Reporters are having a real hard time sorting out Mitt Romney’s position on personhood. Here’s a quick and easy way for journos to think about the issue, and Romney’s evolving stance on it.

Personhood has two tracks: federal and state. At the federal level, proponents are trying to pass a law giving fertilized eggs (or zygotes) the legal rights of a “person,” under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. At the state level, the personhood campaign wants to pass amendments to state constitutions defining life as beginning at conception.

Romney on federal personhood. Romney has made it clear that he’s currently against federal personhood. This is a flip from his position in 2007, when he stated on national TV that he favored a GOP platform position supporting a “human life amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, which would ban abortion at the federal level. When Romney said this, he believed, like he does now, that life begins at conception, so Romney’s federal ban on abortion, based on his definition of “life,” would have met the requirements of Personhood USA for a national personhood law. But last year at a GOP prez forum, Romney abandoned this position because now thinks adding personhood to the U.S. Constitution could set up a “constituional crisis.”

Romney on state personhood. In October, Romney told Fox News’ Mike Huckabee that he “absolutely” would have signed an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution establishing that life begins a conception. Later, Romney’s spokespeople backed up this position by telling Politico’s Ben Smith and other reporters that Romney supports “efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception” and that “these matters should be left up to states to decide.”

Summary:  Romney isn’t completely clear on this issue (I’m rolling my eyes as I write that), but  it’s fair to say that Romney has flip flopped on personhood during his career. It’s also a fact that he’s currently against a federal personhood law but for state-based personhood amendments (consistent with his “life-begins-at-conception” belief and his statement to Huckabee).

One prominent journalist who’s clear on Romney’s personhood stance is Curtis Hubbard, editorial page editor of the centrist-right Denver Post. He qualifies as an expert on personhood, having directed news coverage of the personhood ballot initiative in Colorado in 2010. He recently stated on Colorado Public Television, KBDI, “Romney already came out for personhood at the state level.”

Reporters nationally will have a chance to clarify Romney’s views on personhood Saturday, as they report on Florida’s Personhood USA-sponsored presidential forum. Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum will attend.

Romney will not attend the event, replicating his pattern of skipping such forums in South Carolina and Iowa, but reporters can contrast his views with personhood promoters Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum.

Personhood USA may also hold a prez forum in Colorado, prior to its Feb. 7 caucus. Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones emailed me yesterday, in response to my query, that Colorado is a “definite candidate” for a personhood forum.

“Hey everyone, this is Tim Tebow. And you’re listening to Kelley and Company on KNUS.”

You hear that on KNUS’ Kelley and Company many days, and you wonder, did Tebow mean to say, “KHOW.”

That’s Dan Caplis’ radio station, where Caplis promotes Tebow as if he were god.

Or did Tebow mean to say “KOA,” which is the radio station that almost certainly pays big bucks to have Tebow on the air Mondays.

So I called Steve Kelley, who recently returned from a three-day stint in Iowa, to find out how he scored the Tebow promotion, and it turns out Kelley landed Tebow himself to do the blurb for his show.

Around June, Kelley told me, Tebow was promoting his autobiography, Through My Eyes.

“Obviously he wants to get on some of the Christian stations speaking to his audience,” Kelley says. “I just happened to be at the right place at the right time.”

“Salem is a Christian-owned group of stations, and so there’s already a built-in network on the Christian side,” Kelley told me. “And KNUS is on the secular side of Salem Communications.”

Tebow was scheduled to speak on Denver’s KRKS, owned by Salem, which bills itself as offering “life-changing Christian radio broadcasts.” (Salem is known as a right-wing broadcaster.)

“But there were no live shows on KRKS  at the time Tebow was able to call,” Kelley told me. “I was hanging out, and so it was like, hey, it’s Tebow on the line, do you want to do an interview with him. I thought sure, I’ll talk to the kid. He wasn’t nearly as popular as he is know, at least as a Bronco.

“I said, hey Tim, would you mind doing a quick liner for me, because it’s a new show and it would be a great favor, and I’d appreciate it. And sure, he did it. He was gracious in doing it. I don’t know if he got himself in trouble. Or if someone would say, You can’t use Tebow. He’s ours!”

“KOA has a franchise on the Broncos,” Kelley pointed out. “But they don’t have the franchise on Tim Tebow necessarily.”

That’s the kind of thinking Tebow would love.

You have to hope the person most proud of Kelley is Dan Caplis.

In all the hubbub of police marching in riot gear and protestors fleeing, reporters have been forgetting to tell us what’s at the heart of the matter for the Occupiers.

So, here’s a crib sheet for anyone writing about Occupy in coming year.

Income Inequality:  Occupy by the Numbers

Percentage of our nation’s wealth owned by the top 1% of earners:  33.8%

Percentage of U.S. wealth owned by the bottom 50% of Americans:  2.5%.

Percentage of investment assets (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc.) owned by top 1%:  over 50%

Percentage of investment assets owned by the bottom half:  0.5%

Percentage of the nation’s personal debt owed by the top 1% in the US:  5%

Percentage of the nation’s personal debt owed by the bottom 90% of Americans:  73%

Tax rate for highest income earners in 1944: 94%

Today: 35%

Between 1980 and 2005, percentage of all income gains that went to the top 1%:  80%

Percentage growth in real income for top 1% of earners since 1979:  275%

Percentage growth in real income for bottom 20% of earners since 1979:  18%

Last decade in U.S. history when the top 1% earned as high or higher a share of the national income as they do today (24%):  1920s

Last decade in which the super-elite (top .01% of earners) claimed a higher share:  Never

Percentage change in average CEO pay since 1990:  +300%

Percentage change in “production worker” pay since 1990: +4%

Last year when the purchasing power of U.S. federal minimum wage reached as low as it is today:  1955

Ratio of average worker’s income to top CEO salaries in 1970:  1 to 38

Today:  1 to 1,723

Amount of nation’s wealth controlled by the top 1% elite in Ancient Rome:  16%

Amount of nation’s wealth controlled by the top 1% elite in U.S. today:  40%

Fraction of U.S. public who think there is too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations in the U.S.: 3/4

Fraction of Americans who believed this in 1941:  3/5

Percentage of American millionaires who agree who agree that Occupy “protestors are making a good and valid point”: 35%

Percentage of U.S. Congress who are millionaires:  47%

Percentage of U.S. Senators who are millionaires:  66%

Ratio of Americans living below the poverty line:  1 in 7

Rank of U.S. among rich nations in the percentage of children living in poverty:  2nd (21.9%)

In 2010 alone, percentage change in average income among the 24 million poorest families in U.S.:  -10 %

Rank of U.S. among developed nations of the world in income inequality: 1st

Follow Jason Salzman in Twitter @bigmediablog

Our deep experience with personhood amendments here in Colorado has taught us that a government that gives legal rights to zygotes (otherwise known as fertilized eggs) would have no choice but to ban some forms of the Pill.

But unfortunately, the New York Times, in an article yesterday, failed to mention that some forms of the Pill would have had to be banned if the personhood amendment passed in Mississippi.

The Times reported:

Mississippi voters said they thought twice about the proposal when they heard that it would not only ban virtually all abortions but also some forms of contraception like I.U.D.’s and morning-after pills, could hamper in-vitro fertilization clinics and could, doctors warned, discourage critical medical care for pregnant women.

Birth control was also at the center of the Personhood debate in Mississippi, and to be fair, the Times’ Erik Eckholm should have added “some forms of the Pill” to the list of items that worried the people of Mississippi.

The New York Times itself reported in Dec. that all hormonal contraceptives, which include the pill, may “make the lining of the uterus less hospitable to a fertilized egg.”

The Denver Post ran a fair news article over the weekend, about GOP charges that Democrats deliberately sought, through the reapportionment process, to thin the ranks of Republican women serving in the Colorado Legislature.

No solid evidence was produced to support the Republican allegation, which was refuted by Democrats.

And no proof was offered for the other GOP allegation in the article, namely that there’s also a “very, very small” segment within the Colorado Republican Party whose “misogynistic attitude” hurts GOP women.

This charge came from Rep. Amy Stephens, according to The Post:

Stephens said she researched the word “misogynistic” — a hatred or distrust of women — earlier this year after the attacks on her started.

“It’s an attitude of ‘We know better. You don’t get it. You wouldn’t understand,’ ” Stephens said.

“As long as you’re mothering the caucus, you’re fine. But by God, raise money, recruit women candidates, train them, no, oh no, oh no. And then have the audacity to win the majority? Then, it’s threatening. Then, it’s ‘How dare you? Now you’re a RINO.’ “

The Post piece quoted former state Sen. Dave Schultheis, of Colorado Springs, who said he was gender-neutral when it came to politicos.

I thought I’d see if another critic of Stephens could shed more light on the origin of the “mysogynistic attitude” mentioned by Stephens.

In response to my email, former Secretary of the El Paso GOP Sarah Anderson wrote:

Mme. Majority Leader Stephens appears to be applying the “misogynist” label to anyone with whom she has a difference of opinion, much as she previous had with the “anarchist” label.  It’s exactly that kind of response that furthers her reputation as a “RINO”… last time I checked, you only pull out the ad hominem attacks when you are losing an argument and have nothing of substance or value left to say.  Frankly, it’s a very Alinskyite tactic, which is antithetical to being a Republican.

Skip this if you’re one of those people who won’t read blog posts about the latest outrageous comments on right-wing talk radio, because they’re just the latest outrageous comments on right-wing talk radio.

But read on if you want a window into what hate looks like, and you want to call it out.

You may remember my post in October about  KENN radio host Sean Jeremy Osborn’s suggestion that the entire population of Iran is like a cancer and should be killed.

Now Osborn is angry at Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. My guess is that Osborne has some underlying issues here, because you’d never think Brazile’s comment about the meaning of vegetables on pizza would set off a explosion of rage from Osborne.

You can speculate for yourself about what’s really bothering Osborn after I explain what happened.

On CNN’s “The Situation Room” Nov. 14, host Wolf Blitzer read to Brazile the following comment by GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, and Blitzer asked Brazile if she had a “problem” with it:

“The more toppings a man has on his pizza, I believe, the more manly he is…. A manly man don’t want it piled high with vegetables…. He would call that a sissy pizza.”

Brazile’s response to Blitzer:

“Herman Cain clearly has a ‘women’s problem.’ He doesn’t know how to address women. He doesn’t know how to respect women, and now he’s making this comment about, bring on more toppings.”

Osborn played this exchange on his “Painful Truth” radio show and started screaming.

“Seriously, Donna, you’re going to go there? It’s an advertising-marketing thing designed to reach men. Men like meat on their pizza, you stupid female dog…It doesn’t mean Herman Cain is insensitive to women… It means men like meat on their damn pizza….I am ready to start busting walls in this room. Donna Brazile…you are a magnificently ignorant slut. There, how’s that for disparaging to women, you dumb female dog…you stupid retard.”

There’s more, and you can listen to below. Osborn starts off by saying that the exchange reflects hypocrisy in journalism. hmmm?

You’re thinking, who cares what an apparent right-wing nut says on a small radio station in the four corners area.

I do because, hey, KENN may be small, but it still reaches the good people in multiple cities like Durango and Cortez. It’s also owned by American General Media, which appears to have at least one other station in California.

So Osborn, who hasn’t returned past emails, because, he says I’ll  take his comments out of context, as if this were possible, should explain his behavior to his bosses and the people of these communities. Contact KENN here.

Listen to Osborn here:

Denver talk show host Bob Enyart says Mitt Romney is lying to the GOP base when he says he’s a “pro-family, pro-life” conservative, and Enyart launched a national campaign to spread to spread the word.

Enyart has also been a tireless supporter of Colorado’s “personhood amendments,” which would have codified Enyart’s belief that life begins at conception.

So, now that Romney is on the record saying he “absolutely” believes, like Enyart, that life begins at conception (and Romney would sign a Constitutional Amendment to make it law) has Enyart’s view of Romney changed?

“Romney needs the Republican base and so he is happy to lie to them for their votes,” Enyart emailed me. “But of course, slavery ended here and elsewhere in the world even though many who eventually supported emancipation in reality hated the slaves themselves. Similarly with child killing, the goal is to make open support of abortion unthinkable, regardless of the hardness of one’s heart.”

With the vote on Personhood taking place today in Mississippi, reporters should find some way, somehow to ask Romney what he thinks about Personhood supporters like Enyart, who has national standing on this issue, who say he’s lying. Or, for that matter, what Romney thinks of Democrats who say his support of Personhood makes him unelectable.

Enyart is the only media figure in Colorado who’s been tracking the Mississippi Personhood vote closely.

On a Nov. broadcast, Enyart interviewed his wife, Cheryl Enyart, who’s on the ground in Mississippi, along with Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks, fighting for passage of the Personhood, called Amendment 26, there.

Bob Enyart asked his wife to compare the response she’s getting in Mississippi to the response from Colorado.

“It’s overwhelmingly positive, whereas in Colorado we didn’t get as much positive response,” Cheryl Enyart replied.

In Colorado, her husband joked, “The most common response is migrating birds, whatever that is.”

“Out here, it seems like some doctors really are supporting the amendment, whereas we didn’t receive that kind of support back in Colorado.”

“Of course, there were some in the medical community that were pro-personhood,” Bob said, “but it seems basically a different culture there [in Mississippi]. And we can thank God for that.”

You’d expect campaign workers like Enyart’s wife to be optimistic, but whether Personhood wins or loses in Mississippi, today and tomorrow would both be good days to see more in the media on Romney’s thoughts on personhood.

At a news conference last week that deserved to get more media attention, the Campaign for a Healthy Denver unveiled “Sick Rick,” the mascot for their effort to pass Initiative 300, which would guarantee paid sick days for all Denver workers.

At the same event, the campaign presented workers, identified as food service employees, who told stories about how they’ve been ill, gone to work, and possibly passed on disease to restaurant customers

Sick Rick is a walking, six-foot-tall “germ” designed to highlight the campaign’s view that if Initiative 300 isn’t passed, more restaurant workers will be forced to go to work when sick and spread illnesses to customers. Its motto reportedly is: “We don’t want boogers in our burgers (or phlegm with our fries.)”

Sick Rick, a Walking Germ

“When you hand me a credit card to pay for your nonfat grande latte, I might be making you sick,” said Laura, who identified herself as a Starbucks employee and spoke at the news conference prior to the appearance of Sick Rick.

She told reporters that, for example, she contracted a severe cold around Christmas time last year but went to work anyway because she could not afford to stay home.

“Who knows if I infected my customers,” she said, explaining that if she passed up her shift, she’d have lost about $65, enough to pay her utility bill for a month or groceries for two weeks.

“This group has been pulling a lot of stunts to distract voters from the fact that the people of Denver who need jobs, city officials, and people who own small business have all said Denver can’t afford Initiative 300,” said George Merritt, spokesman for No on 300.

Though not ignored by any stretch, the First-Amendment rights of the OccupyDener/Wall Street Greed protesters need to get more air time.

Since the tents appeared in Denver, I’d been wondering about the “protesters” I used to see as I rode my bike in front of the White House when I lived in DC 20 years ago. They got to stay there because their 24-hour protest, which included tent-like structures, was protected under the First Amendment.

The ACLU at one point brought their case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The question for them, and for our local protest camp, was, were they “camping,” and in violation of anti-camping laws, or “protesting” 24 hours a day, and protected by the First Amendment?

KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman aired a great interview with attorney David Lane on this topic yesterday.

Here’s part of what Lane told Caplis and Silverman:

Lane: What is the competing interest against [the protest], Dan? Does Denver have some compelling need to use that space? And if the answer is no, then yes, you’re allowed to stay there 24 hours a day, as long as you’re not stopping someone else from exercising a constitutional right. It may be an eye sore. It may be inconvenient, and you may not like to see tents there when you drive by, but really if Denver has no compelling reason not to allow it, then Denver just has to allow it…

If someone is violating the health laws by camping there, if you want to call it camping, then they get a ticket for violating a health law. If theres’s some public disorder occurring there, give them a ticket for public disorder. If there is no public disorder, if there’s no health violation, then Denver has to put up with it under the First Amendment. …

If there’s public urination going on, Dan, give them a ticket for public urination….

Let me ask you, have you ever been to the White House? Have you ever seen the protesters who are permanently ensconsed. I mean, they are always there. They never leave. They have signs that say, I’ve been here for 27 years, 10 months, and 242 days. Yes, you can protest. You can protest 24-7. The issue is, is it really camping or what is it?… They have designated areas. Maybe Denver should designate an area.

There are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. But who are you bothering? Are you bothering the drug dealers who normally exist in Civic Center Park? Is that the problem, Dan? Are there really people who are using this park at midnight so we have to move these guys out?…

Caplis: What about the governor’s point that you have all these tents together…a fire could sweep through the camp.

Lane: You could come up with excuses like that. That’s just nonsense. You know that’s nonsense. It’s an excuse to get rid of them…

In order to stop free speech, the government has to have a compelling interest in stopping it. If it involves speech, and it’s not simply, gee I don’t have anywhere to go sleep, so I’m going to sleep in the park, then I think the government is going to be hard pressed to stop it. …

Here’s a memory of 9-11 that, it’s pretty safe to say, you won’t be seeing in the media today.

Take a look at this YouTube of Colin Powell on Meet the Press back in 2007.

He said he would close Gitmo “this afternoon” if he could. What’s often forgotten is that he didn’t stop there. He went through and outlined the steps for transferring the detainees to U.S. civilian facilities that Obama tried to do but was blocked by Congress.

To my knowledge, nobody has asked Powell about that specific part of his recommendation or why he never spoke up when politicians started demagoguing the issue. He might have helped close the prison, but true to form, he shied away from a public fight. He’s being included in a bunch of 9-11 stories about Iraq, but they’re not going near Gitmo.

Bill Ritter, as much as people like to forget him, accepted that Colorado maximum security prisons could handle the detainees, and he was pilloried for it. If Bloomberg had that same courage, we’d be holding civilian trials in NYC, Gitmo would probably be closed, and America would be proud and respected for doing the right thing.