffman once called his “hero.” “Nothing that I have observed over the last several years would lead me to that conclusion, except his sincere desire to remain in Congress. So I guess I would say that’s a caveat there.”

How many conservatives can Coffman piss off before he loses an election?

Monday, August 22nd, 2016

A couple weeks ago, former Rep. Tom Tancredo skewered Rep. Mike Coffman in his weekly Breitbart column, writing thet the “only thing authentic about [Coffman] is his passionate desire to keep that House Member pin on his lapel.”

In a subsequent KNUS radio interview with guest host Matt Dunn, Tancredo said, “as a conservative, we would lose nothing” if Coffman lost his seat. And Tanc went further:

Tancredo: [W]hen he won the election, I was of course a supporter and was happy about the fact that he would be succeeding me in that office because of what he promised me, because of our discussions about the issues, especially immigration. And of course all those things have gone by the wayside, and done so because he feels that he has to give up those principles — if he ever held them. I don’t know if he has any real set of principles upon which — you know, that certain bedrock – I don’t know that they exist at all…As his district changes, so does he. He sort of morphs into a different person.

…I’ll tell you this: if Trump were polling well in his district, you would be hearing nothing but accolades from Mike Coffman about Donald Trump. So, it isn’t – it doesn’t really have anything to do with Trump’s positions, his faux pas, his – whatever. It’s got nothing to do with that. It’s got everything to do with Mike wanting to keep that little pin on his collar – I mean, on his lapel, on his suit, that indicates you’re a Member of Congress. Because that’s more important to him than anything else. And I’m just sick of this stuff! I’m sick of it because it’s a seat we could still retain by somebody better. And you know, you just think to yourself, “What a — what a waste!” [Aug. 11, KNUS Peter Boyles show]

Keep in mind that Coffman once called Tancredo his “hero.

Tancredo’s comments deserve wider media attention because they raise the question, again, of how many conservatives Coffman can piss off and still win a narrow majority in his district.

Radio host slams Coffman for helping Hillary

Thursday, August 4th, 2016

Dan Caplis, a prominent Colorado Republican and conservative talk-radio host, denounced Mike Coffman’s latest TV ad this morning, saying on air that the ad “helps Hillary Clinton” and that Coffman must have “concluded in his mind and his heart and his conscience that Donald Trump cannot win.”

Caplis, whose name has been floated over the years as a possible GOP gubernatorial candidate, says Trump can win, and he wants to have Coffman on his KNUS 710-AM show to discuss the topic further.

Caplis: So you think Hillary and her camp are happy or unhappy with the Mike Coffman ad. Let’s not deny the obvious. Let’s respect each other with the truth.  This helps Hillary Clinton.

And because of the quality of Mike as is a man in a public servant, I give him the ultimate benefit of the doubt that he would not have done this unless he’s already truly concluded in his mind and his heart and his conscience that Donald Trump cannot win.

Maybe I’m giving Mike too much benefit of the doubt here, but I think he has earned, because the I just can’t imagine him being willing to help Hillary Clinton like this if he truly thought Trump had a chance to win for all the reasons I mentioned earlier, so I give Mike the benefit of the doubt.  He must’ve concluded that that this race is over and Donald Trump has no chance to win…

I completely disagree with that. I think Donald Trump is failing miserably. I think he’s failing at trying to throw the race away, for all the reasons I talked about at the top of the show. Donald Trump is throwing this race away, but he still has a very good chance to win, because America has already rejected Hillary Clinton. Trump still is a very good chance to win.

So if Mike Coffman has concluded, if we ever get the chance to talk to Mike about this and his explanation is ‘Yeah, I knew this ad would help Hillary Clinton but I’ve already concluded Trump has no chance to win,’ I would respectfully disagree with him.

Colorado Trump Campaign Director says anti-Trump RNC delegates are “insignificant going forward”

Friday, July 29th, 2016

In a parting jab at the Colorado delegates who tried to derail Trump’s nomination last week, Colorado Trump Campaign Director Patrick Davis called the group “insignificant going forward,” and he said as of last week, there is “no light between the Donald Trump Campaign and the Colorado Republican Party.”

“The small delegation that walked off the floor and became kind of ‘the story’ in Cleveland from Colorado, they’re just that, a small delegation,” Davis told KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles Wednesday. “They are insignificant going forward. From this day forward, and frankly from last Friday, there has been no light between the Donald Trump campaign and the Colorado Republican Party.”

“If they’d had their way, we’d still be talking about rules,” said Davis later in the interview.

“Steve House, the Colorado Chairman, has been an early supporter of Donald Trump and has taken some of the heat for doing it, just like you [Peter Boyles],” he continued.

Boyles responded to Davis by saying he thought House opposed Trump in the early going.

Some state Republicans were up in arms in May about a blog post, picked up by Drudge, which included a quote from Steve House in which he appeared to oppose Trump.

House drew fire from the Trump Campaign in April for an anti-Trump  “We did it” tweet that was sent from the official state Twitter feed after Cruz won all the delegates at the state party convention.

House stated many times along the way that he was neutral in the GOP primary race here, and he went to Cleveland as an unbound delegate.

Just before the convention, before Trump had sealed up the delegates needed for the nomination, House appeared to tell a reporter he thought Trump would win the nominiation in the first round of voting even if he did not amass the magic number of 1,237 delegates before the convention.

Correction: Talk-radio host did not blame Obama and the “left” for the Dallas shootings

Friday, July 8th, 2016

My goal is to report and comment on what people actually believe. I don’t want to report inaccuracies or “catch” talk-radio hosts or anybody saying something they did not mean to say.

That’s why I usually tell people whom I interview or quote to call me if I get something wrong–or if they want to add anything that I’ve left out.

So I was glad KNUS 710-AM talk-radio host Dan Caplis contacted me to say that, contrary to what I’d written last week, he doesn’t necessarily blame Obama for the Dallas shootings.

In fact, he pointed out that he said on air, in the audio clip below:

Caplis: ” …again I am not claiming a direct causal connection with Dallas. We just don’t know enough yet.”

In an email, Caplis also pointed out that in my audio clip, he says, in reference to what he calls the Obama and the left’s dangerous anti-cop rhetoric:

Caplis: ” …now whether that’s what happened in Dallas or not we just don’t know yet.”

So I mischaracterized Caplis, and I regret it.

Here is more of what Caplis said on the radio:

Caplis: “This kind of horror, this kind of violence, against our best and bravest has been completely foreseeable. And I’ve been talking about it as others have for ages, based upon the relentless anti-police hatred that’s been emanating from the left and the extremely irresponsible, and that’s being charitable, anti-police movement that Barak Obama has been leading, including by empowering the likes of Al Sharpton, and making it, and I’ve been talking about this for over a year on air, making it now the dogma of the left that you must be anti-cop. And you see the Michael Hancocks of the world following that. And they must know. None of these people I’ve mentioned would ever want a police officer to be shot or killed or injured.

But these are smart people, including the President, and they must have known that this relentless anti-cop movement that they’re leading could very well trigger, green light, some of the fringe element to commit acts of violence against police.

Now whether that’s what happened in Dallas or not we just don’t know yet. But we know that, overall, Barak Obama has understood it. Those on the left who have been beating this anti-cop drum have understood that…again I am not claiming a direct causal connection with Dallas. We just don’t know enough yet.”

Based on this, I thought it was fair to say Caplis thinks Obama might have caused the Dallas shoortings, but Caplis didn’t mean it this way.

“I don’t believe I’ve said that [Obama or the left] may have caused Dallas or that there is proof they caused any of the attacks on police in the past,” Caplis wrote in an email. “My point is that the anti-police rhetoric of president Obama and the left has increased the overall danger to police and has increased the risk that some fringe actors would attack police officers.”

A previous version of this blog not only mischaracterized Caplis’ views on Dallas, but it also called Caplis a “former GOP U.S. Senate candidate,” when in fact Caplis has never been an actual candidate but seriously considered a run this year and previously.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader McConnell says Glenn’s acceptance of a conservative endorsement is like having a “ticket on the Titanic”

Wednesday, June 8th, 2016

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell waded into Colorado politics Saturday, telling KNUS 710’s Craig Silverman that to accept the endorsement of the Senate Conservative Fund (SCF) is like having a “ticket on the Titanic”

So, since Republican U.S. Senate candidate Darryl Glenn has accepted the SCF endorsement, McConnell would preumably say Glenn’s boat is headed toward an iceberg–though McConnell told Silverman he doesn’t know anythig about Glenn.

SILVERMAN:  Who is behind the Senate Conservative Fund?  You know, they were just in the news in Colorado because they have committed to a candidate:  Darryl Glenn, El Paso County Commissioner.  And he is their selection.  Do you know anything about Darryl Glenn?  Or, do you just –.

McCONNELL:  I don’t.  I don’t.  But I can tell you, in Indiana there was a primary the doctor told her that the federal government ever primary between a Senate Conservatives Fund nominee and Congressman Todd Young, the other candidate.  And the candidate of the Senate Conservatives Fund tried to make me an issue in the Indiana Senate primary.  He lost by 34 points.  So, you know, I think any candidate who signs up with the Senate Conservatives Fund has to wonder whether that’s a smart strategy.

SILVERMAN:  Well, who is behind the SCF?  It used to be Jim DeMint.  Is he still the guy there?

McCONNELL:  It was Senator DeMint originally.  But it continues.  I’m not sure who’s running it now.  But they have an outstanding record of defeat, and you’ve got to wonder whether any candidate who is running a smart campaign would want to sign up with those guys.  It’s sort of like a ticket on the Titanic.

Asked for a response to McConnell’s attack, Glenn told me:

Glenn: “I understand he feels that way, and I look forward to seeing him at my swearing in. We will prove him wrong.”

When he was endorsed by the SCF last month, Glenn told The Denver Post that he was “very humbled” to receive the endorsement.

Ken Cuccinelli, president of the SCF said of Glenn in a statement, as reported by The Post: “He’s an inspiring leader who will defend the Constitution and stand up to the liberals in both parties.” “We are excited about his candidacy and will do everything we can to help him with this important race,” he added.

Silverman pointed out that McConnell, who’s said that talk radio misleads conservatives and may have contributed to the rise of Trump, cites Colorado’s 2010 Senate race, lost by Ken Buck, in McConnell’s recent book, The Long Game, as an example of what Republicans should not do.

Here’s a partial transcript of McConnell’s June 4 conversation with Silverman.

SILVERMAN:  In your book you write about how Colorado blew it in 2010, with the help of the Senate Conservative Fund.  What were you talking about there, in 2010, and why do you have such animus for the SCF—the Senate Conservative Fund?

McCONNELL:  Well, the Senate Conservatives Fund has been endorsing people who, if they win the primary, can’t win in the general.  We lost three seats in 2010, one there in Denver, with candidates who were unable to appeal to a broader audience in November.

SILVERMAN:  Ken Buck.

HOST CRAIG SILVERMAN:  Boy, I liked when you said that.  And you said you were “perplexed” by Michael Bennet’s vote.  We would use a different ‘P’ word, and that would be “pissed” at Michael Bennet because he undercut a lot of Colorado supporters — people who thought that he was on the side of Israel, but [it] turned out he was on Team Obama.  And I’ll tell you, it was very disappointing.  And that’s why a lot of us feel he needs to be replaced as the United States Senator.  Have you been following this campaign out in Colorado?

U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, MITCH McCONNELL:  Yeah, I know you don’t have a nominee yet, but I’ve certainly been following the competition.  We hope to be able to compete in Colorado.  Obviously, that will depend on getting a candidate who has a shot at winning.

SILVERMAN:  In your book you write about how Colorado blew it in 2010, with the help of the Senate Conservative Fund.  What were you talking about there, in 2010, and why do you have such animus for the SCF—the Senate Conservative Fund?

McCONNELL:  Well, the Senate Conservatives Fund has been endorsing people who, if they win the primary, can’t win in the general.  We lost three seats in 2010, one there in Denver, with candidates who were unable to appeal to a broader audience in November.

SILVERMAN:  Ken Buck

McCONNELL:  We lost two in 2012 in Indiana and Missouri, with candidate who were unable to appeal to the larger audience.  And so in 2014 we took a different strategy and competed with the Senate Conservatives Fund everywhere they backed a candidate, and defeated them in every primary in 2014.  And that’s why we have a new majority.  And of course, your outstanding Senator, Cory Gardner, was a part of all that.  And it reminds everybody that the only way you can make policy is to actually win the election.  So, the nominating process, in order to work for us, needs to produce nominees who can actually win in November.  Otherwise, you’ve wasted your time.

SILVERMAN:  Who is behind the Senate Conservative Fund?  You know, they were just in the news in Colorado because they have committed to a candidate:  Darryl Glenn, El Paso County Commissioner.  And he is their selection.  Do you know anything about Darryl Glenn?    Or, do you just –.

McCONNELL:  I don’t.  I don’t.  But I can tell you, in Indiana there was a primary the doctor told her that the federal government ever primary between a Senate Conservatives Fund nominee and Congressman Todd Young, the other candidate.  And the candidate of the Senate Conservatives Fund tried to make me an issue in the Indiana Senate primary.  He lost by 34 points.  So, you know, I think any candidate who signs up with the Senate Conservatives Fund has to wonder whether that’s a smart strategy.

SILVERMAN:  Well, who is behind the SCF?  It used to be Jim DeMint.  Is he still the guy there?

McCONNELL:  It was Senator DeMint originally.  But it continues.  I’m not sure who’s running it now.  But they have an outstanding record of defeat, and you’ve got to wonder whether any candidate who is running a smart campaign would want to sign up with those guys.  It’s sort of like a ticket on the Titanic.

Humans not contributing to global warming, Glenn again says

Tuesday, May 17th, 2016

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Darryl Glenn reiterated his belief last week that humans are not contributing to global warming.

Asked about the issue by KNUS 710-AM’s Jimmy Sengenberger Show May 7, Glenn, an El Paso Couty Commissioner, said:

Glenn: Climate change, we can debate that until the cows come home, for lack of a better way of stating that. The bottom line is, I do not believe that man is contributing to that factor. We need to stand up for energy independence, and Colorado needs to lead the nation.

Sengenberger: I think this issue is so overblown. But it is something that is very important to Millennials in particular, because they have gone through a college process and a K-12 education where this is something constantly ingrained in them. How can we appeal to Millenials, to young people, in your mind on the issue of energy, to say, ‘We need to be developing our energy infrastructure in this country and in the state of Colorado, not harming it.

Glenn: I agree. And it’s an extensive conversation.  You mentioned education. As conservatives, we cannot just concede education over to the Democrats. We really need to be actively involved. And that’s why I’ve been such a proponent of school choice and the other options that are out there, because the left is clearly out there driving the agenda, trying to shape the minds of the next generation.

Glenn’s position contrasts with the consensus view among scientists worldwide that human activity is contributing to climate change. Interestingly, Glenn’s stance has so little credibility that some journalists argue that it should be ingored as a legitimate opinion in news articles.

Glenn hopes to prevail in Colorado’s June 28 GOP primary and take on Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, who believes climate change is already affecting Colorado and who hammered his GOP opponent in 2010 for denying that humans were causing climate change.

Tea Party activist is now “executive editor” at the Colorado Statesman?

Thursday, April 28th, 2016

If all you knew about Jennifer Kerns is her job title of executive editor of the Colorado Statesman, you may have been surprised if you attended last Thursday’s meeting of the North Jeffco Tea Party, where she provided an evening lecture titled, “Brokered Brand: How the GOP continues to compromise its brand and lose elections… and what you can do about it.”

A couple days before her Jeffco speech, Kerns’ Tea-Party conservatism was blaring from KNUS 710-AM, where she subbed for arch conservative Dan Caplis:

Kerns: We can’t forget that we have a big senate race coming up here in 2016, the race against Sen. Michael Bennet, one of the more liberal members of the U.S. Senate, very similar to Mark Udall, except, in my view, there’s one big problem with Senator Bennet, and that is, whereas Mark Udall was concerned about one thing and one thing primarily, your uterus–That was his nickname at least on the campaign trail, given to him by The Denver Post.–Sen. Michael Bennet has many, many interests that he wants to control in your life. And to talk about that a little bit is the executive director of Advancing Colorado, Jonathan Lockwood. … I want to go through some of the attacks you’ve made on Sen. Michael Bennet and rightfully so, given his track record. Let’s start with his support of President Obama’s nuclear deal that gives Iran basically unfettered access to nuclear material… Great work you’re doing, Jonathan Lockwood….

This doesn’t sound like a journalist who, a couple weeks later, would be writing a front-page Statesman article about the Bennet race. But, yes, Kerns authored the April 13 piece, headlined “Bennet will have a fight, but how much of one is TBD.”

The headline was fair enough, but the article hit a low note by repeating an inaccurate conservative attack against Bennet:

“[Bennet’s] initial support of transferring prisoners from Guantanamo Bay detention camps was an unpopular sell to many Colorado voters,” Kerns reported.

Bennet never supported transferring GITMO prisoners here, and Kerns was immediately challenged on Twitter by “MissingPundit,” who pointed out that Politifact found it untrue that Bennet supported bringing Gitmo detainees to Colorado.

In response, Kerns called Politifact a “lefty site,” again repeating a conservative talking point that ignores the fact that Politifact won the Pulitzer Prize in 2009. Kerns tweeted that Politifact is “lefty” in the same way America Rising is “righty.” In reality, America Rising was established to expose the “truth about Democrats”, while the mission of Politifact is fact checking.

In any case, to the Statesman’s credit, the falsehood about Bennet was later removed from the digital version of the article, but, unfortunately, there was no indication that a correction was made.

Asked to discuss this error and her conservative activism, Kerns, who’s also a favorite of KNUS’ Peter Boyles, referred me to Statesman publisher Jared Wright.

First, Wright said, he’s obviously aware of Kerns’ conservative background, and he points to her bio, often printed in the newspaper and online, as proof that the newspaper is being transparent about her:

Jennifer Kerns is an executive editor at The Colorado Statesman. She is an accomplished conservative political writer and contributor to several national publications including The Blaze, The Washington Times, and The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal. She also served as the communications director and spokeswoman for the 2013 Colorado recall elections to defend Coloradans’ Second Amendment rights. [and California’s Proposition 8, BigMedia addition]

Calling the recall elections an effort “to defend Coloradans’ Second Amendment rights” is biased itself, but Wright said, “All of her stuff [online and print] goes through another editor and the fact-checking process. And there have been a number of times when we said, ‘You need to go get comments from the other side. You need to make sure the other side has its say.”

Wright said it’s “no excuse,” but his small newspaper has been hit with an overlapping staff crisis and vacations recently. A written correction should have been made on Kerns’ Bennet article, in line with the newspaper’s policy, and he promised to look into it.

The short staffing, he said, was partly the reason Kerns was writing the Bennet article in the first place, said Wright. The executive editor job is “more of an executive officer or an assistant to the editorial department,” he said. But Kerns will “pinch hit” as a reporter, as she did when writing the “Hot Sheet” feature when Wright, who usually writes the informative daily political briefing, was away recently.

Wright believes that advocates can make good journalists at a political newspaper like the Statesman, due to their insider contacts and deep political knowledge.

But, I told Wright, Kerns looks like a conservative operative at work at the Statesman, which, two sources say, is under the majority control of conservative power-broker Larry Mizel.

Wright said expects Kerns’ outside political work to end soon, though she’ll still have her opinions, and some of it was on tap before she started.

“I’m fully aware that Jennifer has her bent, probably more than anyone else on our staff,” said Wright, who’s a former GOP state lawmaker, now a registered independent.

“I want to have people who are opinionated,” said Wright, emphasizing his newspaper will be as transparent as possible. “It’s important to have journalists but also to have people who have been very active in politics, and of course the only place you are going to find those people is on one side of the aisle or the other. So as long as we have a balance of those people on the team, I think we’ll be in good shape.”

Who’s the balance for Kerns, who started last month?

“You know, we’ve also got [Statesman Capitol Bureau Chief] John Tomasic,” Wright said. “John will tell you he’s very opinionated on the progressive side and has worked for progressive publications [like the Colorado Independent].”

Kerns has a track record as an operative; Tomasic is a journalist, I told Wright.

He agreed that the two staffers are not comparable “in the way they are currently operating.” He said he might add a writer with a progressive background to his staff. [If you know someone, please see if they want to apply.]

With respect to Tomasic, he said, “There are times when we have to say, ‘John, you have to go talk to the other side. John, sometimes correctly, doesn’t trust the other side, and doesn’t have those contacts. It’s just all of us, working as a team, and keeping each other on track.”

The question is, given what we’ve seen so far, can the team control Kerns?

Clarification: An early version of this post implied that the Statesman is begging for progressive job applicants. This is not what I meant.  Also, the incorrect statement that Tomasic wrote for progressive causes was removed.

Will choice matter in Colorado U.S. Senate race?

Thursday, April 21st, 2016

In a radio interview yesterday, GOP U.S. Senate candidate Robert Blaha said choice is “not going to be an issue” in in Colorado’s U.S. Senate campaign because women are “really smart” and will not be concerned about Blaha’s opposition to all abortion, even for rape and incest (unless the mother’s life is in danger).

For perspective, I dredged up this video of Bennet arguing with then Weld Country District Attorney Ken Buck on the topic of abortion.

Blaha argues that he can turn the issue against Bennet by bringing up his support for partial-birth abortion, a rare procedure performed only when serious medical issues warrant it.

Watch the video above, and read Blaha’s comments below, and tell me if  smart women will side with Bennet or a candidate like Blaha. Reporters should keep the comparison in their pockets for November’s campaign trail.

Robert Blaha on the Dan Caplis Show – KNUS, 710am – April 20, 2016

Blaha: You know, people have got to realize that women — my women, the women I know — are really smart. And they think about far more than just the issues of abortion. That’s one issue of five or six or seven that move them. So, you know, I’m a pro-life candidate. I’m proud of that. I don’t move off of that, and I have an exception for the woman’s life. But besides staying on message, I don’t think you’ve got to back off a bit, because that issue — that singular issue — was a winner in ’10, it was a winner in ’11. It wasn’t an issue in ’12. ‘13 and ’14 and it’s not going to be an issue in ’16. It’s not a winning issue for the far left.

Caplis: Yeah, and I think if handled right, it backfires on him, because –.

Blaha: Exactly!

Caplis: and I think you are one of a number of candidates in the field who have the high intelligence and the verbal skills to, you know, just turn it on Bennet in a hurry, because he is the true extremist. And when you have the verbal skills you do, you know, you can pin him down. He supports late-term abortion through labor and delivery. And at that point he goes from looking like some kind of moderate to some kind of monster, so–.

Blaha: And, you know, I’m a — because of what I do for a living –I’m a stats guy. I am a data guy. I’m a numbers guy. You know, we can look at poll after poll, we can look at anything. When Michael Bennet and his ilk want to explain why it’s okay to kill somebody in their third term, near the end of a birth. When they can explain that to America and they can get America to embrace that, then I’ll worry about whether, you know, — whether he’s got a better position than I. Because he doesn’t. His position, actually, is the extreme position. Our position is not.