On a Denver radio show over the weekend, GOP senatorial candidate Cory Gardner accused his Democratic opponent, Sen. Mark Udall, of “trying to distract voters” by spotlighting Gardner’s stances on abortion and contraception, which “aren’t top of mind for people.”

I would have enjoyed hearing Gardner say that to room full of women, but, alas, Gardner’s words fell on talk radio, which skews male and old. And Craig Silverman, who hosted the KNUS 710-AM show on which Gardner made the comments, didn’t offer any words of rebuttal, from himself or any critic, male or female.

A response from a Planned Parenthood representative–or anyone–from Texas, where new anti-choice laws will reduce the number of abortion clinics to eight statewide by Sept. 1, might make a particularly good radio debate on this topic.

As I reported today on RH Reality Check about Gardner’s comment that Udall is “trying to distract the voters with issues that, quite frankly, aren’t top of mind for people:”

Gardner’s statement reflects comments he made during his first congressional campaign in 2010, when he defeated Betsy Markey, a pro-choice Democrat trying to hold her seat in a Republican-leaning congressional district.

In response to Markey’s attacks on his hardline anti-abortion positions, including his support of Colorado’s failed “personhood” amendment in 2008, Gardner said at the time, “Right now the only person talking about social issues in this campaign is Betsy Markey.” He promised reporters not to pursue an anti-abortion agenda if elected to Congress.

After winning the election, however, Gardner co-sponsored bills to redefine rape, defund Planned Parenthood, and to define a “person” in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to include all human development, beginning at the fertilized egg (zygote) stage.

A spokesman for senatorial candidate Cory Gardner told The Denver Post today that the federal personhood bill, co-sponsored by Gardner in July of last year, “simply states that life begins at conception” and would not change contraception laws.

“The federal proposal in question simply states that life begins at conception, as most pro-life Americans believe, with no change to contraception laws as Senator Udall falsely alleges,” [Gardner spokesperson Alex] Siciliano said.

In fact, the federal “Life at Conception Act” aims to make personhood federal law, applicable to all states, including Colorado and banning all abortion, even for rape, and common forms of birth control.

Here’s how: The full title of the Life at Conception Act is: “To implement equal protection under the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution for the right to life of each born and preborn human person.”

You may be surprised that the 14th Amendment, Section 5, allows Congressto pass legislation to re-define the definition of a “person” under federal law. This skirts the normal, lengthy process for amending the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment, Section 5, states:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Anti-abortion activists have seized on this provision of the 14th Amendment to push federal legislation that would define a “person” as beginning at the fertilized egg (or “zygote”) stage. They argue that by passing such legislation, they are enforcing the due-process and equal-protection guarantees of the 14th Amendment. Hence, the Life at Conception Act states in part:

To implement equal protection for the right to life of each born and preborn human person, and pursuant to the duty and authority of the Congress, including Congress’ power under article I, section 8, to make necessary and proper laws, and Congress’ power under section 5 of the 14th article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress hereby declares that the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human being. …

The term “human being” is defined in the billas “all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization…”

The terms “human person” and “human being” include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being.

So, to summarize:  The Life at Conception Act aims to redefine the definition of a person in the Fourteenth Amendment, and apply the 14th Amendment’s protections to zygotes, hence banning all abortion, even for rape, as well as common forms of birth control that endanger, or even potentially endanger, fertilized eggs. It would give legal protections to fertilized eggs. In a word, personhood.

Reporters should not let Gardner, or his spokespeople, mislead the public about the aim of the federal personhood bill that he co-sponsored last year.

Bob Beauprez suggested over the weekend that Hickenlooper was drunk when he played pool last week with President Obama.

Beauprez made the comment on Craig Silverman’s debut radio show Saturday on KNUS 710-AM. Here’s the exchange:

Silverman: Bob Beauprez, tell me this, because you could lock up a lot of votes if you give the right answer. Can you play pool better than John Hickenlooper?

Beauprez: [hearty laugh]

Silverman: I mean, it went – did you watch him play? He looked like he was sick!—like there was poison in his beer. He scratched, and he missed one of the easiest shots in the world. Tell me you can do better, because he got beat on his home tavern court by Barack Obama. That’s the first foreign victory for Obama in a long time. And —

Beauprez: [laugh]

Silverman: I mean, it looked like Obama was having a good time, but – I don’t know, how do you think that all went down?

Beauprez: John might have been at the brewery a little bit ahead of the President. He might have gotten an early start on the beers. [BigMedia emphasis]

Silverman: Yeah.

Beauprez: Yeah, that wasn’t his finest moment.

LISTEN: Beauprez Suggests Hick was drunk when playing pool with Obama

It’s possible Beauprez was joking, I admit, but if he was, it’s not clear at all. If you’re Silverman, how could you resist asking Beauprez if he was seriously suggesting that Hick was drunk.

Denver Post reporter Kurtis Lee did a good job over the weekend of sorting out the past immigration positions of Rep. Mike Coffman and his Democratic challenger, Andrew Romanoff.

Lee noted that Romanoff pushed compromise immigration legislation through the Colorado legislature in 2006, in order to deflect a more extreme immigration measure from making the Colorado ballot and being locked in the state Constitution.

Lee is among the only journalists who’ve reported on the context of Romanoff’s 2006 immigration legislation, which was opposed by some immigrant advocates.

During the summer of 2006, in his first term as state House speaker, Romanoff faced a critical decision: Have a broadly worded initiative appear on the November ballot that would strip state benefits and even some medical services from those in the country illegally — including children — or strike a legislative compromise.

Lee reported that Romanoff “chose the latter option and staved off a late effort to revive the ballot initiative,” which was supported by Coffman.

Among the proponents of the ballot initiative that didn’t make it to voters was Coffman, the state treasurer at the time.

Coffman later headed to Congress to represent the then staunchly conservative 6th Congressional District, touting positions as a hardliner on immigration reform and following in the footsteps of his predecessor and a man he called his “hero” — Republican Tom Tancredo

Moving forward in time, Lee again correctly reports that Romanoff supports the comprehensive-immigration-reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate, while Coffman backs, in Lee’s words, “piecemeal reforms.” Lee does a good job of clarifying that Coffman doesn’t just stand for vague “reform” but a piecemeal approach, with the pieces glaringly undefined.

Lee should have noted that just over a year ago, Coffman announced his grand support, in a much-read Denver Post op-ed, for “comprehensive immigration reform.” This startled the three people paying attention because it ran counter to Coffman’s past positions.

But now Coffman’s “comprehensive immigration reform” is out the window, and he wants piecemeal legislation. Coffman has said that a “comprehensive approach doesn’t have to be a comprehensive bill,” but if you’ve ever had a conversation about immigration among people with differing views on the topic, you understand why that’s not true. Comprehensive reform allows for compromises to be folded together, with different pet issues included, so everyone can hold a nostril or two and vote yes, like Senators in their compromise by a 68-32 margin.

Lee, who’s leaving The Post Wed., probably won’t be able to delve into the question of whether piecemeal reform, with only a small piece (citizenship for minors via military service) actually on the table, is more than empty rhetoric, especially with the Senate bill ready to go. But maybe another reporter will pick up the thread.

Denver Post political reporter Kurtis Lee announced via Twitter today that he’ll be leaving The Post Wednesday for a job covering politics on the Los Angeles Times’ new real-time news desk.

“It’s been a great three years here at The Post,” Lee told me via email. “I’m so grateful to have worked with so many amazingly talented reporters, editors and photographers–and to do it for a newspaper I grew up reading has been awesome. The Post will always be a must read for me.”

Lee’s new job is focused on online journalism, but Lee will work across platforms, he said.

Lee, who was born and raised in Colorado Springs, started at The Post in Feb 2011. His work was quickly thrust under the microscope, as he covered the state legislature, the contested 6th Congressional District race, the 212 presidential campaign, the Aurora massacre, and other political flashpoints in Colorado.

In a memo to staff, The Post’s Politics Editor Chuck Plunkett praised Lee’s reporting and wrote that Lee has been on the “leading edge of The Post’s efforts to function as a 24/7 news organization. His use of social media, blog posts and video journalism is as powerful as the best in the business.”

“I applaud the good sense of the LAT in snaring Kurtis Lee,” wrote Plunkett, “and regret that I will be deprived of working with this promising young journalist going forward. But we are lucky in that we work in an industry that wishes to see its players do well. And this move should be a great opportunity for Kurtis to do just that.”

One of the biggest election-year hypocrisies hanging out there, waiting for a civic-minded reporter to jump on, is the fact that senatorial candidate Cory Gardner remains a cosponsor of federal personhood legislation, even though he’s told the world, both in interviews and even in a paid advertisement, that he’s “learned more” about “personhood” and changed his mind about supporting it.

To un-cosponsor the federal personhood bill, the Life at Conception Act, Gardner must give a speech from the floor of the House of Representatives. Why hasn’t he done this?

Now is the time for the aforementioned civic-minded reporter to jump in and remind Gardner that he’s trotted down to the floor of House and un-cosponsored at least one bill before.

Back in 2011, Gardner, along with fellow Colorado Congressmen Coffman and Tipton, cosponsored legislation offering tax credits for natural-gas-powered vehicles.

But the oil-loving Koch brothers caught wind of the legislation, and pressured co-sponsors of the bill to withdraw their names.

As the Sunlight Foundation reported at the time:

But some companies, led by the oil refining conglomerate owned by the politically influential Koch brothers, have campaigned against the legislation, according to a report in The Hill newspaper. Their efforts have resulted in 14 members of Congress withdrawing their support for the bill.

Gardner, Coffman, and Tipton apparently felt the Koch pressure, and speaking from the floor of the House, one by one, they asked that their cosponsorship of the natural-gas bill (HR 1380) be ended. Click at the bottom of the page here, on “Show cosponsors who withdrew.”

Here’s C-Span video of these exciting acts of remorse and regret. In the first video, Gardner is not pictured, but you hear Gardner say:

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: For what purpose would the gentleman from Colorado like to address the House?

GARDNER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed from [H.R.] 1380.”

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Without objection.

Then you see Rep. Scott Tipton make the same request. In the second video, you see Rep. Mike Coffman do it.

WATCH: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj7VRXfTKg0&feature=share&list=UUSj-lO7VwQBYZBK-56FXN7w

WATCH: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMq3Ya_OjFw&list=UUSj-lO7VwQBYZBK-56FXN7w&feature=share&index=2

If Gardner can do this in 2011, why won’t he do it now?

During an interview on with CBS4’s Shaun Boyd in April, Gardner went out of his way to distinguish between state and federal personhood proposals, as gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez has also done, indicating that he may not take back his support of federal personhood, even though the state and federal measures would do the same thing. And Gardner has defended his anti-abortion record on the radio.

It was only June of 2013 when Gardner first added his name to the list of cosponsors of the Life at Conception Act. Maybe he’s fine with it. It’s a question that deserves to be asked.

In what appears to be his first non-spokesperson explanation in the media of his comment that “we’ve got almost half the population perfectly happy that somebody else is paying” income tax, Beauprez said on a Colorado Springs radio show Saturday that in his 2010 Rotary-Club speech, he was “lamenting” that more people couldn’t be like Beauprez’s father, who fought his way out of poverty, when he paid no income tax, and later made enough money to achieve “some degree of success and prosperity” and  to pay “part of the load to carry this state and this great nation.”

Beauprez went on to suggest that it would be more fair to throw out the current income tax code and replace it with a consumption tax.

“I think taxing consumption is a whole lot better idea than taxing work, or the income from work,” Beauprez told KVOR host Ed Jones July 5. “And I think it is more equitable and more fair. So yeah, I think we ought to move that direction. I wrote a book, published in 2009, and I said we ought to take the entire tax code –the whole thing– light it on fire and start all over. And if we start over with that kind of a tax system, I think we’d be far better off and really stimulate this economy.

Jones, substituting for regular host Jeff Crank, did not ask Beauprez how his father’s story squares with Beauprez’s comment that almost half the population is “perfectly happy” not to pay tax. Judging from Beauprez’s story, Beauprez’s father didn’t seem happy at all not to pay income tax, much less perfectly happy.

Neither did Jones ask Romney for details on how his proposed consumption tax, typically applied to the sale goods and services.

HOST ED JONES: Let me go back to something, and–Goll–Governor, again, you are so right! Now, the Dems have come out with this ad on this Rotary Club speech you made four years ago about the 47 percent, [chuckles] – and you were right! And you’re still right!
GOP GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE BOB BEAUPREZ: Well, I was right. Forty-seven percent of folks don’t pay income tax.
JONES: That’s right.
BEAUPREZ: I want to make sure people understand that – income tax. And what I was lamenting in that, Ed, is not that some do and some don’t.
JONES: Yeah.
BEAUPREZ: What I was harkening back to was a lesson, again, taught to me by my folks
JONES: Yeah.
BEAUPREZ: They went through a period of time when they were so poor that they—not only they didn’t owe any taxes, if they did, they wouldn’t have had any cash to pay it. But what brought it to mind, was I overheard them talking about what their tax bill was going to be, and it seemed like a lot of money at the time, and so I said something, “Wow! That seems like a lot!” My dad took that as an opportunity to point out to me, he said, “Bob, This–we’ve been there before. We were so poor we didn’t—and troubled, during dry years on the farm, we didn’t owe any taxes,“ he said. “I don’t ever want to go there again.”
JONES: Mmm-hmm.
BEAUPREZ: And he took it as a sign that not only they had achieved some degree of success and prosperity, but they were paying a part of the load to carry this state and this great nation. And he was proud of that fact. What I was lamenting in those comments I made, was that more people don’t have that opportunity for something Arthur Brooks at AEI calls ‘earned success’.
JONES: Yes. Uh-huh.
BEAUPREZ: And I think that’s always something that has identified certainly this great state and this great nation, is the opportunity to earn a piece of that American Dream and make your mark.
JONES: Mm-hmm.
BEAUPREZ: That’s my frustration, is we’re now about 250,000 jobs short of where we normally would be in Colorado.
JONES: Right.
BEAUPREZ: A lot of the jobs that have been created are entry level jobs. So we’ve got to get to the point again where we’re really a society, a state, a culture, where big dreams can happen. Not just “a” job, but a real career opportunity and the kind of opportunity that’s always been a part of Colorado.
HOST JIMMY BENSBERG: Well, Bob we’ve got a fellow on the line who is familiar with providing jobs right here in Colorado Springs. Let’s see if we can get him on the line, here, it’s Ed Bircham. Ed, welcome to the show.
ED BIRCHAM: Yeah, good morning! You guys [are] doing a great job and a great get-together at the headquarters the other day [referring to the GOP unity tour passing through El Paso County]. And Mr. Beauprez, as a businessman myself, [a] successful immigrant from England, here’s my problem with people like [“Socialist”] Steve [a regular listener and caller to the Jeff Crank Show] calling in. Steve would have you believe that the only people who have and money is Republicans. But, look, we’ve got Buffett. We’ve got Gates. We’ve got Soros. So, get out off this kick of ‘just the rich people are Republicans’. What Steve doesn’t understand, Governor – and I’m calling you Governor because you will be, and you’ve got a great Lieutenant Governor [Jill Repella], I was very impressed with her the other day. But my point to Steve is corporations hire people. And your question about the forty-three or forty-seven percent, the only way we’re going to get these people, in my opinon, is we’ve got to go to a flat tax, a consumer tax, get rid of the IRS. And if you’re going to live in this great country, you have to pay something, Governor! Wouldn’t you agree that we just can’t have this number of people –we can take care of the poor people. We have a way to do that. But we just can’t have people not paying something. Do you agree with that?
BEAUPREZ: Yeah, in fact, when I was in Congress, I did endorse a –the consumer –the consumption tax, typically called the Fair Tax idea. John Lenders was the sponsor of it. He sat next to me on Ways and Means [Committee], and we had a whole lot of discussions about it, and I think taxing consumption is a whole lot better idea than taxing work, or the income from work. And I think it is more equitable and more fair. So yeah, I think we ought to move that direction. I wrote a book, published in 2009, and I said we ought to take the entire tax code –the whole thing– light it on fire and start all over. And if we start over with that kind of a tax system, I think we’d be far better off and really stimulate this economy.

LISTEN: https://soundcloud.com/bigmedia-org/clip-47percent-beauprezcrank7514-0001

In wide-ranging thoughts on immigration policy delivered over the weekend on a Denver radio station, Colorado gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez said states should enforce federal immigration law themselves, in the absence of federal action, “as Jan Brewer tried to do in Arizona.”

The Arizona law, backed by Brewer, allowing police to detain anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant, was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s widely believed that the law would have led to harassment and discrimination of legal and undocumented immigrants.

Beauprez said that before he’d take immigration matters in his own hands if elected governor, he’d join with other governors and sue the federal government to “secure our borders.”

Beauprez made the comments on KOA 850-AM, a Denver radio station, Saturday in response to a question from guest radio host Doug Kellet, who asked Beauprez about the young undocumented immigrants captured recently along the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I was with a group of people the day before yesterday, and several of them were from our southern cities, Pueblo specifically,” said Beauprez on air. “And they said, if buses show up, they will be in the streets to block them. I think you are going to see what happened in California start happening everywhere.”

Beauprez also said: “It’s going to affect all the states out here, and the President is trying to gloss over it and tell us all the wonderful things we’re doing as a nation to accept all these people. He doesn’t tell us the impact on the people who are already here and are going to pay the bill.”

Kellet didn’t ask Beauprez if he’d participate in the street protests himself.

On another radio show Sunday, Beauprez outlined an immigration system he’d back.

“We need to secure the border,” Beauprez told KVOR guest hosts Ed Jones and Jimmy Bensberg Saturday. “We need a modern, 21st century legal immigration system, where folks that want here can apply for it. They can get an answer in short order. We can get the kind of help we need and enforce the rule of law. So employers have a system, that they can live within the rules. And people know that if somebody is here illegally, they’re going to be found and sent home.”

The hosts didn’t ask Beauprez if he’s favor sending all undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S. back to their countries of origin.

Partial transcript of Beauprez’s comments on KOA July 5

Kellet: I want to talk to you about immigration, because on this July 4th weekend we have a serious problem on our southwest border, and it certainly could affect Colorado.

Beauprez: It sure can. It’s going to affect all the states out here, and the President is trying to gloss over it and tell us all the wonderful things we’re doing as a nation to accept all these people. He doesn’t tell us the impact on the people who are already here and are going to pay the bill.

Kellet: Well, I keep on wondering what’s going to happen here, sir…

Beauprez: I was with a group of people the day before yesterday, and several of them were from our southern cities, Pueblo specifically, and they said, if buses show up, they will be in the streets to block them. I think you are going to see what happened in California start happening everywhere. Governors on behalf of their states are going to have to be very vocal, very strong, and push back on DC…. You have to face the reality that this is going to be another straw on the back that will fiscally impact states in a big way. It will culturally impact states in a big way. When you don’t enforce the rule of law, and this is the bottom line, Doug, chaos breaks out. And this is an example of chaos breaking out…Governors ought to be telling the federal government, do your job, secure our borders, stop this kind of action, send these people back home… They are not political refugees. This is just wrong. Governors ought to be, first of all, demanding it, and then secondly, if the federal government doesn’t do it, then sue them and get an injunction against the federal government and force them to do their job in court. This is a responsibility of the federal government. And if they won’t do it, states ought to be allowed to do it, as Jan Brewer tried to do in Arizona.

The day before the Republican primary, in which Republican Laura Woods triumphed over Lang Sias for the right to take on Democratic State Senator Rachel Zenzinger, Woods made the following comment on the KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado:

WOODS: “…tomorrow, if you’re an unaffiliated voter, and you don’t want more of the same, go down to the polling place, change to a Republican for a day or two, fill out a ballot, and then after the primary, if you don’t want to stay a Republican, you don’t have to stay. You can unaffiliate again. But you can be a part of the change right now by electing somebody who is going to stand up for the Constitution.”

Listen to Woods suggest unaffiliated voters briefly switch parties to help her win GOP primary 6-23-14

There’s nothing illegal about Woods’ suggestion, but the folks down at KLZ, including host Kristina Cook, are all about “principles.”

How principled is it to try to win a Republican primary with the votes of fake Republicans? It doesn’t appear that Woods’ suggestion made any difference in the election, but if I were running the show at Grassroots Radio Colorado, I would have asked Woods about her idea that unaffiliated voters should join the GOP for “a day or two.” But it’s done now.

CORRECTION: This post incorrectly states that most journalists consider themselves Democrats. Over half of journalists in a recent survey self-identify as having no party affiliation. About 7 percent said they were Republicans, and 28 percent Democrats. My point about Rosen is unchanged.

From: Jason Salzman
To: [KOA Radio Host] Mike Rosen
Subject: question for my blog

Hi Mike – I hope all’s well.

I noticed you told Bob Beauprez the other day that you’re hoping to moderate a debate between him and Hick.

You said, “By the way, even though I’m a partisan Republican, I’ve moderated these debates before, and I can set that aside and be fair in a head-to-head debate.”

How does this square with your belief that journalism is biased toward the Democrats because more reporters are registered Dems? Thanks for considering a response.

From: Mike Rosen
To: Jason Subject:
RE: question for my blog

Moderating a debate is different from reporting. I’m not a reporter. I admit my bias when doing commentary and set it aside when I moderate a debate. Too many liberal “reporters” don’t admit their bias (some may not even recognize it) but infuse it either intentionally or unintentionally in their news stories or so-called analysis.

From: Jason Salzman
To: Mike Rosen Subject:
RE: question for my blog

Thanks. A moderator of a debate tries to be fair, just like a reporter does. Why can’t a reporter, who is a registered Democrat, also set aside his or her bias, like a moderator of a debate?

Are you saying that if reporters were to state party affiliation in public, like you do, then they would be more likely to be fair?

From: Mike Rosen
To: Jason Salzman Subject:
RE: question for my blog

No, I’m not saying that stating one’s party affiliation would make them more likely to be fair. Certainly, a reporter can be fair in a news story. Some are. Too many aren’t. They either don’t try or do try and fail. We’re all subject to our perspectives formed by our perceptions, our values, our ideology, our knowledge or our ignorance.

The dominant liberal culture in newspapers like the NY Times, magazines like Time or broadcast media like NBC CBS, CNN, NPR, or PBS cultivates liberal bias in their editing and reporting. Some of those liberals don’t think of themselves as liberals, others are consciously engaged in advocacy journalism in order to affect policy as they see it. (That’s OK for opinion journalists but not for reporters claiming fairness). There’s a conservative culture at FOX, but its audience is a small fraction of the others.

I’m not opposed to civil unions or same-sex marriage but I can observe that The Denver Post doesn’t just report on it but cheerleads for it on its news pages. The theory that human activity is a dominant cause of global warming is another widespread example of liberal advocacy journalism from news organs. The science isn’t “settled.” Science never is.

That’s an actual exchange from last week between me and Rosen, in case you were wondering if it were real. Bottom line for Rosen seems to be that newsrooms need more Mike Rosens, or at least more conservatives. But this might not do the trick either.

Rosen has Hick and Denver Mayor Michael Hancock on his show every month, and he’s reasonable with them, as he’s been with other Dems over the years. Hence, they keep coming back on his show.

But a lot is at stake in a debate, an you wonder, given what Rosen wrote above, would Rosen-the-Moderator ask about same-sex marriage at all?

If Rosen-the-Moderator were in charge, and Beauprez said, as he wrote in his book, that climate change is “at best a grossly overhyped issue and at worst a complete hoax foisted on most of the world,” would Rosen challenge him, like an professional-journalist moderator, and ask for his evidence that climate change could possibly be a complete hoax?

I don’t think so.