Archive for the 'Talk Radio' Category

Omitted from Tancredo interview is his belief that wooing Hispanics is mostly a lost cause

Wednesday, February 5th, 2014

If you’ve been following Tom Tancredo from microphone to microphone over the years, like I have, you know he doesn’t think his position on immigration is a liability for him in getting elected governor of Colorado. He thinks he can win in spite of it.

So it was no surprise to hear Tancredo tell KNUS talk-show host Jimmy Sengenberger Sat. that he doesn’t care if the Democrats hit him on immigration, if he’s running against John Hickenlooper.

Tancredo: Does anyone think I won’t be hit on immigration? I intend to be very, very aggressive about that particular issue.

Sengenberger: Do you want them to bring it to you?

Tancredo: Absolutely.

Tom Tancredo on KNUS says, bring on immigration debate 2-1-2014

Tancredo doesn’t believe most Hispanics care about his extreme positions on immigration, which, presumably, would include his view that immigration reform is “impossible” to achieve in Washington. (His solution is to require businesses to use e-verify to make it impossible to hire undocumented immigrants.)

Instead, the GOP gubernatorial front-runner argued in Saturday’s radio interview that he’ll try to reach Hispanics by talking about the importance of legal immigration as well as fiscal conservatism and such. For details, Tancredo directed listeners to VivaTancredo.com.

But left out during his radio appearance was Tancredo’s core belief about Hispanic voters: Republicans shouldn’t toss their principles out the window in an effort to win them over. It’s a waste of time.

As he said last year, “We’ve seen that trying to woo the Latino is a losing proposition. Latinos vote for Democrats because they want big government. It has nothing to do with immigration.”

Media omission: Talk-radio host alleges shenanigans in GOP primary races

Tuesday, February 4th, 2014

On his radio show Saturday morning, Jeff Crank told listeners that when conservatives have an “effort so pure and so true, there always seems to be someone who comes along and tries to steal it for their own personal ambition.”

Who are the ambitious political thieves today?

State Sen. Owen Hill and former Congressman Tom Tancredo, according to Crank.

Crank said those Republican candidates, for governor and U.S. Senator respectively, are using the pure-and-true recall activists to collect signatures to put Tancredo’s and Hill’s names on the primary election ballot.

And then Hill and Tancredo are pointing (through news releases) to their work with the recall organizers to show that they’re running “grassroots” campaigns.

Crank: “Both Tom Tancredo and Owen Hill should be embarrassed that they have… given the impression that the organizers of this patriotic, pure movement to recall Colorado State Senators who voted for gun control, that somehow that movement is now behind their candidacies. It’s frustrating when you see politicians do this, and I just vow that I’m going to call people out when they do this kind of nonsense.”

“The most grassroots way to get on the ballot is to go through the assembly, not to petition onto the ballot,” Crank continued on air. “You petition onto the ballot when you can’t get through the grassroots process in Colorado. That’s the reality of it. When you don’t feel you can go through a caucus or the assembly process in Colorado, and you can’t get 30 percent to get on the ballot, then you go petition. But don’t say it’s grassroots.”

Crank insisted on air that he’s not attacking Tancredo or Hill.

“They are the ones going out and saying that this recall effort is somehow behind their campaign,” Crank told listeners. “It’s not.”

Some recall organizers “may support Owen Hill and Tom Tancredo” but others do not, said Crank, who ran for Congress in 2008 and whose real job is running Aegis Strategic, GOP a consulting firm, linked to the Koch bothers and recently spotlighted in Politico.

Listen to KVOR’s Crank say recall activists co-opted by Tancredo & Hill 2.1.14

Partial Transcript of Comments by KVOR’s Jeff Crank on KVOR Feb. 1, 2014

Crank: “Two politicians trying to use the good work of the recall organizers, some of which may support Owen Hill and Tom Tancredo, and by the way, I’ve always liked Tom Tancredo. Tom supported me when I ran for Congress. I think the world of Tom Tancredo. But he’s being manipulated here. These guys should be embarrassed. Both Tom Tancredo and Owen Hill should be embarrassed that that their campaigns, and by the way they both have the same person behind their campaign who’s organizing these efforts, they should be embarrassed that they have put this issue out there, that somehow that they have given the impression that the organizers of this patriotic, pure movement to recall Colorado State Senators who voted for gun control, that somehow that movement is now behind their candidacies. It’s frustrating when you see politicians do this, and I just vow that I’m going to call people out when they do this kind of nonsense.”

Boyles should play his Nugent interview for Tancredo

Monday, February 3rd, 2014

From the moment after KNUS Peter Boyles’ introduced him, rocker Ted Nugent delivered a bizarre series of insults and slurs on Denver radio this morning, saying the “media in this country is basically Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda ministry” and singing his “New American National Anthem,” which consisted only of the cry of a sheep:  “baa-aa—aa—aa, baa-aa-aa.”

“It breaks my heart to have to say these things,” Nugent said. “But we have to say these things. Because if you don’t get rid of the bad and the ugly, the good will continue to be strangled.”

“Ted, what has happened to the Republican Party?” asked Boyles.

“Someone extracted their scrotum with a rusty shiv,” Nugent said. “They have no balls.  I don’t know where this ‘Let’s be Mr. Rogers with a Lawrence Welk soundtrack tie adjusting’ mantra came from, but my god! If there’s a life-support system attached to the GOP, it’s flat-lining.”

Nugent, who’s a leading opponent of gun-safety laws, like those passed in Colorado, said he’s spoiled because he lives in Texas, which, he said, should “not be confused with Colorado, [which is] the suburb of San Francisco.”

“It’s true!” replied Boyles.

“If ever there was a poster child for apathy, disconnect, laziness, and abandonment of We the people, and moral dereliction, it is Colorado,” Nugent said, praising recall activists for sending the state in a better direction.

Here’s a suggestion for Boyles, who has Tancredo on his show all the time: How about playing Nugent’s interview for Tanc, and discussing it line-by-line. And then, at the end, finding out if Tancredo is proud to be endorsed by Nugent.

On radio,Tancredo brags about trying to shut Dept. of Education. What would he do to CO State Gov?

Monday, January 27th, 2014

You knew Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s famous Oops Moment would hurt Perry himself, because it made him look so stupid, but I really thought the substance of Perry’s incomplete thought–that is, which federal departments should be shut down–would become more of a recurrent theme in conservative GOP primary circles.

I mean, it separates you from the crowd: Shut down the Commerce Department! The Education Department!

This comes up, just not so often.

For example, last week on KLZ 560-AM’s new “Wake Up” show with Randy Corporon, Rep. Tom Tancredo, who’s running for governor, boasted about his efforts, when he was a regional director of the U.S. Department of Education, to shut down the Department of Education:

TANCREDO: I was elected to the State Legislature in 1976, re-elected two more times.  I was appointed by Ronald Reagan to run the U.S. Department of Education’s regional office here, in Colorado – six state region.  I did that for him and Bush I [one].  Our purpose was to try and implode the whole thing, because we wanted to get the federal government out of education, as much as possible.  We couldn’t even get a Congressman to introduce the bill to abolish it, so we tried to do it administratively, and, um–.

HOST RANDY CORPORON:   Starve the beast.

TANCREDO:  Starve the beast.

CORPORON:   Cut back the budget.

TANCREDO:  Exactly.  So, I found out that that’s what you had to do.  That’s the only way you could actually get rid of people that were extraneous – let’s put it that way.  [chuckles]  I had 22o people employed at the U.S. Department of Education, in the regional office.  Two hundred and twenty-two.  Now, I emphasize the word ‘employed’.  Some of those people were working there, [but] not many.  And, um, it took me four years – and as I say, I had to go back to Washington every year and ask for a budget cut in order to actually work through the process of reducing the staff.  And I — and there were other reasons why we ended up moving downward, but we got to the point that we had sixty people left, when I left, out of 222.

Left hanging here is, what departments would Tanc cut, wholesale, from state government? That would’ve been a more relevant direction for Corporon to steer the conversation, given that Tancredo is running for governor.

Perry, you recall, had three federal departments he’d shut down. You get the feeling, when it comes to state government, a guy like Tancredo can top that. Maybe we’ll hear about it next time he’s on KLZ.

Media omission: Stephens touts her gender as asset but she shares Buck’s extreme anti-abortion stance

Friday, January 17th, 2014

In an article yesterday, The Denver Post’sKurtis Lee reports Rep. Amy Stephens’ response to Ken Buck’s comment Monday comparing pregnancy with cancer:

“It’s Ken again being Ken,” Stephens, who is among several Republicans vying to unseat U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, insisted Thursday. “Just like in 2010, we have high-heels comments, we have alcoholism and homosexuality, now we’ve got cancer and pregnancy.” Buck in 2010 was the nominee for U.S. Senate against Democrat Michael Bennet. His statement on “Meet the Press” comparing homosexuality to alcoholism was considered the turning point in a campaign he had been expected to win.

Before telling Lee about “Ken again being Ken,” Stephens was on KNUS’ Dan Caplis Show Wed., where she made her opinion of Buck’s candidacy even more clear, saying she does not believe Colorado Republicans will unify around Buck if he wins the nomination, and saying, based on what Buck’s offered so far, it would be the “definition of insanity” to run Buck again.

Stephens @10 min: I am not convinced Ken has given us an argument as to why we should go down this path again. And I call the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over with the same results.

I also believe nationally, and I have heard this in my travels, that there is not going to be — You know, when somebody wins a primary, people rally, come around. The party goes, whatever. I do not believe that’s going to happen should Ken be the nominee. I do believe this would happen should I become the nominee, because I think  there will be a lot more interest in this race and a lot more support. [BigMedia emphasis]

Listen to Rep. Amy Stephens tout herself as a woman and slam Buck on KNUS 1-15-14

On the radio, Stephens went on to say that she’d be better able to “take on Sen. Udall on issues that they normally love to hit our men with, and I think as a woman, I have a very strong voice to speak about.”

But as Caplis should have pointed out, Stephens’ anti-abortion record, including ten years on the staff of Focus on the Family, sets herself up for  the same criticism Buck has faced.

Stephens voted in favor of last year’s version of an anti-abortion bill that’s under consideration again this year in the Legislature. (This year’s bill has the exact same summary as last year’s.)

In his article about Buck’s pregnancy-cancer comment, The Denver Post’s Lee pointed out that Buck and Stephens both “oppose abortion.” He also reported that Buck’s wife, Perry Buck, is a co-sponsor of this year’s abortion-ban bill, sponsored once again by Rep. Stephen Humphrey, but Lee did not include the fact that that Stephens voted for it last year. In 2012, she also supported a Colorado Right to Life-backed“fetal homicide” bill that could have banned abortion in Colorado.

Asked by Caplis directly whether she thought she had an advantage as a woman in her Senate bid, Stephens cited her position on “the life issue,” saying:

Stephens: “I do. I actually do, because of the time and the year in which were are, and because of the issues that Democrats bring up. I think  I have a unique ability to speak to that. I have a unique ability to speak to the life issue and/or family and other issues such as health care, public safety, all the things I’ve advocated for. So, yes, I do. In this election, I think it’s going to matter.”

But it looks like Buck’s and Stephens’ extreme records on abortion are about the same.

Radio host should have questioned Buck when he compared his bout with cancer to pregnancy

Wednesday, January 15th, 2014

Apparently trying to connect to women voters, who arguably cost him a U.S. Senate seat in 2010, Ken Buck appeared on a Denver radio station Monday and discussed the differences and similarities between pregnancy and his recent bout with cancer.

Asked by 560-AM KLZ talk-show host Randy Corporon about his abortion position, Buck, who’s running again for U.S. Senate this year, said:

Buck: “Yes, I am pro-life. While I understand a woman wants to be in control of her body.–it’s certainly the feeling that I had when I was a cancer patient, I wanted to be in control of the decisions that were made concerning my body–there is another fundamental issue at stake.  And that’s the life of the unborn child. And I hold that life dear and precious and believe we have to do everything we can to protect the life of the unborn.” 

So Buck is saying that his successful battle with cancer is like pregnancy insofar as they both require decisions affecting a human body. But for a cancer patient like Buck, they are personal medical decisions, and Buck was glad to be able to make them. But for a woman who is pregnant, difficult as it may be, she shouldn’t be afforded the same freedom to make decisions affecting her body.

In 2010, Buck made no secret about his strong anti-abortion position, enthusiastically repeating his opposition to all abortion, even for rape or incest. In one radio interview, he expressed his opposition to abortion, even for a girl raped by her teen brother.

Now Buck drives his anti-abortion point home in the starkest of language by saying how happy he is that the government didn’t dictate his health decisions when he had cancer. But pregnant women should have no choice.

I was waiting for Corporon to offer a peep of an opposing view, to bring up the complexities surrounding a decision to have an abortion, and to ask Buck about all the women who don’t see this as a one-size-fits-all issue.

I’m still waiting.

On the political side, Corporon could have asked Buck if he’s worried, by comparing his cancer to a woman’s pregnancy, of looking like Todd Akin, whose thoughts about “legitimate rape” sunk his 2010 bid for a Senate seat in Missouri. But Corporon moved on, leaving listeners wanting more explanation from Buck.

Listen to Buck on KLZ 1-13-14 say he wants state control over women’s bodies but not his body

Media omission: Coffman favors re-deployment of advisory troops in Iraq

Monday, January 13th, 2014

On a Denver radio show Friday, Rep. Mike Coffman affirmed his opposition to the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, adding that, even now, he’d deploy U.S. military personnel to Iraq, if they were invited, to serve in an advisory role.

Asked by KNUS talk-show host Dan Caplis if he’d support “boots back on the ground in Iraq,” Coffman replied:

Coffman: Certainly an advisory role, but certainly not anything beyond that. And that’s if requested. I think we have to be very careful once out about reentering that particular conflict. I would say, in terms of regular troops on the gound, absolutely not.”

During the interview, Coffman expressed regret that U.S. troops are not on the ground in Iraq today, to help the Iraqi government confront sectarian violence.

“Some residual force would have maintained at least that military-military, government-to-government ties that we would have had some influence there,” Coffman told KNUS’ Dan Caplis Friday. “Right now we have no influence.”

Listen to Coffman say he favors re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq.

Coffman didn’t offer details on the size of the “residual force” he had in mind, but back in 2009 he endorsed the Administration’s plan envisioning an American force of up to 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq.

On the radio, Coffman criticized President Barack Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq. If Obama hadn’t pulled out so many troops, it’s possible a residual force could have been left in Iraq, Coffman said, and the current crisis might have been avoided.

Coffman: I think the Administration was looking for a narrative that we ended war in Iraq.  And the Iraqi government had requested some kind of residual presence, if anything to be symbolic to the Iraqi people that we were still engaged. And that’s, I think, very important, probably to this day, although the decision has been made… But what the Administration kept doing is lowering the number of troops, and obviously insisting, as they should, that Status of Forces Agreement keep U.S. military personnel under U.S. jurisdiction, as we always insist on. The Iraqi government clearly had to expend the political capital to accept that. And they were willing to until the numbers dropped so low that it wasn’t worth it to them to do that. And so the Administration is now saying, ‘Well, we gave them the opportunity, and they didn’t take it, in terms of the Status of Forces Agreement.’ But the Administration just wanted out. And I think we’re suffering some of the consequences of that today.” [BigMedia emphasis]

Under the Status of Forces Agreement, Obama planned in 2011 on keeping 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, he lowered the number to about 5,000, before the troops were asked by the Iraqis to leave. Based on this, and his statement above, Coffman appears to have been prepared to leave at least 10,000 troops in Iraq or more, if necessary to make it worth it to the Iraqis politically.

Coffman’s announcement that he favors the re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq appears to be a reversal of a position he took in 2011, when he stated that he supported President Barack Obama’s decision to remove all troops from the country.

 

 

Journalists should have corrected Caldara’s declaration that AG letter proves him innocent

Wednesday, January 8th, 2014

Much of the media coverage of the Colorado Attorney General’s decision not to prosecute Jon Caldara, President of the libertarian/conservative Independence Institute, for voter fraud featured a quote from Caldara that the Attorney General’s decision proved his innocence.

For example, there’s this memorable Caldara quote from The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels’ story: “I told you what I did was legal,” Caldara said Thursday, adding “neener-neener-neener.”

Bartels and others reported that the AG’s letter did not “condone” Caldara’s stunt, but no journalist corrected Caldara’s mistaken belief that AG letter is proof of his innocence.

While the letter did say there is “arguable ambiguity within some of the new legislation,” and Caldara should not be brought to trial, it certainly did not say Caldara’s actions were legal, and reporters should have said so categorically.

I asked Luis Toro, Director of Colorado Ethics Watch, for his comments on whether the Colorado Attorney General’s letter was proof of Caldara’s innocence.

Toro: The AG’s office did not declare Caldara innocent. The prosecutor correctly noted the ethical obligations of a prosecutor when making a charging decision.  These include an obligation not to file charges without sufficient evidence to support a conviction.  Evidence that could raise reasonable doubt included signing a lease at an address in the district, changing his driver’s license to the Colorado Springs address, and actually staying at the address where he claimed to reside when he voted through Election Day. Caldara’s lawyering up and extensive preparation to raise reasonable doubt only proves that gaming the system is not as easy as he pretends. His attempt to prove that anyone in Colorado can show up anywhere on Election Day, claim to reside in a district, and legally vote ended up proving the opposite…”

The real reason not to charge is, in the prosecutor’s words, Caldara’s “choreographed actions that were designed by him to create a record that he used to support his stated intention that at least on September 7, 2013 through September 10, 2013 he was an El Paso County resident and thus was permitted to be a registered elector.” Caldara only proved that without elaborate “choreographed actions” and top-notch legal representation, someone who shows up on Election Day and falsely claims residence in a given district will be charged and convicted.

I asked Caldara if he thought that he inadvertently proved the opposite of what he intended, that, in fact, you can’t just show up on election day and vote.

Caldara: “You can read that into it, if you like, but you would be reading in your own wishes,” he told me. “It doesn’t say that at all. It says that for what I did, prosecution would be unwarranted and not viable. That’s all it says. Now, the AG’s office can opine about anything they wish, and that doesn’t change the fact that the conclusion is, that prosecution is unwarranted and not viable. And I knew I would be under extra scrutiny, so I took the extra step of simply signing a simple little lease and changing my driver’s license address online. It doesn’t take a lawyer to do any of that. And I know that there are those who say this can only be done with top legal work, I think the AG’s work has given us a very tight blueprint of what becomes unwarranted and not viable to prosecute. It doesn’t take a lawyer to do any of that.”

Toro had this to say about the Attorney General’s reference to “arguable ambiguity within some of the new legislation”:

Toro: The “arguable ambiguity” line doesn’t mean much. If something is “arguably ambiguous” it is also arguably not ambiguous. Defendants often argue that a criminal law is ambiguous, with mixed results.

The AG’s letter in its entirety:

W. Suthers Attorney GeneralCynthia H. CoffmanChief Deputy Attorney General

Daniel D. Domenico

Solicitor General

STATE OF COLORADODEPARTMENT OF LAWCriminal Justice Section Ralph L. CarrColorado Judicial Center1300 Broadway,-9th FloorDenver, Colorado 80203

Phone (720) 508-6000

Wm. David Byassee, Esq.
Jackson Kelly PLLC
1099 18th Street, Suite 2150
Denver, CO 80202
RE: Caldara Election Complaint
Dear Mr. Byassee:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my decision regarding a complaint that was made in September 2013 against your client, Jon Caldara. Following my office’s three-month investigation into the allegations that Mr. Caldara violated one or more statutes, I have determined that no criminal charges will be filed against him at this time. This decision is being made after a comprehensive review of the currently known facts and after an examination of the applicable state statutes. It is important to note that this decision is being made based on the specific known facts in this matter when compared to the applicable state law. Furthermore this decision, which follows the above referenced factual and legal review, is being made in accordance with the ethical standards required of prosecutors who administer the prosecutorial function.

As you might be aware on or about September 9-10, 2013 the Office of the Attorney General and two separate District Attorney offices received a citizen complaint. The citizen’s complaint alleged that Mr. Caldara, a long time Boulder County resident and elector, violated one or more Colorado statutes when he participated as a newly registered elector in an El Paso County recall election on Saturday, September 7, 2013, during an early voting period. The day of the actual election was Tuesday, September 10, 2013. Based on the fact that the complaint named Mark Barker, a current Deputy District Attorney in the El Paso County DA’s Office, as being an individual who was supposedly involved with Mr. Caldara and his alleged behavior, the District Attorney for the 4th Judicial District (El Paso and Teller Counties) requested that the Attorney General’s Office investigate the complainant’s allegations.
Page 2
Regarding the events surrounding this particular election the investigation most clearly demonstrates that Mr. Caldara had multiple goals leading up to and through the election on September 10, 2013. One of Mr. Caldara’s key goals was his intent to make a public statement about one or more issues that he perceived to exist regarding new election related legislation which resulted from the passage of HB 13-1303.

Mr. Caldara’s stated focus on HB 13-1303 and its potential impact on the election process in Colorado was well documented in the public record during the months leading up to the election in El Paso County in September 2013. It appears that Mr. Caldara’s assertion was, that as of May 10, 2013, the Colorado Revised Statutes (most notably § 1-2-217.7, C.R.S.) permitted him, as a registered Colorado voter, to move from one jurisdiction in Colorado to another jurisdiction in this state and then either update his address or register to vote. Additional relevant statutes at issue that must be read in concert include, but are not limited to, §§1-2-101,
1-2-102(1)(f), 1-2-201(3)(a)(V), 1-2-204, 1-2-205 and 1-2-216(4)(a)(I), C.R.S.. As a result, a reading of these various statutes demonstrates an arguable ambiguity within some of the new legislation. This arguable ambiguity was clearly examined in your client’s specific investigation. In Mr. Caldara’s specific case, which is limited by its unique facts and the applicable statutes, a key issue is present. The issue is what does it mean for a resident of Colorado to demonstrate or assert that his or her intention, as a supposed prospective elector, is to make a new county or precinct a permanent residence at the time that he or she is either updating their address or registering to vote?

With Mr. Caldara voicing his opinions about HB 13-1303 and the laws which arose from the bill, it appears that Mr. Caldara then interpreted the new legislation and began to choreograph a series of calculated actions in preparation of the approaching September 10, 2013 recall election in El Paso County. The evidence acquired by the Attorney General’s investigation includes information that prior to Mr. Caldara actually appearing at the El Paso County Citizens Service Center on the morning of Saturday, September 7, 2013, that he had already taken various actions in an attempt to demonstrate his stated intention of becoming a qualified elector in State Senate District 11 (Colorado Springs, El Paso County), including the following:
- On September 6, 2013 Mr. Caldara entered into a residential lease agreement with Deputy District Attorney Mark Barker to rent a bedroom with access to a bathroom and with kitchen privileges at Mr. Barker’s home, which is located at 2045 Broman Ct., Colorado Springs, CO 80906;
and
Page 3
- He had changed his home address for his State of Colorado issued Driver’s License from a Boulder County residential address to 2045 Broman Ct., Colorado Springs, CO 80906.

With Mr. Caldara having created a record of his supposed intention to make El Paso County his sole legal place of residence, he went to the El Paso County Clerk and Recorder’s Citizens Service Center September 7, 2013 while accompanied by members of the media. The evidence then shows that Mr. Caldara apparently was given a registration form that he filled out and self-affirmed by signing. It should be noted that Mr. Caldara failed to fully complete this registration form when he did not list the date that he had supposedly moved to 2045 Broman Ct., Colorado Springs, CO 80906. This particular field on the form was a required field and at the top of the form it stated that if the registrant did not provide all of the required information, the application to register to vote would not be complete. Nonetheless Mr. Caldara was in fact registered to vote by the election staff. After Mr. Caldara provided the election staff with a Driver’s License he was given a Paper Ballot (Ballot #01343) for the Senate District 11 Recall Election. The evidence then shows that while Mr. Caldara did submit a ballot on September 7, 2013 he apparently did not cast an actual vote in the particular election. Furthermore, the acquired evidence shows that Mr. Caldara apparently stayed/resided at 2045 Broman Ct., Colorado Springs, CO 80906 on Election Day, September 10, 2013.

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013, the day after the recall election Mr. Caldara left the Broman Ct. address in Colorado Springs and went to his work in Denver. It should be noted that September 11, 2013 was the beginning of the multi-day series of rains that caused the unprecedented flooding that devastated parts of the Front Range, including in Mr. Caldara’s long time hometown of Boulder. In the subsequent weeks after the floods had occurred Mr. Caldara made a public statement that he was reclaiming Boulder County as his home of record. The additional issues created by Mr. Caldara’s post flood statement about Boulder County again being his home is another obstacle in confirming or disproving the veracity of Mr. Caldara’s self-affirmation that, at least on September 7, 2013, his intention was to use the leased residence on Broman Ct. as his sole legal residence. It should be noted that Mr. Caldara then changed his county of residence for voting purposes back to Boulder County in November 2013.

It is imperative to note that the Office of the Attorney General does not condone Mr. Caldara’s choreographed actions that were designed by him to create a record that he used to support his stated intention that at least on September 7, 2013 through September 10, 2013 he was an El Paso County resident and thus was permitted to be a registered elector. Various factors cause me to hesitate when examining the veracity of Mr. Caldara’s intention of being an El Paso County resident on September 7, 2013. In particular I noted Mr. Caldara’s use of a lease agreement with Deputy District Attorney Mark Barker and the circumstances
Page 4
surrounding this lease as being questionable. While the legitimacy of Caldara/Barker lease arrangement is suspicious, when the available evidence and the applicable law, including arguable ambiguities, are reviewed and compared to the ethical standards for commencing a prosecution, I have determined that a criminal prosecution is not warranted or viable at this time.

Sincerely,

FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
______________________________
Robert S. Shapiro
First Assistant Attorney General
cc: Dan May, Esq.
District Attorney
Office of the District Attorney
105 E. Vermijo Ave.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903

Caplis aims for “action radio” on his new KNUS show

Tuesday, January 7th, 2014

At a time when radio stations are dumping local talk shows in favor of national yakkers, Denver’s KNUS is heading in the opposite direction, filling its lineup with local flotsam and jetsam tossed from competing stations.

KNUS’ latest addition is Denver Attorney Dan Caplis, a social conservative with decades of experience on the Denver airwaves, most recently at KHOW, where he was paired with fellow attorney Craig Silverman.

For his first broadcast Monday, Caplis interviewed GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo as well as former state GOP chair Dick Wadhams. He said he’d put any callers with differing opinions at the front of the line.

“For 20 years, it’s been my policy to take callers who disagree first,” Caplis told me later after I asked him if he was serious about wanting to talk to progressives. “People want a battle of ideas. All I want from a caller is to answer the question directly.”

Caplis’ first show made a news bit when Wadhams said Republicans need a fresh face in the gubernatorial race, and Wadhams thinks the face of GOP candidate Mike Kopp has the best chance of defeating Gov. John Hickenlooper in 2014.

Will Caplis’ show focus on politics?

Caplis says politics will be part of his show, but his content will be determined largely but what’s happening on the ground.

“I don’t want to sit around talking about this stuff; I want to affect the outcome,” he told me, citing Boyles’ recent focus on Masterpiece Bake Shop, which got into trouble for turning away a gay couple seeking a wedding cake.

Caplis promises “lots of investigative reporting and the use of public records to expose corruption.”

At KHOW, Caplis and Silverman dove deep into the JonBenet Ramsey case, and Caplis took the national spotlight for supporting Broncos QB Tim Tebow. They also had a major impact on the 2010 election, with their frequent and intelligent interviews of political candidates.

A Caplis interview with Rep. Mike Coffman might come into play during the upcoming election. Coffman asked Caplis to clarify, on air, that Coffman opposes all abortion, even for rape and incest.

The show’s interviews will likely be diminished without Silverman’s edgier questioning of conservative guests and with most progressives refusing to appear.

“We did smart, tough talk radio,” Caplis said, adding the he hopes Silverman will be a regular part of his new show. “Craig asked tough questions of Republicans, me of Democrats. I will continue to invite Democrats, but I doubt they’ll accept because, frankly, they don’t have the answers–with the impressive exception of [Boulder Congressman] Jared Polis. He comes on.”

Caplis calls it a “brilliant” move of KNUS, which owned by Salem Communications, to scoop up talk-radio hosts, like Boyles, Kelley, and him, who have name recognition in the Denver market.

“There’s a demand,” he said. “It’s a very smart move on their part to go live and local.”

He has a point. The market for a brand runs deep. Twinkies was even scooped up by some big company. Boyles, Kelley, and Caplis have their followers.

I asked Caplis if he had a contract or any expectation of how long his newest gig would last.

“In the words of Chris Brown on ESPN, ‘We’re all day-to-day,’” Caplis replied. “I only want to do the show if it’s succeeding. I have other things to do in life.”

It looks to me like progressive Keith Olbermann said the day-to-day line first, but it doesn’t matter. It’s true, especially in radio.

 

 

If you pay attention to talk radio, you wonder who will be the target of the Colorado Republican Party’s Super-PAC?

Monday, January 6th, 2014

One of the biggest political stories of last year has got to be the escalating war between the Republican Party establishment, the so-called “country-club Republicans,” and the  Tea-Party wing.

Trying to predict how this story will play out in 2014 may be crazy, given what we’ve seen since the Tea Party’s inception, but it’s still worth attempting to identify the weapons both sides have at their disposal and how they might use them this election year.

Here in Colorado, one of the major battlefields in the GOP’s civil war is conservative talk radio (e.g., Grassroots Radio Colorado on KLZ, Peter Boyles on KNUS) and websites like OGRE eXposed.

Against the backdrop of strife you hear on the radio and elsewhere, when the Colorado Republican Party takes the unusual step of setting up its own Super-PAC, reporters shouldn’t assume that its target will be Democrats but also, perhaps, its own.

The state GOP organization, per its by-laws, is not supposed to support any individual Republican candidate prior to the primary election.

But in a recent petition to the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office, the state GOP acknowledges that its Super-PAC would be completely independent from the State Party, possibly allowing the state party to skirt the mandates of its organizational bylaws and get involved in primary races, opposing candidates of its choosing, GOP or Democrats.

“The Colorado Repubican Party’s (CRP) petition argues that the Super-PAC (“independent expenditure committee”) will not be the CRC or ‘one of its committees’ because the Super-PAC will be independent,” said Colorado Ethics Watch Director Luis Toro via email. “The Petition says that after the State Party Chair appoints the executive director and management committee, neither the State Party Chair, or any other officer or agent of the CRP, nor any committee will have ‘any degree of management or control over the development of any of the plans, projects, activities or expenditures of the [Super-PAC].’ Page 17 of the Petition. So no one in the Party could enforce any rule against the Super-PAC that would prohibit it from intervening in primaries.”

In August of 2012, the state GOP set up its Super-PAC, called the Colorado Republican Party Independent Expenditure Committee, and spent over $85,000 on state legislative races, according to the GOP petition, filed by Richard Westfall.

Now the GOP is worried that “one or more persons or organizations” will file a lawsuit claiming its Super-PAC violates Colorado’s election law.

And so it is petitioning the SOS to make a formal determination that it can spend unlimited amounts of cash from any source, including corporations, because, as the petition states, the GOP plans to use its Super-PAC to raise funds “with no contribution limitations on either amount or permissible contributor.”

In response to the state GOP Super-PAC petition, Colorado Ethics Watch filed a petition, as described on its website, asking the Secretary of State “to conduct a full rulemaking proceeding so that the ultimate decision will apply to all parties alike and so that all interested citizens may have a full and equal opportunity to have their voices heard during the process. Ethics Watch urged the Secretary to issue a proposed rule that would prohibit political parties from using independent expenditure committees to circumvent restrictions on political party fundraising in Colorado law.”

The key question here is whether a political party, like the state GOP, should be allowed to set up a Super-PAC, and the Secretary of State has scheduled a hearing to address the GOP’s Super-PAC petition tomorrow, Jan. 7, at 1:30 p.m.

Absent will be answers about what Tea Party activists can do to ensure that the State GOP doesn’t use its Super-PAC against them.

Toro said this question is outside of his expertise, but he wrote:

Presumably the by-laws could be amended to clarify that the Super-PAC can’t support or oppose candidates in a contested primary. But if the Super-PAC were to be subject to state party rules it wouldn’t be very independent, would it?

So this leads back to the battle cry you hear from the Tea Party folks on the radio. They often say they have to take over the Republican Party. They say it’s the only way they win the war.