Connoisseurs of the immigration debate in Colorado are familiar with Helen Krieble’s “Red Card Solution,” which originally envisioned undocumented immigrants marching out of the U.S., getting a work permit from a private company, and then returning to the U.S. And all of this would be handled by the private sector. Krieble’s plan has been getting renewed attention lately by Republicans (Dick Wadhams helps promote it.), as an alternative to comprehensive immigration reform, which includes a path to citizenship. And so Krieble has been fielding a lot of questions, like this one on May 14 from KNRV’s Raaki Garcia:

GARCIA: Helen, my question is, would they need to go out of the country to participate in the Red Card. HELEN KRIEBLE: It is simply a question of whether a bill can get passed or not. The “law and order” people, who are a very strong part of this debate, say you must go outside of the borders of the country to enter legally according to our laws. And that doesn’t mean go home to the Philippines if you’re a Phillippino, but go outside. It would only take a week from anywhere in the United States with a forty-eight hour process to do this, so you’re out of the shadows in a week. But I think times have changed. And if it’s possible to pass a law by letting people get their work permits inside the country, I would love to see that happen.

Listen here to Helen Krieble 05-14-13_0001_0001 Garcia should have asked Krieble why her Red-Card-Solution website states that a great march out of the United States is still part of her thinking. What’s up?

If you’ve been listening to conservative talk radio lately, you know most radio hosts on these shows don’t like the election-modernization bill working its way through the Legislature.

Though it might be hard to tear yourself away from Steve Kelley on 710 KNUS in the morning, you might give yourself a break and try Gloria Neal on AM 760. That’s “Colorado’s Progressive Talk,” which used to be hosted by author David Sirota.

Neal had a great conversation last week with Ellen Dumm, who’s a spokesperson in favor of the bill. It’s a great interview as she counters most of the misinformation you hear about the bill on the radio, like the lie it’s nothing more than a partisan trick by Democrats. (It’s been endorsed by 75% of the Colorado County Clerks Association, which includes Republicans.)

Lost in all the attacks is the history of how the bill came forward (from the Clerks) and why (to eliminate the confusion among some voters about how to vote as well as to make voting– and voter registration — more convenient for the rest of us, as well as less expensive for our government, while making sure our elections are secure.)

“What is does is very simple. It gets a ballot to every eligible voter, and they can choose to either vote by mail, which three-fourth of Colorado did in 2012. Or they can drop it off. Or they can vote in person. It’s their choice. We always say, it’s their choice and it’s their voice.”

Listen to Neal’s thoughtful interview here.

Scott Gessler likes to soften his repeated accusations of voter fraud by saying his job, as Secretary of State, is to make it “easy to vote but tough to cheat.”

As Gessler told the Conservative Political Action Committee in October:

And I think most people would agree that when it comes to elections, it should be easy to vote but tough to cheat.  And, you know, I’m focused on both efforts.

Actually, if you listen to Gessler, you know he delivers the “easy-to-vote, tough-to-cheat” line all the time.

What’s Gessler thinking about the “easy-to-vote” part of the deal now, as country clerks have initiated a bill, currently making its way through the State Legislature, that would make voting easier and elections more efficient?

He’s opposing the legislation for a number of reasons, one of which is his belief that Democrats are instituting a “partisan advantage,” even though academics agree that voter conveniences, such as election-day and early registration, for example, do not favor one party over the other.

In response to Mike Rosen’s assertion on KOA last week that Democrats will get more votes if they “make it easier for casual and lazy voters to vote,” Gessler said, “You know, I think there’s evidence to support that.”

Rosen didn’t question Gessler. Why would he, since they echo in the same chamber.

So we need a journalist to find out from Gessler 1) where is his evidence that voter conveniences produce partisan results, 2) why it matters anyway, unless he’s against voting, and 3) why he’s against key elements of an election bill that would do what Gessler says he wants–make voting easier?

On KOA’s Mike Rosen show this morning, Secretary of State Scott Gessler amped up his attacks on The Denver Post, saying, among other things, that the newspaper is “ideologically skewed in one direction, and that’s where they devote their resources.”

Tell that to ColoradoPols, Mr, Secretary of State. But it gets worse.

In response to Rosen’s assertion that Post news coverage of Gessler channels “Democrat talking points” and gives “lip service to the other side,” Gessler said:

“I think that’s true lately. I think part of it depends on who the reporter is who covers my office. So this article today is written by a guy Joey Bunch. He’s new on the beat. So we’ll see how well he works. I’m sort of optimistic that he will be a lot fairer than what we’ve seen in the past.”

I asked the collective wisdom on Twitter if anyone thinks Post reporter Joey Bunch will be “a lot fairer” to Gessler than the Post’s previous Gessler-beat reporters , Tim Hoover and Sara Barnett.

No one replied, but I can tell you that Hoover (who’s writing editorials) and Barnett (who’s gone) are widely considered stars in Denver journalism circles.

Gessler implied that The Post has an institutional bias against him, saying:

“You know, I think The Denver Post is just ideologically skewed in one direction, and that’s where they devote their resources.”

And he expects The Post to get fully behind former Senate President Ken Gordon, who’s running against Gessler.

“I’ll be running against Ken Gordon and his largest corporate donor, which is The Denver Post,” Gessler told an approving Rosen.

Gessler’s comments today go beyond the usual darts he’s thrown at The Post and other media outlets in the past. He’s trashing specific Post reporters, as well as the entire institution.

Coming from an elected official who, more than other partisan politicians, is supposed to stand up for democracy, and seems so ignorant about the role of journalism therein, it’s gross.

Someone at The Post, maybe one of the good folks who posts on the Editor’s Notes blog or somewhere, should respond to Gessler’s abuse.

Transcript of Mike Rosen’s interview with Scott Gessler 4-10-13

Rosen: “You’ll be running for re-election against The Denver Post. It’s one thing for them to endorse a Democrat, any Democrat, on the editorial pages, which they, no doubt will. But they have been on you ever since you took office. And I think, in most cases, unfairly. In any event, do you know who your official Democrat opponent will be.”

Gessler: “I do. It’s Ken Gordon.”

Rosen: “Former state legislator.

Gessler: “Former state legislator. He ran eight years ago against Mike Coffman, narrowly lost. So, I’ll be running against Ken Gordon and his largest corporate donor, which is The Denver Post.”

Rosen: “What does The Denver Post have against you?”

Gessler: “You know, I think The Denver Post is just ideologically skewed in one direction, and that’s where they devote their resources. I mean, if you look at this legislative session, every single initiative that the Democrats have pushed, the democratic post [laughs], The Denver Post has been on board with that 100 percent. They’ve sided with the Democrats every single time.”

Rosen: “In their news stories attacking you, they just channel Democrat talking points, giving lip service to the other side. That’s my appraisal, and of course I’m biased. But I think my analysis is accurate.”

Gessler: “I think that’s true lately. I think part of it depends on who the reporter is who covers my office. So this article today is written by a guy Joey Bunch. He’s new on the beat. So we’ll see how well he works. I’m sort of optimistic that he will be a lot fairer than what we’ve seen in the past.”

KOA’s Steffan Tubbs has become the leading media voice in Colorado for U.S. troops.

Other local media figures cover the military, including Denver Post photographer Craig Walker, who won a Pulitzer in 2012, but Tubbs gives military personnel regular coverage, in different media platforms, and he deserves more recognition for what he’s doing.

For seven years and counting, Tubbs has closed his morning-drive show on KOA radio, with: “Remember our troops.”

Tubbs reported from Iraq as an embedded journalist in 2006, and he went back to Iraq in 2010 to teach Iraqi reporters about professional journalism, and he provided live reports to KOA on the side.

Today on KOA radio, you’re not surprised to hear Tubbs using some obscure excuse to interview troops, sandwiched by traffic reports in the morning. Tubbs was talking to a veteran on the anniversary of the Iwo Jima invasion recently, for example.

Off the job, Tubbs came out with a self-published book last year titled, Life, Liberty and Resilience: A Man’s War on Three Fronts, forking out $30,000 of his own money to complete the project, he told me via email. More on this later.

You wonder, why does he do this? Tubbs, who credits KOA’s Jerry Bell for bringing him to KOA, is probably the only anchor on commercial drive-time radio in the entire country that pays much attention at all to U.S. troops. It can’t be a ratings sensation. Denver isn’t military town. What motivates Tubbs?

Tubbs explained via email that soon after he returned from his 2006 embed in Iraq, a bomb killed an Army Captain of the unit he embedded with.

That’s when it hit home to Tubbs that soldier “deaths were more than numbers.”

“The person killed has family, loved ones, friends, stories and a life pre-military,” Tubbs wrote. “What motivates me is the commitment shown by so many who enlist; they’re not drafted.  They choose the lifestyle.  Some have few other options, but others could take their lives in completely different directions (Pat Tillman, for example.)  When Ian Weikel was killed, he became the ‘face’ of war and the consequences war carries with it.”

In his book, Tubbs writes that after delivering a eulogy at Weikel’s funeral, he vowed to himself that he’d “act as a beacon to make sure people—regardless of political affiliation or religious beliefs—would not forget the country is filled with families just like the Weikels.”

At that point, Tubbs resolved to sign off his radio show, as long as he sits “behind a microphone,” with “Remember our troops.”

Maybe that sounds hollow, but day-after-day, in a media environment that can make you think the Afghan war is over, it’s a welcome breath of recognition.

After going to Iraq, Tubbs also became more involved in veterans issues, serving until recently on the board of the Greatest Generations Foundation and helping with various veterans’ community events.

“The fact so many [WWII  veterans] have already gone to their graves without talking about it inspires me to seek and find their stories,” he wrote me. “Soon, as we all know, their stories will be unavailable via firsthand accounts.”

Tubbs traveled back to Iwo Jima with groups of WWI veterans who fought there.

One such visit by Tubbs, with an African-American veteran Joe LaNier, is recounted in Tubbs’ book. But the biography takes a broader look at LaNier’s life, at the bigotry he faced as a child in the south, as a soldier in the U.S. Navy in WWII, and as an adult living in Denver after the war.

It’s a compelling story, showing how much strength was required from LaNier to overcome the racism and roadblocks that were normal in the lives of blacks in our country, even those serving in the US military, just decades ago.

Tubbs does an especially nice job illuminating the hypocrisy of the U.S. military’s racist treatment of LaNier, as he served in a war fought under the banner of freedom and equality.

In his book, and in his other media efforts on behalf of U.S. troops, Tubbs acts mostly like an ally for our men and women in the military, rather than an investigator or dispassionate journalist. Still, he raises issues and sticks to them.

I appreciate what he’s doing, in the media role he has. One of my favorite ideals of journalism is to give a “voice” to everday people, whose stories deserve to be told and shared. Tubbs’ work shows how much one motivated person in the media can do, without an assignment. The depleted press corps needs more people like Tubbs at outlets like KOA. They should pick an issue and report.

“Meeting members of our military, both in theatre and at various events, and seeing their sacrifices is my single motivation,” Tubbs emailed me. “I am amazed at how many people take military service (past and present) for granted.”

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter@bigmediablog

KOA’s Mike Rosen had Duane Liptak, director of Magpul Dynamics, on the air this morning, and so I called in and asked Liptak how he’d feel if a Magpul 30-round magazine were used at the Sandy Hook massacre. I blogged about this topic today. Here’s how my converstation went:

Jason: You make the most popular 30-round magazine, I think, in the country.

Liptak: We are definitely an industry leader in the standard-capacity magazines in common use.

Jason: Right, so what that means, is there’s a significant likelihood that your magazine was used at Sandy Hook, right? And I’m wondering how you feel about that?

Rosen: What a stupid question!

Jason: It’s fair enough!

Rosen: Of course this is a flaming lefty, Jason Salzman.What a moron you are, Jason–

Rosen then hung up on me, ending the conversation. Rosen and Liptak, whose company says it will leave Colorado if the bill limiting the size of magazines becomes law, continued.

Rosen: …What a terrible innuendo.

Liptak: Absolutely.

Rosen: So he’s trying to relate you to Sandy Hook. This is the way the left operates. We’re having a rational discussion here, talking about some of the specifics, the elements, of the bill. And he wants to make that kind of contention. Shame  on you, Jason Salzman.

Liptak: Address the individual behavior and the criminal, not the instrument.

Again, my basic point is that it’s fine to say Magpul magazines are used by Seals, as The Denver Post has reported.

It’s also fair to discuss the possible use of Magpul magazines by mass killers, like the Sandy Hook murderer who used a 30-round magazine like Magpul makes.

All the cars honking in front of the State Capitol on Monday became a symbol, in the media, of the angry opposition to gun-safety legislation.

I’m not the first to report this, but the idea for the honk-athon came from Michael “Brownie” Brown, who was doing a “heck’ve a job” during Hurricane Katrina, in George W. Bush’s humble opinion.

Last Thursday on his KHOW radio show and on his blog, Brownie first started encouraging listeners to drive by the State Capitol and lean on their horns:

We can spend all day Monday driving by…laying on that horn until it’s driving you crazy. I want to hear horns honking all day long at Colfax and Broadway…So are you in or not? I have no clue if this will work or not…but i think if all of you think about this, it’s a pretty easy thing to do….All i am suggesting is you drive around, you lay on your horn, you make as much noise as possible.

Brown then took his horn campaign deeper into the conservative echo chamber, apeearing on other talk shows and promoting it to his friends.

And his idea took off, as Brownie reported on his blog Monday:

Little did I realize how impactful that suggestion [of honking horns] would be for decent, ordinary citizens around the nation. First, the Daily Caller picked up the story. Then, Erick Erickson at Red State picked up the story. You can read those here and here. Both are great stories and I’m grateful for their coverage.

Some people write off radio, but Brownie’s stunt shows how conservative talk shows can launch an idea or an action, using the media connectons and pseudo “celebrity” qualities of the hosts, as well as the networks of their fringe audiences.

I can see the veins bulging out on the necks of conservatives across Colorado when they hear that Denver Post publisher Dean Singleton thinks the Republican Party is “dead in Colorado” and that he doesn’t expect to see another Republican president elected in the United States in his lifetime.

If that’s not vein-popping enough, Singleton went on to say that Udall will win big in 2014, Colorado’s next Attorney General will be a Democrat, and there’s no one in the United States of America who won’t take his phone call.

That’s what Singleton told KHOW’s Peter Boyles March 1 during the 6 a.m. hour:

Boyles: The Republican Party, for all intents and purposes, is dead.

Singleton: I think it’s in trouble nationally. It’s not in trouble locally. I mean, Republicans control 30 State Houses.

Boyles: But I’m talking about in Colorado.

Singleton: I think it’s dead in Colorado.

Boyles: I think it’s dead in the country.

Singleton: It’s not dead–

Boyles: You think we’ll ever have another Republican President in our lifetime?

Singleton: Ahh, no.

Boyles: I agree with you.

Singleton: And it really doesn’t matter whom the Republicans put up. Republicans, in my view, won’t win another presidency in our lifetime.

Listen to Dean Singleton tells Boyles GOP is dead in CO 3-1-2013

Singleton amplified on these thoughts during 7 a.m. hour March 1:

Singleton: The Republican Party is not dead. The Republican Party controls 30 State Houses. Because of redistricting and gerrymandering, Republicans have the chance to hold the House from now on, because most their congressional members come from safe seats. But if you look where their electoral seats are, the Republicans just can’t play at a presidential level. They can’t win in enough states to have enough of the Electoral votes. So I don’t think we will see another Republican President in our lifetime.

Boyles: I don’t either….

Singleton: Republicans have two elected state-wide office holders, the Treasurer and the Attorney General. The Attorney General is not running for re-election, so that will go Democratic. .. [BigMedia comment: Colorado’s Secretary of State is also a Republican.]

Boyles: Is it because of the party or is it the candidates they choose?

Singleton: Well, it’s both. The party has shifted so far right that that’s the kind candidates they pick. And they pick candidates that aren’t in the mainstream. And you see the growth of Colordo, and where the growth has come from demographically. I think Colorado is probably a Democratic state from now on.

It is a Democratic state today, and I don’t think it’s going back. I’m an independent. I’ve never registered for either party, and, in fact, the first Democrat I ever I voted for for President was Barack Obama. So I’m not a Democrat, but when you go to vote you, you have the choice of two candidates. And you pick the best candidate if you’re thinking straight…

You’ll see a lot of Republicans trying to get back in the game statewide, but I don’t see it happening. I don’t think it’s necessarily good. I just think it’s what it is… The Republicans don’t have a candidate to run against Udall in 2014. They have nobody to run.

Boyles: It’s a year away.

Singleton: And they don’t have anybody to run against him. Part of it is, nobody wants to run against him, because he’s going to win big. So, why do it?.. I find it sad that in 2014 we won’t have a spirited Senate race. There just won’t be. That’s not the way democracy was supposed to be….

Boyles: Is there anyone who won’t take your phone call?

Singleton: Not that I know of.

Listen: Singleton on Boyles, says Udall will win, discusses prostitution-scandal reporting, explains why CO GOP dead, and more 3-1-13

As Publisher of the Post, and founder of MediaNews, Singleton can air his opinions, and he has strong ones, even tantrum-like explosions, one of which manifested itself in a front-page editorial screed against Bill Ritter and unions.

Still, no one who actually reads The Post would expect Singleton’s pessimism about the Colorado GOP to leak into the news reporting, in the form of reporting that would hurt Republicans.

So please, let’s not hear fresh cries of unsubstantiated media bias.

If I’m a conservative, and I read what Singleton has to say, I wouldn’t get mad. I’d take it seriously, thank him for the honesty, and re-subscribe.

You’d think KHOW’s Peter Boyles, who’s probably the leading birther talk-show host in America, would at least stop and say ‘thank you’ when a State Senator tips his hat to Boyles’ relentless efforts to expose President Obama’s Social Security number as phony.

Boyles had his chance Tuesday, when State Sen. Greg Brophy told Boyles on air that media corporations “shut down” the debate about Obama’s Social Security number because such a debate might be “toooo disruptive” and cause the media companies to make less money.

Boyles @17:10: I don’t know if you’ve seen this, Come and Take It. It’s a wonderful video by this guy coming up Steve Vaus. He’s won some Grammy’s and he’s done this video. They can’t get anybody to let him buy time, including the company I work for, won’t let him buy time. So we put him up. We put him on the air… It’s interesting, as he’s pointed out, the big media corps, they are as afraid of the President, or in bed with these guys because they are looking for bailouts, so they don’t want any problems. But the same stations that would not take Vaus’ ad will take ads from the people with Gabby Giffords. Does that make any sense to you as an elected official?

Brophy: Of course it doesn’t. But I guess, on the one hand, they just want what’s good for business. They’re not ideological. That’s why they shut down all that talk about, that you worked so hard on, the President’s Social Security number. Exact same thing. Let’s not talk about the stuff that might be toooo disruptive because, ‘we all got to make some money here.’

If I’m Boyles, and I hear this from Brophy, I’m thinking, “Ah ha! I’ve got a fellow birther on the phone. And he’s a State Senator! I should ask some questions and test the depth of his birtherness.”

But Boyles, who ranks as Colorado’s number one birther, according to Denver Post Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard, let it slide by, without asking Brophy if he thinks the origin of Obama’s SS number is a legitimate issue that truly deserves more media scrutiny.

So I did Boyles’ work for him and asked the amiable Brophy, a Republican from Wray, whether he thought Obama’s Social Security number is fake.

“Call Boyles and ask him,” he responded. “He did extensive work on it.”

Questioned further, Brophy wrote: “Peter makes a great case, and I have not heard a rebuttal. Do you have a good one.”

I referred Brophy to Snopes and media fact checkers.

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.