If you listened to progressive talk-radio host David Sirota and conservative Michael Brown on the radio, before they were paired up on KHOW’s new afternoon talk show, you know that Brown was explicitly pro-Romney.

But you might not know whether Sirota would vote for Obama at all.

So you wonder, how will this play out on their new show, called the Rundown.

Will Brown be telling listeners to vote for Romney, while Sirota says both candidates are, as Ralph Nader liked to say, tweedle dee and tweedle dum?

If so, who wants to listen that one-sided conversation?  It sounds too much like some bizarre permutation of the conservative love fest you’d hear on the Caplis and Silverman Show, which used to occupy Sirota and Brown’s afternoon slot on 630-AM KHOW (3 – 7 p.m.)

Asked about this via email, Brown, whom President George Bush thought was doing a “heck’ve a job” during the Katrina disaster, wrote:

Brown: “I do plan to vote for Romney and will actively support him. I probably am more enthusiastic about Romney than Sirota is about BHO. But, having said that, we’re not really discussing that issue much on air. My guess is left-leaning listeners might be upset at both of us — me for supporting Romney and David for criticizing BHO.”

Exactlty. Left-leaning listeners like me might get upset and turn off the radio, like I did when Caplis and Silverman piled on Obama. I mean, among other things, it’s boring, even if you don’t love Obama. It’s bad radio.

I asked Sirota how he’d counter Brownie when he starts telling us to vote Romney, or that Romney will do a heck’ve a job as President:

Sirota: “When this show was formulated, one thing that was central was that our show was not going to be agenda radio. It’s not going to be Crossfire. I really take that to heart. It’s not foremost on my mind to convince people to vote for one candidate or another. I’m not enthused about Obama or Romney.”

But, still, I said to Sirota, what if Brownie is sitting next to you telling people to vote for Romney?

“I would ask people to think about how much of a difference there is between Obama and Romney,” Sirota told me. “There are some differences but they are not epic.”

Sirota said that when the issue of Obamacare come up on a recent show, Brownie trashed the legislation but Sirota defended aspects of it, saying he did not like the way it was structured but that “uninsured people will at least be a little better off.”

“I was not a big proponent of Obamacare, but I took general side of the progressive push for universal health care, and he disagreed.”

“One of the things we are trying to do,” Sirota continued, “is to remove the issues from the candidates themselves, and talk about the bigger issues.”

“The only way to reach a broad audience of listeners is to get to the bigger, more universal issues. That’s one of the reasons the presidential race won’t be a big part of our show.”

“The people aren’t interested in the minutia,” Sirota said.

It’s true that issues inspire and motivate people more than the horse race, and usually more than candidates.

But if Brownie is holding forth about how we should vote Obama out, I’m hoping Sirota will tell us who he’s going to vote for and why, even if he thinks the difference is small. It will make for a better radio show.

UDATE 8-8-12 Independent candidate Tisha Casida released the following statement last night on the decision by Adams State University’s Veterans Group not to include her in tonight’s debate featuring candidates for Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District:

I am surprised by the actions of the Adams State University Veterans Club to invite Sal Pace (D) and Scott Tipton (R) to the debate at Adams State University (ASU) and ignore my candidacy for Colorado’s third congressional district as an independent.

I represent a group of people who are dissatisfied with what both political parties are doing about these important issues; and being a woman who has had a husband in war is an entirely different perspective than what either Pace or Tipton will ever be able to speak to.

——————-

UPDATE: Cory Diss, the President of the Adams State Veterans Group, which is the organization sponsoring the Pace-Tiption debate, explains why Casida was excluded:

I would like to start off by telling you a little bit about our group.  We are a group of student veterans who formed a recognized ASU student club, the  Adams State Veterans Group about a year ago.  Since becoming a club we have been working with our representatives, the community, and the college to help veterans with some of the major issues that veterans face in our rural community.  As a new club our membership, resources, and public awareness of our group are very limited, however, we continue to bring results to help better serve all veterans.  This debate was organize completely by our group and the committee that headed up this venture was Matthew Martinez and myself.  The idea to do a debate came about through the work that the group has been doing with our representatives.  With the upcoming election we decided to try an organize a series of debates with our congressional candidates, and local state reps candidates to help veterans, students, and our community become more educated about the issues that our nation is facing.  It was the decision of our group to only include the two major party candidates for our debates.  We made this decision for several different reasons.  The first and foremost reason was the difficulties our group would have accommodating every candidate that decided to run with our limited resources.  Moreover, we had to consider the amount of time we had in the debate to get a fair amount of questions and answers in, with more than the two candidates it would cut down the amount of questions being ask significantly.  We also had to take into account ASU’s policy for inviting political figures in, this policy requires we invite both major parties of those running for offices.  By limiting our venue to only the two main party candidates we address all of these issues.  Lastly, it would be unfair to invite a candidate who is currently not on the ballot and would open the door for other write in candidates to ask the same question.  At  the end of the day this will be the first congressional debate that has taken place in the San Luis Valley and it will be held by a our group which is a non-partisan group.  We have a very hardworking dedicated group of veterans and students involved with the Adams State Veterans Group and we hope that this debate will be beneficial for our club and the community and would hate to see it get tarnished by a decision that was made to try and make this a fair and worthy event.

Independent congressional candidate Tisha Casida has yet to be invited to a debate at Adams State University featuring Democrat Sal Pace and Republican Scott Tipton.

The debate, which will be the first in the race for the 3rd congressional district, will take place Aug. 8, according to a tweet today by Durango Herald reporter Joe Hanel, which did not indicate if Casida was included. Hence this blog post.

The event is being organized by the Adams State University Veterans Club, a student group, according to a University spokesperson.

An email to the club was not immediately returned.

“We haven’t heard anything about that,” said Casida when asked if she was invited to the event. “We’ll have our volunteers and supporters call them and see if we can be a part of it.”

Casida has so far not been invited to participate in the two debates that incumbent Scott Tiption has agreed to attend with Pace: one in Grand Junction, sponsored by Club 20, and another in Pueblo, sponsored by the Pueblo Chieftain.

Tipton told The Denver Post that he will participate in other debates, time permitting.

Pace and Casida have both agreed to debates at Fort Lewis College Oct. 11 and in Aspen in the fall (no date has been set), according to Casida.

“The latest we heard is that Tipton has not confirmed his presence at either of those,” Casida told me.

Casida turned in signatures to qualify for the ballot a couple weeks ago, and she said she’s confident she’ll meet the ballot qualifications by the Aug. 13 deadline.

“We’re pounding the pavement and meeting with groups,” Casida told me, adding that 2004 Libertarian Presidential candidate Michael Badnarik will be coming to Colorado to help her campaign during the final 100 days.

But nothing she does will convince “some people in the Republican Party” that she’s a legitimate candidate.

“No matter what you do, [Republican State Chair Ryan Call] is going to continue to dismiss us,” she said. “But the majority of people we reach, we win over, because we are honest and transparent. We have a lot of hungry people who want what we offer.”

“We’d love to be included in the debate,” said Casida. “But if they decide not to, it’s a free country.”

You may recall that Steve Kelley, host of KNUS radio’s morning drive-time show, got really pissed at Rep. Mike Coffman, after Coffman refused to appear on Kelley’s show and explain why, among other things, he felt the need to (sort of) apologize for saying Obama isn’t an American in his heart.

Coffman ignored Kelley’s interview requests, and eventually Kelley said he didn’t want Coffman on his show anymore, unless he answered questions about his birther moment and explained why he ducked Kelley. I explained all this in a previous blog post.

But Coffman was on Kelley’s show Friday, talking about the Aurora shootings.

I figured that, in light of the horror at the theater, Kelley had made a one-time exception to his promise not to let Coffman off the hook on his birther comments, and this turned out to be correct.

“I suspended it,” Kelley told me, regarding his Coffman ban.

“Bill, my sports guy, was angry with me. How could I back down? But 58 people had been wounded and 12 were dead. What am I going to do?

“When we’re talking politics again, there will be no conditions set. Period. No questions will be off limits. Not that any conditions were set this time. I could have ambushed him, but I didn’t think it would have been appropriate.”

Kelley obviously did the right thing here.

But I’m hoping Kelley, and any other media types who interview Coffman, insist on getting his personal cell phone number, so they can find him if he refuses to talk about topics that fall someday into Coffman’s  “I-stand-by-my-statement-that-I-misspoke-and-I-apologize” category.

Conservative talk-radio hosts aren’t warming to the idea of tightening gun-control laws in the wake of Friday’s Aurora shooting.

Some are saying that Cinemark’s reported gun-free-zone policy, banning movie goers from carrying concealed weapons, could be responsible for the deaths of some of those killed at the theater.

For example, Sunday night on KOA, Bill Cunningham, talking to a national audience from his home radio station in Ohio, offered the view that the “movie theaters should reconsider having signs up telling permit holders not to carry on their premises. If there were five or six permit holders in there firing back at James Holmes, maybe lives could have been saved….”

Bill Cunningham (speaking to a caller who identified himself as someone who carries a concealed gun): Guys like you should be considered an extension of law enforcement. Cops can’t be everywhere. So there’s guys like you to help cops do their job… There are hundreds and hundreds of crimes thwarted each year by permit holders. And I would think, if there were permit holders permitted in that theater early Friday morning, there’s a chance that all the victims of James Holmes would not have been killed. And none of us should consider the cries of liberal democrats to do something more with restrictive gun laws as necessary… AMC movie theaters should reconsider having signs up telling permit holders not to carry on their premises. If there were five or six permit holders in there firing back at James Holmes, maybe lives could have been saved…

The other thing is, [the shooter] had no vest below his navel. He could have been gut shot. He could have had a leg shot off. He could have had an arm shot off, in which case he would have stopped.

On KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado Friday, fewer than 24 hours after the shooting, host Ken Clark said that he’d “bet money” that the Aurora shooting would lead to a campaign by Obama for the United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

Clark: “I will bet money that the [Obama] Administration uses this to justify the UN Small Arms Treaty, because that is gun control, and that’s coming after each and every one of us.  And as Dick Morris was so – the way he pointed it out on Grassroots Radio Colorado, if Obama signs that or Hillary Clinton as his surrogate, it will become the law of the land.”

On the radio, the news media also comes up as an advocate for gun control, post shooting. Monday morning, former Larimer County Republican Chair and KFKA morning talk-show host Tom Lucero, told his listeners that the media is “interjecting themselves into the stories and advocating gun control,” and it’s “fun to watch” the hysteria coming from the media.

Tom Lucero: I don’t know how much of this you caught, whether it’s on radio or TV or in print. The media is interjecting themselves into the stories and advocating for gun control. The predictable politicians, Diane Feinstein was on Fox this weekend calling for an extension of the assault weapons ban, because it had sunset. And so here we are right in the middle of another gun-control debate. It’s fun to watch. You can pull out the playbook and predictably turn from page to page and see the hysteria that’s going to come from media and politicians.

To their credit, local conservative talkers on some shows have, to some degree, held back in talking too much, with too much anger, about gun control and the political aspects of the shooting. This undoubtedly won’t continue as the story’s focus shifts, which is good thing, because the conservative views on gun control should be aired out.

In a blog post yesterday, I offered some fresh examples of how, when Scott Gessler is on right-wing radio, he often sounds just like the right-wing radio host, bashing Democrats.

That’s not good, if you’re the Secretary of State, because you’re supposed to be above the partisan fray, at least somewhat, so that people trust our election system.

In my example yesterday, from Gessler’s recent appearance on KOA’s Mike Rosen Show, Gessler said it’s “the left’s common tactic just to scream voter intimidation whenever anything comes up they don’t like.”

Gessler: “I mean if you look back, back in 2004, you know, the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign actually published a Colorado election-day manual, and in that, they specifically said, if no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a preemptive strike. And they go through a whole list of things where the Democrats are supposed to launch a preemptive strike, accusing Republicans of intimidation, rounding up minority people. And that’s their word. It says, quote minority leadership denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting. So it’s really sort of a cynical way for the Democrats to try and rile up, and I should say the left as well, to rile up their base by making these accusations whether or not there are any facts to support it.”

I should have taken the time to see if Gessler had his facts right about the Kerry-Edwards campaign manual, but I’m grateful that Tom,  a commentator on ColoradoPols, looked it up for me.

Here’s an excerpt from it, as provided by the Democratic National Comittee, and it shows that, far from proving Gessler’s point that the left screams “voter intimidation whenever anything comes up they don’t like,” Democrats were simply preparing intelligently for possible voter intimidation:

II. HOW TO ORGANIZE TO PREVENT AND COMBAT VOTER INTIMIDATION The best way to combat minority voter intimidation tactics is to prevent them from occurring in the first place and prepare in advance to deal with them should they take place on election day.

1. If there are any signs of present or expected intimidation activity, in advance of election day, launch a press program that might include the following elements:

[The document continues with a list of suggestions, which you can read if you’re interested.]

On ColoradoPols, Tom offered this comment:

The manual in question was excerpted by Drudge in 2004. The DNC released a more complete excerpt indicating that the “pre-emptive strike” was to get information out to let potentially disenfranchised voters know what to look out for, especially in states with a history of voter intimidation and disenfranchisement.

It’s not surprising that Colorado had such a thing in the field since Donetta Davidson was letting fly with a stream of sketchy shit, including a big voter purge, inconsistent application of voting rules across counties and the wonky implementation of new voting machines. Even the Guardian newspaper covered our little doings. http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…

Actually, a pre-emptive strike to counter voter disenfranchisement sounds like something that would be useful this year in a number of states.

I couldn’t find a current copy of the DNC document, but here’s a 2004 wayback machine link http://web.archive.org/web/200…

Bottom line: it’s bad enough for a Secretary of State to throw out partisan salvos, as if he were Mike Rosen. But when his partisan attacks are also completely misleading or outright wrong, it’s even worse. And Rosen should let his listeners know about it.

As Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s term drags on, you’d think even the stomachs of conservatives like KOA’s Mike Rosen would turn when Gessler re-launches the partisan attacks he’s been on about since day one in office.

Maybe you wouldn’t expect Rosen to be sick of it, but everyone else, yes?

It’s almost laughable to suggest again that Gessler should take his office seriously and start sounding like our state’s top election official, instead of like a Republican attack dog, because no one expects Gessler to change his ways at this point.

But still, his partisan rhetoric is, to use an over-used word in political commentary, unacceptable, and even the likes of Rosen should call him on it.

For example, on Rosen’s show last week, Rosen read Gessler a Denver Post quote from Joanne Kron Schwartz, the Director of the progressive group ProgressNow, saying that Gessler’s attempt to find noncitizens on the voter rolls could intimidate some eligible voters, particularly Latinos, and result in their not voting.

A Secretary of State in his right mind, who wants people to have faith in elections, would answer Schwartz’s reasonable objection with a fact-based response, sticking to his lines about how the voting rolls must be scrutinized.

But Gessler’s immediate response sounds like something Rush Limbaugh might blast out.

“Unfortunately this is part of the left’s common tactic,” Gessler told Rosen, “just to scream voter intimidation whenever anything comes up they don’t like.”

Let me just say, I’m part of the left and I don’t scream voter intimidation “whenever anything comes up” that I don’t like. I never scream it at my 15-year-old son, for example, when he leaves a pig-pen-like trail of debris around the house.

Maybe Gessler means to say that the left is too concerned about voter intimidation.

But why would you expect a person with Gessler’s job title to stick to a measured response?

Gessler’s un-statesmanship continued, with Rosen’s approval:

Gessler: “I mean if you look back, back in 2004, you know, the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign actually published a Colorado election-day manual, and in that, they specifically said, if no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a preemptive strike. And they go through a whole list of things where the Democrats are supposed to launch a preemptive strike, accusing Republicans of intimidation, rounding up minority people. And that’s their word. It says, quote minority leadership denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting. So it’s really sort of a cynical way for the Democrats to try and rile up, and I should say the left as well, to rile up their base by making these accusations whether or not there are any facts to support it.”

Even if you accept Gessler’s facts about the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and why should you, do you really want your secretary of state to dismiss a historically legitimate concern about voter intimidation by accusing Democrats of cynically riling up their base?

It’s this sort of brazen partisanship that, at the end of the day, is Gessler’s core downfall as Secretary of State, epitomized in Gessler’s quote to the Greeley Tribune about his job: “You’re here to do something, to further the conservative viewpoint.”

We can disagree with his loose-with-the-facts style, and priorities, but his sullying of the office is what kills me most—and should even kill a civic-minded guy like Rosen.

“You have to sort of wonder at the motivations,” Gessler said later in the interview, speculating about the evil leftists that seem to haunt him. “I think a lot of times, what they are trying to do is play the race card, play the disenfranchisement card, and use it as a political talking point to rile up their base.”

Thanks, Rush Gessler.

If you’ve been listening to President Obama lately, you know he talks a lot about Americans helping each other out, having each other’s backs, and creating opportunity for those who deserve it.

This obviously contrasts with the themes you hear a lot from conservatives, who are all about going it alone, and it’s not clear what happens if you go down, even for a little while. Someone might pick up the lifeline and help you out, if you’re in trouble, but god forbid it’s the governement.

One of many conservative talk show hosts in Colorado who sings this tune is Michael heck’ve-a-job Brownie, whose new radio show (with progressive David Sirota) starts today on KHOW during the slot formerly occupied by Caplis and Silverman.

Here’s an example of Brownie’s right-wing messaging in action, from his Feb. 28 KOA show, and it’s an excellent sample of the conservative message machine in action.

Brownie begins below by reading a reading a quote from an Obama speech:

“America is about all being in it together, about giving people a hand up. When our assembly lines grind to a halt, we work together to get them going again. And when someone else falters, we give them a hand up because we are all in it together.”

[Brownie’s analysis begins:] And we’re not all in it together…. I’d like to be the guy who took down Limbaugh… because if I don’t have that desire to grow and get better and do the very best I can, I’m wasting your time…And in terms of giving people a hand up, what’s the difference between giving people a hand up or a hand down?…

[Another Obama quote:] “The idea that we are all in it togetether and that I’m my brother’s keeper ad my sister’s keeper, that’s a value,” said Obama.

[Brownie’s analysis:] Yes, I would agree Mr. President. But the problem is, when you say the idea that we are all in it together and that I’m my brother’s keeper, you literally mean you, the government, the presidency. ..

I absolutely and unequivically disagree with that value. I, individually, am my other individual’s brother keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. I am my neighbor’s keeper. You, the government, are not my keeper….

Listen here: Why Brownie thinks we’re not all in it together 2-28-12 KOA

On KHOW 630-AM, starting at 3 p.m. today, Sirota will be the counterpoint to Brownie.

He’ll undoubtedly do it better than Craig Silverman ever did, because Silverman leaned right himself.

But whether he wins the hot-air-fest against Brownie or not, to survive in this time slot on KHOW, Sirota will need progressives to listen and call in.

On his KOA radio show yesterday (June 11), Mike Rosen asked Secretary of State Scott Gessler about a paragraph toward the end of a  July 10 Denver Post article about Gessler’s efforts to get the Department of Homeland Security review lists of voters.

Rosen read the following sentence from The Denver Post:

“The state has also identified 430 people who contacted Gessler’s or their local county elections office, and asked to be removed from the voter registration list because they are not citizens.”

Then Rosen and Gessler had this exchange:

Gessler: “Well, let me tell you exactly what’s going on. There’s a little bit of a misquote there. We’ve got 430 people statewide over the last several years who either, when they filled out a voter-registration form said, I am not a citizen, and some of them, many of them, were erroneously registered to vote.”

Rosen: They checked the wrong box when they filled out the form?

Gessler: Well, there’s a question as to whether they checked the wrong box or the right box. I think a lot of people are being truthful. They are saying they are not a citizen but they think they have the right to vote, which they don’t. Or they actually wrote us, and there are a lot of people who wrote us. And I say ‘us,’ the state, one of the clerks and recorders or someone like that, and said, please remove me from the voting rolls. I am not a citizen… They were not on the voting rolls. We’ve taken those people off.

Gessler is saying there’s an incorrect statement in The Post, and it appears to come from Gessler spokesman Rich Coolidge, that 430 people contacted the state and asked to be removed from the voter rolls.

What’s the correct figure? He doesn’t appear to know, and that’s what media types need to keep in mind when Gessler makes any numerical utterance.

It’s been fun to watch politicos jumping up and down to catch the attention of  Hispanic media outlets, when there was a time not long ago when such outlets were ignored and ignored again.

Hence, in May, President Obama made what appears to be the first appearance by a U.S. President on Spanish-language radio in Colorado. He spent 20 minutes answering questions from host Fernando Sergio on “La Voz del Pueblo,” which airs weekdays KBNO-1280 AM.

In telling the story of Obama’s appearance on KBNO, I reported that, not to be outdone, Colorado GOP Chair Ryan Call had promised Sergio that Mitt Romney would make not one but two appearances on La Voz Del Pueblo, prior to the November election.

Sergio told me at the time that no dates had been set for the Romney appearances, but Call had promised that he’d get Romney on his show. “The doors are wide open,” Sergio said. “We will be as respectful with Governor Romney as we were with the President.”

Now Call has told Sergio that there was a misunderstanding, and Call was promising to make himself (that would be Ryan Call) available for two interviews, not Romney, according to Sergio.

Now, Ryan Call can give a decent interview, and he even Speaks Spanish, but, let’s face it, most reporters can’t stop turning to bygone Dick Wadhams for comments on GOP matters. In any case, Call is no Mitt Romney.

Sergio says that Call has assured him that Call, as well as Romney campaign staff, will still do their best to land Romney. But there’s no promise.

In response to an email query, Sergio wrote me:

After you wrote the article related to my interview with President Obama, Ryan told me that he never implied that Mr. Romney would be a guest of mine. Rather, he was making himself available to be interviewed and that he would do his best to help me land Romney. I have been in touch with Yohana de la Torre, who works for the Romney campaign, and she also promised to try to schedule an interview with the Governor.

Thus, my cordial conversations with Ryan and Yohana have led me to understand that both will try to encourage the Romney campaign to look into scheduling an interview with me, but there are no guarantees.

To put this situation in perspective, you should know that Romney has already appeared on most of the major talk radio stations in Denver this year.

He’s been on KOA Morning News once in May and again in June.

In February, Romney took time from his busy schedule in Colorado to be on KOA’s Mike Rosen Show, KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman Show, as well as Steamboat Springs’ syndicated Cari and Rob Show (now, like Caplis and Silverman, defunct, though Romney undoubtedly didn’t contribute to the downfall of these shows).

And I could easily have missed a few radio shows that Romney was on.

So if I’m Sergio at KBNO, I’d be expecting a visit from Romney soon, or I might get pissed off, if I’m not already feeling jerked around.

Talking to KHOW’s Peter Boyles June 5, state Senate candidate John Sampson said it was unfortunate that a Georgia judge decided not to scratch Obama’s name from Georgia’s presidential ballot for the upcoming election.

Sampson said the judge should have issued a default decision against Obama for failing to appear in court in person to defend himself in a case brought by some of America’s five-star birthers (though Boyles not among them).

Yet Sampson was on KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado July 5 saying he had no position on Obama’s eligibility, even though he previously said he thought Obama’s  name should be off the Georgia ballot and he was hired by the birthers to testify against Obama.

Sampson told KLZ he was hired by the birthers to testify; he was an expert witness with no opinion. He described his court testimony this way:

Sampson: “I did the Joe Friday routine, ‘it’s just the facts, ma’am.’ There was no opinion in that. I was asked to do a job. I did a job. And regardless of what people think, or what their opinions are, it doesn’t change the facts.”

All Sampson knows, he said, is that:

“Sampson: Mr. Obama is using his social security number that was issued to somebody residing in Connecticut in March of 1977. And there is no connection ever documented between Mr. Obama and the state of Connecticut. So, the question is, how did it come to pass that he’s using that number?”

Snopes and others have debunked Sampson’s claim, and Worley should ask Sampson about the facts.

But who could possibly believe Sampson’s claim that he’s all about the facts on Obama’s SS number, and he has no opinion on Obama’s eligibility, especially when Sampson stated his opinion on a previous radio show, claiming Obama should be, shall we say, purged, from the Georgia ballot?

I’m hoping Worley delves into this next time he sits down with Sampson.