Archive for the 'Talk Radio' Category

In Trump era, what to do about Muslim haters on Colorado talk radio?

Wednesday, November 30th, 2016

Bigotry toward Muslims is part of the hot air on some Colorado talk-radio shows, so much so that you get inured to it and kind of accept it.

But now that Trump is about to be president, the air seems a lot hotter, and it’s impossible to ignore right-wing bigotry as fringe craziness.

How can you not worry about the safety of Muslims in our community when you listen to, for example, KNUS radio’s Peter Boyles, who’s a notorious birther and bigot?

At this moment, with Trump on the White House doorstep, can we/ should we/ pretend not to hear Boyles’ hatred? And what to do about it?

In an on-air discussion yesterday morning with a fellow bigot named Tim Furnish, Boyles denounced Islam and said Muslims are incapable of respecting the U.S. Consitution and the fundamental values of the United States, due to their religious beliefs, essentially saying there is no place for Muslims in our country.

FURNISH: There’s a real incompatibility between Islam and Western-style government democracy. There just is.

BOYLES: It doesn’t work! They don’t work!

FURNISH: They don’t work together. This incompatibility is not extremist. It is intrinsic to Islam.

BOYLES: Agreed.

FURNISH: … Islam has never come to terms with, as they say, modernity. Islam has never come to terms with the idea of a secular state that has not imposed a religion –even the majority religion–on people. Because at the heart of Islam–going back to Mohammed himself, the Quran, the Hadith, so-called sayings of Mohammed, and 1400 years of Islamic practice– is that where there is a majority of Muslims, Islamic Law must be instituted. And where there is a minority of Muslims, they should fight – at first, maybe peacefully and then later through jihad – for the imposition of Islamic Law. This tension will not go away.

BOYLES: Yeah, it’s, “First – first—“.

FURNISH: And you cannot make Western democracy work with Islamic ideals. They are incompatible.

BOYLES: “First we crawl, then we walk, then we run.”

FURNISH: Right.

BOYLES: That’s why — I mean, it’s happening before your very eyes. Hillary Clinton got all twisted up about all of the stuff, and went after Trump. Trump is telling the truth.

If you’re saying Islam “doesn’t work” with “Western-style government democracy,” and you’re agreeing that even a minority of Muslims in a country will eventually wage jihad, then you’re basically saying Muslims have no place in the United States. Worse, you are saying all Muslims are a constant threat. How else to interpret this?

Elsewhere in this interview, Boyles said Muslims aren’t the ones who are the victims of a McCarthy-like attack. It’s Peter Boyles who’s actually under attack, according to Boyles!

“Progressives,” Boyles said on air, “They hunt for victims.”

In this case, in Boyles view, progressives are hunting for people who promote “Islamophobia,” decried by Boyles as a “created term” designed by progressives to stifle criticism of Muslims.

“This is a new McCarthy-ism,” Boyles said.

But today’s attacks on Muslim haters are worse than what happened in the McCarthy era, Boyles went on to say, because the press is on the side of the Muslims, instead of supporting people like Boyles—whereas before Edward R. Murrow and Fred Friendly were there to “stand up to the McCarthyists,” said Boyles.

“We don’t have Big Journalism standing up as Edward R Murrow did, as Fred Friendly did,” said Boyles, who was once a respected, even beloved, media figure in Denver, if you can believe it. “We have a bunch of fill-in-the-blanks who are just desperate to lay down in front of this train. And you know what? As they say, they will come for you. They may eat you last, but they will still eat you.”

Boyles is mad at journalists for defending the basic civil rights of Muslims and exposing bigots like him.

Again, Boyles’ ugliness would be bad enough if our country didn’t have a Muslim-hating bigot as president-elect. But since we do, we have to fight back now or at least be ready to help our Muslim neighbors if people like Boyles begin organizing attacks against them—with or without the backing of Trump and our own government. We’ve reached that point.

ProgressNow Colorado has set up a “rapid response” network to, among other things, mobilize people in support of Muslims and others if Boyles, Trump, or anyone goes after them. We have to be ready. Sign up here.

LISTEN TO BOYLES’ NOV. 29 INTERVIEW FURNISH BELOW.

Beauprez tells radio hosts he’d “very much enjoy” secretary of interior job

Tuesday, November 22nd, 2016

In what appear to be his most extensive comments yet on his possible appointment as Trump’s Secretary of Interior, former congressman Bob Beauprez told KOA 850-AM listeners this morning why he’d be a good fit for the job.

“This is where most of the federal land is,” Beauprez observed a day after ColoradoPolitics.com first reported that he was being considered for the job. “And I think, to get someone in that role who understands water, natural resources, land, wildlife, mixed-use of those lands and resources, I think it’s very important.  So, I’ve long thought that it might be a job that I would very much enjoy.  And I think my life as a rancher/farmer would fit the job very well.”

Beauprez, who lost his second gubernatorial race in Colorado in 2014, told hosts Steffan Tubbs and April Zesbaugh that building pipelines like the Dakota Access project, is “something that has to happen,” but, as Interior Secretary, he’d like to find a compromise that “everybody can live with.”

“I know that the Indan tribes have had some concerns about their sacred lands,” said Beauprez. “And those, I think, are legitimate concerns.  The important thing, I think, in a job like that is to try to find a good compromise that everybody can live with.  But I’ve long thought that we needed to improve – and I’m not alone on this.  We need to improve the transportation infrastructure for our oil and gas reserves, as well.  So, building pipelines is something that has to happen.  And in the West, where we’ve got so much federal land, that land is going to be part the mix.  No doubt about it.”

Beauprez said there “has been some limited communication between myself and some of the folks that are part of the transition process.”

He said on air that he’s spoken with people “very close” to both Trump and David Longley Bernhardt, who’s apparently from Colorado and part of the Trump transition team.

Beauprez said his wife, who he referred to as his “biggest cheerleader” is supportive of his joining the Trump Administration.

Tancredo says many venues refused to host Gellar event

Wednesday, September 14th, 2016

Anti-Islamic pundit Pam Gellar’s visit to Denver last week was greeted with horror by ColoradoPols, who commented that “Gellar’s hatred may be constitutionally protected, but it should not be welcomed.”

It’s no surprise that others in Denver concur, to the degree that organizer Tom Tancredo had a tough time finding a venue that would accept Gellar.

“I had Pam Gellar speak at Colorado Christian University because it was about the only institution that would allow us there, by the way,” Tancredo told KCOL host Jimmy Lakey Tuesday. “We tried and tried. Including, I should say, the Jewish Community Center in Denver, turned us down – said it was too controversial.”

In an interview today, Tancredo declined to list the other venues, but he confirmed that the Jewish Community Center was among them.

As Pols pointed out last week, the Southern Povery Law Center tracks Gellar and reports examples of how, as SPLC puts it, “Geller uses her website to publish her most revolting insults of Muslims.”

On air, Tancredo gave CCU credit for hosting the Gellar event, which he described as “wonderful.”

“You just cannot imagine how, I think, thirsty people are for the truth,” Tancredo told Lakey, explaining his belief that the media deliberately hide the identies of the perpetrators of 9/11 as radical Islamic terrorists. “And how appreciative they are. They gave Gellar a two minute standing ovation at the end of the speech. Yeah. It was wonderful.”

 

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 would “rather have David Duke” than Hillary Clinton

Monday, August 15th, 2016

The collapse of Trump is being taken especially hard by radio hosts who don’t like Hillary. Here, Dan Meurer, who’s heard on KLZ 560-AM’s afternoon drive show, says he’d rather have David Duke as president.

Duke, a former leader of the KKK, a racist, and holocaust denier, is a Republican running for U.S. Senate in Louisiana.

Here’s what Meurer said on KLZ Aug.10:

MEURER (in discussion around presidential race, and Trump and Hillary’s (-10.9)  unfavorability): […] I do NOT want that woman as president, and I don’t know how else to say it.

I would rather have Gary Johnson, but he can’t win.  I would rather have David Duke, but he’s not running.  I mean, I would rather have anybody but her. 

CO-HOST: ANDY PETH:  (scoffing) David Duke!

MEURER:  I’m serious!  I would!  I mean Louis Farakan could be president over Hillary Clinton And she is a criminal!  I mean, he is more than twice – almost three times –.

PETH:  You don’t cast your vote as a statement.  You cast your vote as a number.  Votes are strategic decisions to affect outcomes. [Listen below.]

Asked if he were joking about favoring Duke over Clinton, Meurer told me via email:

MEURER: If you ask me they’re both despicable human beings that are in favor of eugenics and are hardcore racists. One is out in the open with their hate (Duke) the other is as stealthy as possible (Clinton). Hilary is calculating and smart. Duke is not. Duke is less dangerous because he is so far over the top that he poses no threat to the minority population because he could never gain a following of any size, unlike Hilary who has millions behind her. Point being I can’t stand either one. But this whole question of choosing the lesser of two evils… I’m just glad I don’t have to make that choice.

In Colorado interview, Trump says U.S. has “phony, artificial stock market”

Thursday, August 4th, 2016

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.

Glenn Says His Speech “Wasn’t Me” But “Holy Spirit” Instead

Thursday, June 30th, 2016

Left out of much of the coverage of Darryl Glenn’s victory Tuesday is the fact that he’s a full-throttle supporter of a personhood abortion ban, according to Colorado Right to Life.

Glenn’s support of personhood apparently stems from his deep religious beliefs, which he spotlights frequently on the campaign trail.

For example, as I reference in a Rewire post today on the implications of Glenn’s personhood stance, Glenn discussed the importance of religion to him and his campaign in an April 11 interview on Colorado Springs radio about his speech at the Republican state convention:

RANDALL:  You were the one who brought it all.  And yours – if they were going to listen to one speech, including Ted Cruz – no offense—yours was the one to listen to.  There’s a lot of passion in you.  Where does the passion come from?

GLENN:Well, that wasn’t me.  That was the Holy Spirit coming through, just speaking the truth.

RANDALL:  Seriously!?

GLENN:  Absolutely.  This campaign has always been about honoring and serving God and stepping up and doing the right thing.

RANDALL:  Then I got to tell you what:  It’s a powerful thing.  I’ve always been baffled at how the Holy Spirit works. […]  but if you are the conduit, and that is what is coming out of you, then it is a powerful, powerful thing!

Based on this, it would be interesting to know what Glenn thinks of the separation between church and state, but it’s clear that he takes his religious beliefs seriously.

In new book, a conservative explains why she’s a “pro-life realist” and more

Sunday, June 12th, 2016

Conservative operative Laura Carno is out with a new book with the ridiculous title of, “Government Ruins Nearly Everything.

But the subtitle should keep you from burning the book: “Reclaiming Social Issues from Uncivil Servants.”

If you ignore the “uncivil” part, you can look inside the 138-page volume and appreciate some of the ways that Carno tries to apply her free-market mindset to the issues of marriage, guns, abortion, and education.

She picked issues where her free-market, anti-government analysis might challenge conservatives (marriage, abortion) and progressives (guns, education), which is interesting. But I’d have to recommend that you skip to the chapter on abortion, because it seemed the freshest.

Carno comes up with a new term to describe herself, and I’m hoping when Carno sneezes at conservative gatherings, it infects the conservative world. She calls herself a “pro-life realist.”

As such, she supports Roe!

She opposes excessive government regulations of abortion, like mandatory ultrasounds prior to having one.

“A person can be pro-life and believe the government can’t reduce abortions,” Carno, who founded I Am Created Equal and is possibly best known for her pro-gun advocacy, writes, pointing to data showing that making abortion illegal results in more abortions.

“Where abortions are illegal, more abortions occur,” she writes in her straight-forward and easy-to-understand prose.

Pro-choice activists would say government policy can definitely reduce abortions.

See, for example, Colorado’s Family Planning Initiative, which was run by civil servants and is credited with lowering abortions among teens by as much as half. Now it’s funded by the state, as well as run by it.

Carno offers alternatives to banning abortion or using government to make it more difficult. These include misguided efforts like the Save the Storks program, which push ultrasounds to pregnant women, along with alleged counseling. But to Carno’s point–this is a private effort. And Carno doesn’t advocate deception among the crisis pregnancy centers she favors. Unfortunately, many of these outfits have been shown by NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado to be manipulative and predatory.

Carno suggests pro-life groups do more for foster-care and support adoption programs, not just of infants. Carno wants government out, of course, but we’ll take it.

She wants better education about contraception and access to birth control, including the pill and new methods.

I like Carno’s plea for empathy among people who are pro-life. It’s an attitude that both progressives and conservatives can learn from–and can move us to solutions across the issue spectrum.

Here’s what Carno has to say (page 65-6):

An increasing number of Americans don’t want abortions to be illegal, even though they consider themselves to be pro-life. Why? Could it be that Americans are concerned about others who might be in a much more difficult situation?.. Pro-life realists…can easily imagine a woman in a dire financial situation who has an unplanned pregnancy. They fear she could be living out of her car if she experiences just one more financial setback. 

The empathy is real, and informs their preferences, even though they are pro-life. Among even those who are not generally political, this is a common reason for pro-life people to want to want abortion kept legal.

Progressives can come up with lots of ways to critique this, even condemn it, but, hey, let’s acknowledge our mutual empathy and see where it takes us.

 

State GOP Chair boots blogger seen as “risk” to Colorado RNC delegation

Thursday, May 26th, 2016

UPDATE: Colorado GOP Executive Director Shana Banberger responds: “Mrs. Porter has explicitly declared herself to be a member of the media and has been acting in that capacity for more than a year. After consulting state party and RNC rules we determined that should Mrs. Porter wish to attend the convention as a reporter she is required to be credentialed as press by the RNC.”  Porter had told House that she wanted to attend the convetion “so I can support our delegation and offer email updates on the presidential nominee, platform items, proposed rules changes, etc.” Asked via twitter if he plans to do “any radio work or blogging or tweeting from the RNC in Clevelend, KVOR radio host Jeff Crank, who’s a guest of a Colorado delegate, replied, “No. I am just going as the father of a delegate.” See more details here.

—–

Colorado Republican Party Chair Steve House has booted Republican activist and blogger Kathryn Porter from the group of Colorado Republicans who are going to the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Cleveleand July 18 because House thinks her blogging poses a “risk” to the Colorado delegation.

Porter, whose work appears on the Politichicks blog and was among the first to report details on efforts to oust House as GOP chair, was slated to attend the RNC as a guest of delegate Mike McAlpine, Porter said, under rules which allow each delegate to take a guest.

But in an email to Porter, House wrote it’s his “job to protect the delegation” and Porter’s “actions as a media representative in the past year and especially the past month and a half clearly represent risk to this delegation that we do not need to take at this critical convention in Cleveland.”

House, who did not immediately return an email seeking comment, apparently sees Porter’s reporting as being in a risky class by itself, because conservative talk-radio host and GOP activist Jeff Crank is also attending the RNC as a guest of a Colorado delegate. Aspen Times journalist Melanie Sturm is a delegate, as are talk-radio hosts Jimmy Sengenberger and Randy Corporon.

In 2012, The Colorado Statesman had reporters embedded with the Republican delegation. But today, every member of the delegation could be reporting on anything at any time.

In a post on her GoFundMe page, where Porter is raising money for her trip to the RNC in Cleveland, Porter wrote:

The real risk is a chairman who behaves like a dictator, usurping authority that does not belong to him….

As an elected member of the Colorado GOP State Central Committee, I voted for Steve House. I have been critical of House, but at times I have also defended him.

I will defend the GOP when they are right, but I will not hesitate to call out my party when they are wrong. Integrity matters. Because of this, our chairman is using me as an example in order to silence others who dare speak up.

I will not be intimidated. I will not be silenced. I will not be marginalized.

I will be in Cleveland.

Among Porter’s Politichicks blogging is a piece, picked up by Drudge, which included a quote from Steve House in which he appeared to oppose Donald Trump. Another piece by Porter contained an interview with a woman who claimed to have had an affair with House.

On KNUS 710-AM this morning, host Dan Caplis called Porter’s work “great reporting” and Porter’s “banishment” an “awful moment for the Colorado Republican Party.” Caplis said House’s message is, “You criticize me and you will be banished.”

“On a moral level, it really is slandering you,” Caplis told Porter, adding that “the Truth makes [House] look bad.”

 

Fact Check: Keyser blames SOS for ballot fiasco, but he made the error

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2016

U.S. Senate candidate John Keyser is blaming his campaign’s initial failure to qualify for the GOP primary ballot on a “bureaucrat” in the CO Secretary of State’s Office.

Keyser: “It was an interesting week. It wasn’t too dramatic for us. We had double and triple-checked our signature process and everything…. We had a secretary of state that said we had a problem. We were a few signatures short in one of the congressional districts. But we knew we were okay. We were very confident about that. It took a couple days, but I’m on the ballot now and ready to beat Michael Bennet.

Connell: What was the confusion…

Keyser: We had a guy who was working for us for months, collecting signatures. He did a great job, doing that. Now the secretary of state, not actually the secretary of state, but a bureaucrat that works in that office decided that he couldn’t quite tell who that person was, whether in fact he was a registered voter. He was of course. He had been registered as a Republican for years and everything. We know we didn’t have any issue there. Unfortunately, we had to go to court to take care of it, but were’ moving on.

Here’s what actually happened, per The Denver Post’s John Frank and Mark Matthews:

Keyser missed the mark in one congressional district because the address for one of the petition collectors did not match the registered voter file, as required by law. [BigMedia emphasis]

So the evil bureaucrat in the secretary of state’s office was just following the law!

A judge later determined that the Keyser campaign made the error, but she determined that Keyser came close enough to following the rules that she let his name appear on the ballot–in the interest of giving voters a choice. Close call for Keyser. If he had been following the rules, he wouldn’t have needed the judge’s decision.

So Keyser’s “double” and “triple” checking did not uncover the error, which was discovered by the secretary of state’s office. Despite this, Keyser tries to blame a government official who was just following the law.

Connell should make an on-air correction, stating that Keyser delivered misinformation on her show.

Listen to Jon Keyser on the Mandy Connel Show May 2, 2016