Rep. Doug Lamborn was invited on the Richard Randall Show on June 30 to discuss President Obama’s recent remarks on the debt ceiling. Rep. Lamborn took issue with the President’s plan to cut tax breaks for corporate jets:

Lamborn: [President Obama] keeps bringing up class warfare things. For instance, he talks about the corporate jet tax breaks. And by the way that was put into law as part of the stimulus package because it was thought of at the time, just two years ago, that if aircraft manufactures were making more private planes, that would create jobs. So it wasn’t an evil thing just two years ago but now all of the sudden it’s evil. And it’s only $300 million a year. Now I don’t have any particular affection or allegiance to corporate jet owners, but that’s a drop in the bucket Richard. That’s one third of a billion dollars per year when we have a deficit this year of $1.6 trillion. And he mentioned that in his speech six times yesterday. He is obsessed with it.

Rep. Lamborn seems to keep a fairly low profile and rarely makes national news, so it makes sense that a talk-radio host wouldn’t be up to date on Lamborn trivia.

But it’s hard to believe that Randall didn’t remember the barrage of press coverage Lamborn received when the Representative spearheaded a call to remove all governmental funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB).

One particular statement he made was:

“We have to start somewhere to get our fiscal house in order,” said Lamborn. “And public broadcasting, as good as it might be with some of their programs, is a luxury we can no longer afford.”

To clarify, CPB currently receives $430 million from the government to help fund stuff like National Public Radio, Sesame Street and PBS News Hour. According to Lamborn, this is a luxury we cannot afford.

However removing $300 million in tax breaks for luxury jets is a “drop in the bucket.”

Randall should have asked Lamborn why a drop in the CPB bucket is different from a drop in the corporate jet bucket.

He also let Lamborn off easy by not challenging his statement that he had no affection or allegiance to the corporate jet industry. Have no fear media consumers, I took the liberty to check out the statement, and it seems not to hold up to scrutiny.

According to FEC documents, Lamborn received $7,000 from the Boeing ‘s PAC in the 2010 election cycle and $1,000 in the 2008 election. I have yet to find any CPB PACs or associated individuals writing checks to Lamborn’s campaign coffers.

Here’s something for your Sunday amusement: Complete Colorado’s Todd Shepherd telling Jon Caldara about his sources for the allegation that “Michael Handcock’s” name and cell-phone number were listed on the client list of Denver Players, a prostitution ring.

You don’t need to be an journalism professor to know that Shepherd had nothing close to credible sources. No surprise there. But, it’s worse, as you can see below. You’d like to think an intelligent guy like Shepherd would have checked his conscience before dropping this kind of junk on his blog.

Shepherd is talking to Caldara on KBDI, Channel 12, June 17, on “Devil’s Advocate,” a show is hosted by Caldara and underwritten mostly by  the Caldara’s Independence Institute.

Caldara: Where did you get this story?….

Shepherd: You know, the way the story came to me is really, it’s something I can’t disclose because it’s part of what corroborated what, again, I had a source that showed me documents of this prostitution ring, essentially the customer log and appointment sheets. But, the way, the chain of people as it worked its way to me, is part of, I can’t disclose those names, because in essence they were able to disclose other key points of information that essentially corroborated everything that my source was ultimately going to tell me.

The Denver Post buried a key paragraph in its front-page story today showing that Michael Hancock apparently did not use his cell phone to call a prostitution ring. The Post reported toward the end of the story:

Additionally, Hancock’s cellphone was frequently in use at times when the appointment logs alleged he was engaged with a prostitute. Of the nine possible times over the three years most likely covered by log books, Hancock’s cellphone was in use during five.

If you’re Peter Boyles, you’d probably say the cell phone was part of the sex.

Then Boyles could talk about phone sex in the pre-Twitter days, and experts like Scottie Ewing could be summoned for their opinions on what Hancock and the prostitute could have been doing with the cell phone.

And Rep. Anthony Weiner’s view could be solicited.

Or better yet, the carnival barkers could fill an hour speculating on what Weiner or a prostitute might say about this.

Maybe that’s joke, and maybe it’s not, but it gets at the problem with this story. You can’t kill it, unless you’re a responsible journalist and you say, enough is enough.

Boyles won’t say this. That’s why he’s still looking for Obama’s Social Security number, education records, etc., etc., etc. And he’ll keep looking and talking as long as people listen.

But the mainstream media, like The Denver Post, which hyped this rotten story unfairly, should back off of this drama now and stop the strange front-page play that it’s been giving it.

You can imagine more developments coming, like interviews with prostitutes who of course should be asked what Hancock was doing with his cell phone during sex.

And you can imagine others coming forward with who knows what.

But with the alleged crime itself being such a petty matter, and the issue of lying about it now as resolved as it will ever be, it’s time to refrain from giving future developments more legitimacy than they deserve, as the Denver media has been doing so far.

As I pointed out last week, Scott Tipton’s May 31 interview on the Cari and Rob radio show raises a number of questions that reporters should put to Tiption. Here’s a transcript of the interview:

Douglas: On April 7th, the following exchange took place between our program and Congressman Scott Tipton.

Douglas: Congressman, I sent to a note this morning and I said in a note that I wanted to give you an opportunity to address an issue that has come before our attention. And that is that your daughter took a job at Broadnet as a government relations specialist in Washington D.C., the same month that you were sworn in as United States Congressman. Can you give us a little background on how your daughter got that job as a government relations specialist.

Scott: What that is, it’s a private company by the way. It does not work for the government. Everybody out here working for private company has government relations specialists that’s on there. She had an internship a year or two years ago with this company. Did a good job. They were opening up the office and offered it to her before the election and she’d accepted it.

Douglas: SO the job offer was made to her prior to the outcome of the election last year?

Scott: Right.

Douglas: Alright, very good.

Douglas: Then last week at the end of the week Allison Sherry and the Denver Post reported in a piece entitled “Colorado Rep. Tipton Apologizes to House Ethics Panel for Improper Emails.” The piece begins like this:

Rep. Scott Tipton may have run afoul of House ethics rules after his 22-year-old daughter dropped his name to land congressional business for her employer, a company that is run by his nephew. Tipton sent a letter late Thursday to the House Ethics Committee apologizing for multiple e-mails his daughter sent to members of Congress. She works as a government relations specialist for Colorado-based Broadnet.

Douglas: Given what took place on our program last April 7th, where we were the first to ask questions asked about the employment of Congressman Tipton’s daughter with Broadnet, and given the further reports given by the Denver Post, Politico, the Associative Press, and a number of other news organizations, both around the state of Colorado and nationally, we thought it only fair to allow Congressman Scott Tipton, someone who’s been a frequent guest on this program, we talk about him being our canary in the coal mines when it comes to following freshman congressman to Washington this term, to allow him to come on our program and address this in some more specificity. Congressman Tipton joins us right now where he is on standby to board a plane back to Washington. Congressman, thank you for joining us on the Cari and Rob program this morning.

Tipton: You bet. Glad to be with you Rob and Cari.

Douglas: Let me focus you on a specific portion of our discussion on April 7th. Please listen to this and I have some follow-up questions for you:

Douglas: Can you give us a little background on how your daughter got that job as a government relations specialist.

Scott: What that is, it’s a private company by the way. It does not work for the government.

Douglas: Congressman, you said there that Broadnet does not work for the government. Did you stand by that statement today?

Tipton: I sure do.

Douglas: How you defining “does not work for the government?”

Tipton: They do not sell directly to the government. They do not sell directly to congressional offices.

Douglas: Okay, so Broadnet has a series of subsidiaries…

Tipton: No, not subsidiaries. Actually I have learned more about this after you broadsided me with that question on the previous one. For a point of clarity when you mentioned Rob out of the open that you had sent me an e-mail as a heads up, I did not receive that. But nevertheless they do not sell to subsidiaries. These are privately held companies that Broadnet, as I have learned, are basically labeled as a technology company. Privately held companies they have no part in lease that technology.

Hermacinski: Congressman, Politico reports that Broadnet provides more than 100 congressional offices with tele-townhall services via various vendors. So I would just have to say to the common person out here, we would say that Broadnet provides services to over 100 congressional offices in return for taxpayer dollars. So I am having a hard time understanding the statement that Broadnet does not work for the government.

Tipton: I am trying to drive correlation there for you can get a sense that you license yours out to privately held radio stations and do they pay you something for that? They probably do. But you have no connection with those privately held radio stations that carry your program. So that’s probably maybe not the best example but it is that same sort of thing where licensed technology that people use that you have no control over these companies or who they sell to and that’s it.

Douglas: Then why would your daughter be writing letters on behalf of Broadnet to your fellow congress people?

Tipton: That is something that Broadnet probably better can answer than I can. But the bottom line is that their job was just to make people aware of the technology company. You know, when we talk about transparency, I think one of the good things that has been coming out are these telephone townhall meetings were people can call in and visit with me directly and ask questions directly. It was creating awareness of that and there are a multiple of these vendors up there. The vendor we use is the same one that John Salazar used and it was the most cost effective.

Douglas: And that vendor works via Broadnet.

Tipton: No that is inaccurate Rob. What that vendor does not work via, they license the technology. That is an important distinction.

Douglas: Alright. Broadnet is owned by your nephew, correct?

Tipton: Correct.

Douglas: OK. You and your daughter share an apartment on Capitol Hill, correct?

Tipton: Mm-mmh.

Douglas: Your daughter went to work for Broadnet officially when?

Tipton: I think she started right after the Christmas [unintelligible]

Douglas: When was she offered that job in relation?

Tipton: It was my understanding, and I can be in error, but it was my understanding, after she had done her internship a year or so ago, that when she was getting ready to graduate from college that they had a job for her.

Douglas: Was there an official offer made to her from Broadnet?

Tipton: I can’t tell you. You know we are getting into the weeds of family business and in her personal business as well. I can’t give you the date because I don’t monitor it that closely.

Douglas: Can you get us that date when you get to Washington?

Tipton: You know, I can probably ask her if she chooses. This has been very difficult on her because she didn’t do anything wrong.

Douglas: Were you aware that Broadnet, through licenses it’s product to subsidiaries that do work was Congress.

Douglas: Was I aware that? Sure.

Douglas: When your daughter accepted the job with Broadnet, a company that is co-founded and run by your nephew, did you ever have discussion with your nephew about the appropriate relationship between Broadnet’s employees and Congress now that you were an elective congressman?

Tipton: No, it’s not my business and they do not sell directly to members of Congress period.

Hermacinski: Congressman, when did you first learn your daughter was using her relationship with you in introductory emails when she was contacting congressional offices? When did you first become aware of that?

Tipton: When a reporter came out. If you really want to get into that. In Washington they have flashcards when you get there to memorize all new freshman’s name and their faces. And when she went in people asked about the relationship and so it was a point of clarity rather than trying to hide something.

Hermacinski: and so how did you first learn about your daughter was using…

Tipton: It was actually through the press. I do not know it.

Douglas: So the press approached you and said are you aware that your daughter has sent e-mails to other offices?

Tipton: And again to underscore that was done innocently as a point of clarity. You know there’s know they are there.

Douglas: In those press contacts, there are a number of the news reports that suggests that there were rumors around Washington that an ethics complaint was going to be filed against you concerning these contacts. Did you learn of those rumors? First of all, did you hear of any of those rumors? Did you learn of those rumors prior to your letter to the ethics committee?

Tipton: Actually, we were proactive. Because when I found out I said it is in your interest not to use my name. And secondly then I was the one who went to the ethics committee, explained it and talked to Congressman Bonner. He said you have no connection to this, there is not an ethics issue, so if you want to send a letter we can get a letter back to you. So I was the one that was proactive on that.

Hermacinski: Congressman Tipton, Politico is also reporting that your spokesperson Josh Green, when asked for a statement on this matter, blamed this on Nancy Pelosi sending her top lap dog to Colorado to engage in some sleazy political attacks on you. So when did you become aware of the fact that Nancy Pelosi and her lap dogs were trying to dig up dirt on you?

Tipton: Well I think anyone with clear vision on it can see this is just politics and its Washington politics and this is the way they do business. Honestly we are going to happen competitive race in the third.
Douglas: What evidence do you have that the Democrats did anything on this?

Tipton: Where did it come from? You were the ones that first raised the question. Maybe you can answer that for me.

Douglas: Well we don’t know. We raised with you Scott on April 7. And the other part of the question that I asked you on April 7th. Let me play that for you as well:

Douglas: okay so the job offer was made her prior to the outcome of the election last year?

Tipton: Right.

Douglas: Alright, very good.

Douglas: That is something would like to get for your office is when she specifically got the job offer. The other question I had Scott is I asked, and I will take you at your word that you did not see my e-mail earlier in the day, but I asked you at the beginning of that what was the relationship between Broadnet and you never mentioned that Broadnet is a family-owned company. Why did not you not mention that?

Tipton: First of all, like I say it was a question that hadn’t even across my mind and I didn’t receive your e-mail to give me a head-up on it to give it some thought. Real honestly Rob, if you want full disclosure, I have got one other nephew that is going to be starting a landscaping business. I didn’t know where all you wanted to go on it and wasn’t aware that I needed to point out every family relationship.

Douglas: Scott, I’m sorry, maybe you think that’s funny but you don’t think that it’s relevant…

Tipton: Given that I didn’t know where your question was going at the very beginning of it which you can probably gather that from my answer. I didn’t realize that I needed to try and connect all of the different dots on it.

Hermacinski: Do think the landscaping business of your other nephew will be provided landscaping services to 100 congressional offices?

Tipton: I don’t know. Cari, we can go on that direction. This is privately held company that does not sell directly to Congress. You can’t you can get away from that very important point. This is licensed out. We have a whole host of vendors that every congressional office has. They do not promote individual vendors. It is just the technology. I think it’s an important role for members of Congress to stay in contact with their office.

Hermacinski: And I want to ask you again. Josh Green, your spokesman, did tell Politico that Nancy Pelosi has sent her top lap dog to Colorado to try to dig up sleazy political attacks on you. What evidence do you have that Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are behind this and when did you first become aware of it?

Tipton: Maybe an assumption from the standpoint that I had no personal connection with this issue at all nor did my office. But we have had Steny Hoyer in Colorado soliciting candidates to run in the third. So that was the assumption that Josh made.

Douglas: Okay. It has been announced this morning that Sal Pace is going to challenge you for the third congressional district. What is your reaction?

Tipton: You know, we may have a number of Democratic candidates and that is fine. That is our process works.

Douglas: Alright. Final question Scott. In light of all that has transpired, do think that you were transparent with this show and our audience on April the 7th. When we asked you questions relating to the relationship between Broadnet, your daughter, and her job as a government relations specialist and you said that Broadnet does not work for the government at that time. Do you feel that that was forthcoming and that there was no need to get back to us at some point and let us know that you learned more about how this developed or let our audience know more about how this developed?

Tipton: We’re obviously maybe going to disagree on that. But I think, given that I was broadsided with that question and it is something that we have had nothing to do with, I gave you the information that seemed reasonable as a time. I will underscore again that Broadnet does not sell directly to, they only license out to private companies who then market their product to members. So that was forthcoming.

Douglas: Did you know at that time that their licensees did work with more than 100 congressional offices on the hill?

Tipton: I had no idea. They have been in business for a long time. Long before I got here.

Douglas: When did you start using one of their licensees?

Tipton: Actually we picked up the same vendor that John Salazar used. We have had one townhall meeting.

Douglas: And you did not know that licensee was licensed through Broadnet.

Tipton: You know, we look strictly a price and I found out that they do license it. But that was not a consideration. We were trying to the most cost-effective way of reaching our constituents.

Douglas: Okay, you do live with your daughter on Capitol Hill. Did she ever raised the issue of the letter with you and/or the fact that she was going to mention in the letters that she was your daughter.

Tipton; Yea. I would like to underscore again, it was a point of reference because people queried her about whether or not she was my daughter and she used it as a point of reference. That was her stand on it and when I found out about I said don’t do that and she readily agreed.
Douglas: Okay, final question. Congress will vote tonight on a up or down bill on the debt ceiling. Your vote will be…

Tipton: No.

Douglas: Okay, very good. Scott we know you are just about to board plane at DIA for Washington. Thank you so much for joining us on the program today and look forward talking to you again.

I’ll be on a panel asking Denver mayoral candidates Michael Hancock and Chris Romer questions Tuesday, May 24, at a debate at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, Ricketson Auditorium (enter on Museum’s west side), 6:45 p.m. to 9 p.m.

In an “expanded edition” of his book of essays on the “Values of Harry Potter,”  local libertarian gadfly Ari Armstrong slams a 2008 article in the American Communication Journal, by Amanda Sturgill and others, which argued that the Harry Potter series portrayed journalism in dark and destructive manner.

Armstrong’s basic point is that, sure, journalism in the Potter books, embodied in character Rita Skeeter, was flawed at times, but that’s how journalism is in real life as well. So the book teaches young readers to look at the news media with a critical eye.

“Consumers of journalism will do well to adopt the thoughtful skepticism promoted by the Potter series,” Armstrong writes.

He provides a few examples to illustrate his point that journalists can make mistakes without undermining the value of the news media. One of his examples, unfortunately, is New York Times columnist Paul Krugman’s opinion, written after the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, that “We don’t have proof yet that this was political, but the odds are that it was.” Yes, that was a dumb opinion, but Krugman is not a reporter; he’s paid to opine. You’d think Armstrong could have come up with better examples from the spectacular archive of journalistic foibles.

Still, Armstrong’s critique about the Sturgill article is on target for the most part, as he points to examples, even if they’re brief, of the beneficial role journalism plays in the books, as well its destructive use as propaganda when the news is taken over by Voldemort. There seems to be an obvious lesson in the dangers of state control of the press here, and you wonder why Sturgill ignored this and the other material Armstrong cites.

Armstrong writes:

“The Potter novels teach that, even in the faceof shoddy reporting or outright censorship, the truth can prevail if its advocates keep fighting for it.”

I noticed that Armstrong did not say the truth “will” prevail without quality journalism, and he’s right. You have to wonder today, with serious journalism struggling, whether enough of the truth will get out there for our experiment in democracy to have a happy ending.

So maybe the lesson in the Potter series that Armstrong lauds isn’t the one we really need.  We need more books showing how the truth doesn’t prevail in the end  when journalism is forsaken or corrupt. That’s where things look to be heading to me.

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who launched his presidential exploratory committee yesterday, would be President now, if the Colorado GOP had its way in 2008.

You recall, Romney won big here in the GOP’s caucuses over Sen. John McCain, with major Republican support from people like Sen. Wayne Allard, Rep. Bob Beauprez, Sen. Hank Brown, Gov. Bill Owens, and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. GOP State Senators Andy McElhany, Shawn Mitchell, and Nancy Spence all supported him. As did, among others, CO State Rep. Kenneth Summers, Weld Country District Attorney Ken Buck, executives Bruce Benson and Alex Cranberg, and Colorado GOP chair Ryan Call.

Not to be left out, The Denver Post selected Romney in the GOP primary.

Reporters haven’t asked what these folks think of Romney now, about three years later. So I checked in with some of them.

“I’m inclined to think we need a fresh face,” McElhany told me. “I was a strong early supporter of Mitt Romney in 2008, and I think he had his chance at that time, but I’m encouraged to look other places.”

I asked McElhany about the health care law Romney signed into law in Massachusetts, mandating that state residents purchase insurance.

“I don’t think the health care thing helps him,” McElhany said. “Certainly it’s a huge issue, and his support of the Massachusetts law will weigh on him heavily.”

Attorney General Suthers and Colorado Sen. Spence are both still supportive of Romney.

Through his spokesman, Suthers said:

“America is in need of an economic turnaround. No one has the credentials he does in terms of producing an economic turnaround.”

“Of the names in the race so far, I’d still support him,” Spence told me. “Now that doesn’t mean if Superman jumped in, I wouldn’t change my mind. But that’s where I am right now.”

Asked whether the health care issue affects her view of Romney, Spence said, “I supported him last time—and there was the health-insurance and right-to-life stuff then. He did what he had to do in Massachusetts.”

Colorado Rep. Ken Summers hasn’t made up his mind. “Maybe it will be like in 2008 when it was easier to keep track of who wasn’t running than who was,” Summers told me.

Romney’s support of the Massachusetts health care law is not a deal breaker for Summers, who added that he (Summers) was “fully supportive of the health-care exchanges here in Colorado, and he told Rep. Amy Stephens that his “name would have been on that bill if it was introduced.”

“As Republicans go, Romney was doing what he had to do in Massachusetts,” Summers said. “It’s baggage that he’ll have to overcome, just like Tom Tancredo had to do with immigration. But Tom didn’t want to.”

Weld County District Attorney Ken Buck is remaining neutral.

“I am staying neutral in the presidential race for a while,” Buck told me. “I am the national co-chair for the Pass the Balanced Budget Amendment. We are trying to get candidates together for a presidential debate sometime this fall, and the leadership is staying neutral until we can get that accomplished.”

Pestiferous Independence Institute President Jon Caldara, who was not listed among Romney’s supporters in 2008, gave me his opinion on Romney:

“My guess is, it’s going to be very, very difficult for him to win support in a GOP primary given his support for what is essentially Obamacare,” said Caldara. I don’t know how he dislodges himself for that. On the bright side, he’s got great hair, and for that I am most envious.”

 Caldara cohort Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute added:

“I would say that Romney’s chances of winning would be much, much higher if Romneycare did not exist, especially because Obamacare will certainly be one of the biggest issues in the 2012 Presidential election, and perhaps the biggest issue,” Kopel emailed me. “The Sunday that the U.S. House voted for Obamacare, the biggest political loser in the nation was Mitt Romney.”

President Barack Obama has been praising Romney’s health care law of late, reportedly saying in a Feb. speech at the National Governors Association:

“I know that many of you have asked for flexibility for your states under this law. In fact, I agree with Mitt Romney, who recently said he’s proud of what he accomplished on health care in Massachusetts and supports giving states the power to determine their own health care solutions. He’s right. Alabama is not going to have exactly the same needs as Massachusetts or California or North Dakota. We believe in that flexibility.”

Yesterday the DNC distributed a photo of Romney signing the health care law—with Sen. Ted Kennedy in the photo looking on approvingly. Democrats have also been eating birthday cake and pointing out that today is the five-year anniversary of the enactment of the Mass health-care bill.

Romney did not mention his health care law yesterday, when he announced the formation of his presidential exploratory committee, but he’s said previously that he supports the rights of states to craft their own health care laws.

Please help me find an intern to help monitor local media outlets.

Tasks include:

… Monitoring local TV and radio shows.
… Researching facts and issues presented in the news.
… Editing and recording video and audio.
… Proofreading and fact-checking reports and documents.
… Administrative tasks.
… Updating websites and social media sites

The successful applicant would probably have:

… Some proven research experience.
… The ability to update websites.
… A familiarity with local media.

A small monthly stipend is available.

The position lasts six months, with a possible six-month extension.

Please send resume and 1-page cover letter to:

Jason Salzman
jason@bigmedia.org

No Phone calls, please.

The internship will be filled as soon as possible.

I asked Denver Post columnist David Harsanyi why he’s leaving the newspaper to become editorial manager at Glenn Beck’s publishing company.

He replied:

I’m leaving for a few reasons: To begin with, I was offered an exciting opportunity — by some very talented people — to do something new, to reach a large national audience and to keep my syndicate column. I couldn’t pass it up.

Also, though we love living in Denver, our family is on the East Coast and I wanted my children to be closer to them. That’s not to say it wasn’t a difficult decision. My time at the Post …• both as a metro columnist and on the editorial board …• was unbelievably rewarding both personally and professionally. More people read the Post’s content today than ever, and despite all the outside naysaying, I know it’s going to continue succeeding. So it’s bittersweet leaving.

I’m sorry Harsanyi is leaving. I’m not sure you could find a better conservative combo than him and Vince Carroll. I mostly disagree with both of them, but they’re usually fun and interesting.

My advice to Post Editorial Page Editor Dan Haley: do not fill Harsanyi’s conservative void with more Mike Rosen columns, which we may have read before anyway.

The Post’s opinion page is clearly trying to be fresh, like Carroll and Harsanyi try to be, not pedantic and recycled.

Now that Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench fame has entered the GOP race for GOP state party chair, media outlets should have reviewed how the position will be filled.

In 2009, the Colorado Republican Central Committee, which selects the new Dick Wadhams in a vote March 26, had about 400 delegates. This time, there will be 300 delegates.

Here’s the breakdown of who will be casting votes, as recently updated by Craig Steiner of the “Common Sense American Conservatism” website.

• 90 GOP elected officials (state/national party officials plus CO elected Republicans)
• 192 Republican Country Party representatives (64 counties; chair, vice-chair, and Secretary for each county)
• 18 bonus delegates (based on votes cast for Maes, and updated from the link above in an email to me. In the email, Steiner writes that these delegates come from: Arapahoe: 2; Douglas: 2; El Paso: 8; Jefferson: 4; Larimer: 2)

If you’ve been tracking this race, you know that Harvey seems to be the favorite, in terms of endorsements.

But if you’re like me, you’re thinking, could Matt Arnold and Sen. Ted Harvey possibly, theoretically, split the grassroots GOP vote and throw the election to one of the more moderate candidates, Ryan Call of the Denver GOP, or Leondray Gholston of the State Party.

I asked Steiner what happens if a state chair candidate does not get a majority of Central Committee votes. He answered via email:

The bylaws state: “If more than two persons are nominated for an office, and after three ballots no nominee has received the required majority vote, then, unless one or more nominees have withdrawn during or following this balloting, the nominee receiving the least votes on the last of the three ballots shall be ineligible on all subsequent ballots. The nominee receiving the least votes on each ballot thereafter shall also be ineligible on subsequent ballots, unless one or more other nominees withdraw following such ballot. Balloting shall continue in this manner until a majority vote is cast for one nominee.”

“So it’s not a single preliminary vote with a run-off for the two top candidates.  Rather, we start dropping the candidate who receives the fewest votes until a remaining candidate receives more than 50%.”

As a Feb. 24 candidate forum shows, it’s not easy to figure out what GOP grassroots activists, who control the majority of votes on the Central Committee, want. Do hey agree with a guy like Arnold, who, when asked what a RINO is, said:

“There are RINOs. They are not just endangered species.”

Arnold explained at the forum: “Our brand is important. And it’s not just the momentary victory of putting someone in office with an R behind their name.  It’s putting someone in office who will advance our principles and achieve policy success.  So yeah you might get a short-term victory by having guys with an R behind their names sitting in some elected office, but that ultimately undermines our potential for electoral and policy victory down the road if people don’t understand when they pop open that can of Coke, it can be Classic, Diet, different varieties, but you want Coke to be Coke.  Our brand is important.”