Radio Hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman were mum yesterday as Denish D’Souza told them (at about minute 32) that “Obama views not Iran, not North Korea, but America as the bad guy.”

At the same time, Caplis eagerly promoted D’Souza’s appearance today at a GOP fundraiser at Magianno’s at the Denver Pavilions, posting a flyer about the event on the show’s KHOW web page.

Caplis and Silverman could at least have discussed whether it’s intelligent, much less appropriate, for the Colorado GOP to give a microphone to D’Souza who says that the President of the United States thinks our country is worse than Iran or North Korea.

I know the Colorado GOP has to be thick-skinned to hold up its tent, and I’m not saying D’Souza should be censored, but is this the right platform for him?

Asked about his questioning of D’Souza today, Silverman told me:

“There are time constraints in that I have a co-host. In an ideal world, I could have spent three hours individually interrogating Denish D’Souza because I listened to his book cover-to-cover. I don’t agree with his one-size-fits-all theory of Barack Obama, but I do find it interesting…

I didn’t have anything to do with putting up that promo for the luncheon, but I don’t have a big problem with it either. If I had time, I might go see him today. I don’t have to agree with a book to find it interesting…

Denish D’Souza is probably far right, and definitely conservative. I think he’s entitled to his point of view just as Jason Salzman is entitled to your  far-left view. I don’t think either of you should be censored. And if the Colorado Democratic Party wants to have a program with you, I have no problem with it. And if we cover it on KHOW, I would have no problem if we decided to post a promotion for your event.”

D’Souza’s thinking is reminiscent of Tom Tancredo’s comment last year at an appearance with U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck:

“The greatest threat to the United States today, the greatest threat to our liberty, the greatest threat to the Constitution of the United States, the greatest threat to our way of life, everything we believe in, the greatest threat to the country that was put together by the Founding Fathers is the guy who is in the White House today,” Tancredo said.

Buck felt the need to put some space between him and Tancredo, saying at the time:

“I don’t agree,” [Buck] said. “I think there are a lot of threats to the White House and I don’t think the man in the White House is the greatest threat to this country at all. I am concerned about the direction of the country, but — I love Tom, but I don’t always agree with him.”

But later, you recall, after Jane Norton, gently embraced Tancredo’s comment, Buck also warmed up to Tancredo’s position a bit.

In any case, I think Caplis and Silverman should have called out D’Souza’s extremism more forcibly and questioned its place in the political debate here in Colorado. Silverman isn’t scared to do this, but he missed an opportunity yesterday.

KHOW talk show host Peter Boyles, you recall, didn’t flinch when Obama released his birth certificate last month, saying he had no intention of backing away from the story.

Bob Enyart, who hosts “Bob Enyart Live,” weekdays on Colorado “Colorado’s Christian Station,” KLTT 670 AM, disagreed with those who said President Obama’s birth certificate was not valid, and he apologized to his audience for his “erroneous thinking.”

Conspiracy theorists should look to Enyart for guidance here. He saw evidence and changed course. How do you like that?

Then, in an admirable piece of self-reflection,  he looked deeper, and he reasons that the entire birther discussion was a distraction from the real issues.

I can’t agree with what he sees as the real issues, but he’s entitled to his view, which is, in part:

In the big picture, I regret that I did not stay more focused on the eternal moral issues, which of course include the fundamental issues of government that God will bring up on Judgment Day…. 

…[S]ince I cannot believe that God is going to care, neither about where Obama was born or any other leader who has advocated the killing of the innocent, therefore I am going to get beyond this distraction and focus more on what matters eternally! 

I think this means we won’t be hearing Enyart talk about birtherism anymore. But his Personhood-Amendment crusade? It doesn’t look like its going away, does it?

The elected Secretary of the El Paso Republican Party said her inappropriate remarks to a reporter in March led to last week’s passage of a Republican resolution suggesting that GOP officers from El Paso County not criticize elected Republicans.

The Secretary, Sarah Anderson, told Grassroots Radio Colorado host Jason Worley yesterday that she regrets telling The Colorado Springs Gazette in March that some Republicans were calling Rep. Amy Stephens’ health-insurance exchange bill “Colorado’s presecription for federal crack addiction,” as well as the relatively mild moniker,  “Amycare.”

“That’s what started this,” she told Worley.

Anderson said she later apoligized to Stephens for her comments to the Gazette, and she agreed with Worley that it was a mistake to make those statements to a newspaper reporter who identified Anderson as the “secretary of the El Paso County GOP.” She said she never took a stand using her title again.

But Anderson argued on the radio that she does not think her position as an officer of the El Paso GOP should preclude her from speaking out against health-insurance exchanges, for example.

It would have been interesting if Worley had asked Anderson if she thinks the El Paso County GOP should pass a reverse resolution, if you will, suggesting that elected Republicans not criticize elected GOP officers.

Such a resolution might have stopped Stephens from telling the Colorado Springs Gazette that the uproar over her health-insurance bill was caused, in part, by “anarchists.”

The Gazette: Why do you think there’s been such an uproar from part of the conservative community and the Tea Party?

Stephens: Let’s be clear—it’s not the conservatives. I’d say it’s more libertarians, and other people I view as anarchists, some people in the Tea Party and the 9/12 group. I think there are numerous factors. There’s not one answer.”

Activists mocked Stephens for this remark.

For example, here’s what Mike Krause of the Independence Institute said about it Monday on Grassroots Radio Colorado:

Worley: Oh wait, Mike are you an anarchist?

Krause: Oh no, that’s you guys.

Clark: You’re not going to stand with us brothers in arms in anarchy.

Worley: Independence Institute didn’t back up SB 200, so you must be an anarchist.

Krause:  It’s interesting, and I’ve been listening to you guys talking about this. It’s interesting to us. Let me tell you how we view this. We’ve worked with Amy Stephens in the past and we assume we will again in the future. We are simply having a policy disagreement over this SB200, and so for us, it’s simply principle over politics. We assume we’ll get past it…but I guess we fall in the anarchy wing as much as… look, if you guys are anarchists, you know what, we’re just going to put on black masks with you and go break some windows and burn some stuff.

… Hopefully everyone can make up and move forward, but we’ll see what happens.

UPDATE: Ryan Call, Chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, responded to my request for a comment on the topic of this blog post. His response, in its entirety, follows:

I believe Sarah is a bright, talented young individual who has a great deal to offer the Republican Party in a leadership capacity. Her duties and role as a County Party officer are different than an activist or volunteer, or even as other members of her county’s Executive Board. Her elected Party leadership role as an officer includes certain important obligations and duties to her fellow officers, to her County Party Executive Board, and to the Republican Party’s elected officials, candidates and prospective candidates. Like an officer within any organization, her first duty is to that organization and to furthering the mission of the organization, which for the Republican Party is helping to elect Republican candidates, supporting Republican elected officials, and advancing Republican principles and our philosophy of government.

As an example, it would be entirely inappropriate for Mike McCoy, the Denver Bronco’s offensive coordinator and assistant coach, to hold a press conference or issue a statement that is critical of head coach John Fox or takes shots at Kyle Orton, the team’s designated starting quarterback. Similarly, it would be inappropriate for a corporate officer to issue statements or take a position that is contrary to the expressed decisions of the corporate board of directors or the company’s president.

It’s perfectly appropriate for a county party officer to express contrary positions, or engage in rigorous debate on issues and discussion on the best way to advance the Republican Party’s agenda within the Party, or to privately express his or her views and suggestions to elected officials on matters of policy or legislation at anytime—in fact, the Republican Party encourages such debate and discussion. But once a decision on a matter of policy or approach has been made by that county party’s Executive Board following such debate and discussion, it is every county party officer’s duty and obligation to faithfully implement the decision made by the group as a whole.

I have had a couple of conversations with Sarah regarding her duties as a county party officer, but at no time did I tell her to resign, nor will I. I shared with her that as a party officer, when expressing herself publicly she is not just representing herself but also the EL Paso County Republican Party. As such, I expressed my opinion that as an elected officer she has certain obligations to her county party members, fellow officers, and to the Party’s elected officials and candidates, and suggested that if she 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.

Republican Party district captains, precinct leaders, volunteers, activists, and all Republican voters all should be encouraged to actively be involved in the debate and discussion of ideas within our Party, and in the discussion of how best to advance our Republican principles and ideas, and are free to support (or oppose) their candidates of choice. Dissent, discussion, and debate is not stifled within our Party – it is encouraged.

But the roles and duties of Republican Party officers are somewhat different; I am hopeful that Sarah will come to recognize that, and will choose to continue to faithfully serve as Secretary of the El Paso County Republican Party.

_________________

You know a talk radio show is hitting its stride when it starts breaking news bits.

That’s what Colorado’s flagship Tea Party talk-radio show, Grassroots Radio Colorado, did yesterday. Maybe no one but the Tea-Party ground troops heard the news bit, but it was still newsbitworthy.

Hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley had El Paso County Republican Party Secretary Sarah Anderson on the show to talk more about the El Paso GOP’s resolution suggesting that party officers should not criticize elected Republicans.

On Grassroots Radio last week, Anderson had agreed with Clark, when he said the resolution was intended to shut up GOP activists, like Anderson.

Over the weekend, Anderson said, Colorado Republican State Chair Ryan Call told her her to “strongly consider” resigning as Secretary, because of her opposition to the resolution.

“Interesting enough, over the weekend, I had it suggested to me that I strongly consider resignation, and I want to say right now that I will not be resigning,” Anderson told Clark and Worley.

“It was suggested to me by a couple different people, most prominently by our State Party Chairman, Ryan Call,” she said. “I do want to stress I was asked to strongly consider it. I was not asked to resign, but I was asked to strongly consider it.”

“I’m irate right now,” Worley said to Anderson after she told him about Call’s suggestion, and he said he was texting Call immediately to find out more about it. On the radio, Worley inaccurately describes the El Paso resolution as a “gag order.”

Call did not immediately return my phone message or email seeking his side of the story. I’ll update this blog post if he responds.

If true, Call’s intervention could be an indicator of how he plans to conduct himself as GOP State Chair, settling disputes by pushing troublemakers like Anderson out of leadership positions instead of trying to bring factions of the party to the table to compromise.

Of course, there may be more to the story than meets the eye. Anderson may have acted in a way unbecoming to the elected office of the Secretary of the El Paso County Republican Party. I’ll try to reach Call and possibly others to find out.

Meanwhile, listening to Anderson talk to Clark and Worley, it sound like Call’s alleged attack hasn’t stopped her from speaking out.

Anderson told the radio audience that El Paso Republicans were trying to enforce the nonbinding resolution asking that party officers not criticize elected Republicans, even though it passed (by a vote of 13 to 3) as a suggestion, not a mandate. And so, she announced, she would continue to speak out.

“I don’t start fights, but I also don’t back down from them when others start them….” Anderson said.

“They want us to shut up and go away,” she said. “The problem is, I know very well, I’ve been involved in politics for a long time, way too long for my age, and we have to stand strong, and we cannot back down.”

“To me this is not about people. I’ve been accused of being other people’s enemy, such as [El Paso Country Republican Party President] Eli [Bremer]. And I don’t. This isn’t a battle about people. It’s a battle about ideas. My enemy, if we’re going to call it that, is the ideology that insulates and protects power in elected officials at all costs. I have to stand for principle. And you have, unfortunately, to pick a side in this. This is now a public battle. Are you going to stand for a Republican Party that stands on principle or are you going to stand for a Republican Party that protects and insulates power. It’s power versus principle. It’s that simple.”

To which one of the hosts replied, “Well, you know, I appreciate that stance because that’s the exact same stance we share here at Grassroots Radio and throughout all the Liberty groups in the state of Colorado.  When we see something wrong, we are going to call you on it.”

The hosts announced that El Paso Chair Bremer was scheduled to be on the radio show, but had to cancel at the last minute. But he promised to appear on the show at a later date, they said.

People on the left tend to lump all “conservative talk radio” in the same category. Hate-filled, ill-informed, contrived.

That’s not the case at all. The shows differ a lot from one another. Some are filled with passion and authenticity. Others, ironically, bring the Politburo or psychedelic drugs to mind.

Some hosts like Republican insider Dan Caplis stick like epoxy to GOP talking points and others, like Tea Partiers Jason Worley and Ken Clark of “Grassroots Radio Colorado” could care less about partisanship, so their show is almost always raw. That’s really the best word for it. And interesting.

Before tuning in, I like to to predict which Republicans (and Democrats) Clark and Worley will be going after on their show on any given day, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. on 560 KLZ AM.

So it’s not surprising that Clark was incensed (not in my preferred patchouli way) about the El Paso County Republicans May 2 resolution recommending that party officers refrain from criticizing elected Republicans.

Clark had Sarah Anderson, who’s the Secretary of the El Paso Country Republican Party, on his radio show (560 KLZ AM) May 4 to air out his feelings on the topic:

Clark: So basically what they want you to do is be good little soldiers for the Republican Party. They want to pat you on the head, put you in the back of the bus, and say, shut up, sit down, and do what we tell you. Is that right?

Anderson: Absolutely.

Anderson later pointed out that the resolution, which passed 13-3 in a secret ballot, wasn’t mandatory, just a suggestion.

Still, Clark is entitled to his view, even if the sponsor of the resolution, Bob Denny, told me last week he wasn’t trying to stifle debate.

But Clark’s co-host on Grassroots Radio Colorado, Kanda Calef, who was substituting for Jason Worley, went overboard when she accused progressives of acting like the El Paso Republicans:

Calef: This is very progressive thinking, if I may say so. This is what the left does. They try to stop people from speaking their mind.

Calef was identified by Clark as the radio show’s “researcher,” but she offered no research to back up this claim. As a self-proclaimed progressive, who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, and later repented, I don’t know what Calef was talking about.

So I called the Colorado Democratic Party to find out if it tries to button up its county officers.

“No, we don’t have anything coming close to broaching that subject,” new Communications Director Matt Inveo told me.

I’m trying to reach Calef, to find her examples of “progressives” acting like the El Paso Country Republicans, and I’ll report her answer later, I hope.

Listening to Clark, you get the feeling his un-Patchouli-like response to the El Paso resolution had a subterranean aspect to it. Like, maybe, there were some issues there, some other experiences with the Colorado GOP trying to shut up him or his allies?

Clark said on the radio: That [the El Paso GOP resolution] is not the only place things like this are happening, I can assure you.

Anderson told Clark: “The bylaws of the El Paso County Republican Party do prevent any officers or members of the executive committee from taking sides in primaries. And that’s always been the case, from my understanding, or certainly has been for quite some time. But it’s never precluded people from addressing issues or even specific legislators during session.”

But is there more than this? I called Worley to find out.

“We talked to people in other GOP counties, and there’s rumblings of stifling debate,” Worley told me today.

As for the Democrats, Inveo told me:

Anytime there is a contested Democratic primary, an office holder within the party cannot use his or her party title in making an endorsement. The party is required to provide the same services to all candidates.

CORRECTION: In an early version of this post, I attributed quotes to Worley that should have been attributed to Clark. Sorry for the error, which I corrected in the text.

GOP chair Ryan Call was on Jon Caldara’s “Devil’s Advocate” TV show on KBDI Friday, and the pestiferous Caldara was ribbing Call about how the Colorado GOP inevitably bungles things up when it comes to elections.

Call was mostly unflustered, and managed to stay on his central message, which was his desire to elect Republicans, with support from a rainbow of GOP tent dwellers.

But one of Call’s explanations for the GOP bungle in 2010, was at a minimum misleading, and Caldara, being the GOP gadfly that he can be, should have called him on it (no pun intended).

Call said:

“Our challenge was that we did not have the resources to effectively counter the millions of dollars that was flowing in from out of state to effectively paint Ken Buck as an extreme candidate, which he wasn’t.”

Interesting, I thought, given that former GOP chair Dick Wadhams told the Greeley Tribune that  outside groups spent as much in Colorado backing Buck as they did supporting Bennet.

And the Sunlight Foundations, which tracks communications expenditures, shows that Wadhams was right. The outside foes of Bennet and Buck spent about the same amount of money in Colorado. Among these outside groups, you recall, Colorado was the most popular place to spend money in 2010. Just under $33 million was spent. (Communications expenses constitute the he vast majority of campaign expenses by outside groups, which most often do little else other than buy TV ads.)

Asked if he knew that spending by outside groups backing Buck was about the same as the pro-Bennet side,  Caldara told me he “didn’t know it or didn’t know it the other way.”

“I’ve not gone through the reports for all the different groups involved in the Senate race,” he said.

I gave Caldara the facts on campaign spending by outside groups, and as someone who clearly doesn’t like anyone to make up excuses for the problems of the Colorado Republican Party’s problems, Caldara should record straight for his audience during his next show.

I listened to Call on KCFR’s Colorado Matters back on April 11, and he again suggested that the GOP was outspent on the Senate race, but he didn’t say it directly:

The challenge in the Senate race, quite frankly, had to do with spending from outside organizations that mischaracterized our district attorney’s record and position on many issues….

We saw a tremendous amount of spending by outside organizations, not the party committees, but outside groups that really are ultimately unaccountable to the voters, really weighing heavily in on that Senate race. Much of it was money coming in from out of state. I think they mischaracterized Ken Buck’s positions on many issues in a way that really hurt him, particularly among suburban women.

Call also acknowledged that Buck’s own bungles hurt him in the election, but I think here again he was at least creating the impression that the GOP was outspent by out-of-state interests

If he continues to make this suggestion, either directly or implied, journalists should clarify that this was not the case in 2010.

Colorado is blessed to have a national leader of the birther movement, which is digesting today’s surprise release of Obama’s birth certificate.

That would be KHOW talk show host Peter Boyles.

So his response is probably an indicator of where these birther folks will go now.

On his radio show about 15 minutes ago, Boyles said, “I have no intention to back away from this story….I still have made a list of about 20 other things….”

He said this was Obama’s “Nixon moment,” when only a portion of the tapes was released.

So Boyles apparently smells meat: “All this does is feed the lion,” he said.

“Why does he wait so long?…Is this an attempt to shut up the questioners? I think so.”

Boyles compared the feeling in his gut to the feeling he had when John Mark Karr was arrested for the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey.

Karr of course was released.

“It’s not over,” Boyles says, and you can imagine him shaking his head.

And if you listen to Boyles’ show, you know he’s right. That’s the beauty of a conspiracy theory.

Conservative blogger and talk-radio host Ross Kaminsky will be subbing for KOA’s Mike Rosen Friday.

This will be the first time he’s hosted a major ClearChannel show, though he’s gotten air time previously on KOA’s sleepy weekend schedule.

Kaminsky is a former Denver Post blogger, who currently hosts an obscure radio talk-radio show with the dumb name of “Backbone Radio,” which airs Sundays from 5 to 8 p.m. on KNUS, 710 AM and used to be hosted by John Andrews of Colorado State Senate fame.

KOA already has a long list of conservative talk show hosts. The station should consider letting a lefty sub for righty hosts like Rosen, when they go on cruises, like Rosen is doing. And Kaminsky could sub for Sirota. That would get people talking.

But Kaminsky is more thoughtful than some of his conservative talk-show ilk. I’m thinking, for example, of hosts like Michael Brown of Brownie fame.

On the Cari and Rob Show April 14, Rep. Scott Tipton said his trust in House Speaker John Boehner was damaged after last week’s federal budget agreement was negotiated, but Tipton added that he wanted to hear Boehner’s explanation for the deal he struck with Democrats to keep the government running until Sept. 30.

Apparently, Tipton got a satisfactory response from Boehner, because on Monday Tipton issued a clarification to The Hill’s blog, which posted an item about Tipton Monday. Tipton spokesman Joshua Green told The Hill:

“Congressman Tipton was disappointed in the dollar figure for the cuts to the FY2011 budget that was arrived at, and as such voted against it. He knows that Speaker Boehner got what he could at the time, but it wasn’t enough based on the input he was hearing from the people in the district. His comments are in reference to the amount of cuts to the 2011 budget and shouldn’t be read into as anything more. Congressman Tipton is confident in Speaker Boehner’s leadership and vision to cut spending, create jobs and get our country back on track.”

So what, please tell, did Boehner say to Tipton to elicit this “clarification,” which, incidentally, doesn’t say that Tipton actually trusts Boehner.

Fortunately we’ll find out, if you believe what Tipton said on the Cari and Rob Show Thursday, April 14.

Tipton told Douglas that Boehner needs to explain why he pledged to cut $100 billion from the federal budget and ultimately supported a bill that cut this year’s spending by $352 million. Tipton voted against the compromise.

“I’ll listen [to Boehner],” Tipton told Douglas. “And I’ll be happy to pass on to you what his explanation is because I can’t think of a defense.”

Douglas: Let us know when you get that explanation.

Tipton: I will.

Later on the show, Douglas said, “I gotta hand this to Scott Tipton. He has come on this program every time we asked him to come on.”

Douglas told me yesterday that he hasn’t talked with Tipton since he was on his show last week, but he hasn’t forgotten about Tipton’s promise to pass on Boehner’s explanation.

“I’m sure we’ll be getting him back on [the show] in the very near future,” Douglas told me, adding that “we continue to use him as a freshman canary in the coal mine.”

Judging from last week’s interview with Tiptop (See my blog post from Monday.), Douglas won’t settle for vague or evasive answers from Tipton about why the Congressman is suddenly “confident in Speaker Boehner’s leadership and vision to cut spending, create jobs and get our country back on track.”  I’m looking forward to Tipton’s next interview on the Cari and Rob Show.

A lot of my friends tell me how difficult it must be for me to have to listen to conservative talk radio as part of my job.

But they don’t know how interesting it can be, and I’m guessing you don’t either. Some of the better conservative hosts can be fearless questioners, even if their queries have everything to do with their political agenda and nothing to do with exposing the whole truth. Here’s an example from yesterday’s “Cari and Rob Show.”

Co-host Rob Douglas had Rep. Scott Tipton on the program to discuss the budget bill passed yesterday by Congress cutting $38 billion from the federal budget and funding the federal government through Sept. 30.  A Congressional Budget Office analysis concluded that the bill would cut non-war federal “outlays” by $352 million, meaning that most of the $38 billion is cut from planned spending, not this year’s budget.  Tiption voted against the bill, along CO Congresspeople DeGette, Gardner, Lamborn, and Polis. 

Douglas gave a brief hello to Tipton then asked:

Douglas: We’ve gone from in essence a Pledge to America, that I’m holding in my hand, of $100 billion in cuts, that became $61 billion in cuts, that became a $38.5 billion cut as of last Friday night, that is now scored by the Congressional Budget Office, we are told by numerous sources, as only reducing what will still be increased spending in 2011 by $352 million. Did the Pledge to America mean anything?

Tipton: “Well, we have not followed through for only cutting $352 million as a body…. Three hundred fifty-two million dollars is far short, obviously, of the $100 billion, and what we’ve likened it to time and again, even $100 billion when we’re looking at the massive debt, deficit and even the spending during this fiscal year, $3.7 trillion….”

Douglas: “Scott, you probably recall, I think you were even in studio one of the times with us, when we expressed to you our great concern with John Boehner becoming Speaker of the House. The language I’ve used time and time again is, why would we put somebody who’s been at the scene of the crime of the spending binges in Congress in charge of the House of Representatives. Erick Erikson of Redstate has called on any member of the House who votes with Boehner on this today to be, well, probably language we don’t want to use too much on air, but basically to be publicly flogged and that they should have a primary challenger. Now we know you are going to vote no on the bill today but why should Speaker Boehner continue?… Now we know that a $100 billion pledge meant nothing and it turned out to be $352 million this year. I’ve got to imagine that the level of trust between the House Freshman and the Speaker has been damaged perhaps I would argue, beyond repair. Why should he not be removed as Speaker of the House by the House of Representative Republicans forthwith?”

Tipton: “There’s going to be a lot of frustration…because the one thing that you have that you value to the best of your ability is, what you’re saying is the truth. And I think the moving shell game, and it’s the problem I have with the CR [temporary budget extension supported by Tipton] is originally, and you kind of ran through the numbers Rob, $38 billion, well, not really. Then it was taken down to about 20. Now we’re all the way down to $352 million, according to the CBO. I think there needs to be some questions answered.”

Douglas: “The 64-billion-dollar question, or should I say the 100-billion-dollar question, instead of the old game show, is. was Speaker Boehner straight with the conference? More specifically, do you think he was straight with you? Do you trust Speaker Boehner going forward given what this has turned out to be?”

Tipton: “Yah, I’ve got a lot of questions. I’m not trying to stick up for him at all in this sense. They are dealing with some different sides, but you get a sense of the politics as usual that are going on.  And we’ll just keep playing with the numbers until they say what we want them to say…I can’t think of a defense for going down to $352 million.”

Douglas: “Finally, as clear as you can say it, I guess, yes or no, has your trust in [House] Speaker Boehner been damaged?”

Tipton: “You know, I would say yes, but I will give him the caveat as I always give somebody an opportunity to explain. And I want to hear how we went from $100 billion down to $352 million.”

Douglas: Let us know when you get that explanation…On behalf of the Liberty Movement, I think i can say with great confidence that I hope the folks there in Congress, particularly the 87 freshman that we just sent down there, are cognizant of how angry the atmosphere is out here, and how much people feel that we got to the first major test in the House of Representatives, after backing you all, and that this is a complete failure.”

Here’s the section of the Pledge for America Douglas referred to above:

Cut Government Spending to Pre-Stimulus, Pre-Bailout Levels
With common-sense exceptions for seniors, veterans, and our troops, we will roll back government spending to prestimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to begin paying down the debt, balancing the budget, and ending the spending spree in Washington that threatens our children’s future.