In the alternative reality constructed each morning on KNUS’ Peter Boyles show, they’re busy reliving the glory days of the recall campaigns.

Recall spokespeople Laura Woods and Jennifer Kerns have been on the show re-telling stories about how “grassroots” Republicans fought off establishment Republicans and won.

One of Boyles’ favorite things to do is to point out that most of the Republicans who’ve risen up in recent weeks weren’t the ones getting down and dirty during the recall effort.

On Tuesday, for example, Boyles asks Woods for the names of specific Republican candidates and elected officials who were with her:

Woods: Well, I just want to preface by saying, as a candidate [for SD 19] now, I’m not endorsing these guys, but I’ll put on my recall hat and I’ll talk to you about who was out there on the lines with us. We clearly had Victor Head. He wasn’t a candidate then, but he is now. And then we had senator candidates Tim Neville and Tony Sanchez walking the streets, knocking doors, gathering petition signatures. Tom Tancredo was out there, as was Greg Brophy. We had the sheriff candidates, Jim Shires, Jeff Schrader, John Berry, all out there at times. Ken Buck was in the office at times. And Owen Hill was sitting in our office making phone calls. So, there were a lot of candidates, none of whom were involved in this back room deal—other than Ken Buck to move, you know, from the Senate race to the House race.

The good old recall days are gone, and the good old folks are threatened, in Boyle’s mind, by back-room-dealing evil-doers, like Bob Beauprez, Cory Gardner, and Ryan Call.

But on Boyles’ radio show, regardless of what’s happening in the real world, the heroes are still Woods and Tancredo, and the like, and nothing can change that, unless the show is abruptly canceled by Salem Communications Inc., which is as inevitable as a gaffe from you know who. Or someone flipping the bird at you.

Media figures are trying to figure out if newly recycled gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez will try both ways to get on the GOP primary ballot — through the caucuses and petition process.

On KHOW’s Mandy Connell Show this morning, Beauprez said he’ll petition on the ballot, but he left open the possibility that he’ll go both ways:

Beauprez: “We’re going to petition, and then as soon we know what the makeup of the state delegation is, then we’ll take a look at that as well.”

Translation: Beauprez won’t say whether he’s going both ways until he figures out if he has any hope of going both ways.

And if there’s hope for his favored both-ways approach, which he’s deployed in other situations, Beauprez will presumably begin a furious lobbying process to convince the delegates, chosen at tonight’s caucuses, to support him–instead of one of his opponents.

So we could see a giant and bloody post-caucus battle for delegates among GOP gubernatorial hopefuls.

Radio host Jimmy Sengenberger broke news on his Velocity Radio show yesterday, when his guest Scott Gessler said he’s “pretty confident” Bob Beauprez will enter the gubernatorial race, and Gessler pointed out that Beauprez ran a “pretty disastrous” campaign in 2006.

Gessler (@1 hour 21 min): “I’ve heard the same thing. I’m actually pretty confident Bob Beauprez is goig to be getting into the race. Probably next week is what I’ve heard.”

Just prior to talking with Gessler, Sengenberger, whose internet show airs weekdays from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., conversed with Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels about the possibility of Bob Beauprez entering the gubernatorial race.

Sengenberger: Will that change the race in your mind from a two-man race to possibly a three-man race? Gessler: Maybe. We’ll see how much traction he gets. You know, Bob is well-known. He’s well respected. On the other hand, he ran a pretty disastrous campaign back in 2006, where he lost by about 17 points. Sengenberger: …It was a tough year for Republicans. Gessler: Well, yes and no. John Suthers won his state-wide race. Mike Coffman won his state-wide race. Mark Hillman lost his state-wide race, but just by a little. And Bob lost by 17 points.

In a scoop that deserves more media attention, KOA’s morning drive show, Colorado Morning News, broke news this morning when Tom Tancredo told co-hosts April Zesbaugh and Steffan Tubbs that Bob Beauprez told Tancredo during a conversation Saturday that Beauprez will be running for governor.

Tancredo told KOA that he will not be stepping out of the gubernatorial race, even if Beauprez enters.

Tancredo: Yes, I think he is stepping into the governor’s race, or at least that was the conversation I had with him on Saturday. No I will not bow out. And that was not part of the conversation we had. I had called him because I, like everyone else who’s involved politically here, had heard that he was thinking about it very seriously again. And so I called him on Saturday, and I said, ‘Listen buddy, get in! The water’s fine. It will be fun. He’s a great guy and a good friend. And he would add to the whole mix….No, I’m not getting out. There’s certainly no reason to. From my point of view, I’m ahead of everyone I’m running against right now by about 2 to 1. We’ve raised more money, again by about 2 to 1, than anyone else. So I don’t see why I’d be thinking about such a thing. And I’m not. I’m certainly going to pursue it. And do my very best. The addition of another person like Bob Beauprez to this race certainly does not harm my position. It only enhances the debate that will go on, and I think that is a good thing. I think he’s a great guy. I really like him. He’s been a good friend.”

Tancredo praised Beauprez for being the first Republican to support him in 2010 when Tancredo ran as the Constitution Party candidate.

“He had absolutely nothing to gain from doing it,” Tancredo told KOA. “Every Republican and their brother was upset with me…He was the guy that broke the dam.”

Asked by Tubbs who’s “calling the shots” for Republican Party, Tancredo said:

Great question. I haven’t the foggiest idea…It beats me buddy. But, all I can say is they don’t call me and ask about these things.”

A bill cleared the General Assembly Friday allowing same-sex couples to file joint state tax returns, if they pay federal taxes jointly.

Hick is expected to sign it, presumably because he agrees with backers, like The Denver Post, who point out that the current tax rules make no sense, given that state taxes are based on the federal filings.

But the religious right, as represented below by former U.S. Attorney Mike Norton, is pissed. Norton got his back slapped blindly by KNUS’  Dan Caplis recently for saying the bill is a violation of Colorado’s ban on gay marriage:

Norton: You know, [we] have a constitutional amendment that was passed by the people of the state of Colorado in 2006, that really didn’t state anything new. It simply reaffirmed what has been the historic position of the people of Colorado, [and] the people of this nation, in fact, the western world, that marriage of a man and a woman is a foundational social relationship that is important for the survival of any society.

Listen to Norton here.

Even Amendment 23 isn’t that extreme, and it’s out there. But why not extremify extremism if no one, like Caplis, is going to call you on it?

In any case, the legislation is about tax law, not marriage. But Norton, who’s married to failed GOP Senate candidate Jane Norton, doesn’t get it:

Norton: “And I mean, everyone is in favor of marriage equality, but we have to pretty much know what a marriage is, before we can define whether it is equality. And by tradition, and throughout history, marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman, and it exists for a single purpose, and that is to bear and raise children. There is no question that children do better when they are with a man – a husband and a wife, a father and a mother. Moms and dads are different. And children need both moms and they need dads, as well.”

Asked what he could do if the bill becomes law, Norton pointed out that Attorney General John Suthers joined a lawsuit challenging a court decision striking down Utah’s gay-marriage ban.

Norton: “So, I’m hopeful that John Suthers will look at…this law as an assault on Colorado’s marriage amendment and take steps. I think that’s a possibility.”

Colorado Springs radio host Jeff Crank thinks the Tea Party Express, which claims to be “the most aggressive and influential national Tea Party group in the political arena,” endorsed senatorial candidate Owen Hill in exchange for big donations from Hill’s Colorado backers.

On his KVOR radio show Feb. 15, Crank said:

Crank: “Here’s what I think happened.  I’m just going to throw it out there, okay?  I think a big pile of money wound its way out to the Tea Party Express from Colorado, from a donor or two, who are supportive of Owen Hill, and somehow that endorsement just happened to go to Owen Hill.”

Crank, who used to work for Americans for Prosperity, went on to say that the Tea Party Express is “running the ads with that money” in support of Hill. Click here to see a Tea Party Express ad touting its endorsement of Hill.

“So, in other words, you just buy an endorsement from a group,” Crank said on air. “Rent-a-group.”

“You know, far too often this kind of stuff happens in politics, and people get away with it because nobody calls them on it,”  Crank continued. “And we have to call them on it.”

If you listen to Crank’s show, you know that, indeed, he regularly calls out fellow conservatives on their bad behavior. I admire him for it.

But these latest salvos are of such a serious nature that even though he’s just a talk-radio host, as opposed to a real journalist, Crank should have provided concrete evidence of his accusations before leveling them.

Via twitter, I asked Crank for his proof that cash donations led to Hill’s Tea Party Express endorsement and for the names of the Hill donors he had in mind. I’ll update this post if he responds. See Crank’s extended comments on the topic, along with audio, here.

Crank, who twice ran for Congress as a Republican, apparently made the allegation based, in part, on his personal knowledge of the people involved.

“The folks that [Hill has] surrounded himself with are notorious for going out and trying to hijack a movement,” Crank said on air.

Crank: : “Yeah, look, there’s a history of this, both, I think, in the consultants that are working for Owen Hill. There’s been a consistent effort over the years to do this – to kind of create groups and kind of hijack names, if you will. I mean, certainly, they did it in my race by kind of hijacking the name of the Christian Coalition, when I ran for Congress. But they’ve done it several other times. They did it last year in Colorado. They formed a group called the ‘Colorado Tea Party.’ And they were about ready to send out a bunch of mailers endorsing candidates, and again, it’s just hijacking the name of the Tea Party. We saw it about three weeks ago, when the same candidate and his consultants sent out a press release saying that the movement – the recall organizers, the people that organized the recalls, were supporting a petition effort to get Owen Hill and Tom Tancredo on the ballot. Well, you know, I talked to a couple of the real organizers of the recall effort, and they said, ‘We’re not involved in that! We’re not supporting either of them.'”

On his Saturday show, the president of the Colorado Tea Party Patriots Regina Thompson told Crank that the Tea Party Express endorsement of Crank “certainly looks suspicious.”

And Loren Sheets, President of 285 Corridor Tea Party added that it’s “very likely” that money was involved in the Hill endorsement.

“You know,” Thompson continued on air, “Why else would this particular organization? I mean, they introduced him at their press conference as ‘the Tea-Party grassroots candidate.’ I mean, they said, ‘he is the grassroots candidate’ when in fact he’s not.”

So maybe if Crank doesn’t have evidence himself, he can get it elsewhere.

On KNUS’ Kelley and Company a few weeks ago, Rep. Cory Gardner said:

Gardner: “I would gladly bring Barack Obama and take him around the state of Colorado, introduce him to the 335,000 Coloradans who lost their health insurance thanks to Barack Obama’s bill that Mark Udall passed.”

Gardner would have a tough time with these introductions because 335,000 such people do not exist. It’s not true that 335,000 Coloradans lost their health insurance thanks to Obamacare.

I wondered how Gardner could make this egregious mistake, because The Denver Post reported that the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) wrote a letter specifically to Gardner, informing him that 335,000 Coloradans were sent letters stating that their health insurance policies were cancelled. They were advised of other health-insurance options, one of which, for 92 percent of these people, was to renew their existing policies or choose from other options.

I thought, maybe The Post got its facts wrong about the letter to Gardner. So I contacted DORA, and Communications Manager Vincent Plymell confirmed that DORA sent Gardner a letter stating that “92% [of 335,484] were offered the opportunity of early renewal and continue their plans into 2014.”

Just to make sure I wasn’t missing something in Gardner’s logic, I asked Plymell what “early renewal” meant:

Plymell: “‘Early renewal’ meant that instead of renewing their policies when the policies expired, they could renew early.  These would have been non-ACA compliant plans.”

Asked via email about the price for the renewals, Plymell wrote, “Some may have been at the same price, but as is common with renewals of policies in general (early or not), many would have been for higher premiums.” He added:

Plymell: Remember that for people receiving cancellation letters, they were required to be told by the carriers about all of their options – early renewal, if it was a possibility (and for 92% it was), other plans from that carrier, switching to another carrier, or Connect for Health Colorado.  If people didn’t like the renewal price, they had other options for coverage in 2014.  Also remember that prior to the plans for 2014, people with individual plans (as opposed to employer plans) did not tend to explore those options, because they did not want to have to apply again and go through underwriting, which could mean they could be denied or have their particular conditions excluded.  Going into 2014, they could realistically explore those options because they could not be denied for health reasons or have their pre-existing condition excluded from coverage.

So it looks like The Denver Post got it right, while KNUS and Gardner somehow missed the boat.

House Speaker John Boehner announced last week that Republicans probably won’t do anything on immigration reform, because “there’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws.”

This prompted Sen. Charles Schumer to suggest that Congress pass an immigration bill this year, with the stipulation that it not go into effect until 2017, after Obama leaves office. It was a creative idea, but Boehner rejected it, leading to ridicule by Comedy Central’s John Stuart. See below.

On KFTM radio last week, Colorado’s own Rep. Cory Gardner sided with Boehner about being unable to trust the president to enforce U.S. law, but he added a new twist. It was a relationship issue.

Gardner: I think there is need for reform but the bottom line is the President has to show a willingness to make sure that the law is enforced and to be able to work with Congress. And really, it’s unfortunate that the fact, this president put no effort into building relationships with Congress over the past four years on either side of the aisle. It’s really starting to hurt his policy efforts now.

Listen to Gardner discuss immigration KFTM 02 10 2014

Omitted was any consideration of the ideas that the relationship-management issues involved in immigration reform had more do to with the relationship between the Tea Party and establishment Republicans, not between Obama and Congress. Especially in light of the fact that the Senate already passed a bipartisan immigration-reform bill.

KFTM should bring Gardner back to find out which relationship strategies might have worked on him.

Republican gubernatorial candidates Scott Gessler and Tom Tancredo have said they won’t participate in primary debates, but Gessler changed course slightly Thursday, telling KHOW host Mandy Connell that he wouldn’t rule out a talk-radio debate organized by Connell.

Connell: Scott, let’s just say, if I were to have all the candidates on the show at the same time, would you participate in that, on the air? I mean we could really get into some issues.

Gessler: Maybe. Probably not at this point. My focus really is on the convention. You know, I have an election coming up on April 12, and that is the state assembly to get access to the ballot to be nominated to the Republican-primary ballot. So, my focus and strategy is, reaching out to the people who participate in that, whether it’s in big groups, media, as well as individual. And so I can’t tell you it would fit within that approach, but we’ll talk. I won’t rule it out. [BigMedia emphasis]

Connell: There will be donuts, Scott.

Listen to Gessler tell KHOW he won’t rule out talk-radio debate 2-6-2014

Connell and other conservative talkers have the ear of the exact group Gessler says he wants to reach: Republican primary voters. KHOW and KNUS are obviously in the “media” category that Gessler mentions above. So, Connell is in a position to exert some serious pressure on Gessler and Tanc.

The question is, will Connell push the issue (maybe offer lox and bagels in addition to donuts?). If not, will KNUS’ Dan Caplis, who’s said on air that he hopes to have candidates debate on his show, push the radio-debate idea? Connell seems pissed, as you can see below from her Feb. 6 show, so maybe she’ll persevere:

Connell: I hate this decision [not to debate]. I’m not going to lie. I don’t like it… Isn’t there any part of you that thinks you’re doing a disservice to voters on this?

Gessler: I’m spending my time elsewhere reaching out to voters in a pretty intensive way. And by the way, I’m happy to send you my schedule. You’re welcome to come, and ask me any tough question you would like.

Connell: I will. You better be careful what you invite, Scott, because I will come.

Connell should up the ante and put a KHOW all-candidate event on Gessler’s schedule.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Brophy took a playful swipe at Denver Post reporters Lynn Bartels and Kurtis Lee yesterday, saying on a Denver radio station that if Scott Gessler and Tom Tancredo “can’t take on Lynn Bartels and Kurtis Lee right now, how on Earth are [Gessler and Tancredo] gong to take on John Hickenlooper in September?”

On KHOW’s Mandy Connell show, Brophy was making the point that Gessler and Tancredo, who say they won’t participate in primary debates, including a Feb. 18 debate sponsored by The Denver Post, should subject themselves to tough questions now, to prepare themselves for battle with Hick, if one of them wins the primary and faces Hick.

Brophy, for example, referred to questions about Tancredo’s broken term-limits pledge and his support for gun control, and Gessler’s eithics troubles and problems with his office budget.

I’d rather have trained journalists (Bartels, Lee) asking Tancredo questions about term limits, for example, than a geologist (Hick), who’s known to be too nice. That’s why debates are moderated by journalists! They’re the smart ones in the room.

Brophy: I brought up Tom Tancredo’s past support of gun control. He needs to be able to talk about that in a way that settles the voters down now, not late September. Secretary Gessler a problem with his office budget. He’s upside down by about $4.1 million that no one can explain.  And he needs to make is case to the people of Colorado. He needs to make it in February, not in September.”

“I mean, come on guys,” Brophy said later in the KHOW interview, “if you can’t take on Lynn Bartels and Kurtis Lee right now, how on Earth are you gong to take on John Hickenlooper in September? Just come to the debate.”

On KNUS’ Kelley and Company Feb. 6, Brophy made the same point.

Kelley: Who do you want to challenge most of those five other guys out there?

Brophy: I think we need to ask and have the hard questions answered by Tom Tancredo. Why did you vote for gun control back in 1999. Why did you break your term-limits pledge. What makes us think we can trust you now? Why do you think you can win a general election in Colorado? Secretary Gessler, explain to us why you have to have your budget bailed out by the State of Colorado when every other secretary of state in the history of Colorado has balanced their budget successfully as secretary of state. Explain to us how improper use of office resources for personal political gain was ok back in 2012 when the Ethics Commission found 5-0 against you and ultimately you paid the money back.”

Kelley: Folks, we are having a one-way debate right here?

Brophy: You are going to have to answer these questions sometime.

I hope the questions come from Bartels, Lee,  and other journalists, not from a geologist-turned-bartender-turned-politician.