This is the moment for reporters to dig into Donald Trump’s impact on state legislative races in Colorado, and no races are more important than those in swing state senate districts, like Republican Laura Woods’ contest against Democrat Rachel Zenzinger and the race between GOP Arapahoe County Commissioner Nancy Doty and Democratic state Rep. Daniel Kagan.

Both Woods and Doty have said they’ll back Trump, with Woods enthusiastically calling Trump the “people’s candidate.”

But reporters have yet to question Doty in any substantive way about her support for Trump. We have more than a hint that Doty thinks highly of Trump, because Doty called Sarah Palin’s July 12 endorsement speech of Trump “spot on,” and Doty said she “really enjoyed hearing Trump himself speak.

“I thought Sarah Palin was right on, just spot on! She was very, very good – brought a clear message that people need to get on board.  And I really enjoyed hearing [Donald] Trump,” Doty told KNUS 710-AM host Julie Hayden when asked for her “thoughts” on the speeches.

If Republicans lose their one-seat majority in the state senate, Democrats will likely control state government. So the stakes are high for Doty and Woods.

In a light-hearted attempt to encourage reporters to ask Doty about her “spot-on” Sarah comment, I offer this video:

Colorado Springs radio host Richard Randall landed an interview with Donald Trump Friday, and Trump took advantage of the obscure conversation to declare that the U.S. has a “phony, artificial stock market,” that will do “some very bad and very interesting things” when “interest rates go up a little bit.”

Trump has criticized the stock market in the past, but his statement here, on KVOR-740 AM in Colorado Springs, lays out his views as starkly as they’ve been expressed anywhere, as far as I can tell:

Trump: (@7:45) You know, one of the things, there are so many problems in our country that you can speak for two hours and you don’t cover the subject. The other thing that just came out, is home ownership. It’s the lowest in 58 years. Did they say 58? The lowest home ownership we’ve had, percentage-wise that we’ve had in this country in 58 years. The only thing we have is a phony, artificial stock market. So people think—But I’ll tell you what, nothing relates to the stock. Even in New York, on Wall Street and stuff, people think Wall Street. It’s a whole different world. The stock market is a phony number and it’s gotten there because nobody is paying any interest. When interest rates go up a little bit, you’ll see some very bad and very interesting things happen.

In a post yesterday, I reported that Arvada State Sen. Laura Woods referred to Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his running mate as “gun grabbers.”

Woods’ comment was confusing because Johnson is an uncompromising gun proponent, opposing virtually every gun-safety proposal out there, including proposals to stop suspected terrorists, whose names appear of the federal “no-fly” list, from buying guns.

Informed of Woods’ gun-grabber comment, Joe Hunter, a spokesman for Johnson, said Woods may be upset about Johnson’s willingness to have a “conversation” about how to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

“There is no gun grabbing going on here,” said Johnson, adding that Woods’ attack may be “coming from” her opposition to Johnson’s statements about guns and the mentally ill.

Hunter: “Johnson has acknowledged that when someone is clearly mentally ill and clearly capable of doing harm to others and him or herself, [Johnson] has said we should have a conversation about how to handle that, about what to do about that.”

Woods still won’t return my call seeking to know if this is, in fact, why she called Johnson a gun grabber, so we’re forced to speculate.

Woods, who’s running against Democrat Rachel Zenzinger to represent the Arvada/Westminster senate district, stated on Facebook:

Woods: “Dana Kirsch (sp?) Said Johnson isn’t any different than Obama on 2A. How is that a libertarian idea? I’ll never vote for him.”

A search for what “Dana Kirsch” wrote about Johnson, Obama, and the Second Amendment turned up nothing, but I struck gold with “Dana Loesch,” a right-wing gun extremist and talk radio host who tweeted a sentence very similar to Woods’ comment on Facebook:

Loesch: “I’ll post the audio of my past interview with Gary Johnson on 2A. His answers were in line with Obama’s positions on the issue.”

Loesch: “I see a lot of people talking Gary Johnson but after I interviewed him on 2A I found he’s not much different from Obama on gun laws.”

So, it’s pretty clear Woods was actually referring to Loesch, who is also upset with Johnson’s willingness to have a conversation about guns and the mentally ill.

So, by extension, it looks like Woods’ beef with Johnson is about guns and the mentally ill. She sides with Loesch in wanting no conversation about that topic.

I can’t figure out any other reason Woods would be mad at Johnson over his stance on guns, and she won’t return my call to settle the matter.

In a Facebook post last week, State Sen. Laura Woods referred to Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his running mate as “gun grabbers.”

A Republican from Arvada/Westminster, Woods has made no secret of her hard stance against all gun safety laws, including her opposition to Colorado billls requiring mandatory criminal background checks on people purchasing guns.

She also opposes a Colorado law limiting the number of bullets a person can load into a gun at one time. Woods wants gun to be allowed to hold, for example, 100 bullets if the shooter wanted.

And on Woods’ website, she emphasizes her belief that all people should be allowed to openly carry a gun in public, without concealing it and without obtaining a permit. Woods’ website explains that she favors passing bills enacting this extreme pro-gun position, called “constitutional carry” legislation.

But the strange part is, Libertarian Johnson, whom Woods called a gun grabber, seems to be just about as far from a “gun grabber” as you could possibly imagine, having once told Slate Magazine, “I don’t believe there should be any restrictions when it comes to firearms. None.”

Johnson recently told USA TODAY he supports gun sales to suspected terrorists who can’t fly on airplanes because they’re on America’s terrorist watch list. And Johnson opposes a ban on automatic weapons.

Yet, Woods thinks Johnson is a gun grabber?

That’s a term used to describe someone who is believed to favor government confiscation of guns from ordinary citizens.

What could Johnson possibly say that would make him sufficiently opposed to basic gun safety to meet Woods’ standards for gun craziness?

Woods wants total-freedom-to-own-and-buy-guns, but so does Johnson, as you’d expect from a Libertarian, who sees these safety measures as an intrusion on privacy. Woods doesn’t return my calls, so I’ll leave it to another reporter to find out what she’s thinking.

Meanwhile, Woods’ views on guns will likely not fly so well in her Arvada/Westminster swing district, where she faces a challenge from Democrat Laura Zenzinger.

An overwhelming 80 percent of Coloradans support background checks for all gun purchases, and 60 percent support limits on the number of bullets allowed in a gun’s bullet holder, called a magazine, according to a Denver Post poll.

“I’m really disappointed in you, Senator. Promoting the lie that Gary Johnson is a gun grabber,” commented Stacy Petty, a former conservative talk-radio host in response to Woods’ Facebook post. “You need to check your facts before you post.”

But Woods holds to her extreme stance on guns, despite its apparent unpopularity, just as she stands behind her extreme position against abortion, even for a women who was raped.

“If you’ve looked at my voting record at all, what you will know is I’m an independent thinker,” Woods told Denver Post reporter John Frank in January.

“Republicans like Laura Woods see their party falling apart, and they are doing everything they can to trash anyone else who might potentially take away votes from whatever consevative base they might have,” said Hans Romer, the Libertarian candidate running against Woods and Zenzinger. “Laura Woods is playing politics.”

The outcome of Woods race against Zenzinger will likely determine control of state government, political analysts say, as Republicans hold a slim one-seat majority in the state senate. Democrats already control the governor’s office, and it’s likely they’ll retain control of the state house, after November’s election.

This post was updated with a comment from Romer.

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.

Rep. Mike Coffman has purged his official website of an article showing his support of the anti-LGBT “don’t-ask-don’t-tell” policy, which allowed gays to serve in the military only if they kept their sexual orientation secret.

At least until June 14, Coffman’s “Media Center” section of his website displayed a Feb. 3, 2010, USA Today opinion column by Coffman titled, “Don’t Interject Sexuality.”  You can see the page cached on Google here.

Just as Coffman once scrubbed “comprehensive immigration reform” from a portion of his website, the don’t-ask-don’t-tell article is nowgone from the Congressman’s website, even though other opinion articles by Coffman remain there from as far back as 2009.

Coffman’s article stated:

The determination to accomplish the mission, along with the will to survive, welded the unit into an effective ground combat team: An interdependent bond was formed between each and every Marine in the unit.

That strong interdependent bond held our ground combat team together and made us into an effective fighting unit. The bond was founded upon a mutual trust: Although each Marine could be singled out for a task that could put his life at risk, Marines would always have the confidence that the orders given to them on the battlefield were never tainted by any emotional bias.

U.S. Marine Corps ground combat teams are composed of men only. Interjecting sexuality into a ground combat team potentially creates an emotional divide between Marines that undermines confidence and prevents that interdependent bond from forming, ultimately compromising the combat effectiveness of the unit.

We need a very deliberative and reasoned approach before considering a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a proven policy that has served the military and the nation well since 1993.

It’s unclear whether the scrubbing of this article means Coffman has changed his position in support of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” which is discriminatory and has been repealed.

If he’s changed his position, why? Maybe Coffman’s office, which doesn’t respond to me, will return another reporter’s call to explain.

And while he’s at it, maybe he’ll also explain why he no longer favors banning all abortion, even for rape and incest. As far as I can tell, reporters have yet to ask for details on why he abandoned this position.

With Colorado Trump campaign manager Patrick Davis  relying on the “robust operations” of the Colorado Republican party, it’s particularly newsworthy that GOP county and district officials are resigning from their elected positions and leaving the party.

In the past week, Patrick Crowder, vice chair of the Rio Grande Republican Party, and Craig Steiner, chair of House District 43 Republicans, said good-bye to fellow Republicans.

Steiner, who’s a long-time GOP activist, Central Committee member, and former Douglas County GOP chair, resigned on Friday, writing on Facebook:

…I believe over the last week the Republican Party lost all remaining pretense of principled conservatism while the national party simultaneously lost any credible claim to being the party of the “rule of law.”  The nominee is a nutcase who can’t even stop defending the National Enquirer the day after the Convention. And in a way I haven’t seen in past elections, this race has turned people I know into people I barely recognize. It’s disheartening.

Though I’ve considered myself a Republican since I saw Reagan debate Carter at age 9, today with sadness I updated my party affiliation.

As I am no longer a registered Republican, I have submitted my resignation as chairman of Republican House District 43.  I have also submitted my resignation as a member of the Colorado Republican Central Committee.

After Steiner, who did not immediately return a call for comment, came Crowder, who tweeted Sunday that he’d resigned his vice chair post and become unaffiliated.

Asked why he left the GOP, Crowder said, “Trump is scraping out everything that the Republican Party has stood for and building a wall in its place.”

“A lot of farmers are concerned about our beef and potato exports,” he continued, telling me about recent conversations at a GOP fundraiser. “There’s a lot of concern about what’s going on.”

Crowder doesn’t see “core Republican principles,” including “sanctity of life” and economic positions, “reflected in our nominee.”

Steiner and Crowder are elected party officials who’ve left the GOP, but other party stalwarts and activists continue to resist pressure to peel off the #NeverTrump label. More on these folks in another post.

Meanwhile, if you hear of more Colorado Republican officials who’ve left the party, please let me know.

After Colorado Trump campaign director Patrick Davis said last week that Trump will rely on the “robust operations” of the Colorado Republican Party to mobilize voters in November, a key county Republican chair said Saturday there’s no signs of any Trump ground game in Adams County, a critical battleground in our state.

ADAMS COUNTY GOP CHAIRMAN, ANIL MATHAI: Honestly, I have not seen [the Trump ground game] in Adams County.
KNUS RADIO HOST CHUCK BONNIWELL: [chuckles, knowingly]
MATHAI: It’s consistent with what happened before caucus. Really, there’s no ground game. There’s no campaign here in the state. I know that [Republican donor and Colorado Statesman owner] Mr. Mizel is helping with fundraising here in Colorado. Also, I believe Mike Shanahan and Pete Coors are helping to raise major donations for Mr. Trump.
CO-HOST JULIE HAYDEN: Right.
MATHAI: So, there is activity going on. It’s going to ramp up. But honestly, there is no real solid ground game here.And that needs to be increased. And the state party, [Sate GOP Chair Steve House], I believe, is working on that.
BONNIWELL: Well, you better get to it one of these days. [laughs]
HAYDEN: I agree with you, there, too. I was worried that that was going to be your answer because, you know, just as a reporter, having covered it and sometimes seeing the difference in sort of the Democratic Party’s ground game and the Republican Party’s ground game – it seems to me it can make a big difference.
MATHAI: It can. And we expect – I expect the state party, and I believe, will set the tone on this and set the leadership on this. They’re having a unity tour for, uh, Darryl Glenn up and down the state, going to different places, here. Yeah, it starts in Larimer at, I believe, nine o’clock, and then all the way down to Pueblo County. So, they are making attempts here to make sure that we win all of our races.

Adams County is widely regarded as one of the most important counties in the state, so the total absence of a Trump ground game there in mid-July is not good for Republicans, who’ve been facing the same problem nationally, according to an Associated Press piece yesterday titled, “A lot of holes in GOP ground game in key states.” The AP reported:

“In Colorado, recent staff departures have left about two dozen employees, far short of the 80 that were to have been in place.”

Colorado’s Trump campaign is relying on the “robust operations” of the Colorado Republican Party to mobilize Trump voters, including “many new people” who are drawn to Trump but are not yet in the campaign databases.

Davis: “Because Donald Trump has been bringing so many new people back to politics and to politics, they are really not in our databases,” Colorado Trump campaign director Patrick Davis told KLZ 560-AM’s John Rush on Thursday.  “We don’t know what they believe. In some cases, they are not registered to vote.  In some cases, we don’t know how to find them to remind them when Election Day is, because, believe it or not, people do forget. You do have to remind them.” [BigMedia emphasis]

Davis said the Colorado Republican Party, with its “robust operations,” is tasked with finding these newly politicized people, along with voters of “all stripes,” totaling 1.3 million people, the number of votes Davis thinks Trump needs to win in Colorado.

Davis: “Because the Trump campaign did not invest in a ground game—everybody knows it; it happened all over the country—we are having to graft ourselves into the robust operations at state Republican parties all over the country,” said Davis on air.

“Colorado is one of 11 battleground states, and the state Republican Party here has been preparing for this day for over a year. Now, I run campaigns based on metrics and numbers. We believe that for Donald Trump to win Colorado, he needs to identify and turn out 1.3 million voters in Colorado of all stripes. Republicans, Democrats, independents, Libertarians, liberals, conservatives, we got to turn them out.”

Trump officials have been saying in recent weeks that the campaign will rely on state parties, which have uneven strengths around the country.

The unprecedented upheaval in Colorado’s state GOP in recent years, including the ouster of state chair Ryan Call last March and the subsequent efforts to depose current chair Steve House last summer, raise questions about the robustness of the party’s operations. But House has insisted in recent radio interviews that the party is fully functional and up to the tasks it needs to perform to win races up and down the ticket in November.

UPDATE: The Anschutz Foundation has issued a statement in response to Jonathan Capehart’s Washington Post column about Freedom for All Americans’ report “Enemies of Equality.” Here is the complete statement:

The Anschutz Foundation is not a member of [Washington Post columnist] Jonathan Capehart’s alleged “vast right wing conspiracy.” The Anschutz Foundation donates to thousands of worthy organizations each year, and it does not attempt to dictate to those organizations how they spend their monies. Moreover, those donations are made in accordance with our process and guidelines, and neither process or guidelines identify or reference in any way sexual orientation or gender issues.

Mr. Anschutz, and the Anschutz companies, invest in many businesses employing tens of thousands of people. In all instances, personal lifestyles are neither a requirement or limitation to employment.

Mr. Capehart’s attempt to smear individuals with unfounded allegations is straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook. It is unworthy of him and of the publication by which he is employed.

There is no reason to comment further on his unfounded statements or on the individuals quoted in his article.

———————–

In a report released today, Freedom for All Americans, which aims to “secure full nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people nationwide,” documents, among other things, a trail of cash leading from Colorado billionaire Phil Anschutz to 1) Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a national anti-LGBT group, to 2) anti-LGBT extremists like former Rep. Gordon (“Dr. Chaps”) Klingenschmitt and numerous other far-right Christian conservatives.

But, as I blogged previously, here in Colorado, ADF has enjoyed the embrace not only of Anschutz but of 33 Republican state legislators who joined with ADF last year to push for an investigation of Planned Parenthood.

The lawmakers, who appeared to be led by State Rep. Dan Nordberg of Colorado Springs, included State Sen. Larry Crowder of Alamosa, State Sen. Tim Neville of Littleton, State Rep. JoAnn Windholz of Commerce City, and State Sen. Laura Woods of Arvada/Westminster, whose fate in November’s election will likely determine whether Democrats gain control of state government.

Last November, Windholz wrote that Planned Parenthood was the “true instigator” of the domestic terrorism at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, and last week she wrote on Facebook that pro-choice people don’t care as much about women people with anti-choice views.

In the September 25 letter to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), ADF along with the 33 GOP lawmakers requested the “standards or criteria that are required to initiate an investigation” of Planned Parenthood, and the letter asked why a heavily edited video that falsely purported to show illegal dealings in fetal tissue donation would not be investigated.

The video and others like it were part of an undercover series by the anti-choice front group the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) and have been discredited and their creators indicted.

The Republicans sent their letter, after CDPHE rejected a demand by many of the same state legislators to “initiate an investigation” of Planned Parenthood.

The GOP letter was signed on behalf of ADF by Michael Norton, an outspoken social-conservative attorney in Colorado, who drafted a 2006 Amendment to the state constitution that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

Many of the Colorado legislators who aligned with ADF were part of an unofficial “hearing” in November focused largely on the CMP smear videos and turned into a day-long condemnation of Planned Parenthood. It took place just over two weeks before three people were murdered at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic.

Correction: Crowder represents Alamosa, not Colorado Springs, as stated in an early version of this post.