KOA’s Mike Rosen began his radio show this morning in Denver by saying the left is unconcerned about “unethical, illegal, immoral behavior” and therefore willing to commit election fraud.

Then, in the next hour, Rosen suggested that a caller, who admitted forging the name of his son on a mail-in ballot, lie to authorities in order to avoid penalties.

To Rosen’s credit, he told the caller he did the wrong thing, and he should probably report the fraud, which allegedly resulted in his son’s voting twice for Romney.

But Rosen apparently forgot what he said earlier about conservatives being all law-abiding and the left being a bunch of liars.

Rosen actually did what he accused the left of doing, by suggesting the caller lie to authorities to avoid being charged with election fraud, most likely a felony.

Here’s what Rosen said in hour one:

Rosen: The left imagines that the ends justify the means, which is why their unethical, illegal, immoral behavior, is not judged by them, as they rationalize, as any of those things, because the ends justify the means. Republicans tend to be more civil and constrained by the law and decorum.

Here’s Rosen’s conversation in hour three:

Brian: Hey Mike, I got a little dilemma here. I get the ballots by mail, and two of my kids are away at school.

Rosen: Yeah.

Brian: And you know being a good dad, I voted for them. I know you’re not supposed to do that.

Rosen: You signed? You forged their name? On the mail-in ballot?

Brian: I’m afraid I did.

Rosen: You shouldn’t do that.

Brian: I know. Well, I did do that, and because they asked me to last year.

Rosen: It doesn’t matter [laughing]. You can’t do that. It’s illegal, what you did.

Brian: Well, I did use a fake name, by the way. But–

Rosen: What do you mean a fake name. You have to sign the name of the registrant.

Brian: Yeah, but it’s just kind of scribbly. But let me ask you, so that’s done. I know it was stupid. It won’t happen again.

Rosen: Yeah.

Brian: But I just talked to my son and he’s so happy he voted. He voted for Romney. So he voted for Romney twice. What do you think I ought to do?

Rosen: You ought to do the right thing. Call your county clerk and explain the situation. I don’t know if you want to confess that you forged the signature [laughs]. I don’t know what the penalty for that is. You can claim ignorance and say that your son told you to sign his name. But what you’ve done is wrong. [laughing] I don’t know what kind of advice I can give you.

Brian: Do you think it’s going to come out in the wash?

Rosen: I don’t know. I don’t know what processes are in place to record a double-counted vote. I mean, given the computers, it shouldn’t be that tough.

Brian: Ok. All right. I think I’ll call — who is it I should call?

Rosen: Well, your county clerk and recorder. You might–you can call the Secretary of State’s Office for guidance. And maybe don’t give your name. [laughing]

Brian: [laughing] No, I won’t.

Rosen: I don’t know if you have a 5th Amendment problem here, for self-incrimination, but you haven’t been sworn. So anyhow, so how did your son come to vote, if you had his absentee ballot?

Brian: [laughing]. I don’t know. I don’t know. He said he voted.

Rosen: Now this sounds strange to me. What vehicle would he have used to vote?

Brian: I assume he–

Rosen: Is he out of town?

Brian: Yeah.

Rosen: So he didn’t show up at a polling place for an early vote?

Brian: I think he did.

Rosen: Oh.

Brian: I think he did. Like I said, I was just talking to him about the election. He said, ‘Oh I already voted.’

Rosen: And so where does he live, your son?

Brian: Ummm. He’s in Gunnison.

Rosen: So he’s in Colorado.

Brian: Yeah.

Rosen: Hmmm. What’s his voting precinct?

Brian: I have no idea.

Rosen: What’s his legal address?

Brian: Good–His legal address is here in Denver.

Rosen: Well how’s he voting in Gunnison?

Brian: I don’t know. That’s a good question.

Rosen: A lot of things we don’t know about this. But as a lesson, everybody else, don’t do this kind of stuff.

Brian: Ok. Public Service.

Rosen: Thanks for your call.

You can find plenty wrong with The Denver Post, especially if you’re wishing it were what it used to be, but you have to respect the newspaper for trying to get basic information about all Colorado candidates on the record for voters to chew on, spit out, or whatever.

That’s why The Denver Post’s voter guide is such a beautiful thing. It asks  all state candidates a bunch of questions, both broad and specific.

The questionnaire represents a speck of hope for civil debate—and it was obviously ton of work by the news side of The Post to get it together.

Oh, you haven’t heard about it? That’s because The Post has barely mentioned it, even though it represents a basic and respected function of a newspaper. I didn’t find a single mention of the voter guide in The Post’s print edition.

With the voter guide flying under the radar, it was easy for candidates, Republicans especially, to sit back and blow it off.

For state legislative races overall, 12 of 85 GOP candidates (14%) returned The Denver Post questionnaire, while 57 of 78 Democratic candidates (73%) returned it (seven races had no Dem candidate).

For the State House, 56 Republicans didn’t submit the questionnaire, and nine did.  For Dems, 19 did not and 41 did submit. (Dems did not run in five races.) So, in 33 House races, Dems filled out questionnaires but not Republicans. In one race, a Republican filled out a form, but not a Dem.

For the State Senate, 17 GOP Senate candidates did not submit it, and three did. Sixteen Dems filled it out, and two did not. Dems didn’t field a candidate in two races. For 13 races, Democrats filled out a questionnaire but not a Republican. And in one race, a Republican filled out a questionnaire and not a Dem.

Rather than write angry news articles and editorials about this, The Post didn’t publish anything, as far as I can tell, even though you might think the response-rate to the questionnaire would have been blasted far and wide by The Post, pressuring candidates, mostly Republicans, to answer basic questions, and showing subscribers that the newspaper is fighting for them.

But no such luck. Too bad for us, and for The Post.

SAMPLE QUESTIONS FROM THE DENVER POST VOTER GUIDE

First, it asks for education, endorsements, community service, etc., then  it poses these questions:

• Briefly describe the biggest issues facing your constituents.
• Name an issue where you have disagreed or are likely to disagree with your party’s legislative leadership?
• What is the top reason voters should support you over your opponent?
• The state’s sales tax is now at 2.9 percent after being cut from 3 percent by lawmakers in 1999. Meanwhile, the state’s income tax was at 5 percent in 1999 but has since been cut to 4.63 percent by lawmakers. Are there conditions under which you would support asking voters to raise sales and income taxes back up to their 1999 levels? If so, describe them.
• Name one law you would repeal in Colorado state legislature.
• A major criticism of the Senior Homestead Exemption program is that it gives a property tax break to qualifying seniors, regardless of their wealth. Would you support a means test for the Senior Homestead Exemption?
• Should the legislature pass a law allowing the university to set its own policies on carrying weapons on campus?
• Do you support efforts to charge lower tuition than the out-of state rate for children of illegal immigrants at Colorado’s public colleges and universities?
• Would you support a law returning the power to appoint trustees in the 10 largest counties back to the county government?
• Would you support a law requiring online retailers to charge sales tax?
• Would you support statewide rules that increase setbacks for oil and gas drilling near residential areas?
• Do you support efforts to repeal defense of marriage act which bans Gay marriage in Colorado?
• Do you support the legal recognition of civil unions?
• Would you support referring to voters a tax increase a ballot question to support transportation improvement?
• Many critics of Colorado’s initiative petition process say it’s too easy to amend the state constitution and that this has had negative results for the state. Would you support asking voters to make it harder to amend the constitution?
• Would you support adding a “personhood” amendment to the Colorado Constitution, declaring a fertilized human egg to be a person and to have the fundamental legal protections a person has?
• Do you agree with Roe v. Wade?
• If no, do you believe in an exception for rape/incest?
• Do you support Amendment 64, the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act?
• Do you support greater transparency and access to government records?
• Would you fight against rules that weaken public access to government?
• How would you address the challenged Colorado economy and seek to impact job growth?
• Has the legislature done enough to reform PERA, or should additional measures be taken? If so, what would you advocate?

You recall that Colorado State Senate candidate John Sampson got in a dispute last week on KHOW radio with Orly Taitz, who said she served Sampson with a subpoena to appear at a birther trial in Indiana, aiming to knock President Barack Obama off the election ballot there.

With KHOW radio host Peter Boyles trying to mediate, Sampson told Taitz that he’d not received her subpoena, and he had no plans to testify at her trail, as he’d done previously at a trial in Georgia.

Taitz told Sampson that Sampson would be facing contempt of court charges if he did not appear, and at one point Sampson told Boyles to “put a muzzle” on Taitz, and Sampson threatened on air to sue Taitz for defamation of character.

Now Taitz has posted a fed ex receipt on her website proving, she writes, that Sampson has been officially served with the subpoena to testify.

On her blog, Taitz explained why she posted the receipt:

On Peter Boyle (sic) show John Sampson claimed that a subpoena was defective because it was mailed to his work address. He put his address at issue. Additionally his residence address is at issue, a he is running for office in Colorado and needs to show that he resides in the district.

In response I served him yet again by FedEx and posted the receipt, showing that the subpoena was received yet again at his home address and he does not have any excuse not to show up and not to testify. He can be found in contempt of court and liable to Plaintiffs, if he does not comply with the subpoena and does not show up to testify and authenticate his own sworn affidavit.

Boyles tried to interview Sampson on-air yesterday, but Sampson didn’t come on the show because he was campaigning.

When he comes back on the show, sooner or later, Boyles should ask Sampson if he’ll continue testifying in birther trials like Taitz’s, once Sampson is finished campaigning and has cleared up the other legal hurdles that he mentioned to Boyles last week.

Or has Sampson’s intense dispute with Taitz soured him on his work showing that Obama is using the Social Security number of a man from Connecticut?

Sen. John McCain was scheduled to appear on KBNO’s, La Voz del Pueblo, yesterday, two days after the radio show’s host, Fernando Sergio, endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Sergio told me yesterday that, despite his endorsement, anyone from the Republican Party is still welcome on his show.

“We are more than happy to talk,” he said, but Sergio, who didn’t make an endorsement in the last presidential contest, doesn’t sound like he’s going to change his own mind on Obama.

“Credibility is extremely important in this election,” says Sergio. “Who’s more credible? Who comes across as more caring? Who are you willing to trust? Obama comes out ahead. Ultimately I ask myself, am I willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt with the challenges he faced and this country one step away from the Great Depression? Overall, I think he’s a better choice.”

Obama was a guest on Sergio’s show in May, in what was likely the first appearance by a sitting president on Spanish-language radio in Colorado.

Romney declined repeated invitations to appear, but a parade of Romney backers talked to Sergio over the past six months including: Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, John Sununu, John McCain, Carlos Gutierrez, Craig Romney, and Ed Gillespie.

The interviews were wide ranging, Sergio told me, but in the case of Craig Romney, the Romney Campaign “asked us to make it more personal, not political.” This is in keeping with Craig Romney’s preference to tell family stories instead of policy details, even though the Spanish-Speaking Craig Romney has become Romney’s ambassador to the Hispanic community.

Asked why he thought Romney didn’t accept his invitation to chat on his show, Sergio said:

“When you look at the economy and education and other issues important to Hispanic community, like immigration, Romney doesn’t have an answer. So he’d rather let Marco Rubio do his bidding. We would have been happy to host him, and we would have been respectful. I would have challenged him on his position on the Dream Act [providing a path to citizenship for high-achieving undocumented students] and on his statement that the Arizona law could have been a model for rest of nation. I still remember the primary debate when Romney chastised Rick Perry for allowing undocumented students to go to college in Texas. Those things come back to haunt you.”

In 2008, Sergio told listeners there were “two good candidates, and they should choose the best one for them.”

Sergio says that until the election, he’ll emphasize voting.

“I’ll stress importance of voting, the importance of Latino vote,” he says. “If you want Barack Obama to continue to be our President, you have to go out and vote. There is no way he wins the state of Colorado, without the Latino vote.”

Bloggers mostly write their own headlines, and this time I had an especially hard time doing it. Here are some of the ones I was thinking of for this blog post:

Boyles fails to spotlight news, broken on his show today, that State House candidate Sampson faces a subpeona and possible contempt of court charges if he doesn’t present his birther evidence at birther trial in Indiana.

Boyles should find out whether State Senate candidate Sampson, who was a guest on Boyles show today, follows through with his threat to file a defamation-of-character lawsuit against another guest (and fellow birther)

You know Boyles had an exciting talk-radio show going when State Senate candidate Sampson tells Boyles to “put a muzzle” on the show’s other guest or Sampson will hang up!

Why didn’t Colorado’s number one birther, Peter Boyles, stop his fellow big-shot birthers from blowing each other up on his talk radio show?

If State Senate candidate Sampson won’t testify against Obama, will he lose his number-five spot on Denver Post Editorial Page Editor Curtis Hubbard’s top Colorado birthers list?

It all sounds pretty exciting, doesn’t it? It is, believe me. Read the transcript here. Better yet, listen to the audio. Or you can read the partial transcript below.

To summarize, Colorado Senate candidate John Sampson, who’s a top birther in Colorado, and big-time birther Orly Taitz were on Peter Boyles’ KHOW show this morning to dicuss their dispute over whether Sampson should testify at a birther trial in Indiana, as Sampson did at at birther trial in Georgia.

Sampson, a Republican running for Senate District 25, doesn’t want to go, which upsets Taitz to no end, as you’ll see below. And Boyles loses control of the situation.

TAITZ: In January, I had a witness, John Sampson, who is running for state senate in Colorado.  He’s a Republican.  He did appear and testify in Georgia in January and I subpoenaed him to testify now.  And he is saying that because he’s running for office he doesn’t have time, he’s not travelling anywhere until after November the sixth.  But this is extremely important, more than anything else he’s doing….

TAITZ:  But I have to tell you, a lot of people are angry now because, you know, there are 30 million people who read my website and they’re extremely angry.  Because [Sampson] provided an affidavit.  Now the judge is saying, “I need witnesses to appear and authenticate and say, ‘Yes, I’m the one who signed this affidavit.  Yes, everything is true, under the penalty of perjury.’”  If he does not do it, the judge is going to throw his affidavit in the garbage!  And this is extremely important.  He is one of the most important witnesses….

TAITZ:  Well, I need John to appear at trial on Monday.  This is extremely important.  And last time, when he appeared in Georgia, I paid for his airfare, hotel, his expenses to come to trial.  I will pay for him again.  It’s only one day!  He has to be there for only two hours. I’ll fly him there.  I’ll fly him back.  It’s extremely important.  It might be our only opportunity to remove Obama from office.  We don’t know what’s going to happen in elections….

SAMPSON:  Thank you!  A couple of things, Peter.  Number one, as you know and your listeners know, [clears throat] –excuse me – um, I’ve got my own political race I’m in the middle of.  And quite frankly, the polling data that we have showed that it is a statistical tie.  Every minute I take away from the campaign, I have more catch-up to do later on, and it adversely impacts my chances of getting elected to Colorado State Senate.  That’s item one.  Item two, is on March 26^th, 2012 I was down in Phoenix, Arizona and met with Joe Arpaio and his crew.  And at that meeting, I was instructed, because there is an ongoing criminal investigation, that they would appreciate it that if I didn’t testify in any other hearings because of the information that I became privy to as a result of that meeting.  And once I get on the witness stand, Lord only knows what questions are going to be asked.  And as a result, and I’ve been in touch with Mike Zullo who is the lead investigator for this thing, and none of us are going.  And I understand where Doctor Taitz is with this, I really do.  And I applaud her efforts, but I’m in a bind right now, where I cannot honor the…

TAITZ: …I have actually filed a lawsuit in Arizona to compel [Sampson's] appearance at trial and compel him – [inaudible:  “seem the on-trial person to subpoena”23:39]  and if need be, I will have to file something in Colorado.  And I have to tell you, if this is an even election, John’s chances will go down tremendously because people are supporting him knowing that he is supporting this issue, that he will be there testifying.  If he is just talking, and running for office–

BOYLES:  Orly!  Orly!  Orly!  Orly, it’s Peter.  Let me– Please.  Why do you – Do you think that John is not coming to Indiana because why?

TAITZ:  Because he made a deal with Arpaio.  Arpaio made a deal with the federal government where they actually dropped all the charges against Arpaio.  They withdrew a criminal complaint, a serious criminal complaint against Arpaio where he could have gone to prison for a number of years.  And I believe—

BOYLES:  You know—

TAITZ:  I really suspect, that a deal was made was made with Arpaio, that Arpaio —

BOYLES:  You’re—you’re—you’re—

TAITZ:  –would not bring any charges—

BOYLES:  You’re using—you’re using –

TAITZ:  Arpaio—let me finish! Arpaio used this case to raise a huge amount of money, seven million dollars.  He did not find anything! He only provided information that was given to him by me and a couple of other people.  And Arpaio went and did press conferences.  He [Sampson?  Or Arpaio?] issued a sworn affidavit.  All he’s asked is to appear in court and say, “Yes, I stand by this affidavit.  It’s true and correct.”  If he is asked any other questions, he can state, “I cannot provide anymore information because of ongoing investigations.”

SAMPSON:  You  know, Peter, if you can’t put a muzzle on her, I’m going to sh—I’m going to hang up!…

BOYLES:  But, Orly!  Orly!  Orly, do you think that Sampson is somehow in collusion, or in bed, or rolling over, because he won’t come to Indiana?

TAITZ:  Absolutely.  Absolutely.

SAMPSON:  You know, Orly, if I were you—

TAITZ:  Absolutely, and—

SAMPSON:  Orly, if I were you, I would go back to your office and I would pull a book entitled “Prosser  On Torts” and I would look up the words “defamation of character”, “libel”, and “slander”  –

TAITZ:  Oh, John!  Don’t threat [sic] me!  No!  No!

SAMPSON:  — because now you’ve crossed that line!

TAITZ:  No, don’t threat me!   No, I didn’t.  No, I didn’t.

SAMPSON:  And you’ve just accused me of taking a bribe—

TAITZ:  I did not!  No!  No, I did not cross—

SAMPSON:  –or a collusion with the federal government on this, on public radio!

TAITZ:  No! I did not cross the line!  You—you signed a sworn affidavit, sworn under the penalty of perjury.

SAMPSON:  [talking over Dr. Taitz] Well, why can’t you intro—Why can’t you — Why can’t you introduce that affidavit at trial?

TAITZ:  You’ve been subpoenaed!  You got a subpoena!

BOYLES:  Orly! Orly!

TAITZ:  You got a subpoena.  You have to appear in court.

SAMPSON:  The subpoena that you –

TAITZ:  Or you’re going to be in contempt of court.  Period!

SAMPSON:  Fine.

TAITZ:  You are now in contempt of court because you are refusing to comply with a court-issued subpoena.

SAMPSON:  The subpoena you issued – [still speaking over Dr. Taitz]  Peter –

BOYLES:  Orly, hang on!  John.

SAMPSON:  The subpoena that you issued is defective, –

TAITZ:  Defective!  Why?

SAMPSON:  –because you have me listed on that subpoena as an employee of the Department of Homeland Security.

TAITZ:  No! No!  No!  No! No, it’s [inaudible]–

SAMPSON:  Go read the subpoena!

BOYLES:  Or—Or–Orly!   Geez.

SAMPSON:  It’s addressed to me in care of the Department of Homeland Security.

TAITZ:  No.  No, that’s not –not defective!

SAMPSON:  That subpoena was mailed to me by email.

BOYLES:  Orly!  Orly, can you not go on with your case without John?

TAITZ:  Listen, he is very important.  We will go on with the case.

BOYLES:  Okay.

TAITZ:  However, there is a high chance that the case will be dismissed….

BOYLES:  Hey, listen, I see John on Saturdays and Sundays out campaigning.  He’s campaigning for something that he wants.  I—I—I mean –

TAITZ:  Well, but what’s more important?  Something that he wants, or he owes this country?  He has—

BOYLES:  Well, it’s his country, too.

TAITZ:  Not only that, he’s obligated to be there!  The subpoena was served.

BOYLES:  All right.

TAITZ:  He will be in contempt of court if he does not show up.  And it is not a defective subpoena! The reason we have previously his prior address is because—his work address, because he was not providing the home address.

BOYLES:  I’m going to have to get—

TAITZ:  However, or if it went to his home address, the address is irrelevant.  A person can change his address.

BOYLES:   All right.  All right.  Hang on a second.  I’m going to leave—I’ve got to to give everyone a last comment, here and a pause.  John—

SAMPSON:  Yes, Peter.

BOYLES:  I mean, I like both of you. I understand both of you.  I understand your position. I understand her position.  Um—

SAMPSON:  I understand her position, as well, Peter.  The problem is, if there is a way I can get my entire sentence out without it being interrupted, I will.

BOYLES:  All right.  Go ahead.

TAITZ:  Okay, I—

BOYLES:  Orly, please! Orly, please!  John, I’ll give you, and then we’ll give Orly last comment.  John, please.

SAMPSON:  Okay.  The subpoena was received by email.  It was not personally served, number one.  Number two, the address that she has on that subpoena is so incorrect, it’s not even funny. It’s to the Department of Homeland Security, Detention and Removal Operations, 4730 Perry Street in Denver, Colorado.  ICE has not been at that address for at least two years, if not longer, because they moved to Centennial.  On top of that, the email is not, in my understanding in speaking to my attorney, does not constitute proper service.  It needs to be served, unless I am willing to waive service, which I am not, it has to be personally served on me.  This is a subpoena that is coming out of the state of Indiana.  She has already admitted on your show that she has filed suit in Arizona to compel Arpaio to come in. Now, I’m going to leave it with this.

SAMPSON:  Zullo and Arpaio have a cause of action against her for defamation of character. I have a cause of action against her for defamation of character, based upon the statements that she has just made, that allude to the – to her allegation, that I am somehow involved in some sort of a backroom deal with Arpaio and the federal government.  As a twenty-seven year veteran with the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of [inaudible “SUSA”?? 31:50] before that, I am vehemently upset about this.  It is insulting.  It is demeaning.  And it impugns my character and my credibility.  I am not , under any circumstances, involved in any backroom deal with anybody.  And to suggest that for a moment is just pure desperation on the part of an individual who doesn’t have her facts straight.  And I am going to refer this to my attorney.  And Ms. Taitz, I hope your malpractice insurance premiums are paid up because I have a very strong indication that I am going to be collecting on that. That is the end of my statement.  Peter, I have known you for a long time.  And I appreciate you standing up for me, but this goes beyond the pale….

TAITZ: He got a valid court subpoena and it was not only emailed, it was also mailed to his home address in Strasburg, Colorado. Whether he got it by mail, or whether he evaded service, it doesn’t matter.  He admitted, he just admitted on your show that he got the subpoena – that he didn’t get it by mail, but he got it by email.  He got it.  He’s under obligation to appear in court.  If he does not appear, he will be in contempt of court.  This is a matter of national security.  He is not asked to reveal anything that is secret—part of a secret investigation.  All he’s asked to do is to tell the judge that, “Yes, I am John Sampson.  This is my signature.  I signed this affidavit, and it is true and correct.”  That’s it! And he is on the stand.  He doesn’t have to say anything else.  If he is not doing this, he will be held in contempt of court.  And there might be legal action against him by six plaintiffs in this case who rely on his affidavit, relied on him to be here, based on subpoena, and [at] the last moment, he is refusing to show up and destroying an important case.  Not only for six people.  He’s destroying the case for the whole country.  This is a matter of national security.

BOYLES:  Okay.

TAITZ:  So, there is no excuse.  He has to be there on Monday at 10 am.  And you know what?  If he is not showing up, he is as good as lost this election, because a lot of people today are extremely angry. If you go on my website and see, people writing comments and things.  “What is wrong with John Sampson?  Is he a turncoat?  What is wrong with Arpaio?”

BOYLES:  I—I can tell you—Orly.  Orly, I’ve got to pause here and break it off.  I’ve got to tell you something.  I’ve known John a long time.  There’s nothing wrong with John.  I know Joe.  There’s nothing wrong with Joe. I know you.  There’s nothing wrong with you.  Um, but, everybody has to do this in their own manner.  I hope to hell that this thing doesn’t end up where I smell it’s going to end up.  It’ll be a bad day.  Both of you—

For all the impact conservative talk radio seems to have on the Colorado GOP, you rarely hear about it in the legacy media.

So I was glad to see the Colorado Springs Gazette, in an editorial published today by Wayne Laugesen, cite talk radio, specifically, as a player in the formulation and dessemination of Republican opinion in our state.

Laugesen, who’s a conservative by anyone’s measure, wrote:

Politics of exclusion lead to political extinction. If Colorado becomes a blue state, Republicans should remember applauding those talk radio hosts who mocked Latinos while inciting immigration hysteria. They should recall taking pride in denying innocent young immigrants access to educations. If Republicans lose Colorado, they should look in the mirror.

Yeah!

But is it the Republicans’ applause that eggs on the radio hosts?

Or is it the talk show hosts, backed by right-wing activists, who demand the applause, or else the Republicans won’t get the stamp of approval from the talk-radio hosts?

I think it’s the latter.

So I’d like to see Laugesen join me in calling them out more often. Next time Laugesen hears a righty talker “inciting immigration hysteria,” I hope we hear from Laugesen.

Doing so might be one of the best things he can do to change the Colorado GOP in the long term.

Should anyone care that KHOW talk-radio host Peter Boyles is saying Romney and Coffman will lose big time?

I think it matters, to a small degree, because one thing you can say about Boyles, he knows his audience, and he realizes they also think Romney and Coffman are losers. Otherwise, Boyles might have held back.

“I’ve been watching Mitt Romney, and they jammed him up on that 47 percent thing…now he’s trying to ‘soften’ his approach to the ‘47 percent,’” Boyles said on air Thursday. “Now Romney is counter-programming. In other words, once somebody takes the lead, and it’s true in radio when somebody tries to counter-program another program, they’ve already lost, if they’re counter-programming. And now Romney is counter-programming Obama. At that point, he’s lost. I really believe it…

Does anyone in this audience really think Romney is going to win this election?

…Coffman is going to get clipped too.

…I say Republicans are going to get clubbed in Colorado as well as nationally… If you can you defend the Republican Party, please call the show.”

Boyles knows his conservative/independent/checked-out audience agrees with him, even the ones who don’t want to acknowledge it, like this caller:

Brett: Hey, I just wanted to call and be straight up honest with you. I definitely have a problem with you calling this election when it’s not even over. It’s 40 days, and there’s so much that can happen in 40 days, and, like you said earlier, talk radio is dominated by conservatives.

Boyles: I take it back. Talk radio is dominated by Republicans.

Brett: OK, even if that’s true, then the majority of the listening audience would be Republicans.

Boyles: Do you want me say what I don’t believe, or do you want me to say what I believe?

Brett: The problem is, when you say that, even for the few people, and I know it’s not your job to care about those people [who may be discouraged from voting]…. We can’t take four more years of Obama.

Callers were getting mad at Boyles, but you could tell they respected him for it, for saying what they see as the sad truth about the President, whom Boyles has been bashing for years.

Boyles: “It’s the truth, and if the truth hurts, so be it,” says Boyles. “Most of the time I hope I’m wrong in the things I believe. I think we’re an empire sliding off into the sea. I believe we’re headed toward such incredible economic chaos in this country…The western world is broke. Brett, it’s over.”

So Boyles gets to be the truth teller, earn some respect from people who don’t want to hear it but agree with him. Brett even admitted Obama will win.

And Boyles gets a couple really good hours of talk radio out of it. Truly, it made great radio.

That’s how Boyles has survived for so long in Denver, and it’s another small sign that Romney is heading south.

Laura Carno, the former producer of KVOR’s Jeff Crank Show, appeared on KVOR’s Richard Randall show Wednesday.

She had a loving conversation with Randall about birth control, and here’s little segment of it, for your edification.

It nicley sums up how conservative talk show hosts think about birth control.

It’s so simple, like a crisp potato chip.

Carno:  I also don’t want to pay for your potato chips and your paper towels, and those are lovely products as well.  Birth control is just a product.   I go to the store.  I buy it. I don’t talk to you about it, I don’t talk to the government about it.  I simply purchase it as if it were a bag of potato chips!  Move on!  Let’s stop talking about birth control.

Randall:  There are people who want to simplify everything, and they are called “spinmeisters” on the left.

Now those are two complex minds at work right there.

Colorado’s conservative talk radio world sounds thrilled to defend Mitt Romney’s comments at a GOP fundraiser, but the more you listen, and hear what they’re not saying, the more you realize that, in reality, they don’t seem to know what to say.

Take, for example, KOA’s Mike Rosen, who describes himself as a partisan Republican, addressing Romney’s comments on his show this morning:

“The thrust of what [Romney] said is absolutely on target, and I have no difficulty defending that thrust; I’ve been talking about this for years…”

“By having so many people who don’t feel any pain from the income tax, you build an army of people who simply want other people to pay taxes, and when they hear something about tax rates being increased, they say, ‘We don’t care because we don’t pay taxes anyway.’”

Rosen went on to say that it’s not all of the non-income-tax-paying “47%” who see things this way, but a large number do. That’s basically what Romney meant, he said, a large number of people but not 47%.

Unfortunately, Rosen said, Romney was “imprecise, worst case, sloppy.”

Still, even if you accept the sloppy talk, how do Rosen and his fellow Romney defenders on the radio deal with Romney’s comment that Romney’s “job is not to worry about those people.…”

The radio talkers don’t deal with that comment. They don’t defend it, even though it arguably reflects, to some degree, their attitude here in Colorado (i.e., a willingness to cut government-funded health care for children in poverty, putting their lives at risk, because their parents don’t have sufficient “skin in the game.”)

But as Rosen did this morning, the conservatives on the radio are largely ignoring much of what Romeny said at the fundraiser, including:

• 47% of Americans “believe that they are victims,”
• 47% of Americans “believe the government has a responsibility to care for them,”
• 47% of Americans “believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement.”
• 47% of Americans are “dependent upon government.”

So the defense of Romney on talk radio is so selective and riddled with omissions that it’s pretty funny to listen to, actually. And it makes you wonder: Do they agree with it? Are they scared to defend it? What’s up?

Tune in, if you get a chance. Or call in and ask about Romney’s comments that aren’t being aired.

On KNUS’ morning talk-radio show Thursday, Steve Kelley played an audio clip of Obama criticizing Romney’s response to the Libya attack, saying Romney has a “tendency to shoot first and aim later.”

Steve Kelley, the host of the show, had Mitt Romney’s son Josh on the phone, and, it’s only natural to try to personalize things a bit. Plus, they say international relations isn’t so different than what goes on within families, on the playground, between neighbors, or what have you.

So Kelley asked Josh Romney if his father shot first and aimed later, when it came to disciplining Josh!

It was a fair question to ask a grown man stumping for his father, but Josh dodged it rather ominously, saying “We don’t talk about that much.”

“He was tough but fair,” Josh told Kelley, after some awkward banter.

I’m not saying Mitt shouldn’t have spanked his kids, or Obama shouldn’t have spanked Sasha and Malia, if he did. (I never spanked my kids, but I’m a deeply wimpy progressive weenie.)

But you’d think Josh would have laid it out on the table. I mean, seriously, did Mitt belt his kids?

Why don’t the Romneys talk about this much? What’s the big deal? I wish Kelley would have finished the conversation.

Kelley: Shoot first and aim later. Critical of your dad. Hey when your dad disciplined you, and how did he discipline you, did dad shoot first and aim later with you?

Josh Romney: My dad was very good with discipline. They really allowed us to understand and reap the benefits of making bad decisions on our own.

Kelley: Did he spank ya? Come on, Josh.

Josh Romney: We don’t talk about that much but he, ah, was tough. Tough but fair, we’ll say that.

Kelley: I remember one time my brother and I were playing with bullets. And you know, my dad heard about it. That’s the only time, first, last, that I received the belt. Can you relate at all to that, Josh?

Josh Romney [laughing]: The dreaded belt. The dreaded belt.

Kelley: Ah, that tells me right there. The dreaded belt.

Josh Romney: I’m joking. He was tough but fair. You know, tough but fair.

Listen to the audio here:
On KNUS radio 9-13, Josh Romney is asked whether Mitt Romney spanked him