In an interesting Spot Blog Post Sunday by The Denver Post’s Kurtis Lee, Republican State Chairman Ryan Call defends himself against recent accusations from Republican activists that he did not support the recall campaigns of Democratic State Senators Angela Giron and John Morse.

Call told The Post that the State GOP, in fact, supported Republican recall candidates with cash, legal backing, get-out-the-vote activities, and other ways.

The Post also reported:

“In an e-mail exchange, Call offered to attend a news conference in support of the recalls, but he was turned down by a spokeswoman for the recall organizers.”

The spokeswoman for the recall organizers was Jennifer Kerns, and she was apparently not given the chance respond to Call’s allegation. Either that or she deferred to Victor Head, the Pueblo activist, who was quoted in the article, slamming Call.

But, in any case, on KLZ radio Friday afternoon, Kerns said:

Kerns: “This is my first time speaking out as the spokesperson for the recalls, and I’m doing it right here first on Grassroots Radio to say that the [Republican] Party blocked us every step of the way, whether it was phone calls into Pueblo from Ryan Call to suggest that they shut down those recalls, and they not aid and assist the guys from Pueblo Freedom and Rights, or if it was our chairman calling into Pueblo again the night of the elections telling George Rivera that he ought to prepare a gracious concession speech before the polls even closed….”

“I’ve often said to my colleagues, and I’ll say it first here publicly. As much as we fought John Morse and Angela Giron, the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and OFA, I have to say I actually fought my own Republican Party more, and I’m so sad and disgusted that I actually have to say that. But it’s the truth.” [BigMedia emphasis.]

Partial transcript  of comments by Jennifer Kerns and KLZ host Ken Clark on KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado, Friday, Sept. 20:

Jennifer Kerns: This is actually my first time publicly peaking out about this, in regards to the [Republican] Party. But the fact that Ken is taking his vacation time to call in about this. One person inspires another. Ken is exactly right. We just came off a very historic recall. Both of those recalls were driven by the grassroots and people who had never been involved in politics. And I have to say this. This is my first time speaking out as the spokesperson for the recalls, and I’m doing it right here first on Grassroots Radio to say that the Party blocked us every step of the way, whether it was phone calls into Pueblo from Ryan Call to suggest that they shut down those recalls, and they not aid and assist the guys from Pueblo Freedom and Rights, or if it was our chairman calling into Pueblo again the night of the elections telling George Rivera that he ought to prepare a gracious concession speech before the polls even closed…. I encourage everyone who’s listening to get involved or else there will be no Party…. I’ve often said to my colleagues, and I’ll say it first here publicly. As much as we fought John Morse and Angela Giron, the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and OFA, I have to say I actually fought my own Republican Party more, and I’m so sad and disgusted that I actually have to say that. But it’s the truth. We have to stay involved in the fight. And, again, it’s the Party that has to make peace with us…. They need us more than we need them, and we just proved it in two different races.

Ken Clark: We are all Andrew Breitbart. And we understand one thing that I don’t think the Republican Party understands at all: We are at war. And we will not back down. We understand what’s at stake in the United States of America. We understand what’s at stake in Colorado…. Republicans are supposed to stand for something. When I was a kid, they did. It was called the Reagan revolution. And Ronald Reagan was able to articulate his principles in such a manner that the entire country wanted to follow him. And follow him they did…. As a Republican, I stand for principles. What the Hell do you stand for? I really want to know. Do you stand for the Party itself? Is it the Party that you’re trying to protect. Is it your own power that you’re trying protect? Or is it principle? Is it fighting for the very life of this country? Because that is what is at stake, ladies and gentlemen, that is what is at stake.

Last month, Rep. Mike Coffman told long-time KOA talk show host Mike Rosen that a lot of scientists can’t get climate-change research grants unless they “submit” to the “orthodoxy of climate change by the radical environmentalists.”

Some media outlets quoted Coffman’s radio comments, but not a single journalist has reported asking Coffman to explain himself, even though global warming, even if you’re a skeptic, ranks at the top of the list of environmental issues of our time.

So, since Coffman won’t talk to me, I’m left to speculate about what he was talking about.

I found a handy breakdown of U.S. government funding for climate research.

The top granter is NASA. Does Rad Enviro orthodoxy prevail over there?

Next is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, followed by the National Science Foundation. Both aren’t known for harboring the radical environmental set.

But what percentage of the total funding for climate-change research comes from the feds anyway?

I asked Prof. John Reilly, who Co-directs the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change Center for Environmental Policy Research at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, and he estimated that over 90 percent comes from governments worldwide, with the U.S. government providing the most money.

He added: “The definition of ‘radical environmentalist’ will of course depend on one’s views and interpretation of the science.  Both environmental groups and private companies with a range of perspectives fund some research.”

So this opens up a serious line of questioning for Coffman. What is his definition of a radical environmentalist?

In a Twitter discussion of this topic, “AFPColorado” told me NASA may be be submitting to radical-enviro-global-warming orthodoxy because “it helps fatten budgets and supplants [its] abandoned original mission (manned space flight).” AFP Colorado offered me an article claiming that “climatism” is, as AFPColorado put it, an “orthodoxy-enforcing religion,” used to create alarmism and justify grants.

In his interview with Rosen, Coffman said he’d read “viable sources” backing up his view that radical environmental orthodoxy controls grant funding for climate change. Maybe Coffman was thinking about the article from AFPColorado? It’s titled “Science in the Public Square: Global Alarmism and Historical Perspectives” by Richard Lindzen.

I asked Prof. Reilly if he knew what sources Coffman might possibly be thinking of. He told me via email:

Reilly: I am not aware of “viable sources” that have  evaluated whether research grant applications that challenge the “orthodoxy of climate change” are more or less likely to be funded.  A great strength of the US research system is that there are many different sources of research funding. These programs award grants on the basis of peer review by scientists, and so the grant managers are relatively constrained by the results of the peer review.  In the US there is also an important tradition of industry and philanthropist funding of research.  The Program I run at MIT is funded in part by a large industrial consortia (the industrial sponsors are identified on our WEB site) and so that provides us with additional freedom to investigate the climate issue, unconstrained by any Federal funding bias, if that is the Congressman’s concern. Ultimately, whatever the source or potential bias of research funding, to ultimately have scientific credibility any research findings must find their way into the peer-reviewed literature.  Hence that is another check in the system.

It is the case that granting programs are very competitive.  Climate change is an area that has energized scientists, in part because of the intensity of the public debate, and so there are many scientists competing over a limited amount of funding. Such competition, just like in the market place, is a good thing but it means that many proposals rated excellent and very good don’t make the cut.  It is probably only human nature to look for larger reasons if one’s proposal fails.  For competitive grants from the NSF, for example, my guess is that the success rate is only 10% or less, and even for my Program at MIT I must confess probably no higher success rate than that. Human beings must one way or another make decisions throughout the research system and so there are no doubt imperfections.  However,  the US system of multiple competitive grant programs, private funding, peer review of grants, and peer review of research findings introduces many checks, balances, and funding opportunities, and so the system is not easily manipulated.

I provide you with Reilly’s entire response because you have to admire his effort to be fair and thoughtful about Coffman’s assertion, but I’ll re-quote his last seven words because I think they sum up his view “so the system is not easily manipulated.”

Coffman is saying that, in the case of global-warming grants, science is being manipulated, and not just in subtle way, but by extremists. He’s attacking science.

But the good thing is, science welcomes attacks, especially from real-life Congressman like Coffman, because they force scientists to justify their work.

Except Coffman isn’t explaining himself, and journalists aren’t forcing him to.

Who’s to blame for this? Radical environmentalists?

Yesterday, I urged reporters to keep an eye on a sub-plot that’s emerged in the wake of the Republican recall victories: The “liberty” wing of the state GOP has apparently been re-energized by the election, and this could lead not only to a civil war among Colorado Republicans but also to serious election losses this year and into the future.

I mean, last time the base of the GOP got uppity in a sustained way, Ken Buck took down Jane Norton and Dan Maes fearlessly squeaked by Scott McInnis. (Maybe the insurgent air will inspire Scooter to write Musings Part II: Water Jaxine-Bubis Style.)

Happy and hot after Tuesdays wins,  the “liberty” faction isn’t being polite about its dissatisfaction with the state GOP establishment, as evidenced by Tom Tancredo’s comment yesterday, slamming State GOP Chair Ryan Call and expressing his amazement that the State GOP gets any “credibility whatsoever.”

Though he was kinder toward Call than Tancredo was, newly elected State Sen. George Rivera hit the State Chair in a more home-spun way during an appearance on KNUS’ Peter Boyles Show this morning:

Rivera: To be honest with ya, Chairman Call did come down and kind of threw a little cold water on our parade and so on. But, you know, after the meeting and so on, I sat privately with Chairman Call and I told him, I says, ‘Chairman, you don’t know Pueblo. You’ve not been here when we’ve been doing our campaigning and seen the support we’ve got from the folks.’ And I says, ‘I believe you’re wrong. And I believe the numbers will come out, and you guys will be very surprised.’ Hopefully this will get him to kind of take a different look come 2014.

Boyles: I don’t believe it.

George Rivera on KNUS Boyles Show 9-12-2013

You don’t need to know much about Tea-Party activists to understand that they’ll see this type of rain-on-your-parade behavior by Call as patronizing, to put it mildly.

They’ll undoubtedly think similarly of Call’s advice to Rivera on Tuesday afternoon, reminding him, like a well-intentioned mother might remind her son, to give a “gracious” concession speech, as opposed, presumably, to the hateful, spit-filled Tea-Party variety. (This was first reported by The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels.)

Obviously, no concession speech was needed because Rivera won the election, and Tea-Party activists were snickering about Call’s “gracious” advice Thursday while they lambasted the State GOP for getting the Pueblo recall effort wrong every step of the way.

We’ll undoubtedly be hearing a lot more about this in the coming months or years or decades. Civil wars, we all know, don’t heal very fast, and, to the my real point, they make really good news stories, with intrigue, passion, and late-night stabbings.

Denver media should pay more attention to the real possibility that yesterday’s recall-election victories by Colorado Republicans will, ironically, cause the indefinite demise of Colorado Republicans, rather than ushering in the GOP resurgence that talk-radio hosts are hyping.

That’s what the most rational people on both sides of the aisle would conclude after hearing gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo say the following on KNUS Peter Boyles show this morning:

Tancredo: Remember the Republican Party? Remember Ryan Call, saying at the beginning he was against all this? It goes to show you how incredibly out-of-touch this party establishment is.

Boyles: Oh, I agree.

Tancredo: I don’t know, Peter, whether any of us who are running as Republicans can overcome that. But, as you said more than once, my biggest problem is the Republican Party…. These folks who believe they know how to both achieve power and retain power, in the face so many losses, it is incredible to me that they are given any credibility whatsoever…

Boyles: ..I guess [the Republican power elite] is up there in Vail right now, maybe looking for another Coors brother.

Does anyone think Colorado’s GOP establishment will nod in agreement at Tancredo’s bravado, and align itself with the right wing of the party? No way.

Meanwhile, if you hear Tancredo’s voice, as you listen to him talking here, you know he’s emboldened, and you have to believe his Tea Party followers, are ready to fight along with him.

And you’d predict that the so-called country-club Republicans will fight back against Tancredo with all their money and influence, leading to an inflammation of the self-destructive behavior that’s plagued Republicans in our state.

Maybe the right side of the GOP will find the strength and intelligence to win going forward where it has lost before.

But, regardless, you gotta be scared if you’re State GOP Chair Ryan Call right now. Because you know it’s credible to say that this recall election might be the final brush stroke that paints Colorado blue. There’s one big, ugly GOP family fight on the horizon that’s waiting to be chronicled by Colorado reporters.

Speaking on a Colorado Springs radio station yesterday morning (listen @28:35), El Paso Country Clerk and Recorder Wayne Williams warned political stunt man Jon Caldara that he “better darn well plan on really” living in Colorado Springs, or he’ll be prosecuted.

Williams: Caldara decided he was going to highlight this problem. Again, he better have really – I understand he’s got a lease. He’s planning on residing there, and as he said, “checking out the Springs.” And we welcome him to our community. We are happy to have legitimate people who are living here live here. But you better darn well plan on really doing that!

Caldara, who lives in Boulder, cast a blank ballot Saturday in the recall election of CO Springs Sen. John Morse, saying he’s renting a room in the recall district

On KVOR’s Richard Randall show, Williams said he’ll determine after the election if  “someone lied” about living in Morse’s district, and then voted. And “if they did, they can be prosecuted for a felony.”

Williams: But, what you have then, is a system that says, under the law, if I really do move there, I can vote. Now, the challenge is, we have no verification of that beforehand. What we will do is investigate. And we will find out if someone lied. And if they did, they can be prosecuted for a felony…. And that’s what we intend to do, Richard. We intend to prosecute.

Randall agreed with Williams, saying:

Randall: And I would say this: whether it’s Caldara or anybody else – some union thug from Boulder who does it, if it turns out you lied and you wanted to participate in an election, you had no business doing it, and you didn’t follow up by actually being honest about your intentions, I do want Clerk and Recorders like Wayne Williams and prosecutors like Dan May and John Suthers to hit you with a felony.

You have to appreciate Randall standing up against voter fraud, and nudging fellow conservative Williams along in the same direction.

Maybe Randall will inspire  Peter Boyles, over on KNUS in Denver, to apologize for telling callers yesterday to commit felony voter fraud.

A radio talk show host should have corrected Colorado Springs recall candidate Bernie Herpin, when he denied yesterday that, if elected, he wouldn’t have any power to restrict a woman’s access to birth control.

Here’s what Herpin said on KVOR’s Richard Randall Show yesterday:

Randall @4:00: When they say, certain types of birth control, the implication is, if you elect an extremist like Bernie Herpin, you’re not even going to be able to get your birth-control pills in the state of Colorado.

Herpin: …Of course I’m not going to do anything to restrict a woman’s choice on birth control. That’s completely ridiculous, and I don’t even have that power. Jeez.

In fact, state government tries to restrict access to contraception because anti-abortion lawmakers consider some forms of contraception, like the morning-after pill, to be abortion drugs.

Herpin apparently missed the news, for example, that Oklahoma just passed a law requiring women 17 and over to show ID (and younger women to have a prescription) to buy emergency Plan B contraception. Last month, a judge stopped implementation of the law, which conflicts with recent FDA guidelines, pending a review of whether it violates the state constitution.

Judging from Herpin’s past support for government restrictions to protect zygotes (fertilized eggs), you’d expect him to support such legislation, given that some believe Plan B potentially destroys zygotes.

Maybe Herpin supports the morning-after pill, but we don’t know until he’s asked specifically about Plan B and other forms of contraception. It’s not a silly question, despite what Herpin supporter Laura Carno said later during the same KVOR show:

Carno: It’s funny. I just say the Planned Parenthood ad, and this women, who’s the head of some branch of Planned Parenthood said, ‘Why are we still talking about this in this day and age?’ And I thought, exactly. Stop talking about birth control. Birth control is a product. We go to the store, the pharmacy, we pick it up. We might buy some chips and paper towels while we’re there. It is a product. Stop talking about birth control. It’s completely irrelevant.

You can say that birth-control restrictions aren’t likely to pass in Colorado next year. That’s fair.

But for Herpin to say he’d have no say on the matter as a state senator, or for Carno to say that it’s irrelevant in this day and age, is a falsehood stinking up airwaves at KVOR. Randall should clean the air.

Just as Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo started pleading with Colorado Republicans to stop beating up each other, GOP strategist Dick Wadhams took to the radio waves to slam down Tancredo as unelectable.

On KNUS’ Backbone Radio show Sunday, Wadhams amplified on an a Sept. 1 Denver Post op-ed, where he made veiled references to GOP candidates who’ve lost previously and who, if nominated, would extend the Republican “losing streak” in Colorado.

Guest host Randy Corporon deserves credit for getting to the heart of the matter, when he asked Wadhams:

Corporon: “The two candidates who popped to mind for me who’ve lost state-wide office in recent history are Tom Tancredo and Senate candidate Ken Buck. Did you have them in mind?”

Wadhams: “Indeed I did. I cannot see how a candidate who has clearly had a history of rhetoric that has alienated Hispanic voters can get elected state-wide in Colorado. I don’t see it.”

[BigMedia intervention: One wonders if Corporon thought about asking Wadhams for the name of any GOP candidate, including Rep. Mike Coffman, who does not have a “history of rhetoric that has alienated Hispanic voters,” but let’s continue with the interview.]

Wadhams: In terms of Ken Buck, who I think would have been a marvelous U.S. Senator, and Ken, actually, was going into October with a lead. But he said some things that gave Michael Bennet the ability to come from behind and win that… And those issues don’t go away.

[BigMedia intervention: But Buck blamed his loss on Democrats, not on himself.]

Wadhams later in the interview: “I do not think that even if it had been a head-to-head with Hickenlooper and Tancredo, that Tancredo would have won in 2010. Hickenlooper never had to run a negative ad… He’s never been tested state-wide in a campaign like this. I don’t think he would hold up under scrutiny.”

Dick Wadhams on KNUS Backbone Radio 09-01-13

I respect the conservative talk-show hosts, like Corporon, who’ve been dedicating serious time to figuring out how to reform the Republican Party. Contrasting Wadhams’ attacks with Tancredo’s peace-offering is definitely part of this debate.

And again, Corporon took on the issue directly, asking Wadhams whether Tancredo’s “peace plan” is something he’d reject. Wadhams said “issues matter in campaigns” and ignoring them during the primary will just make Republicans go down in flames in the general election.

It’s a “bunch of bunk” that primaries hurt GOP candidates, Wadhams said, adding the bruising primaries benefit good candidates.

I started thinking about the U.S. missiles that are poised to bomb Syria. Peace is difficult to pull off, but at least they’re debating the topic, as it relates to the Colorado Republican Party, on conservative talk radio.

A couple years ago, GOP Chair Ryan Call suggested that Sarah Arnold, who was an El Paso County GOP Secretary, resign because Republican office holders are not supposed to publicly criticize Republican policies–or favor one GOP primary candidate over another.

Call wrote that if Arnold “does not feel she can separate her personal opinions from her role as a County Party Secretary than she should consider resigning her position as a Party officer and thereby be free to speak out and be an advocate for whatever issues or causes, or for or against whatever candidates or Republican officeholders, she felt was most appropriate, free of the duty of loyalty and obligatory support that is a necessary corollary to official Party leadership.” [BigMedia emphasis]

Pueblo County GOP Chair Becky Mizel should be hearing from Ryan Call soon, if he’s consistent, because Mizel showed clear support for Tom Tancredo during an Aug. 16 radio interview.

At least that’s what I take away from this discussion among Mizel, KNUS’ Peter Boyles, and Jennifer Kearns, who’s a spokesperson for the recall effort.

BOYLES: You guys can’t expect somebody with at least a room temperature I.Q. to go, “Boy, that Republican Party in Colorado, those are my guys!”

MIZEL:  Yeah, but Peter, look at the people like Tom Tancredo, who are Republicans.  You know, we’ve got Tom Tancredo, Cruz, people like that. [BigMedia emphasis]

BOYLES:  Huh-uh.  Tommy is the red-headed stepson of the Republican party, and all three of us know it.  They just wish Tom would go away.  I mean, that’s the truth.  You know it.  I know it.  Becky knows it.  I think smart people listening to this radio show wish – I mean, they believe,– not believe, they know the Republican Party of Colorado would just as soon Tancredo go soak his head.

KERNS:  Well, that’s why –

MIZEL:  Well, the same goes for Ted Cruz and Ted Cruz isn’t going to go away.

BOYLES: No.  I agree.

MIZEL: So, you know, it’s —  I think you do have to take it over from the inside.

You’d think that Mizel, who’s found herself in the media spotlight due to the attempted recall of State Sen. Angela Giron,  doesn’t like Ryan Call much, given that she wants to take over the state GOP “from the inside.” And she’s certainly not scared of him, as she’s violating rules that Call clearly supports.

I shared Mizel’s Boyles’ interview with Arnold, and she wrote me that she’s not surprised by Call’s inconsistency in enforcing the thou-shalt-not- criticize-Republicans rule:

Arnold: Ryan Call is perfectly consistent in his inconsistency.  He arbitrarily and capriciously applies the by-laws as it suits him (for example, it’s okay if he contributes to a Democrat while a party officer, which is a clear violation of the by-laws, but not okay for someone to have a policy disagreement with the House Majority Leader while a party officer, as in my case–a topic on which the by-laws are silent).  In fact, he’s happy to change the bylaws so he could endorse Romney for President, an unprecedented act.  The irony would be even more incredible since many Party officers (including Ryan) turned a blind eye in 2010 to the numerous endorsements of Tancredo as a third party candidate made by other party officers across the state, if he were to choose to pursue removal for mere comments about a candidate that don’t appear, to me at least, to be an endorsement.

You have to wonder what’s up with Republican George Rivera, who’s running to replace Sen. Angela Giron in a recall election, when he dismisses his unapologetic support for the personhood amendment by saying,

Rivera:  “You know, the thing is, is this election is about one thing and one thing only”

That’s what Rivera told KZNT talk-show host Derrick Wilburn Saturday.

Wilburn should have asked Rivera if he’s ever noticed that guns aren’t the only topic discussed down at the Capitol. Actually, it’s next to impossible to keep track of all the different issues, including abortion issues.

Voters should know that, based on his opposition to abortion, even for rape, Rivera would have supported the five bills introduced last session that restricted access to abortion services in Colorado or banned it outright. (See Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado‘s legislative scorecard for details.)

Obviously these bills weren’t going anywhere in Colorado now, with pro-choice Democrats in control, but things could easily change. If so, Colorado could pass legislation similar to what’s become law in states across the country, restricting a women’s right to obtain an abortion. (See the Guttmacher Institute’s chart for details.)

It’s silly for Rivera to say that the election of any state senator is about one issue. That’s not how representative government works.

Wilburn knows this, and he almost certainly saw, at least, that Texas passed one of the nation’s most restrictive abortion laws just this year. So, he should have asked Rivera what he was thinking.

Responding for the first time to a League of Conservation Voters’ ad portraying him as an “ostrich,” with his head in the sand, for denying that humans are contributing to global warming, Rep. Mike Coffman told Denver radio-host Mike Rosen Wed. that “a lot” of the research grants on global warming won’t go to scientists unless they submit to the “orthodoxy of climate change by the radical environmentalists.”

Coffman: And one thing that I certainly read from viable sources is that a lot of the research that’s being done—when you put your application in to get a grant, if you don’t submit to the, you know, orthodoxy of climate change by the radical environmentalists, you’re not going to get a grant.

Listen to Rep. Mike Coffman responding on KOA radio Denver on 08-21-13 to LCV ostrich ad

Rosen didn’t ask Coffman for the specific “viable sources” Coffman read on climate-change research grants, or whether Coffman thinks the National Science Foundation, for example, a major provider of climate-change research, is in the pocket of radical environmentalists.

To his credit though, Rosen asked Coffman at the beginning of the interview, “How come you’re not doing anything publicly to defend yourself?” But Coffman ignored the question, choosing instead to attack the League of Conservation Voters, which paid for the ad.

Coffman went on to contradict his previous statement, quoted in the ad, that it’s “subject to debate” whether humans are causing global warming at all.

Perhaps tweaking his position in response to polls showing him to be endangered in his new district, Colffman told Rosen:

Coffman:  My view is that it’s naturally occurring, number one. But certainly man-made activity influences it at the margins, and I think it’s debatable how much that is. But certainly, you know, we know that carbon emissions are bad, and we ought to do everything responsible to bring them down  in a balanced approach between environmental concerns and economic concerns.

Rosen failed to ask why Coffman had changed position slightly on global warming, now saying there’s human influence “at the margins,” or whether he’d misspoken on the radio show. Rosen didn’t ask, after Coffman said “carbon emissions are bad,” why Coffman voted for a measure just last year that would have prevented the EPA from regulating carbon emissions.

In response to Coffman’s comments on the radio, League of Conservation Voters’ spokesman Jeff Gohringer emailed me: “Clearly Congressman Coffman is choosing to double down on his extreme views, and is now apparently going so far as to call into question the credibility of scientists.”

Coffman concluded the interview by saying, “I hope that [the LCV ad] certainly mobilizes conservatives across the state of Colorado and across the country to get involved in the campaign.”

It was supremely ironic that Coffman invited outside money into Colorado to support him, after he’d just criticized the influence of out-of-state money, but Rosen didn’t burp out any sound of surprise.

Neither did Rosen ask whether Coffman is worried that his extreme position on global warming won’t mobilize out-of-state conservatives but instead will affect soccer-mom environmentalists whose kids play at the Aurora Sports Park.

Rosen said on-air that he and Coffman are “friends,” and Rosen admitted that he’s “biased” toward Coffman. It showed in this interview; that’s for sure. I’d like to think Rosen could do better.

View the League of Conservation Voters ad here. LCV released a second ad today.

Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter @bigmediablog.

Listen to Rep. Mike Coffman responding on KOA radio Denver on 08-21-13 to LCV ostrich ad