On 9News’ “Balance of Power” show Saturday, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez confirmed his continued support for a federal personhood law but said he doesn’t support a state personhood amendment.

In so doing, Beauprez aligned himself with U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner, who’s withdrawn his support for a personhood amendment in Colorado but is still a co-sponsor of federal personhood legislation.

The simple question reporters should ask both these candidates is, “What’s the difference?” The simple fact is, there is no difference.

If either were passed, the impact in Colorado would be identical: a total ban on abortion, even in cases of rape and incest, as well as an end to the legal sale of some forms of contraception. That’s what happens, among other things, when you give fertilized eggs (otherwise known as zygotes) legal rights.

But this fact didn’t stop Beauprez from telling 9News’ Political Reporter Brandon Rittiman Saturday that “we have to draw the line” at a state personhood “amendment.”

Rittiman: Early on in the primary, Democrats pushed back on you for supporting, while you were in Congress, a federal version of personhood. And you’re admittedly a pro-life guy. How do you reach out to a middle-ground female voter who feels that this is her rights that you’re messing with?

Beauprez: “Well, let’s be very clear. I am a pro-life Catholic. I voted that way. I’ve got a pro-life voting record. I believe that life begins at conception. But I also believe, as does my good friend and my Archbishop, who used to be in Denver, Archbishop Charles Chaput… [who said] a “The personhood amendment, and that’s where we have to draw the line, the personhood amendment might have identified the right issue, but the very wrong solution”

Back in March, Rittiman asked Beauprez if he ever supported personhood, which would ban all abortion in Colorado.

Beauprez: “No. I got a hundred percent pro-life voting record, as you probably know, so I’m very much pro-life. But personhood as my dear friend and my Archbishop Charles Chaput, our previous archbishop here in Denver, said ‘that’s not the way to do it.”

After critics pointed out that Beauprez supported federal personhood legislation in 2005, Rittiman followed up by asking the Beauprez campaign about it. Beauprez’s spokesman told Rittiman that Beauprez stood behind his answer.

As Rittiman reported, “[Beauprez’s spokesman Dustin Olson] says [Beauprez’s] answer to 9NEWS was meant to convey that he has not supported it at the state level.”

The question left hanging is, why would Beauprez (and Gardner) support personhood at the federal level but oppose it in Colorado when the results here would be the same?

The response to El Paso Sheriff Terry Maketa’s troubles shows off talk-radio’s ability to surprise and entertain.

Here are some thoughts on Maketa’s situation aired on just one show, KVOR’s (CO Springs) Jeff Crank show on May 31, shortly after the photo of the shirtless Sheriff surfaced along with allegations of sexual misconduct.

In the first clip, Crank, a former Republican congressional candidate, says, “We can’t be hypocrites” about the impropriety alleged of Maketa, who was considered a star on the Republican bench. Crank reminds callers what they thought about Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky allegations, and calls for consistency.

Below, caller Karen (staunch Republican) used to support Maketa as a future CO governor. But she’s offended by previous caller Steve, and by Maketa’s betrayal of trust, and doesn’t believe that Maketa can lead effectively. Karen believes that the Sheriff’s office was bullying Deputy Porter in its investigation of Sheriff Maketa’s action.

Below, the term limits fight from El Paso County’s past spills over into the Maketa scandal. Maketa is in his third term. Crank has been a personal friend of Terry Maketa for years, but one time Maketa was angry with Crank and made it personal. For Maketa, it’s about making money, he says.

Below, caller Ron can’t believe the stupidity, confusion, and ignorance of voters around changing the term limits in El Paso County. On Maketa, Ron jokes “at least he’s a heterosexual” and believes that Maketa should get a pass on this scandal because of his stand on 2nd Amendment rights, and besides, the mores and norm have shifted since the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. He says the rules have changed and Democrats are beating the Republicans in the new game.

Below, Undersheriff Terry Goodall, who’s pushing the Maketa recall effort, talks about Maketa’s transformation over the past several years, and estimates support for the sheriff at 1% from within the Sheriff’s office.

Below, Undersheriffs talk about holding Sheriff Terry Maketa accountable for his misbehavior in the Sheriff’s office. Terry and Larry both reject their former friendship with Terry Maketa.

Ted Haggard, the was forced out of New Life Church in CO after a drug and sex scandal, told a TV news show that he doesn’t think Terry Maketa should resign, because he’d be surrendering his here-to-fore spotless legacy. In this final clip, Jeff Crank disagrees. He worries about the political liabilities and financial implications for taxpayers.

Talk-radio hosts like to think of themselves as a voice of the people, because anyone can call in (and get slapped around, if you’re on the wrong show). But there’s some truth to the notion that talk radio can give average people a platform.

So you hate to see a guy like KNUS’ Peter Boyles undermine Democracy by encouraging voter fraud, like he did last year on air.

And then there’s KHOW 630-AM’s Mandy Connell, who wants to “block the vote” instead of “rock the vote.”

“Maybe we could tell the dumb people that the election has been moved to a different day,” she said earlier this year.

Here’s what Connell had to say, contrasted with a vision of voter participation from a different speaker, whom you’ll like much more.

The group of people most attacked on talk radio is, of course, the Muslims. Next comes gays and Hispanics, followed by women. Proof? You have to trust my judgment, based on many happy years of listening.

Some conservative shows are respectful of all people, because, contrary to popular belief among progressives, not all conservative radio shows are the same.

But some get ugly, as they did when Michael Sam was drafted into the NFL.

In honor of Pride, BigMedia.org discovered how much NFL draftees like to kiss! Like Michael Sam does! And it’s not just the athletes who do the kissing at sporting events.

In the video below,  set to obnoxious comments by KNUS 710-AM talker Bill Rogan and guest host Krista Kafer, see else is kissing each other. It might be YOU.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG03uiC3ryI

I can tell you I’ve heard plenty of love for vouchers on conservative talk radio. I can also tell you I rarely hear a grain of sand fall in opposition.

Typical of the unchallenged statements is the one below, from State Senate candidate Laura Woods from KLZ 560-AM’s Wake Up with Randy Corporon June 2. Waters is fighting Lang Sias in a State Senate primary Tuesday to take on Democrat Rachel Zenzinger.

State Senate Candidate Laura Woods: I am a believer in empowering teachers. I want teachers to be empowered to use the skills that they’ve been given to teach our kids, and mold and shape creative geniuses to come out of our schools. For that to happen, we need to get Common Core out of our schools. I’m in favor of parental choice where school is concerned. I would be very much in favor of a voucher system for schools. And I would support private school, home school, charter school, public school, across the board, evenly, so that parents have the choice in whatever they choose, their kids get the best education possible.

Listen to Laura Woods on KLZ 6.2.14

Her words flow over the airwaves free from any resistance from critical thought.

Here’s a Politico article that Corporon can save in his pocket and pull out next time he has Woods or another voucher lover on his show. Titled, “Vouchers Don’t Do Much for Students,” the article provides a good national glimpse at the problems with vouchers.

But behind the outrage is an inconvenient truth: Taxpayers across the U.S. will soon be spending $1 billion a year to help families pay private school tuition — and there’s little evidence that the investment yields academic gains.

Last month, Univision Denver’s news show requested an interview with Republican Mike Coffman to get his reaction to Democrat Andrew Romanoff’s accusation that Coffman’s immigration policies reflect those of former Congressman Tom Tancredo. Coffman sent his spokesman, Tyler Sandberg, to talk to Univision, and here’s an excerpt from the piece that aired.

Univision reporter Karen Vega: … We asked if, in reality, Coffman shared the anti-immigrant opinions and practices of his predecessor, the former Congressman and current state gubernatorial candidate, Tom Tancredo.

Sandberg: Absolutely not. On the issue of immigration, Tom Tancredo and Mike Coffman represent two different extremes of the Republican Party. As such, with all respect to Tom Tancredo, Mike Coffman does not have the same anti-immigrant policies.

Left out was a reference to Romanoff’s point that Coffman introduced Tom Tancredo as his “hero”at a 2010 Tea Party Rally:

Coffman: “It is a great honor for me to introduce somebody who is my hero, someone who has served this country with honor and integrity and courage… and that is former Congressman Tom Tancredo.”

What’s more, Coffman endorsed Tancredo in the 2010 gubernatorial election. (And vice versa here.) Apparently aware of this, Vega asked Sandberg about the “admiration that Coffman supposedly has for Republican Tom Tancredo.” Sandberg replied to Vega by saying that Coffman respects Tancredo for his views on economic issues and not at all for his views on immigration. Too bad Vega didn’t have this video of Coffman’s introduction of Tancredo in 2010, when Coffman offered hero-like praise for Tancredo’s extreme opposition to Republican-led immigration reform in 2006.

Coffman: “In 2006, I was a disillusioned Republican because of what was going on in Washington DC when Republicans had the White House, when Republicans had the House and the Senate, and they ceased to govern by the conservative principles that they ran on. But there was one Republican in Washington who refused to stand with them, who stood on the same conservative principles that he ran on, and that was Tom Tancredo. When Republicans in the Congress ceased to govern by the values that got them elected, when the Republican President of the United States, with the Republican leadership and their Democrat allies, came up with a so-called immigration reform bill that did nothing to secure the borders of the United States and provided amnesty for those who had broken our law, Tom Tancredo refused to stand with those Republicans.”

If Coffman, or more likely his spokesman, appears again on Univision, let’s hope he gets time to explain why he thinks his boss is so far apart from Tancredo’s immigration positions, when in fact they share both an anti-immigrant record and fighter’s posture on the issue.

CORRECTION: A early version of this post incorrectly stated that the piece aired on Telemundo Denver.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Super PAC has launched a radio ad calling GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez “Both Ways Bob” for voting both ways on gun legislation.

On her morning show this morning, KHOW’s Mandy Connell was apparently the first media figure to question Beauprez about the ad’s allegation that he supported Amendment 22, which required background checks at gun shows, Beauprez said:

Beauprez: 12:20: “Mandy, this attack from [RMGO President] Dudley [Brown] is far too familiar. And let me emphasize Dudley… Dudley is in it for Dudley. What’s going on right now is Dudley is sending out an ad attacking me. This is Saul-Alinsky-like. You gotta have an enemy in a political fight. Dudley likes to name me as the enemy. He’ll throw in a little bit of money. And I’ll emphasize a little bit, because this is not a very big ad buy. He’ll throw a little bit of money at me, and then he’ll wave it as a red flag to his members and say, ‘Hey look! I went and got the bad guy, and send me your dough.” Dudley will get a big net profit out of this, as he always does off of the kinds of projects he does. It’s all about Dudley and lining his pocket.”

Beauprez went on to acknowledge his support of Amendment 22, “in the post-Columbine era,” but said his endorsements and subsequent actions show he is  pro-gun through and through.

Connell also asked Beauprez about about RMGO’s allegation that Beauprez “voted for mandatory trigger locks and a ban on traditional ammunition in Congress.”

Beauprez: “That is a brand new call to me. I can’t deny that because I don’t know what piece of legislation something might have been wrapped into that was rotten legislation to begin with.”

Connell’s questions were direct and substantive, covering not only guns but pot, immigration, and other topics.

It’s hard to miss this warning sign posted by the door as you enter the district office of Rep. Mike Coffman on South Parker Road.

“The use of video recording devices, still cameras or digital recorders are NOT permitted inside the office.”

You’d think this sign would insult reporters who stand for free, open, and on-the-record communications between peasants and their elected representatives. Not only that, if you take the sign seriously, even reporters visiting Coffman’s office could record neither peep nor pushup from Coffman.

I asked Tom Kelley, longtime Denver media attorney and partner at Levine Sullivan Koch & Schultz, about the sign:

“Assuming he welcomes journalists in the office to meet with the Congressman, why is he barring them from showing the public in real time what actually is going on there?” asked Kelley. “I think it’s bad policy. It suggests that there’s something to hide inside that office. If he would bar disruptive behavior or something like that, it would be different. But clearly his intent is to prevent being embarrassed, which he’s had some experience with recently over the gaffe on the President’s citizenship. It’s hard not to wonder if this isn’t in response to that. All of which doesn’t speak well of the Congressman’s willingness to be transparent and accountable.

“I would hope that he or any Congressman on either side of the aisle would reconsider,” said Kelley, adding that if someone were to take Coffman to court to force him to allow recording devices in the office, he or she would likely lose.

Journalists aside, you wonder what Coffman would say to the Aurora elementary school kids who might stop in for a visit and want a photo with their Congressman?

Drew Kerin, a staffer at Coffman’s Aurora office, told me that the policy of banning recording devices came at the “strong recommendation” of the U.S. Capitol Police. Kerin added that he personally spoke to the U.S. Capitol Police about the matter.

After speaking with Kerin, I requested information on the U.S. Capitol Police’s recommendations on recording devices. I’ll update this blog when I hear back.

To be fair, other congressional offices may sometimes ask visitors to restrict the use of recording devices, depending on the circumstances. But in a limited survey, I couldn’t find any that totally bans them, like Coffman does.

The photo immediately below was taken this month at Coffman’s office. The other one was shot in December.

A candidate’s religious or godless beliefs are too often ignored by the dwindling press, so we should be grateful to the radio hosts on KLZ AM-560 for giving candidates the chance to talk openly about how religion guides their lives and decisions.

I mean, it’s a public service to know that State Senate candidate Laura Woods, who’s running for the seat currently occupied by Democrat Rachel Zenzinger,  will look narrowly to the Constitution and the Bible to guide her if she’s elected. And that God directs Woods in a “real sense.”

Conservative talk radio is apparently seen by candidates as a safe and comfortable place to talk openly about God, and it’s a public service for all of us to hear the religious discussions that bless the airwaves there.

I previously reported on gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo’s belief, as stated on talk radio, that God has a plan for him. Woods offered her thoughts on the topic on two recent shows.

On his nooner show on KLZ 560-AM, called “Freedom 560,” Ken Clark had this discussion with Woods on June 4:

Clark: Yeah. So, let’s talk about your candidacy. What is the platform that you’re running on?

Woods: I’m running on a liberty platform. That’s who I am. I believe in the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, the declaration of independence. And I will stand with those documents every day I’m in office. The Constitution and the Bible will be the two books that I use to govern me in doing that job. So that’s Constitutional conservative, smaller government, lower taxes, conservative.

Listen to Woods on KLZ’s Freedom 560 with Ken Clark 6.4.14

Two days before talking to Clark, in a conversation with righty Randy Corporon on KLZ’s morning show, Woods (who formerly called herself Laura Waters) revealed more about how religion affects her political life:

Corporon: So, let’s talk about you and why you threw your hat into this ring.

Woods: Well, thank you. I decided to get into this race in December, because I sat down with my primary opponent [Lang Sias] for lunch. And I didn’t feel like he was conservative enough to represent this district and to fight for this seat that we had just opened up. Plus, also, when I asked him the question, “Do you want to be our Senator?”, I couldn’t get a straight answer to that question. So, we left that meeting – my husband and I–not really clear if he wanted the job. It’s December. County assemblies are in March. We just started praying about, you know, somebody has got to be in this seat. And I had had people suggest to me it should be me. It was the furthest thing from my mind at the time. But, as we were looking for closed doors, doors kept opening and it just became clear that I wasn’t stepping out to do this on my own. This was God directing me to do it in a real sense. And so I got into the race in early January. And then my primary opponent got into the race after I did — about ten days, two weeks after I did.

Corporon: Oh, very, very interesting. So, when he realized that there was going to be competition, somehow, he decided to step up and jump in.

Listen to Woods on KLZ Wake Up with Randy Corporon! show 6.2.14

I’ve got nothing against anyone who turns to religion or God to guide their lives. And I’ve got nothing against people who turn to godless reason. But regardless, media figures like the hosts at KLZ are doing us a favor when they provide a platform for discussion of how candidates make decisions. Voters should know.

An Associated Press article last week reported on the clashes between Sen. Mark Udall and his Republican opponent, Rep. Cory Gardner, on immigration issues. The AP piece, by Nicholas Riccardi, not only presents the two candidates’ current positions on the topic but also adds info about what the one of the  candidates is not saying.

Gardner last week said that he did support citizenship for people here illegally who served in the military. But he would not give any more specifics about who else should be granted citizenship.

Information about what  candidates aren’t willing to say allows readers to make meaningful comparisons.

It helps voters distinguish, in this case, a narrow immigration position, like Gardner’s, from a broader one, like the comprehensive immigration reform supported by Udall. (Reporters covering Rep. Mike Coffman should also point out his unwillingness to offer a specific immigration plan, beyond vagaries–unlike his Democratic opponent Andrew Romanoff, who’s a backer of the bipartisan Senate bill.)

Riccardi’s piece clearly states that Udall supports the bipartisan immigration bill passed by the Senate, and Gardner does not.

Gardner has long opposed any immigration reform, even reduced college tuition for undocumented young people, until unspecified border security measures are in place.

Gardner attacked Udall for supporting a 2005 bill that would have made it a felony to be in the United States illegally, Riccardi reported.

For context, as he did with the two candidates’ current immigration stances, Riccardi should have contrasted Gardner’s own positions back then to Udall’s.

Gardner, for example, was part of an organization called State Legislators for Legal Immigration, according to a May 22, 2007 Greeley Tribune article. Among other extreme immigration positions, Gardner’s group wanted to prohibit the children of undocumented immigrants from attending school, even elementary school, and from receiving all other public assistance.

This comports with Gardner’s 2006 vote in the state legislature against providing any benefits, including preventative care, like immunizations, to undocumented children as well as adults. At the time, Gardner was allied with the lawmakers in Colorado who thought the tough compromise legislation, passed during the special session in 2006, didn’t go far enough.