Prior to this week’s coup attempt, state Republican leader Steve House was under fire from Tea Party activists for cozying up too closely with the Republican National Committee (RNC). It seems unlikely that the failed ouster was inspired by disagreements about RNC involvement in Colorado, but I’ll offer up some background about the dispute anyway, in case there’s more to it that I don’t understand.

Plus, the details about the relationship between the RNC and the state Republican Party, which emerge in the radio interview below, show that the state party is an important part of national Republican voter mobilization. This counters the argument you sometimes hear about the irrelevancy of the state party–beyond its role in candidate selection and the caucus process.

In a contentious June 3 interview on KLZ 560-AM, House fought off allegations from host Kris Cook and guest Ken Clark that the RNC was planning to implement voter mobilization strategies in Colorado, without cooperating or working with Republican County Chairs. Both hosts express little or no trust in the RNC, because they don’t think the RNC’s goals (e.g., electing Jeb Bush) align with the state party goals of winning the state house and lower ballot races. And they worry that House is allowing RNC to take control in Colorado.

Also floating around in the background is the 2014 campaign by the Republican Governor’s Association to knock out Tom Tancredo during the GOP primary.

In any case, here’s a few samples of House’s response to Clark and Cook earlier this month. (Listen to the entire interview below,)

House: “I would be screaming loudly if I saw anything in [the RNC’s] actions, or our strategy sessions, or conversation, that they’re going to go to Adams County and cut out Anil Mathai. They’re not going to do that. I’m going with them to Adams County […]. “But we also have to hire people who are smart enough and capable enough to execute a strategy that gets us to victory without Jeff [El Paso County GOP staffer] having to hold their hand. The most important part is we’ve committed to the fact that all of these employees that are hired are going to be interviewed by the county leadership, as well. That is absolutely going to happen. And myself.”

House tried to emphasize that the RNC needs the state party and vice versa:

House: “If you think about what happened in ‘14, in ’14 there were 31 field offices created in the state […] called Victory Offices, etc. This time, the decision was made that it was actually more important to have people than offices. So, we may see two, three, four offices in the state. But it’s mostly about the field organization to get out the vote. And, you know, Chariman Priebus and I, and we’ve had conversations along with Matt Pinnel who is the Chair of Chairs, along with Peter Grace who is the APD for our area from RNC, you know, the strategy is, look, you have to execute on the ground so much better than we have in the past to win in a Presidential year. So the strategy in a presidential year is different than it is in the midterm year. And it really involves all these people because the belief is if we don’t enable minority voters, if we don’t get out the vote at a much higher rate, we’re not going to get there. And offices are not going to do that. So, I think it’s coincidence on the primary, Ken. I’ve talked to these guys five times, six times, in the last two days about strategy. I’ve asked the hard questions all along. I don’t believe we’re going to see –. I wouldn’t let it happen! I mean, I really wouldn’t. I mean, we – there’s no reason in the world, and there’s no way the RNC really can run their strategy without involving county Parties in what’s going on, because there’s not enough with 43 or 45 people on the ground to do that. They have to integrate into our volunteer structure and our counties, or there won’t be enough people.

House emphasized that in 2014, the RNC transferred money to the state party to cover the payroll of over 700 people, including staff, walkers, and field directors.

“So it all flows through the Colorado GOP,” he said.

Last month, The Nation magazine’s Katha Pollitt reported that State Sen. Ellen Roberts was opposed to legislation providing funds Colorado’s amazing pregnancy prevention program because Roberts was unconvinced that Obamacare didn’t already pay for the long-acting-reversible contraption (LARC) offered under the family planning initiative.

“Republican Senator Ellen Roberts told me she might have supported the bill if she’d had a good answer for that,” reported Pollitt.

In her column, Pollitt provided the widely-known fact that insurance companies are not currently paying for the services and care provided by the LARC program.

About a month later, The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels reported that Roberts, who’s a Republican from Durango, was unhappy with Politt’s column:

Roberts said she should have been aware she was talking to a liberal columnist, and explained more clearly that she already had told GOP leaders if the bill made it to the Senate floor, she would support it.

If Roberts was opposed to the LARC bill because she thought Obamacare already covered the program, as reported by Pollitt, how could Roberts possibly have promised GOP leaders that she would support the bill if it came to the floor? No amount of clarifying to Pollitt could explain this inconsistency, whether Pollitt was radical communist or a hatchet-wielding or blackmailing Colorado Republican.

And, not that it matters, but Roberts had no excuse for failing to know that Pollitt is a progressive columnist. In an email prior to her interview with Roberts, Pollitt actually factually told Roberts she was with The Nation–and Pollitt says she has the email to prove it. Roberts had plenty of time to type the name “Katha Pollitt” in Google.

Pollitt told me via email: When I emailed Sen. Roberts I identified myself as a columnist with The Nation magazine. (I have the e mail.) If she didn’t know we are a liberal publication — and if she would have said something different had she known that — she could easily have found out. It’s not a secret!

I asked Pollitt if she quoted Roberts accurately and she politely responded with, “I quoted her accurately.”

Plus, bottom line, after LARC funds were rejected by a Republican-controlled State Senate committee, Roberts voted against a Hail-Mary budget amendment funding the LARC program. It was defeated on the Colorado Senate floor in a 16-19 vote, with Roberts joining all Republicans and Sen. Pat Steadman, in opposition (Here at page 650). Steadman is a member of the Joint Budget Committee, and it’s an unwritten rule that JBC members always vote against budget amendments. Roberts has supported such amendments in the past, meaning it’s not her policy to oppose them.

So it loooks like Roberts was trying to be both for the LARC pregnancy-prevention program and against it at the same time, just like she recently tried to be both “pro-choice” and “never” pro-choice at the same time– until she got called out on it by ColoradoPols, a progressive blog. Roberts, who may challenge Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet next year, then said she’d made a mistake in claiming she was never pro-choice.

But the overarching tragedy is that funding for Colorado’s LARC program, which helped reduce Colorado’s teen-pregnancy rate by a life-affirming 40 percent and lowered our state’s teen abortion rate by 35 percent, was rejected by State Senate Republicans.

Now, with LARC money running out at the end of this month, Roberts’ flawed attack Pollitt only spotlights that tragedy.

On KNUS  radio show this morning, Tom Tancredo said he, along with Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and Pueblo Country GOP Chair Becky Mizel, were “selected” by fellow Republicans to demand the resignation of GOP Chair Steve House.

Though Coffman called the meeting, they acted at the “behest of a lot of people,” he told KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles, adding that they were supported by “state legislators who were supportive of him at one time, who are now not.”

Tancredo told KNUS’ Dan Caplis (See transcript below.)

Tancredo: We were strong supporters, and — which is the reason why we ended up being sort of, I don’t know, — selected, asked, whatever you want to say – to confront with him and meet with him, because we wanted – they wanted to — everybody wanted to make sure he understood the seriousness of the issue. And so, I did, but certainly not because I have just a desire to step back into this kind of ugly stuff. I don’t.

Tancredo told KNUS’ Peter Boyles the same thing, in more detail:

Tancredo: I can tell you this:  that the reason that we met with Steve House was to express concerns of a lot of people.  It was not something that I, Cynthia Coffman, and Becky Mizel chose unilaterally to do.  We were asked to do that because we represented the people who were the most supportive of Steve when he ran.  And we certainly were

As you can read below, Tancredo did not specify who selected the group to confront house, nor did he say what the serious issue was, leaving a mystery that will most certainly be revealed, perhaps in multiple versions, in the days ahead.

As Tanc put it to Boyles, the reasons for demanding for his resignation “may very well all certainly come out.”

Partial Transcript of the Dan Caplis Show, June 17, 2015, with Guest Tom Tancredo

CAPLIS: You know, the question is: Okay, you’ve got this situation, now, with Steve House. You have the stories that have appeared so far. Um, how does this get fixed? You’ve been such a prominent leader in the Party for so many years, you’ve dealt with so many situations, how does this get fixed going forward?

TANCREDO: The best way, and I think perhaps the only way for it to get it, quote, fixed is for the Executive Committee of the State Party to take some action that would bring the whole issue to a vote of the Central Committee, the entire Central Committee. There is a process that is, you know, laid out in the by-laws of the state Party if there is a vacancy. But only if that vacancy occurs, can that process go forward. So, the – you know, it is to a large extent, it is up to Steve as to how he wants to handle it. And he says he wants to stay. Well, you know, that certainly can be a way to handle it. I do not know – I do not believe that is the best way, but I have no ability to change it. I’m not on the Central Committee. I’m not on any committee of the State Republican Party. But, uh –.

CAPLIS: Tom, can the Central committee remove him?

TANCREDO: No.

CAPLIS: Wow! So, once you’re it, there’s no recall?

TANCREDO: Oh! I’m sorry! Central Committee! Yes, yes. That can happen.

CAPLIS: Yeah, okay. Okay.

TANCREDO: There is two parts. One is the Executive Committee, and it’s a, you know, a group of, I don’t know — 10 to 15, 20 or 25 people, something like that.

CAPLIS: Yeah.

TANCREDO: Um, they can take action. They can call for a vote of no confidence. That’s one thing that could happen. Um, then – but, but then, if nothing –if Steve chooses not to resign, it’s my understanding – and Danny, believe me, I – most of this – I [inaudible] have been around a long time and it is true, but not in really in Party politics – at least, in the bowels of the Republican Party, if you know what I mean.

CAPLIS: Sure.

TANCREDO: And so, the way I understand it, if he chooses not to step down, then really, there’s nothing else, I think, that could happen, except if somehow a vote of the Central Committee can be held, they can remove him. And it takes, I think, 70%.

CAPLIS: Wow! I mean –.

TANCREDO: Yeah, so, it’s kind of a convoluted process.

CAPLIS: What a situation! I’ve got to tell you, if you write a book, I’m going to buy it! I’ll be the first guy in line to buy it! I’ll be that guy at Barnes & Nobles [sic] who camps out to stand there first and buy it. Because when you think of everything you’ve been through, including trying to salvage things [clears throat] when Dan Maes wouldn’t cooperate and do the right thing and step aside, I mean, you’ve been in so many of these interesting situations, it just seems to me this is one that really does need to be fixed in a hurry, with everything going on.

TANCREDO: Oh, and with that I certainly agree with.

CAPLIS: But, uh, wow!

TANCREDO: But Danny, um, as I say, I assure you, with God as my judge, and he is, that um, this is nothing that I or anybody else wanted to do, um, or have happen.

CAPLIS: Yeah.

TANCREDO: We were strong supporters, and — which is the reason why we ended up being sort of, I don’t know, — selected, asked, whatever you want to say – to confront with him and meet with him, because we wanted – they wanted to — everybody wanted to make sure he understood the seriousness of the issue. And so, I did, but certainly not because I have just any desire to step back into this kind of ugly stuff. I don’t. Like I say, riding my motorcycle with Peter – that’s a nice day. Not this kind of stuff

CAPLIS: Mm-hmm. That would be a nice day. That would — But, you know, you have so much hard earned credibility, and clout, and influence, I’m just hoping that you’ll be able to use that, given this current mess to help clean things up, because Lord knows, it’s going to be tough enough in the ’16 cycle. And I know you know that better than anybody because you’ve been in the arena. You’ve been in these races. You’ve been in these fights. So, I’m just am, uh –.

TANCREDO: Yeah, [I] hope it’s done quickly, certainly would be the best thing for the Party. And–and I don’t know – I don’t—I mean, I don’t have a candidate. It’s not as if I –. I don’t know where it goes from now. I don’t know who gets to, you know — elected. I don’t even know who we would get into the arena. I hope that we will make better decisions than we’ve made in the past.

CAPLIS: Yeah. Wow! And, uh, I know you’re limited on what you can say this morning. I appreciate the chance to talk with you about this. And I know you’ll do everything you can do to try to make sure this ends well, and quickly, so the focus can turn back to the races.

Partial Transcript of the KNUS Peter Boyles Show, June 17, 2015, with Guest Tom Tancredo

BOYLES:  What is the truth about this Chairman Steve House story?

TANCREDO:  Well, I can tell you this:  that the reason that we met with Steve House was to express concerns of a lot of people.  It was not something that I, Cynthia Coffman, and Becky Mizel chose unilaterally to do.  We were asked to do that because we represented the people who were the most supportive of Steve when he ran.  And we certainly were.  Cynthia, the Attorney General, was of course, you know, his—she made the nominating speech.  She was an incredibly gutsy—and is an incredibly gutsy person, to stand up when a lot of people would think that it’s not the right thing – or it’s a scary thing for an incumbent.  But, she did.  And we all believed that we had something better than we were dealing with in the form of Ryan Call.  And the issues that we had to bring to Steve’s attention were serious, and were such –were of such a nature that, um, a meeting of this sort was necessary.  What was not necessary was for it to become, uh, a public discussion of things that are untoward.  Uh, he could have done, and stayed with the course which he set out on, which was to resign. Ten minutes after our meeting, he sent out an email to that effect.  And that would have pretty much ended it.  It would have been a quiet and um, — and certainly a less ugly situation than we now face.  But all I’m telling you is that there was nothing that – you know, the three of us weren’t sitting around one day and say, “Hey! I know what!  Let’s go and tell Steve that he’s got to quit!”  This came about as a result of lots of folks, including state legislators who were supportive of him at one time, who are now not.  And they are not for reasons that may very well all certainly come out.  But, certainly – you know, it’s one of those things — I hate to say it just because it sounds so legalese, but things may end up in court.  You’d better– we have to be very, very careful how we proceed in this nature.  We are not saying – you know, all of these things that are in the paper are his allegations about what happened.  They’re his.  I mean, he is making the statements.  We are not.  All I’m telling you is that, um, I, like you, supported him, wanted him to succeed. It is certainly apparent to us that we may have made the wrong choice.  But anyway, we’ll see where it goes.  I don’t know – I mean, we did what we had to do, um, and as I say, at the behest of a lot of people.  It certainly wasn’t just us.  I want to reiterate that, because that’s the way it’s being portrayed, that either I, or Becky Mizel who’s the state chair in Pu—I mean, the county chair in Pueblo–.

BOYLES: Who we—We like her a lot. We like [inaudible]. 

TANCREDO:  Oh, my gosh!  She is absolutely the best.  And Cynthia Coffman, you know?  Um, I got a text message from Channel 9 news last night saying – the allegation was from Steve, that Cynthia wanted to meet with him, and that Becky and I crashed his – this meeting [chuckling] for the purpose of, quote, blackmailing him.  Well, I mean, it was Becky—it was – excuse me, Cynthia who called the meeting.  And she did so because, as I say, we were — the three of us were his primary supporters.  And so we wanted to impress upon him the concerns of a lot of people, and the fact that this was serious, and that um, the best thing – we believed—for him to do was resign.  And he agreed. And, I mean, he did so by, as I say, ten minutes afterward.  Then, whatever happened happened, and he chose to renege.  So, it’s a – it’s—it just didn’t have to be this way, but what can you do?  Um, the — the issues are serious, and that’s really all I can say about them.  They certainly are not things that, you know, are trivial in nature, or – or have anything to do, by the way, with, um, personalities or, uh, motives that are, um, of the highest order.  Nobody is looking to be – [starts to laugh]  I don’t intend to be Chairman of the Republican Party!  I guarantee—somebody said to me, “Why don’t you do that?  You’re a unifier! You unify everybody against you!”

BOYLES:  Ha!  Yeah, sure!  [laughing]  That guy in Lebanon said, “Forever – for ever —whatever you do, don’t help us!”

TANCREDO:  [laughing]  Right!

BOYLES:  Ha! That was a great line!  “Whatever you do, for God’s sake, don’t help us!”

TANCREDO:  I mean, there are no ulterior motives, here.  What in the world would Cynthia Coffman, who is – I mean, her credibility, her reputation.  I mean, do you think it would be easy for her, especially?  She is the Attorney General of the state of Colorado.  She was his nominating speech!  And do you think it is an easy thing to do to then have to take this step – meet with him to discuss these kinds of issues? You think anybody wanted to do that?  I assure you, and I told him when we were there, “I would rather be almost anywhere than here, tonight, to do this!” And so, I don’t know how it will play out.  I certainly have no idea.  This –now it is essentially up to the executive committee of the state Republican Party to take whatever action they wish to take, if any.  I mean, they could do nothing.

BOYLES:  I mean, like I said, and I know we’re on a time frame.  Danny [Caplis] is standing by.  But, when we first met Steve, he came in the studio, spent time with us, we supported him.  And his dumping Ryan Call, I was jazzed, I thought his move –

TANCREDO:  Yeah, me too!

BOYLES:  –with the Log Cabin Republicans, to get them to the Western Conservative [Summit], I thought it was Kissinger, Machiavellian, brilliant move.

TANCREDO:  Yeah, we talked about it.

BOYLES:  Yeah!  I thought that was just great!  And now this!  And if everything that John Ransom has said is true is true, and others have said is true is true, if he is start, stop the story now, and walk away.  And, Steve, with all the respect in the world,  I’m sure you on the – listening to us now,– walk away because, it’s almost like that crazy woman who keeps trying to insist she’s black, and she keeps the story alive by saying crazier things the next day.  And all she has to do to stop all of this right now – and she did some weird Obama thing, “No one saw me born.”  There’s a weird birth certificate.  I’m thinking, “Oh, my God!”

TANCREDO:  [laughing]

BOYLES:  I mean, it’s like Barack Obama story stuff! And so, as I told you, the only thing the Lebanese asked me, “Is he a Muslim?”

TANCREDO:  [laughs]

BOYLES:  Sure!  Why not?  But, I’m saying the same thing. It’s like, um, walk away.  And um, we’ll see.  I know that the beat goes on.

TANCREDO:  Yeah, [inaudible] I don’t know where it goes from here.  But we did what we could do.

BOYLES: I’ll give you a call.  Since I can’t sleep, maybe we’ll go ride motorcycles!

TANCREDO:  Yeah!  Believe me, it was such a nice day yesterday

BOYLES:  Yeah, it was great!

TANCREDO:  And to ride afterwards, after all this crap, it was very therapeutic.

BOYLES:  All right.  I’ll give you a call!  We’ll go ride this afternoon.  They want to talk to you on hold.

TANCREDO:  All right.

BOYLES:  I love you!  Allright!  Congressman – former Congressman –.

TANCREDO:  Take care, bud!

On Friday, after Rep. Mike Coffman suggested that if leaders of the Veterans Administration were put in charge of ISIS, they would be too incompetent to keep track of beheadings, neither of the radio hosts who conducted the interview questioned Coffman about whether Coffman’s comments were appropriate.

Instead, Steffan Tubbs and April Zesbaugh, the co-hosts of KOA 850-AM’s Colorado’s Morning News, reacted this with:

Tubbs: I don’t know what they’re putting in your orange juice back there.
Zesbaugh: [laughing] He’s on a roll! …It felt like a little stand-up there from the Congressman for a little bit.

Asked whether he thought he took Coffman’s comments too lightly, Tubbs emailed me:

Tubbs: “I was surprised by the Congressman’s remark at the very end of our interview, thus my comment. If someone is concerned with what Congressman Coffman said, they should contact his office.”

Tubbs, who’s a serious advocate (on and off the air) for American troops, was right to express his surprise at Coffman’s comments, which have been criticized by the Department of Veterans Affairs.

But he also should have questioned Coffman directly about the appropriateness of the remark. Tubbs has shown he’s not shy of asking tough questions, once asking Coffman,who was avoiding reporters at the time, about Coffman’s comment that Obama is not an American “in his heart.”

As it is, in part because Coffman wasn’t questioned during the KOA interview Friday, we’re now only hearing from a Coffman spokesman who told Buzzfeed that Coffman’s VA-ISIS comments were, “a controversy only with liberals and the Washington outrage machine. His sarcastic point was obvious – the VA is an organizational disaster.”

During the KOA interview, Coffman said:

Coffman: It’s too bad we can’t take VA leadership and export it and give it to some of our adversaries around the planet. Let them suffer under the VA’s leadership. Can you imagine if the VA was in charge of ISIS? They’d probably say, “Well, you know it wasn’t quite 2,000 that we beheaded – it was really 24 is the accurate number. We’re sorry that, in fact, they were all our own terrorists that were beheaded because they got missclassified in the system as Christians. I mean, that would be [chuckles] the VA, that would be the VA in charge of ISIS.

Yesterday, the Department of Veterans Affairs issued a statement saying Coffman’s comments “do not belong in our public discourse.”

“Veterans and VA employees find [Coffman’s comments] highly offensive,” said the VA’s statement on the matter. “(VA) Secretary (Robert) McDonald has spoken to Representative Coffman,”

Tubbs and Zesbaugh should have Coffman back on their morning show to discuss the controversy over the Congressman’s “sarcastic point,” as his spokesman put it.

The legislative branch of the Neville family made a joint appearance on conservative talk radio last month, rehashing a host of unpleasant issues in long-form fashion (audio below).

Rep. Patrick Neville (R-Castle Rock), and father Sen. Tim Neville (R-Littleton), started by talking guns, without noting that brother Joe Neville is the Lobbyist for Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, the uncompromising anti-gun-safety organization.

Tim Neville told the story on air of attending a “caucus luncheon” at the conservative/libertarian Independence Institute.

Tim left in the middle of the event, but not before confronting Independence Institute Director Jon Caldara directly.

“I asked [Caldara], is this a 30-round magazine? Is this where you want to stop?” Tim told KLZ host Ken Clark referring to Caldara’s idea of easing the magazine limit from 15 to 30 rounds.  “And [Caldara] mentioned, ‘No. Make it a thousand rounds.’ And I asked, ‘Which is it going to be? He went into this diatribe that he presented. Again, blaming Republicans. It’s your fault. You’re standing in the way of this. Frankly, I had had enough, and it was time to leave.”

You don’t have to track the Nevilles very closely to know how they feel about guns. But the father-son dual stands out when it comes to social issues too. As Tim Neville explained on air:

“You have people in the [Republican] Party say, if it’s a social issue, you shouldn’t talk about it,” said Tim on air @21:30 below. “And of course if you go back the last few years, That’s pretty much everything the Democrats and progressives have pushed are social issues. I mean, even the minimum-wage law is a social issue for them. So, to not engage on social issues, to me, is ludicrous. But if you look at the same people who stand strong on the second amendment and social issues, those are the same people who stand strong on fiscal issues also.”

And so it is, but it’s actually an understatement to say that the father-son Neville team is standing “strong on social issues.” They stand extreme.

Tim received a failing 29 percent on the Women’s Lobby of Colorado scorecard, which rated legislators on a variety of votes on women’s issues, and on Patrick tied for lowest-score-in-the-entire state legislature with 9 percent.”

Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado was more blunt, giving Tim Neville the first place award for “worst all-around” legislator for women’s health in 2015, according to a 2015 “Colorado Women’s Health Wall of Shame.”

“Neville sponsored four out of the six anti-choice bills introduced in Colorado’s legislature this year,” wrote Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado. “Not only did he sponsor two bills that would have inserted fetal personhood language (giving legal rights to fertilized eggs) into Colorado’s statutes, but two others that specifically targeted abortion providers and women seeking abortion care.”

“Nipping close at his father’s heels is Representative Patrick Neville, who also proudly sponsored four bills whose goals were to intimidate doctors out of providing abortion care,” wrote Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado.

During a radio broadcast last month (See below), KOA radio host Ross Kaminsky goes on and on passionately about how most everyone is against the conservatives on the Jeffco School Board.

In fact, the only folks Kaminsky left out of the alleged cabal attacking the Jeffco-school-board conservatives were the students, parents, and community that has organized to hold the school board accountable.

On the radio, Kaminsky mentioned that the Jeffco-school-board conservatives, specifically John Newkirk, are under attack by Democrats, “union-pawn liberals on school boards everywhere,” other liberals, leftists, “stupid reporters,” more unions, 9News anchor Kyle Clark, and others.

Kaminsky, who was subbing for KOA’s Mike Rosen, said these types of people are supporting board members like Jill Fellman, whom Kaminsky calls a “leftist.”

Kaminsky: “And by the way, I say [Fellman] is a leftist because the teachers union loves her, and because I went and looked online at her political contributions, and 100% of them are to Democratic candidates in the Colorado Democratic Party.”

As a leftist, I know that donations to the Democratic Party and its candidates are not a good measure of one’s leftyness. The Democratic Party itself would not be called lefty. Would you call Hick a lefty? Bennet? Obama? No. More like centrists. Also, the teacher’s union gives to centrist Democrats as well as progressives.

I asked Kaminsky for a response to this criticism, and he replied:

Kaminsky: I don’t know Jill Fellman is as far left as you or others might be, but between her political contributions and — more importantly — her utter fealty to the teachers union at the expense of children, as well as her opposition to public negotiation of contracts between school districts and teachers unions, she meets my definition of leftist. I realize that to a self-described leftist such as yourself, Ms. Fellman may not quality for that same adjective, though I also think you don’t know exactly where her politics lie. Therefore, I think your criticism is more petty than your usual disagreements with me.

Yesterday, Senate Democrats, including Colorado’s Michael Bennet, introduced a bill that Sen. Cory Gardner should have co-sponsored as well–at least if you believe what Gardner said during last year’s campaign.

Last year, Gardner repeatedly told reporters that oral contraception should be available over the counter — and be covered by insurance policies.

In one one exchange, Fox 31 Denver’s Eli Stokols specifically challenged Gardner to explain how his proposal for over-the-counter birth control could be less expensive than what’s offered to women under Obamacare, which requires insurance companies to provide birth control for free

Stokols: You say it’s cheaper… Politifact says that’s ‘mostly false,’ that under the Affordable Care Act, two-thirds of women get their birth control for free.

Gardner: Well, they’d still be able to find an insurance policy and use their insurance to pay for it. That’s why we need to fix Obamacare.

That’s what the bill introduced by Sen. Patty Murray of Washington would do. It would not only make FDA-approved contraception available over the counter but mandate insurance companies to pay for it, like they’re required to do now.

But Gardner’s bill, introduced last month, simply allows FDA-approved contraception to be sold over the counter–without requiring insurance plans to cover it. Insurance companies could decide to cover the pill out of their love for women. But not likely.

Or, under Gardner’s bill, women could use health savings accounts and flex accounts, if they have them, to buy contraception. But those are savings accounts, set up voluntarily by individuals!  They are not the insurance promised by Gardner repeatedly.

Reporters need to go beyond allowing Gardner to write off these real-life concerns as partisan politics.

As Gardner told The Denver Post yesterday: “It’s unfortunate they have decided to bring partisanship to an issue that could have brought support on Capitol Hill but we are pleased they are following our lead.”

The substantive differences between what Gardner advocated on the campaign trail and what he’s offering women now should be spotlighted by reporters who allegedly love to hold elected officials accountable.

A comparison o f Murray’s birth-control bill versus Gardner’s tells you all you need to know about Gardner’s broken campaign promises.

Last year, then U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner had a nice-sounding proposal: offer birth control over the counter, easy and quick.

But… more expensive, journalists pointed out, because under Obamacare, birth control prescribed by doctors is free. Insurance companies are required to cover it.

Not to worry, replied Gardner. He promised to fix an “obscure provision” in Obamacare and require insurance companies to pay for over-the-counter birth control.

Women should “still be able to find an insurance policy and use their insurance to pay for it,” Gardner told Fox 31 reporter Eli Stokols Sept. 28 (at 15 seconds in the video).  “That’s why we need to fix Obamacare.”

Women “will have an insurance policy that covers it,” Gardner promised a skeptical Stokols.

“We should change Obamacare to make sure that insurance can reimburse for that over-the-counter contraceptive purchase,” Gardner told reporter Lynn Bartels (at 50 seconds in the video) during The Denver Post debate against Democrat Mark Udall. Gardner even attacked Democrats, telling the Denver Post during the campaign: “If Democrats are serious about making oral contraception affordable and accessible,” Gardner wrote, “we can reverse that technical provision [in Obamacare].”

Once elected, however, Gardner didn’t deliver on his promise. He introduced a bill that simply offers incentives to drug companies to gain FDA approval to sell contraception over the counter.

Nothing in the bill mandates that insurance companies would be required to cover birth control that’s sold over the counter. Instead, the bill allows Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Accounts to be used to purchase over-the-counter medications. Those are savings accounts, with tax advantages, that individuals can set up. That’s not anything like insurance coverage.

News coverage of Gardner’s OTC bill has noted that women’s health groups, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have condemned the freshman senator’s proposal as insufficient and expensive for women. Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado’s statement that the bill is a “sham” has been duly noted.

But reporters have yet to spotlight the fact that Gardner did not deliver on the pledge he made during the campaign. The question is, why? Was he lying? Did he change his mind? Did he determine that his original promise was unworkable?

Reporters should find out.

Partial transcript of Sept. 28 Fox 31 interview with Cory Gardner:

Gardner (@ 15 seconds): We ought to talk about access. We ought to increase access to oral contraception. We ought to make it easier, 24-hours-a-day, around the clock availability. That’s why I’ve supported making it available over-the-counter without a prescription. We need to change the provision of Obamacare that would prohibit insurance to be paying for it. That’s an obscure provision. Those are the things we can do to make it easier to access.

Stokols: You say it’s cheaper that way. Politifact says that’s mostly false, that under the Affordable Care Act, two-thirds of women get their birth control for free.

Gardner: Well, they’d still be able to find an insurance policy and use their insurance to pay for it. That’s why we need to fix Obamacare.

Stokols: How though, if you repeal Obamacare, about 27 percent of women, I believe, actually use the pill. So you make the pill available over the counter. Still, about three out of four women use another form of birth control. If you repeal Obamacare, what happens to their coverage?

Gardner: They will have an insurance policy that covers it.

In response to my post yesterday urging reporters to spotlight Mike Coffman’s weak advocacy for immigration reform, Coffman’s spokesman Tyler Sandberg told me via Twitter that “Google is Your Friend,” and directed me to an instance when Coffman said he was “deeply disappointed” with House opposition to a resolution allowing young immigrants to gain citizenship via military service.

Google is my friend, and it confirms my larger point that Coffman does little to promote immigration reform besides create the appearance of seriousness without the much substance at all.

Coffman has expressed disappointment, yes, and I regret writing that he didn’t use the word, but he hasn’t seriously challenged Boehner, who’s arguably been the biggest obstacle to immigration reform in the country.

Where was Coffman’s disappointment when the Senate’s bipartisan immigration legislation, with Marco Rubio’s name on it, died in the House. Coffman didn’t even support a vote on the bipartisan and comprehensive bill, despite Coffman’s public statements in favor of comprehensive immigration reform.

And what did he do instead? Nothing on comprehensive reform, except scrub his website of the phrase “comprehensive immigration reform” and to tell the Aurora Sentinel, “What Boehner has said, and I agree with, is that a comprehensive approach doesn’t have to be a comprehensive bill.”

Coffman’s legislation for young immigrants and his alleged support for a guest worker program fall short of comprehensive reform no matter how you wordsmith it, and they’ve failed, in part, because Coffman goes to a fundraiser with Boehner at the Brown Palace and doesn’t talk about immigration on the same day Coffman’s bill is being killed by Republican leadership in Washington.

Via Twitter, I asked Coffman’s spokesman Sandberg to write a blog post explaining how his boss has pushed Boehner for serious immigration reform–and better yet, to show us how it’s done.

There’s no public record of the kind of effort we’ve seen from Coffman on other issues. Nothing close. Google it.

In an online Denver Post op-ed yesterday, I urged reporters to seek out and interview hiding politicians. I gave some recent Colorado examples, like Rep. Mike Coffman hiding from reporters after he said he wasn’t sure Obama was an American.

On Twitter, former CU regent Tom Lucero told me I left out instances of Democrats hiding from reporters, but he won’t provide me with any examples, saying he doesn’t want to do my “job.”

Too bad because I’d like to see his examples, and I’m sure they exist. But I couldn’t think of many in recent memory (I mentioned Udall)–and my piece focused on Colorado reporting.

In any case, Lucero should join me, because if journalists did this more often, it would benefit all of us. The ambush interview shouldn’t be relegated to showboaters like Bill O’Reilly and consumer reporters, like (mostly) the investigative units at 9News and channel 7.

In my piece, I quoted Eli Stokols, who told the Columbia Journalism Review in March that among Colorado reporters, “There seems to be a reluctance to hold people accountable for policy positions.”

What’s not to like about that suggestion, regardless of where you sit on the partisan spectrum? But how to do it?

One simple way is to not let public officials hide out and avoid answering questions. Journalists should track them down and force them to respond.

For example, State Treasurer Walker Stapleton is under fire for telling conservative radio-host Mike Rosen he did not support a proposed law to bolster Colorado’s public pension program when, in fact, he did support the legislation.

What are some other examples from any politician in Colorado?