Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck and his conservative talk-show allies like to blame “the left” for distracting them from what they say are the real issues, which somehow don’t include immigration or a woman’s right to choose abortion.

But the obvious truth is that it’s Buck and other conservatives who bring up the taboo issues (immigration, abortion) on their own, because their own base voters demand to know about them!

To prove the point, during a recent radio interview, I timed the number of seconds that elapsed between 1) Buck saying he won’t talk about immigration and 2) Buck brining up his extreme immigration position on his own!

For the record, it took Buck exactly 30 seconds, from promising not to talk about it to saying, with no leftist provocation, he’s opposed to immigration reform at this time.

Here’s the proof, from KVOR’s Jeff Crank Show Nov. 9.

CRANK: Well, it is one of those things. And I talked about this earlier. It just seems to me that Republicans in the last couple of election cycles, have allowed the left—They’re very good at diverting our attention from the issues that matter….issues like immigration. The life issue. Things like that….

BUCK: Well, you’re absolutely right. The – what a Senator spends most of his or her time doing are the issues involving the expenditure of federal funds….

CRANK: Sure, and there’s no question about it. I think where the left sees their opportunity is that like, if they can bring up immigration, they know where John McCain is going to be….

BUCK: Well, and it goes to credibility, also. They don’t just want to talk about immigratioin. They want to give amnesty, and then say, “Trust us, we’ll secure the border. Trust us, we’ll develop an employee verification program in the country.” And we don’t trust the federal government. And that’s why we’re divided.

Similarly, on the Mike Rosen Show, Nov. 14, Buck said social issues like abortion are “less sigificant” for a U.S. Senator.

Then, exactly 71 seconds later (@22:00 in the podcast), Buck told a caller that individual employers should not have to carry insurance policies for their employees that cover birth control, as required with some exceptions by Obamacare. That’s not significant these days?

It was already self-evident that Buck brought his problems on himself during his last failed Senate run (See, “I am pro-life. And I’ll answer the next question. I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape or incest.“). But just because it happened once before, shouldn’t stop reporters from pointing out the Buck phenomenon as it emerges once again.

On Channel 12’s “Colorado Inside Out” Friday, , the Independence Institute’s Dave Kopel, whose gun connections run deep, said it’s a “tall hill to climb” for the Hudak-recall campaign to collect 19,000 signatures required to trigger a vote on the recall measure.

Today, speaking on KNUS radio, Hudak-recall spokeswoman Laura Waters (appearing with her colleague Mike McAlpine) confirmed Kopel’s prediction, saying that her campaign has been struggling up hill of late.

Waters @32:00: Well, we’ve had a little bit of a slow week, a little bit of weather, a little big of distraction, a little bit of opposition. And so we’re a little bit behind right now in our numbers where we want to be. The rumor mill is floating that we’re turning in our petitions next week. That could not be further from the truth. We’re not ready. We’re not there yet.

Listen McAlpine and Waters on KNUS 11-1-2013

On Channel 12, during the top-rated (by me) public affairs show, “Colorado Inside Out,” Kopel said: “It’s tough because Hudak was elected in a presidential-election cycle year. The minimum number of signatures you need as a fraction of the votes you got is much higher. It’s a tall hill to climb.”

Kopel, whose libertarian Independence Institute opposes Colorado’s new gun-safety laws, said it’s up to Dudley Brown’s Rocky Mountain Gun Owners to perform the “large feat” of collecting the signatures.

Kopel: “We will see if his organization [Rocky Mountain Gun Owners] has the on-the-ground competence to do large feat of signature gathering,” said Kopel.

In an editorial Monday, The Denver Post slammed  Mike McAlpine, a leader of the Evie-Hudak-recall campaign, for calling pro-Hudak protesters Nazi “Brownshirts,” which, The Post pointed out, is “particularly ill-suited because Hudak  is Jewish.”

Gun-safety activist Tom Mauser, who lost a child at Columbine, was one of those protesters, and, appearing on Boyle’s show Friday (Audio 1 at 30:00), he objected to being called a Nazi. McAlpine originally delivered the “Brownshirts” comment on Peter Boyles KNUS show Oct. 21.

Continuing his free-fall from respectability, Boyles told Mauser that McAlpine did not level the “Brownshirts” attack, and then Boyles bullied Mauser into retracting his statement that McAlpine used the term “Brownshirts”, even though McAlpine did, in fact, say on Boyles’ show that pro-Hudak protesters were “Brownshirts.”

After enduring Boyles for too long, Mauser departed from the show, and guess who joined Boyles? McAlpine!

Boyles told McAlpine all about his conversation with Mauser, telling McAlpine directly that the “word ‘Brownshirt’ was never used by you.” (Click on Audio 2 here)

Not a word emerged from McAlpine’s mouth to correct Boyles, even though Laura Waters, another leader of the Hudak recall campaign, told Boyles: “Thank you for that clarification.  It wasn’t [McAlpine who said “Brownshirts.”]

Boyles hasn’t responded to my emails asking for an on-air correction.

If he made one, I haven’t heard it, and his treatment of Mauser was so gross, and it’s even worse if you hear the audio (Audio 1 beginning at 30:00), you might want to join me in trying to get Boyles to apologize: Email him: Peter@710KNUS.com.

You can see the entire transcript of this exchange by clicking here, and I’ve pasted some of the worst of it below:

BOYLES:  Would you retract that from Mike [McAlpine]?  That’s all I’m asking.    Tom?

MAUSER:  Would I retract it?

BOYLES:  Yeah.  Would you retract that he didn’t say that.

MAUSER:  He did say “Brownshirts”.

BOYLES:  No, he didn’t.

MAUSER:  What did he say?

BOYLES:  Well, I don’t –. Hey, I – a caller said “brownshirts.” I remember it.  You want to get Mike [McAlpine] – call Mike up.

MAUSER:  Oh, okay, Oh, it was a caller that said it?

BOYLES:  Yeah.  A caller said it.  He didn’t say it….

Boyles tells Mauser toward the end of the exchange:  You know what you’ve turned into?  You’ve turned into one of those people I can’t speak to anymore because you keep coming up with things that aren’t true!…

Later  in the show, with McAlpine and Laura Waters (Click on Audio 2 here):

Boyles: …We had quite a knockdown, drag out with tom Mauser this morning

Boyles tells McAlpine: First of all,  I need to make this clear, because I was making it clear to [Mauser], the word “Brownshirt” was never used by you and “goon” was never used by you.   And his first accusation was you said those things.  And I said no, that you had not said those things.  That in fact, the word “goon” was me, and I think a caller – when we were naming the crew of people to help, and somebody used “brownshirt”, but it certainly wasn’t you.

WATERS:  Thank you for that clarification.  It wasn’t.

BOYLES:  And he came in loaded for bear {?}  to talk about “Brownshirt”  And I said, “First things first.  I said ‘goon’ and ‘Brownshirt’ was made by a listener.”  And I asked him to make an apology to you, and it took a couple of minutes.

Political reporters should have noted that the spokeswoman for two recent recall-election campaigns in Colorado said Sunday that a new recall effort targeting Democratic State Sen. Evie Hudak is an “uphill climb.”

Speaking on KNUS radio’s Backbone Radio Sunday, Kerns said:

“…I think that’s going to be an uphill climb to get [the 20,000 Hudak-recall signatures] qualified but, hey, I will not do what others did to us in the two recalls. I will not be a naysayer. And I do really wish them the best in qualifying that recall.”

Listen to Kerns say Hudak recall effort will be an “uphill climb”

I hate it when someone’s obviously a naysayer, and then they say they’re not a naysayer.

That’s the worse kind of naysayer, but probably the kind journalists should pay attention to, especially given Kerns’ credibility of having been on the front lines, from start to finish, of both successful recall campaigns in Colorado.

Kerns also said:

Kerns: The district of Evie Hudak is much more metropolitan, in the Denver metropolitan area, as opposed to Colorado Springs and Pueblo. So you’re going to have much more of that metropolitan Democrat Denver involvement…. A couple of other things I think they will find challenging in the Hudak recall is not only is that district more metropolitan Denver, but those 20,000 signatures are due Dec. 3, and we are quickly approaching Nov. 1.

Talk-Radio Host Matt Dunn: That’s a lot.

Kerns: So they have 30 more days to get those.

Partial transcript of appearance by Jennifer Kerns on KNUS Oct. 27

Kerns: I think this one is going to be a little bit of a tougher climb than the first two recalls were. For example, more signatures will be required just to place this on the ballot.

Dunn: A lot more.

Kerns: A lot more, about 20,000 signatures required, just to qualify this for the ballot. That’s not even including then the campaign that has to be run against her. So that, I think, is the first challenge. The district of Evie Hudak is much more metropolitan, in the Denver metropolitan area, as opposed to Colorado Springs and Pueblo. So you’re going to have much more of that metropolitan Democrat Denver involvement…. A couple of other things I think they will find challenging in the Hudak recall is not only is that district more metropolitan Denver, but those 20,000 signatures are due Dec. 3, and we are quickly approaching Nov. 1.

Dunn: That’s a lot.

Kerns: So they have 30 more days to get those. Now I know they’re working hard. they’re out there. They’re on street corners. They’re in shopping centers. They’ve got the support of groups like the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. But I think that’s going to be an uphill climb to get that qualified but, hey, I will not do what others did to us in the two recalls. I will not be a naysayer. And I do really wish them the best in qualifying that recall.\

Listen to Kerns say Hudak recall effort will be an “uphill climb”

You’ve heard of shock jocks, like the drive-time radio hosts who throw chickens out the radio station’s second-story window? If a shock jock is a right-wing pastor, then you’ve got a shock pastor, like Colorado Springs’ Kevin Swanson, who recently cited “decadent homosexual activity” as the cause of Colorado’s floods.

Swanson’s latest shocker: his campaign against Girl Scout cookies. Swanson’s anti-cookie crusade was first reported by Right Wing Watch, which spotlights this kind of stuff. It quoted Swanson on his weekly radio show saying that “the individualism of feminism has been devastating to this country.”

Swanson: “I’d say you ought to say no the Girl Scout cookies too. I don’t want to support lesbianism, I don’t want to support Planned Parenthood, and I don’t want to support abortion, and if that be the case I’m not buying Girl Scout cookies…”

“The vision of the Girl Scouts of America is antithetical to a biblical vision for womanhood, it’s antithetical to it… Guys just check it out at the Girl Scouts’ websites and you’re going to find that the people showing up are lesbians, lots and lots of lesbians. Dave, I didn’t realize there were this many lesbians leading this country but they certainly show up in Girl Scout conventions across America…

“In fact, if you want a communist in the White House in the year 2020 you have got to get more daughters raised with the worldview, the independent mindset, the worldview that is presented by the Girl Scouts of America.”

As Westword pointed out today, Swanson didn’t change his tune in a Channel 7 interview last night.

Channel 7 asked Swanson to back up his assertion that the Girl Scouts promotes Planned Parenthood, abortion, and lesbianism.

Channel 7 reporter Marc Stewart: How can you make those statements?

Swanson: I just take the data I see on the Internet. I take the associations I see on the Internet. I see the promotion of feminism and lesbianism.

Unfortunately, Channel 7 didn’t show us Swanson’s alleged internet proof—or state as a factual matter, that none exists.

Still, the TV station did report a denial from the Girl Scouts, as well as a counter view from a parent.

Girl Scout parent Susan Sabol: “The meetings have nothing to do with sexuality or reproduction, or reproductive rights. They’re really leaning to be good members of society and the community. It’s very much about being a good person.”

You can argue that, at some point, reporters should ignore shock pastors, who repeatedly blast out outrages on little-known internet radio shows.

But there’s actually a lot to be gained from seeing bigots being bigots, and asking them about it, as long as their misinformation is corrected and the facts are clear.

Back in August, Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s office issued an election rule stating that voters must reside in the same district in which they vote, and, in case someone like Jon Caldara was wondering, Gessler’s rule stated that “intent to move, in and of itself, does not establish residence.”

This sounded sensible to people who believe in representative government.

But about a week later, the residency rule was rescinded by Gessler’s office for no apparent reason. It was part of a set of election rules, one of which was thrown out by a judge, but Gessler wasn’t required to dump the residency rule. But he did anyway.

About a month later, people who believe in representative government were surprised when Gessler stepped up to a talk-show microphone on KNUS radio and proclaimed that under Colorado’s new election law, “you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there, which I think is just absurd.”

Now, even people who don’t believe in representative government were puzzled, because in August Gessler’s office had arrived at the exact opposite conclusion about the new law.

The eternal question: What would Gessler say next?

Well, on Oct. 9, the residency rule was re-issued by Gessler’s office in almost the exact same words as before, stating that “intent to move to a new district or county, in and of itself, is not enough to establish residency.”

The rule also says: “An elector may not register to vote in a new district or county unless he or she has already moved and established his or her primary residence in the new district or county.”

Just like before, this makes sense to most everyone, except maybe Jon Caldara and…we don’t know if Gessler’s on board with it, even though it emanated from his office.

Will Gessler again be asked to step up to a talk-radio microphone and explain if he still thinks, like he said before, that Colorado’s new election law mandates that “you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there?”

How could he possibly think so, now that his office has twice concluded otherwise? I’ll be sitting by my radio, waiting for his answer on KOA, KNUS, KLZ, or wherever.

Actually, wouldn’t it be fun if Jon Caldara asked Gessler about it on his Sunday KHOW show?

Toward the end of the Creative Revolution Theater Company’s inspired production of Eric Bogosian’s Talk Radio, Barry Champlain, who’s the talk-show-host character in the play, tells his radio audience, “You’re like little children under the blanket, afraid of the bogeyman, but you can’t live without him.”

It’s a great line, among many in the play now showing in Thornton, and it’s a big reason why people listen to conservative talk radio. They’re scared, and they feed on their own paranoia.

Talk radio is also a place where people find a community of like-minded voices who validate each other’s beliefs, whereas in the real world, off the airwaves, in the mainstream media, they often fall into the lunatic-fringe category.

Bogosian’s play, based partly on the life and murder of Denver talk-radio host Alan Berg, depicts a talk-radio world, different from today’s, where calls are more personal and raw, and the talk-show host mostly berates callers.

“Are you as ugly as you sound?” Champlain asks a caller at one point during the play. Later he tells another caller, “Yes, the world is a terrible place…everything is screwed up, and you like it that way.”

Today, talk radio is mostly right-wing Republican not nihilistic or truth-telling, and certainly not liberal, like Berg was, if you heard him in Denver in the 1980s.

Talk-radio hosts will still beat up on callers or at least disagree with them, but they seem more desperate to please them, to legitimize their craziness, and hope they call back, to keep their audience from shrinking further. And to try to build political power for the Republican right.

So the talk-radio world you see in Bogosian’s Talk Radio, free from right-wing Republican talking points, is actually more interesting, even if it’s a bit dated, than what you hear on the radio now.

The play’s simple plot, like the 1988 movie with the same name, centers on Champlain’s response to callers during a single night’s show, as he gets more wasted, drinking whiskey and snorting cocaine.

Partisan politics doesn’t come up at all, as Champlain abuses everyone from a woman who likes “I love Lucy” to a man upset about dog poop in his neighborhood. Champlain dismisses on a black man who says he likes Jews and bigot who says he hates them.

I don’t know a lot about theater, but I can tell you that Champlain is performed with such complete and thorough passion and believability by actor Michael Occhuizzo that you’re left thinking he needs to get a job on a Denver talk-radio station as soon as possible.

I’m half serious, because talk radio, if done right, is much like a form of theater or reality entertainment–if it doesn’t get dragged down by the formula of faux politics and ginned-up paranoia that radio-station corporations seem to want today.

The best talk-radio hosts are artists/actors/entertainers themselves, as well as intellectuals, like Berg, driven to the talk medium as their form of expression.

As Champlain tells his audience in his last drunken lines of the play, before he leaves and ostensibly gets gunned down in the parking lot:  “You’re pathetic… I guess we’re stuck with one another.”

Do your best to catch one of the play’s last performances this Thurs., Fri., and Sat. at 7 p.m. It’s staged in a former retail space in the North Valley Tech Center in Thornton, an eerie, mostly vacant place that conjures up the strange world of talk radio, in Berg’s time and today.

Tin foil hats are the hot fashion at conservative talk-radio stations this week, with hosts, like KNUS’ Peter Boyles, saying Monday he thinks the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, signed Wednesday by the United States, might really be aimed at bringing on world government. (Listen to Boyles say Small Arms Treaty and IPCC might lead to world government.)

If a really smart guy like Boyles chooses to spread lies about the Treaty, which is about saving innocent lives, mostly in Africa, how can you expect other talk-show hosts down in Colorado Springs to correct callers and guests when they air paranoia and falsehoods about the Treaty, even if the guest is State Senator-elect Bernie Herpin, who just defeated John  Morse in a recall election?

Herpin was a guest on Colorado Springs’ KVOR radio Sat. morning, with Herpin taking questions from callers (Listen here):

Caller: “And basically I think that’s part of the ultimate goal to use [the Small Arms Treaty] to disarm American citizens across the board.  And I think that’s why Obama is supporting the Morse / Giron gun control the way he did.”

The KVOR guest-host Tom Antkow didn’t correct the caller. Instead, the conversation degraded further, and he and Herpin eventually agreed that the Treaty is part of a plan, supported by President Obama, for the United Nations to control America.

Herpin: The United Nations wants to restrict or control the sale of small arms throughout the world, and including the United States.  Hopefully, our Senate will not ratify – our U.S. Senate will not ratify that treaty.

Here’s where host Antkow and Herpin agree that the Small Arms Treaty is part of the New World Order, favored by Obama, under which, as Antkow put it, “they want to control the United States through the United Nations.”

HOST:  It’s that New World Order, you know.

HERPIN:  [chuckles]

HOST TOM:  And they want to control the United States through the United Nations—

HERPIN:  Yep.

HOST:  — and I think Obama is a big proponent of that.  He wants to get the United Nations –

HERPIN:  Right.

HOST:  — to kind of control everything, so. Listen to Ankow and Herpin trash Small Arms Treaty on KVOR 9-28-13

Is it too much to ask book-loving Boyles or gun-loving Antkow to inform someone like Herpin, before he enters the Colorado Senate, about what the Small Arms Treaty would actually do.

Here’s the gist of it, as reported by the New York Times Wed.:

The treaty, which took seven years to negotiate, is considered by rights advocates to be a landmark document that would for the first time impose moral standards on the enormous cross-border trade in conventional arms that fuel conflicts around the world, most notably in Africa.

It is devised to thwart sales to users who would break humanitarian law, foment genocide or war crimes, engage in terrorism, or kill women and children. Although the treaty has no enforcement power, its disclosure provisions could embarrass and shame violators…

The National Rifle Association and other American gun-rights advocacy groups still object to the treaty, contending it infringes on the Second Amendment. They have vowed that it would never be ratified by the Senate, even though language in the final draft specifies that nothing in the treaty could infringe on any nation’s constitutional rights. [BigMedia emphasis]

Even someone who can fold a tin foil hat can understand that the treaty isn’t about confiscating guns, right?

I just hope Herpin remembered to take off his hat when he signed off from his KVOR interview Saturday, and he’s not still wearing it when he’s sworn in as a new State Senator tomorrow.

Or maybe Boyles and Antkow will be present at Herpin’s swearing-in ceremony, and they can all wear their tin-foil hats together.

Transcript of conversation between KVOR guest host Tom Antkow and State Sen. Bernie Herpin on KVOR radio Sat., Sept. 28. Listen to Ankow and Herpin trash Small Arms Treaty on KVOR 9-28-13.

HOST:  All right.  We are going to take a call from Don.  Don, you want to talk about guns also.  So gosh, guns are always popular. CALLER DON:  Yeah, yeah, I do want to kind of supplement on what Ron was saying, and I mean, you know,  why Morse and Giron did what they did.  I’m going to say, this is not just a local or a national agenda, it’s really actually an international agenda.  Because I don’t know what Bernie Herpin can do about it, but I’m going to make him aware that John Kerry signed the UN treaty– HERPIN:  Yes, I know that. CALLER DON:  And I think, that’s kind of, you know, under the radar.  And basically I think that’s part of the ultimate goal to use that to disarm American citizens across the board.  And I think that’s why Obama is supporting the Morse / Giron gun control the way he did. HOST:  All right.  Briefly, Bernie, tell people about the United Nations resolution, I think—or bill that Kerry got involved in.  Thanks for the call. HERPIN @16:45:  Thanks.  Yeah, that’s – the United Nations wants to restrict or control the sale of small arms throughout the world, and including the United States.  Hopefully, our Senate will not ratify – our U.S. Senate will not ratify that treaty. HOST:  It’s that New World Order, you know. HERPIN:  [chuckles] HOST TOM:  And they want to control the United States through the United Nations— HERPIN:  Yep. HOST:  — and I think Obama is a big proponent of that.  He wants to get the United Nations – HERPIN:  Right. HOST:  — to kind of control everything, so.

During an interview on KNUS’ Jimmy Sengenberger Show Sat., GOP Senate candidate Ken Buck explained what he learned from his 2010 loss to Democrat Michael Bennet.

Buck told Sengenberger that, this time around, he won’t let the “liberal media” and “liberal candidates” distract him from the “issues that voters care about.” Listen to Buck on KNUS Sengenberger Show 9.21.13.

Judging from what Buck has said previously about his failed 2010 campaign, he was undoubtedly thinking about his views on social issues, like abortion, which were widely viewed as his downfall last time around.

But the ironic part is, if you think back to 2010, the most damaging single utterance Buck made, caught on video at a conservative gun gathering, showed a shocking exuberance by Buck himself to talk about his opposition to abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.

Sengenberger surely remembers Buck’s rape-and-incest comments, which were later used in TV ads, and he should have pointed out that there was no liberal media or liberal candidates present at the event, tricking Buck into going way beyond what was needed to answer a simple question about abortion.

It was all Buck. It was authentic. And the emotional intensity of his answer in this video, unprovoked by anyone, arguably cost him a Senate seat. How does this square with what Buck is saying now about how it was the liberal media that undermined him?

Ken Buck, who’s running for U.S. Senate, isn’t always so great at making up his mind about things (e.g., the personhood amendment).

So, even though Buck had tweeted his support for Sen. Ted Cruz’s crusade to shut down the government in order to stop Obamacare, it was wise for Fox31 Denver’s Eli Stokols to phone Buck to find out his latest thinking about the standoff in Washington.

Unfortunately, the Buck campaign did not return Fox31’s phone calls.

So I’ll fill in the media gap with Buck’s comments on the topic Sat. on KNUS radio’s debut of the Jimmy Sengenberger show (Sundays 5-8 p.m.).

In a move other talk-radio hosts should copy, Sengenberger injected some refreshing conflict into his conservative show by asking Buck to respond to righty Jonah Goldberg’s position against trying to shut down the government to stop Obamacare.

Sengenberger played Buck a Fox News interview with Goldberg about the passage of the House bill defunding Obamacare:

Interviewer from Fox:  Jonah, is this a Kamikazi mission?

Jonah Goldberg:  I don’t know if it’s a Kamikazi mission, there’s definitely  a lot of Kabuki theater in it. It’s like a long con, where you try to convince people to part with their money, and the trick is that the con artist is supposed to leave before they realize it’s a con. And what’s happened here is this whole ‘Defund Obamacare’ thing is, it has been exposed with the con artist still sort of left out there.  I mean, I like Ted Cruz.  I like Mike Lee, but these guys have been selling a plan that simply won’t work and they’ve been denouncing anyone who says it won’t work as prematurely surrendering, when in fact, all they were doing was just predicting where the facts would take them.

Then Sengenberger asked Buck to respond:

Sengenberger:  Is trying to defund Obamacare a Kamikazi mission or just Kabuki theater, or is there a real legitimate reason to put up that fight?

Buck: I think there’s legitimate reason, Jimmy, there. We cannot allow Obamacare to become one of the entitlements in this country. We’ve got to deal with healthcare. We’ve got to create a more open marketplace. We’ve got to give a patient centered healthcare system a chance. We’ve got to give consumers the information they need to make good choices. We’ve got to do better job at educating the public about their personal accountability for their health and give them incentives. And if Obamacare becomes a part of our cultural expectation, we have lost.  We can’t afford another huge entitlement like Obamacare.

Listen to Buck on KNUS Sengenberger Show 9.21.13

This is what Buck said on Saturday. So you’d assume he would have said the same thing if he’d returned Stokols’ call Tuesday. But, to make sure Buck’s thinking hasn’t changed over the past couple days, I’d suggest that Stokols stay after him.