Archive for the 'Talk Radio' Category

Media omission: Dispute about RNC involvement in Colorado dogged GOP chair in recent weeks

Friday, June 19th, 2015

Prior to this week’s coup attempt, state Republican leader Steve House was under fire from Tea Party activists for cozying up too closely with the Republican National Committee (RNC). It seems unlikely that the failed ouster was inspired by disagreements about RNC involvement in Colorado, but I’ll offer up some background about the dispute anyway, in case there’s more to it that I don’t understand.

Plus, the details about the relationship between the RNC and the state Republican Party, which emerge in the radio interview below, show that the state party is an important part of national Republican voter mobilization. This counters the argument you sometimes hear about the irrelevancy of the state party–beyond its role in candidate selection and the caucus process.

In a contentious June 3 interview on KLZ 560-AM, House fought off allegations from host Kris Cook and guest Ken Clark that the RNC was planning to implement voter mobilization strategies in Colorado, without cooperating or working with Republican County Chairs. Both hosts express little or no trust in the RNC, because they don’t think the RNC’s goals (e.g., electing Jeb Bush) align with the state party goals of winning the state house and lower ballot races. And they worry that House is allowing RNC to take control in Colorado.

Also floating around in the background is the 2014 campaign by the Republican Governor’s Association to knock out Tom Tancredo during the GOP primary.

In any case, here’s a few samples of House’s response to Clark and Cook earlier this month. (Listen to the entire interview below,)

House: “I would be screaming loudly if I saw anything in [the RNC's] actions, or our strategy sessions, or conversation, that they’re going to go to Adams County and cut out Anil Mathai. They’re not going to do that. I’m going with them to Adams County […]. “But we also have to hire people who are smart enough and capable enough to execute a strategy that gets us to victory without Jeff [El Paso County GOP staffer] having to hold their hand. The most important part is we’ve committed to the fact that all of these employees that are hired are going to be interviewed by the county leadership, as well. That is absolutely going to happen. And myself.”

House tried to emphasize that the RNC needs the state party and vice versa:

House: “If you think about what happened in ‘14, in ’14 there were 31 field offices created in the state […] called Victory Offices, etc. This time, the decision was made that it was actually more important to have people than offices. So, we may see two, three, four offices in the state. But it’s mostly about the field organization to get out the vote. And, you know, Chariman Priebus and I, and we’ve had conversations along with Matt Pinnel who is the Chair of Chairs, along with Peter Grace who is the APD for our area from RNC, you know, the strategy is, look, you have to execute on the ground so much better than we have in the past to win in a Presidential year. So the strategy in a presidential year is different than it is in the midterm year. And it really involves all these people because the belief is if we don’t enable minority voters, if we don’t get out the vote at a much higher rate, we’re not going to get there. And offices are not going to do that. So, I think it’s coincidence on the primary, Ken. I’ve talked to these guys five times, six times, in the last two days about strategy. I’ve asked the hard questions all along. I don’t believe we’re going to see –. I wouldn’t let it happen! I mean, I really wouldn’t. I mean, we – there’s no reason in the world, and there’s no way the RNC really can run their strategy without involving county Parties in what’s going on, because there’s not enough with 43 or 45 people on the ground to do that. They have to integrate into our volunteer structure and our counties, or there won’t be enough people.

House emphasized that in 2014, the RNC transferred money to the state party to cover the payroll of over 700 people, including staff, walkers, and field directors.

“So it all flows through the Colorado GOP,” he said.

https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/co-gop-chair-steve-house-debates-strategy-coordination-w-rnc-grassroots-radio-6315

Radio interviewers should have questioned Coffman when he compared Veterans officials to ISIS

Tuesday, June 16th, 2015

On Friday, after Rep. Mike Coffman suggested that if leaders of the Veterans Administration were put in charge of ISIS, they would be too incompetent to keep track of beheadings, neither of the radio hosts who conducted the interview questioned Coffman about whether Coffman’s comments were appropriate.

Instead, Steffan Tubbs and April Zesbaugh, the co-hosts of KOA 850-AM’s Colorado’s Morning News, reacted this with:

Tubbs: I don’t know what they’re putting in your orange juice back there.
Zesbaugh: [laughing] He’s on a roll! …It felt like a little stand-up there from the Congressman for a little bit.

Asked whether he thought he took Coffman’s comments too lightly, Tubbs emailed me:

Tubbs: “I was surprised by the Congressman’s remark at the very end of our interview, thus my comment. If someone is concerned with what Congressman Coffman said, they should contact his office.”

Tubbs, who’s a serious advocate (on and off the air) for American troops, was right to express his surprise at Coffman’s comments, which have been criticized by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

But he also should have questioned Coffman directly about the appropriateness of the remark. Tubbs has shown he’s not shy of asking tough questions, once asking Coffman,who was avoiding reporters at the time, about Coffman’s comment that Obama is not an American “in his heart.”

As it is, in part because Coffman wasn’t questioned during the KOA interview Friday, we’re now only hearing from a Coffman spokesman who told Buzzfeed that Coffman’s VA-ISIS comments were, “a controversy only with liberals and the Washington outrage machine. His sarcastic point was obvious – the VA is an organizational disaster.”

During the KOA interview, Coffman said:

Coffman: It’s too bad we can’t take VA leadership and export it and give it to some of our adversaries around the planet. Let them suffer under the VA’s leadership. Can you imagine if the VA was in charge of ISIS? They’d probably say, “Well, you know it wasn’t quite 2,000 that we beheaded – it was really 24 is the accurate number. We’re sorry that, in fact, they were all our own terrorists that were beheaded because they got missclassified in the system as Christians. I mean, that would be [chuckles] the VA, that would be the VA in charge of ISIS.

Yesterday, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued a statement saying Coffman’s comments “do not belong in our public discourse.”

“Veterans and VA employees find [Coffman's comments] highly offensive,” said the VA’s statement on the matter. “(VA) Secretary (Robert) McDonald has spoken to Representative Coffman,”

Tubbs and Zesbaugh should have Coffman back on their morning show to discuss the controversy over the Congressman’s “sarcastic point,” as his spokesman put it.

Radio interview spotlights Nevilles’ views on guns and beyond

Monday, June 15th, 2015

The legislative branch of the Neville family made a joint appearance on conservative talk radio last month, rehashing a host of unpleasant issues in long-form fashion (audio below).

Rep. Patrick Neville (R-Castle Rock), and father Sen. Tim Neville (R-Littleton), started by talking guns, without noting that brother Joe Neville is the Lobbyist for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the uncompromising anti-gun-safety organization.

Tim Neville told the story on air of attending a “caucus luncheon” at the conservative/libertarian Independence Institute.

Tim left in the middle of the event, but not before confronting Independence Institute Director Jon Caldara directly.

“I asked [Caldara], is this a 30-round magazine? Is this where you want to stop?” Tim told KLZ host Ken Clark referring to Caldara’s idea of easing the magazine limit from 15 to 30 rounds.  “And [Caldara] mentioned, ‘No. Make it a thousand rounds.’ And I asked, ‘Which is it going to be? He went into this diatribe that he presented. Again, blaming Republicans. It’s your fault. You’re standing in the way of this. Frankly, I had had enough, and it was time to leave.”

You don’t have to track the Nevilles very closely to know how they feel about guns. But the father-son dual stands out when it comes to social issues too. As Tim Neville explained on air:

“You have people in the [Republican] Party say, if it’s a social issue, you shouldn’t talk about it,” said Tim on air @21:30 below. “And of course if you go back the last few years, That’s pretty much everything the Democrats and progressives have pushed are social issues. I mean, even the minimum-wage law is a social issue for them. So, to not engage on social issues, to me, is ludicrous. But if you look at the same people who stand strong on the second amendment and social issues, those are the same people who stand strong on fiscal issues also.”

And so it is, but it’s actually an understatement to say that the father-son Neville team is standing “strong on social issues.” They stand extreme.

Tim received a failing 29 percent on the Women’s Lobby of Colorado scorecard, which rated legislators on a variety of votes on women’s issues, and on Patrick tied for lowest-score-in-the-entire state legislature with 9 percent.”

Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado was more blunt, giving Tim Neville the first place award for “worst all-around” legislator for women’s health in 2015, according to a 2015 “Colorado Women’s Health Wall of Shame.

“Neville sponsored four out of the six anti-choice bills introduced in Colorado’s legislature this year,” wrote Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado. “Not only did he sponsor two bills that would have inserted fetal personhood language (giving legal rights to fertilized eggs) into Colorado’s statutes, but two others that specifically targeted abortion providers and women seeking abortion care.”

“Nipping close at his father’s heels is Representative Patrick Neville, who also proudly sponsored four bills whose goals were to intimidate doctors out of providing abortion care,” wrote Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado.

https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/representatives-everett-saine-pat-neville-with-senator-tim-neville-on-freedom560-may-182016

Talk radio hosts sees leftists tainting Jeffco school board

Thursday, June 11th, 2015

During a radio broadcast last month (See below), KOA radio host Ross Kaminsky goes on and on passionately about how most everyone is against the conservatives on the Jeffco School Board.

In fact, the only folks Kaminsky left out of the alleged cabal attacking the Jeffco-school-board conservatives were the students, parents, and community that has organized to hold the school board accountable.

On the radio, Kaminsky mentioned that the Jeffco-school-board conservatives, specifically John Newkirk, are under attack by Democrats, “union-pawn liberals on school boards everywhere,” other liberals, leftists, “stupid reporters,” more unions, 9News anchor Kyle Clark, and others.

Kaminsky, who was subbing for KOA’s Mike Rosen, said these types of people are supporting board members like Jill Fellman, whom Kaminsky calls a “leftist.”

Kaminsky: “And by the way, I say [Fellman] is a leftist because the teachers union loves her, and because I went and looked online at her political contributions, and 100% of them are to Democratic candidates in the Colorado Democratic Party.”

As a leftist, I know that donations to the Democratic Party and its candidates are not a good measure of one’s leftyness. The Democratic Party itself would not be called lefty. Would you call Hick a lefty? Bennet? Obama? No. More like centrists. Also, the teacher’s union gives to centrist Democrats as well as progressives.

I asked Kaminsky for a response to this criticism, and he replied:

Kaminsky: I don’t know Jill Fellman is as far left as you or others might be, but between her political contributions and — more importantly — her utter fealty to the teachers union at the expense of children, as well as her opposition to public negotiation of contracts between school districts and teachers unions, she meets my definition of leftist. I realize that to a self-described leftist such as yourself, Ms. Fellman may not quality for that same adjective, though I also think you don’t know exactly where her politics lie. Therefore, I think your criticism is more petty than your usual disagreements with me.

https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/koas-ross-kaminsky-goes-after-jeffco-school-board-member-jill-fellman

Radio interview casts more doubt on Stapleton’s explanation for supporting PERA bill

Monday, May 18th, 2015

If you’re a reporter, it’s tough to be fair when the person you’re writing about won’t talk to you, but The Denver Post’s John Frank did the best he could in an article Sunday about State Treasurer Walker Stapleton.

Stapleton, who declined to be interviewed for Frank’s story, is clearly on record supporting legislation this session allowing him to issue bonds to make money for the state’s public retirement system. But speaking on conservative talk radio after the bill died, Stapleton denied ever supporting the legislation. The question is, why?

Frank points out that one reason for Stapleton’s about-face is pressure from conservatives who are wary of debt. That’s charitable to Stapleton. Actually, Stapleton admitted on the radio that he was under pressure from conservatives who want only to reduce expenses of retirement programs (higher age of retirement or contribution, lower pay outs). Stapleton’s bill intended to increase PERA’s revenue, so that the retirement system would be stronger and have a better chance at functioning as promised. This pissed off the conservatives, whose apparent underlying goal is to weaken or kill public pension programs.

Stapleton’s own explanation for his apparent hypocrisy is, as Frank reported, that he “supported the bill to give him the authority to issue bonds but not the issuance of bonds.”

This didn’t impress The Post’s Vincent Carroll, who wrote last week:

Actually, the legislation had everything to do with issuing bonds. You don’t give the state authority to do something unless you anticipate that it will exercise that power at some point and are comfortable with that possibility. And this bill wasn’t a permanent authority. It expired on Dec. 31, 2018, roughly when Stapleton will leave office. Obviously the bill contemplated Stapleton himself signing off on bonds at some point.

Frank produced evidence showing that Stapleton thought actually issuing the bonds was a good idea if “done in a prudent and conservative manner.”

On KLZ 560-AM’s nooner show, hosted by Ken Clark, Stapleton got even more specific, identifying a financial window during which he was prepared to issue the bonds.

“We had a provision that we would not even consider issuing the bonds if the arbitrage wasn’t at least a two-point spread.” (Listen to the KLZ interview at 4:25 below.)

You don’t need to know what an arbitrage is to see that Stapleton was happy and ready to consider issuing the bonds under very specific circumstances–if the arbitrage was at least a two-point spread. Case closed.

It makes sense that Stapleton would have specific circumstances in mind because Stapleton’s office helped draft the bill, and on the radio, he bragged about the bill requirements he insisted on. He wanted and got veto power on whether to issue bonds at all and how many. (Listen to the KLZ interview below beginning 40 seconds into it.)

Toward the end of his KLZ interview, Stapleton was more direct in explaining the conservative arguments that apparently won him over between the time that he favored issuing bonds and then denied favoring issuing them.

Stapleton (@7 minutes below): I’ve talked to a lot of people about this issue since it began, and someone made a very good point to me. And that was, and I think this is an interesting point now that this has died, if we really want to address lasting pension reform, we have to deal with the expense of the system that’s been created. We have to deal with it on the expense side and not the revenue side. And this bill attempted to flood PERA with revenues to make up for the shortfall, but it didn’t bring any structural reforms on the expense side.”

So he’s saying that he’s now not interested in intelligent fiscal management of the state pension system–only in taking away benefits. But it looks like Stapleton didn’t want to talk to The Post’s Frank about this or anything else.

Walker Stapleton on KLZ 560-AM’s Freedom 560, May 5, 2014.

https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/walker-stapleton-discusses-his-role-in-bringing-hb15-1388-to-co-state-legislature

Walker Stapleton on KOA’s Mike Rosen Show May 5, 2015

https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/co-state-treasurer-walker-stapleton-discusses-hb1388-on-mike-rosen-may-5-2015

Cadman’s claim of bipartisanship goes unchallenged on radio

Monday, May 4th, 2015

KOA 850-AM Morning News anchor Steffan Tubbs wouldn’t be expected to know all the ins and outs of the state legislative session, which ends Wednesday.

But if you’ve been following Colorado’s Republicans at all over the past three months, you know they’ve used their new-found Senate leadership to prioritize legislation (anti-choice, anti-immigrant, anti-working class) that’s divisive, at best.

Yet, Senate President Bill Cadman told Tubbs this morning:

“In a split legislature, you have to stay focused on the things that matter to both sides, and frankly to the 5.3 million people  who we represent,” Cadman told KOA at 2:45 below.

But that’s not what Cadman did.

Recall Cadman’s Republicans opened the legislative session by stripping money from the budget for a program to provide drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants–a program widely thought to make driving safer in the state.

Next, Republicans–upset over the use of birth control–deleted funds for an award-winning state-run program that reduced teen pregnancy by 40 percent and teen abortions by 35 percent.

They went on to block legislation to forcing corporations to pay taxes on profits currently hidden in overseas tax havens–and spending this money on schools. Similar legislation received bipartisan support in other states, yet it was torpedoed by the GOP here.

Onward Cadman went, finishing things off by taking advantage of a horrible Longmont murder to introduce fetal personhood legislation, modeled boiler-plate style, after a bill promoted by a national anti-choice group.

Democrats had partisan legislation of their own, for sure, but for Tubbs to let Cadman say he “focused on things that matter to both sides” defies how Republicans actually used the power handed to them by voters in November, when control of the state senate went to the GOP.

https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/cadman-on-koa-morning-news-discussing-legislative-session

“Colorado Inside Out” features Dave Kopel’s response to Dudley Brown

Monday, April 20th, 2015

Last week, The Colorado Independent spotlighted Dave Kopel’s response to Dudley Brown, the director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, who’s been claiming Kopel is a weak supporter of the Second Amendment, specifically a sleeper cell for former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Here’s the take-away quote from Kopel, who works for the conservative Independence Institute, in which he calls out Brown for lying to Congress:

Kopel: That’s why [Brown] is lying right now in Congress against the NRA’s National Right to Carry bill, which would mean that you as a Colorado resident with you carry permit, you could carry in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and New York city.  [Kopel sent me this as the source for his statement.]

Kopel concluded his comments with this:

Kopel: So, there are two possible views of reality. One is Dudley is a liar, a huckster, and a hoax who is preying off people and taking their money, not for gun rights but to support himself.  The other possibility is that Dudley’s telling the truth and that I am a sleeper cell for Michael Bloomberg.  You can decide which one is more plausible.

Here are Kopel’s full comments, as delivered on Channel 12′s Colorado Inside Out April 17:

Lynn [Bartels] nailed it at the end. It’s a “Fundraising  for Dudley” problem if the magazine ban is 99 percent repealed – to change it from 15 to 30 [rounds].

Dudley and his group have been around in Colorado as lobbyists since the late-90s. And yet, they have never passed a single bill. He’s also got his national group – so-called National Association for Gun Rights—which has never passed a single bill in Congress. An impressive record of futility, but only if you think of his group in the same way you’d think of real gun-rights groups like Gun Owners of America, or the National Rifle Association, or the Firearms Coalition of Colorado.

As Dudley explained to a meeting of friendly, recently-elected legislators a few weeks after the election, he said, ‘Don’t work with people like Kopel, because then when they pass something, it makes it harder for us to raise money.’  Dudley’s shtick is to keep people upset and angry and giving him money, and never to solve any problem.  So, that’s why, for example in 2003, he opposed the Conceal Carry Act, which was passed and signed by Governor Bill Owens, supported by the National Rifle Association, by the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, and by the county sheriffs of Colorado.  It is not a perfect bill, but it was huge improvement from what existed before, and it has been very positive in how it has helped many, many tens of thousands of gun owners exercise their right to bear arms.

But Dudley always opposes something that could actually pass and help gun owners.  That’s why he’s lying right now in Congress against the NRA’s National Right to Carry bill, which would mean that you as a Colorado resident with you carry permit, you could carry in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, and New York city.  It’s why he lies about everyone in the ‘real’ gun rights movement.  It’s why he says that Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation is the national leader for national gun registration. It’s why he says I am Bloomberg cell – a sleeper cell.

So, there are two possible views of reality. One is Dudley is a liar, a huckster, and a hoax who is preying off people and taking their money, not for gun rights but to support himself. The other possibility is that Dudley’s telling the truth and that I am a sleeper cell for Michael Bloomberg. You can decide which one is more plausible.

https://youtu.be/RXilJPSyiUs

CORRECTION: An early version of this article incorrectly attributed this sentence to Kopel: “It’s either the huckster or homeland – one of the two.  At least it gives us something to look forward to, here.”

Media omission: Tea-party activists talk about ousting GOP politicians, as Gardner dodges the conversation

Sunday, April 5th, 2015

Tea-Party activists in Colorado are feeling good about themselves after booting GOP state Chair Ryan Call, and their momentum could spell trouble (as in, P-R-I-M-A-R-Y) for newly elected Sen. Cory Gardner–as well as fellow Republican Rep. Mike Coffman.

Before last month’s election, which put the Tea Party in control of the state GOP, you might have ignored threats about primaries–about ousting Gardner or Coffman. But now, reporters and others should pay attention to these folks on conservative radio shows.

“I want to plant this seed in everyone’s mind,” said former state GOP vice chair Mark Baisley on KLZ radio March 19. “Now, the priority has become the principle. The priority has become liberty; it has become founding princicples. It has become the party platform, which I’ve been preaching for years. That’s become the priority over the people in office.

“Be ready to hold [to] account,” continued Baisley, who’s aligned with the insurgent liberty wing of the Colorado Republican Party, even though he lost his vice-race last month. “And be ready to throw out people like Cory Gardner, people like Mike Coffman, who are not toeing the line. Hold folks to account and let them know, ‘Hey, we’re in a mood. And hop on, or you’re not as important as the movement; you’re not as important as founding principles.’”

“Boy, you’ve been dying to be in a position where you could just make that last statement, haven’t you.” KLZ host Randy Corporon told Baisley, “because you couldn’t say those things as vice-chairman of the Colorado State Republican Party.”

“Yeah, it would not have been appropriate,” replied Baisley. (Listen to Mark Baisley here, beginning at 2:15)

“Yeah, so, power to you, man!” replied Corporon, who’s the founder of the Arapahoe Country Tea Party. “God bless you for saying so and being honest.  Because, absolutely, you know, Mike Coffman is my Congressman.  Primaries – there is such talk about primaries right now, because we can’t have people who continue to allow the big government agenda to go forward.  I don’t care how strong you are on the VA. I don’t care how likeable and charismatic you are on CNN, and that you have good hair.  If you don’t stand up for the Constitution, if you don’t push back with everything you’ve got at every opportunity against this advancing progressive agenda, then I’m done with you.”

Corporon and Baisley are upset about Republican votes on immigration and budget issues. And Gardner’s refusal to appear on Corporon’s radio show, Wake Up, is having a salt-on-the-wound effect.

Corporon’s dogged campaign to get newly elected Senator Cory Gardner to appear on his radio show got a boost from an icon of the conservative right, Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, who told Corporon March 19  that, in principle, he believes Gardner should appear on Corporon’s early morning show on KLZ 560-AM.

“Don’t you think that these elected officials are obligated to talk to everyone who has supported them and who they were elected to represent?” Corporon asked Kristol.

“Especially Republican and conservative-oriented politicians,” Kristol replied, “foolishly think that conservative radio hosts [and] magazine editors somehow are going to be on the team. And they get really annoyed if you occasionally say what you think. I’ve criticized people for not making compromises when I thought it was prudent to do so. And I’ve certainly criticized politicians at times for compromising too much and too early and not standing up for principle. And at times, they want you to pay a price. So they’ll give the interview that they think is so valuable to someone else. They won’t cooperate with one of our writers writing a profile. It’s part of the business, honestly. I think the good politicians get beyond that. In fact, I’d say politicians get a lot of credit, including pretty liberal Republican Senators who are very open, who will talk to everyone in their state, who don’t duck tough interviews. And then I go to some states and I hear about a certain Senator I think Rob Portly of Ohio is a good example, probably a little more moderate than the Tea-Party guys would want. He answers the questions. He takes the interviews, does the town halls. And people feel, you know, at least he listens to us, he’s respectful, and we differ on some things. I don’t want to say anything on Cory Gardner because I don’t know the details, obviously, but in general I think it’s a good idea to be open, especially, as you say, to people who have supported you and answer to criticism and perhaps push you back on the right path.” (Listen to Bill Kristol here.)

But what’s the right path, and does it lead to a primary battle? Those are questions Gardner, Coffman, Baisley, Corporon, and uppity Tea Partiers in Colorado will be working out for a long time, I have the feeling.

 

Media omission: Cadman promotes bill previously torpedoed by anti-abortion forces

Tuesday, March 31st, 2015

Republican Senate President Bill Cadman took to the radio yesterday to announce plans to introduce a bill allowing prosecutors to treat a fetus as the victim of a crime but, apparently, with specific language allowing for abortion.

Cadman told KNUS 710-AM that his bill “does provide a protection for a woman to do with her body as she desires.”

Colorado already has a law, passed in 2013, allowing prosecutors to file additional charges, but not murder, in a crime involving the destruction of a fetus.

To ensure that the law does not turn into a back-door abortion ban, the measure specifically identifies the pregnant woman as the victim of the crime and states that nothing “shall be construed to confer the status of ‘person’ upon a human embryo, fetus or unborn child at any state of development prior to live birth.”

This anti-personhood language enraged anti-choice Republicans, like Sen. Scott Renfroe, who during a 2013 committee hearing, called the legislation the “Let’s-Go-on-Killing-Babies” bill.

In 2011, a bipartisan attempt to pass a similar bill was killed over similar objections by abortion foes.

Yet, when asked on the radio yesterday about why these types of measures did not become law, Cadman blamed pro-choice legislators.

Well,” replied Cadman, “attempts have been made over the years, but they have been resoundingly defeated on a party-line basis. Frankly, I think much of it is out of political correctness and probably, to be more specific, a fear of eliminating the right of those who wish to terminate their pregnancies over the wish of those to keep theirs.”

On the radio yesterday (See below.), Cadman referenced 38 states with “fetal homicide” laws like the one he’s proposing. As you can see here, these laws vary widely, with 23 defining life at early stages of development and are considered personhood measures. Some specifically exempt abortion or exclude pregnant women as perpetrators. Some, like Iowa’s, allow for penalties for terminating a pregnancy without the consent of the pregnant person.

Cadman did not provide details of his bill.

Anti-abortion activists said in 2013 that they launched last year’s “personhood” initiative in response to the failure of a “fetal-homicide” bill here in Colorado, that would have conferred legal rights to a fetus and opened the door to a state-wide abortion ban. Colorado’s failed personhood amendment would have gone beyond any fetal-homicide law currently on the books.

Partial Transcript of GOP Senate President Bill Cadman on KNUS’ Kelley and Company, March 30, 2015:

Krista Kafer:  Right now, all we have now is this little law that makes it illegal to terminate the pregnancy of a woman that wants to keep her baby. What are you planning to do?

Cadman: At the core, what you are talking about is what passed in 2013 which, obviously, created the crime of unlawfully terminating a pregnancy, which is all about the woman. But what about the other victim? What about the victim, just like in this case. And there have been countless others. What about the baby? Why doesn’t a baby in Colorado, or an infant, or whatever you want to define–why don’t they receive the same protection in Colorado that they do in 38 other states? And that’s what we are proposing in Colorado is providing the same protection in Colorado to both victims that they would receive in 38 other states.

Steve Kelley: So you are going to introduce a fetal homicide bill?

Cadman: Right. A protection for the unborn.  A protection for both victims in a case where a woman is violently attacked, just like in this recent case, in the recent situation in Longmont.  And to provide justice, it’s to provide justice for both victims

Kelley: Well how is it that we haven’t had something that’s common-sense [like this]? …

Cadman: Well, attempts have been made over the years, but they have been resoundingly defeated on a party-line basis. Frankly, I think much of it is out of political correctness and probably, to be more specific, a fear of eliminating the right of those who wish to terminate their pregnancies over the wish of those to keep theirs.

…Kelley: How do you then placate those or assure those who would push against this that your ulterior motive is not incrementalism in trying to overturn abortion on demand?

Cadman: You know, it’s very clear, and the draft I’m working on is very clear. And I’m not exactly ready to release it. But it does provide a protection for a woman to do with her body as she desires. So, specific protections in the law. What we are really talking about is being able to prosecute a criminal for a criminal act and defining that that there are two victims in these situations, not just one. Sixty-six thousand children born in this state every year do not have the same protections as in 38 other states. We need to fix that.

Kafer: I wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t get some pushback on the personhood side… Have you gotten any pushback from this crowd?

Cadman: That’s the nature of this place. But I think at its core, we would all agree that there is no justice if you cannot prosecute for a victim. And so, that’s a step in the process. And I have not received any opposition yet. But, again, the bill hasn’t been introduced. The language hasn’t been subject to review.  But again, back to its core. It’s about providing justice that’s frankly deserved and demanded.

Reporters should hold Gardner to his promise to have Obamacare replacement “ready to go”

Wednesday, March 25th, 2015

The Hill’s Sarah Ferris reported today that Obama is mocking Republicans for claiming to have an alternative to Obamacare, when they obviously don’t.

Five years after the passage of his signature healthcare law, President Obama took a jab at the Republican Party for still lacking its own plan to replace it.

“We have been promised a lot of things these past five years that didn’t turn out to be the case,” Obama said at a White House event marking the healthcare law’s progress. “Death panels. Doom. A serious alternative from Republicans in Congress.”

Colorado’s Sen. Cory Gardner is one of the Republicans whom Obama is mocking. Asked if Republicans would have a plan ready if the Supreme Court rules against the health care law in King v. Burwell, Gaardner said on Fox News Wednesday (at 2:30):

“I think the Republicans not only will have a plan but something the President will accept, because it’s something we have to do,”  said Gardner, citing the efforts of GOP Senators John Barrasso of Wyoming, Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy, and Nebraska’s Benjamin Sass.

“Republican’s will have a plan in place if the ruling is for the plaintiffs. Our plan will be ready to go,” Gardner said.

https://youtu.be/2TcXWgX2z10

The replacement will be ready to go? If that’s true, why has it taken so long? And why wait for the Supreme Court’s decision? Gardner has been voting for the repeal Obamacare for years.

He even advocated for the government shutdown, in an effort to defund the health care program.

So Reporters should hold Gardner to latest Obamacare-replacement promise, even if the justices uphold the health-care law. It will be ready do go, Gardner promised, so I’d think reporters would be looking forward to seeing it, one way or the other.