As reported by The Denver Post Wedneday, gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez told KNUS-radio yapper Peter Boyles that he would not allow young immigrants from poverty-stricken Central American countries to be housed anywhere in Colorado while they await deportation decisions.

But Beauprez’s explanation for his young-migrant ban, which wasn’t picked up by any news outlet that I can find, is just as newsworthy as his position itself:

BOYLES (Aug 27 at 5 minutes): We know that Hickenlooper has welcomed these illegal children who have come into this country.  Would you allow Colorado to continue to receive these, quote, undocumented whatever-they-are, fill-in-the-bland, no matter how old they are or how young they are. Would you stop that?

BEAUPREZ: They’ve got to stay on the border, Pete. They shouldn’t even be allowed in the border, but to bring them this far inland makes it that much more difficult to send them back home.

BOYLES: Thank you!

BEAUPREZ: Yep. Done.

This far inland? I listened three times to make sure he said it. He did. Then I checked to see if these children ride on horseback to their deportation hearings, making it difficult to send them home from a inland location. They don’t. They ride in modern planes and buses, some of which have been blocked by anti-immigrant protesters.

Transportation logistics are irrelevant to Boyles’ agenda of ridding Colorado of immigrants, no matter how small or vulnerable. Or no matter the horror they’ve fled. He wants them out, and he’s not scared to say that housing and caring for undocumented children isn’t our job.

Yet Boyles didn’t ask Beauprez for a real reason for banning child migrants from Colorado.

So we’re left to speculate that Beauprez’s thinking is probably along the lines of, someone else will be compassionate toward them, and it’s messy for Colorado to chip in. And that’s a charitable interpretation.

Remember this Denver Post headline, after the June 24 Republican primary: “In Bob Beauprez, Colorado GOP goes with mainstream contender.”

I rolled my eyes at the time because, I’d been following Beauprez for years and knew him to be far outside the mainstream, as seen in his support for replacing income tax with a “consumption” or sales tax, just to name one Tea Party favorite.

Maybe whoever wrote The Post’s June 24 headline knows better now than to characterize Beauprez as a “mainstream contender,” as his Tea Party leanings have oozed out in the news over the past few months. (See his comments about Obama pushing America close to “civil war” and about 47 percent of Americans being “perfectly happy” to let someone else pay the bill.

If not, Beauprez’s statement yesterday, in response to a question from KLZ 560-AM guest host Jimmy Sengenberger, should seal the deal:

“I have said for years, Jimmy, that this [the Tea Party] is the healthiest civic movement I have seen in my lifetime, and I’m almost 66 now. I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed a time where people have stood up and said, I want to save this Republic. I want my government back, and focused primarily on constitutional originality and fiscal discipline. It can’t get any better than that. The time is absolutely. Are there disagreements among various groups and various individuals. Sure. Or is it always a perfect, clear smooth path. No, of course not. It wasn’t in our nation’s founding either. But if this nation is going to survive. If we are going to be that greatest nation on god’s green Earth, it isn’t up to government. It is up to the people. And this uprising that we broadly call the Tea Party movement in my opinion, again, is the healthiest thing we have seen in very long time in America.” [BigMedia emphasis]

What kind of mainstream candidate could possibly say this? None. Ask Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin.

And during a separate radio interview yesterday, reported by The Denver Post’s Joey Bunch, Beauprez proved the point.

As you know if you’ve followed the death of bipartisan immigration-reform legislation in congress, the Tea-Party has distinguished itself as taking the most obstructionist, uncaring, and uncompromising positions on immigration-reform. And the Tea-Party approach is embodied in KNUS talk-radio host Peter Boyles.

Beauprez aligned himself with Boyles yesterday when he said he’d send Colorado National Guard troops to the Mexican border to deal with undocumented immigrants, as Texas Gov. Rick Perry has already done.

“If Rick Perry or another governor requested it, I would certainly step up and do my part,” Beauprez told Boyles.

Beauprez later added in the interview that he would stop issuing driver’s licences to undocumented immigrants, and he wouldn’t house young migrants in Colorado while they await court dates. Tens of thousands of desperate children have been crossing the border from Central American countries, and, in Tea Party fashion, Beauprez writes off having anything to do with them.

A Beauprez spokesman later told The Post that Beauprez would send the Colorado Guard to the border for humanitarian work, as  law would prohibit military activity.

Bottom line, I’m betting The Denver Post won’t be writing any more headlines calling Bob Beauprez “mainstream.” Unless, of course, the headline writer describes Beauprez as “mainstream Tea Party.”

That’s more like it.

In a blog post last week, I noted that senatorial candidate Cory Gardner threatened, during a radio interview in August of last year, to shut down the government unless Obamacare was defunded. This is in 180-degree-contrast to what a Gardner spokesperson was quoted as saying last week, that “Gardner had warned against requiring Democrats to defund the Affordable Care Act as a requirement for keeping government open.” It turns out Gardner also launched the defund-Obamacare-or-we-shut-down-the-government warning from the floor of the House of Representatives. And he did it the day before the shutdown occurred:

Gardner: “Over the weekend, this House worked to find a solution to the impasse over the Continuing Resolution, sending over various options to the Senate to try to jump start negotiations to work through an agreement to find a solution to keep our government funded. In the early hours of this morning we finally said to the leader of the U.S. Senate, Harry Reid, let’s find a way to meet face-to-face, through a conference committee, to negotiate a solution and avoid a government shutdown. We passed three times now measures to keep the government funded and a way to find solutions to this critical issue. But there are many people in Colorado who are struggling now because of the shutdown and who are worried about what happens to their situation, particularly those who may have been impacted by the flood. And that is why we must find a way to get government funded, to find a solution to get government going back on track, while preventing policies that we know are bad for the economy.”

Here, Gardner acknowledged the concern that the shutdown could affect flood recovery, and he blamed Harry Reid for the impasse, but he insisted that a budget deal must prevent “policies that we know are bad for the economy” (i.e. Obamacare riders in the Gardner-supported funding resolutions to keep the government open). This contradicts his spokesperson’s statement that Gardner warned Republicans not to shut down the government to try to stop Obamacare. I don’t see any such warning in Gardner’s floor speech, and, in fact, the government shut down the next day.

About a week after State Rep. Chris Holbert alleged that Gov. John Hickenlooper “treats us like his abused spouse,” State Senate candidate Tony Sanchez said people “feel like they’ve been in an abuse relationship” with lawmakers like Obama and Sanchez’s Democratic opponent Andy Kerr, both of whom Sanchez called “narcissists.”

Even within the mean-world politics that surrounds us, it should be news when one candidate accuses his opponent of narcissism and abuse.

Sanchez did not return my call yesterday asking to discuss the comments, which were made Aug. 12 on KLZ 560-AM’s nooner show Freedom560, and to explain why he thinks the extreme accusations of narcissism and abuse are warranted.

Sanchez: “If we keep talking about those that should not be named, we empower them, their narcissism. We don’t want any more narcissists, whether it’s Obama, whether it’s Andy Kerr. We want people who are there to listen to us and understand that we matter. That’s what people are feeling, like they don’t matter. They feel like they’ve been in an abuse relationship and that we’ve enabled that abuse relationship. Here I am saying, people matter. We matter. And that’s exactly where we need to be going, I think.”

By saying, “we’ve enabled that abuse,” Sanchez shows he agrees with the characterization.

In June, Sanchez prevailed in the GOP primary over attorney Mario Nicolais, in a race marked by comparable extremism, unaddressed by Sanchez.

For example, in one flyer produced by Colorado Campaign for Life, Nicolais was pictured next to Kermit Gosnell, a Philadelphia doctor convicted of murdering babies, above the caption: “Kermit Gosnell and his ‘House of Horrors’ abortion mill operated in secrecy for 17 years before his murderous crimes became infamous. Ask Mario why he won’t publicly defend the unborn? Call Mario…”
A similar flyer targeting GOP state senate candidate Lang Sais was first embraced by Sais’ opponent, Laura Woods, then denounced by Woods, who reportedly wrote that she had “more respect for my opponent than what was implied” in the Gosnell comparison.

But I can’t find any record of Sanchez denouncing the Gosnell flyer targeting Nicolais.

Listen to Sanchez on KLZ Freedom560 8.12.14

See the Colorado Campaign for Life 2014 GOP Primary Mailer Targeting Mario Sanchez Opponent Mario Nicolais.

Colorado State Treasurer Walker Stapleton took to the airwaves of KLZ 560-AM yesterday to raise the specter of judicial bias in Monday’s Colorado Supreme Court decision not to release records on the top PERA recipients.

Speaking on KLZ’s nooner show, Freedom560, hosted by Ken Clark, Stapleton said:

“It’s worth pointing out, call me a cynic, that every single member of the judicial branch is also a member of PERA. And that means that every single judge that heard my case had a vested economic interest in doing nothing about the problem, in maintaining the status quo, in feeling that their pension would be somehow released to me and not wanting that to be the case. I mean it’s mind-boggling to think our judicial branch is aiding and abetting a lack of transparency. It really is.”

Commenting via Twitter on Stapleton’s remark, Luis Toro, Director of Colorado Ethics Watch, wrote dryly: “Shocking admission that the point of his suit is to undermine PERA. If his suit was to strengthen PERA, the ‘vested interest’ would be to support him, wouldn’t it?”

It’s not just senatorial candidate Cory Gardner who’s taken the endlessly puzzling position of being opposed to personhood at the state level but supportive of the federal version.

Gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez draws a false distinction between the two as well, saying he’s opposed to the state amendment but supportive of federal legislation. Even though they aim to do the same thing, according to yours truly and, more importantly, Factcheck.org.

Despite the obvious relevancy of personhood on the campaign trail, I can’t find a local reporter who’s asked either one of them the simple question of why they favor federal personhood legislation over the state version.

Instead, multiple reporters, including Mark Matthews at The Denver Post and Bente Birkeland at Rocky Mountain Community Radio, listened to Gardner’s spokespeople tell them that that federal personhood legislation is essentially a toothless symbol–without asking for an explanation. On Tuesday, the Hill’s Elise Viebeck reported Gardner’s position, apparently without seeking an explanation. So did The Post’s Anthony Cotton.

CBS4’s Shaun Boyd taped Gardner himself implying that there’s a distinction between federal and state personhood legislation, without asking him why.

At least Politico’s Paige Winfield Cunningham asked the Gardner campaign about the discrepancy. But she got no response, and she’s apparently let it drop.

A question about the federal personhood bill was reportedly put to Gardner on KRDO radio’s Morning News March 24, but, again, he wasn’t pressed for an explanation when he said it’s a “Democratic talking point” and an “incorrect characterization of the federal legislation” to call it a personhood bill.

So does anyone detect a hole in the reporting here?

Who’s gonna be the first reporter to get the details on why Gardner (and Beauprez) support one personhood bill and not the other?

CORRECTION: At least two immigration-related bills cleared the GOP-controlled U.S. House this session, so I erred below in writing that none did. One responded to the crisis created by the young migrants crossing the border. It would have boosted border security, legal processing, and support. Another would have provided more visas for immigrant students with math and science skills and reduced the number of visas for other immigrants. I discussed this bill here. Sorry for the mistake.
—————–

It’s tough to fact-check an entire debate, if you’re an increasingly lonely reporter at a shrinking news outlet, but a journalist somewhere should have corrected Rep. Mike Coffman’s assertion, in his debate last week against Democrat Andrew Romanoff, that immigration bills cleared the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

In explaining his opposition to a bipartisan immigration bill passed by the U.S. Senate, Coffman said (@21:45):

“I think both parties have it wrong right now. I think on the left it’s, unless we get everything, then nothing will move. And in fact, individual bills have moved over to the Senate. And Harry Reid would not take it up because it was not quote-unquote comprehensive. And then on my side of the aisle, you know, we’ve got to get moving. And I’ve worked with my folks on the Republican side to get them moving. And so I think there’s got to be a middle path. And that middle path is a step-by-step approach.” [BigMedia emphasis]

Coffman would have had a complete and total brain freeze if he’d tried to remember how he voted on these immigration “bills,” because they don’t exist.

He’d have been wrong even if he’d said a singular immigration bill cleared the U.S. House. But he said “bills” plural, multiplying his apparent mistake.

A phone call to Coffman’s spokesman, Tyler Sandberg, seeking clarification was not immediately returned.

So we’re forced to speculate that possibly Coffman was referring to a bill that would have stopped undocumented immigrants from accessing the child tax credit. But no reasonable person would call this immigration reform.

And Coffman opposed the bill that would have overturned President Obama’s order allowing young undocumented immigrants to avoid deportation. So presumably, Coffman wouldn’t want Sen. Reid to push this bill through the Senate.

Coffman himself made a big deal a year ago about supporting “comprehensive” immigration reform, but now he’s calling for a step-by-step approach. But he has yet to define, in any meaningful and specific way, the legislation or steps he supports to reform immigration.

Romanoff, who supports the Senate immigration bill, said as much during the debate, when he pointed out that Coffman’s “step-by-step” won’t work if steps aren’t taken.

The Senate took a big bi-partisan step. Coffman says the House has taken steps too. What are they? And if I’m right and they don’t exist, what should the steps be, Mike? What steps were you imagining?

The Associated Press’ Nicholas Riccardi reported Aug. 15 that senatorial candidate Cory Gardner’s spokesman, Alex Siciliano, “noted that, before the shutdown, Gardner had warned against requiring Democrats to defund the Affordable Care Act as a requirement for keeping government open.”

Maybe Siciliano doesn’t listen to Gardner much on talk radio. Maybe he’s too busy talking to reporters on behalf of his boss.

But when I read Riccardi’s piece, I recalled hearing Gardner advocate for, as opposed to against, demanding Dems defund Obamacare or face a government shutdown.

On August 1, 2013, two months before the government shutdown, Gardner told KOA’s Mike Rosen:

Rosen: “Perhaps we can talk about some other items on the agenda, such as the current dispute, even with the Republican Party, about whether Republicans, who have a majority in the House, ought to take a stand now, as the continuing resolution question comes up, take a stand on Obamacare, and refuse to fund it, while at the same time, agreeing with a continuing resolution that would allow the rest of the federal government to operate. Have you got a position on that?

Gardner: I want to do anything and everything I can to stop Obamacare from destroying our health care, from driving up increases in costs. Whether that’s through the continuing resolution, I want to defund everything that we can….

Rosen: There’s a political concern that if the Republicans stand their ground on this [repealing Obamacare], they are going to be blamed for shutting down the government.

Gardner: Well, I think if the government gets shut down, it’s going to be the President’s decision to do so. I believe that we don’t need to shut down the government because we ought to just lift this health-care bill out of the way and let America work. [BigMedia emphasis]

If that’s a warning “against requiring Democrats to defund the Affordable Care Act as a requirement for keeping government open,” then mushrooms aren’t popping up in our mountains right now (and they are).

Next time Gardner’s Siciliano tells me something, if I’m a reporter, I think I go the extra mile to make sure it’s accurate.

In a Facebook posting yesterday, state Republican Rep. Chris Holbert wrote that Gov. John Hickenlooper “treats us like we are his abused spouse.”

In explaining why he’d vote for gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez, Holbert wrote in response to a Facebook post of one of Holbert’s Facebook friends:

Because Hickenlooper treats us like we are his abused spouse. He smiles and tells us that things will be better, signs bills into law that trample on the freedom and prosperity of the People, apologizes, becomes angry when we don’t forget, swears at us, then promises to abuse us again.

Don’t put Hickenlooper back in office for another four years. That ONE person can cancel out anything that a Republican Senate might accomplish. Don’t allow ONE Governor to cancel out 18 or more Senators who would work to repeal eight years of Democrat control.

Reached by phone this afternoon, Holbert stood behind the comments.

Asked if he thought his comparison to spousal abuse could be offensive to actual abused spouses and others concerned about domestic violence, Holbert said:

Holbert: “I think there are various kinds of abuse, and what I am pointing to is verbal. I’m not comparing it to physical abuse. People would have greater respect for the governor if he would have one story and stick to it.”

“He tells us one thing and tells his supporters another thing,” Holbert said, explaining his Facebook post further. “He suggested to the sheriffs that he didn’t talk to Bloomberg and records show he did. He apologized for signing bills that he claims he didn’t understand were so controversial. And then he talked to Eli Stokols, I believe, and says he’d sign the bills again. So which doe he mean? I feel that’s abusive to the people of Colorado who look to him for leadership.”

Speaking on a Denver radio show yesterday, gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez threatened to sue the federal government if it doesn’t enforce the nation’s immigration laws.

Asked by KNUS host Steve Kelley whether he’d “build a coalition with the Jan Brewers and the Rick Perrys” and “put this state on the line if it requires a lawsuit” to enforce immigration laws, Beauprez replied, unequivocally, “yes.”

Beauprez, who’s facing Democrat John Hickenlooper, added that he’d sue the federal government on other issues as well, such as federal lands.

Beauprez said he’d seek a “coalition” of governors to demand that the “federal government, one, enforce the laws, in this case secure the borders, modernize legal immigration so people can get an answer and so that we can enforce employment laws in Colorado and in America, and that we know who’s here, that they’re legally here and what they are doing here; that’s why you have rule of law.”

Listen to Beauprez on KNUS Kelley and Company 08-12-14

Beuprez stated last month that states should enforce federal immigration law themselves, in the absence of federal action, “as Jan Brewer tried to do in Arizona.”

He later told the Colorado Statesman that his point wasn’t “as much about Jan Brewer’s policy as much as Jan Brewer standing up for her citizens and saying if the federal government’s not going to protect them, somebody needs to.”

He did not directly denounce an Arizona law, signed by Brewer and later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, that allowed Arizona police to detain any person suspected of being an undocumented immigrant.