After a surreal year of GOP infighting in Colorado, including a failed coup led by Cynthia Coffman, Tom Tancredo and others, the vice chair of the Colorado Republican Party is pleading with fellow Republicans to stop obsessing on state party leader Steve House–and to lay off attacking each other.

Calling the behavior of his fellow Republicans “beyond dysfunctional,” Wilburn bemoaned in a Facebook post that “Chairman House can no longer give a speech, send an email or letter to the ExComm and/or SCC without his words immediately being blared onto social media in full view of the entire political universe, both friendly and ‘other’.”

“His words are then dissected –again, in full view— word-by-word, line-by-line in an effort to demonstrate his incompetence (at best) or corruptness (at worst), by members of our own party,” wrote Wilburn. “When he speaks someone (a Republican) is recording with the intent of using his words against him. When he sends an internal memo, when we file with a compliance agency, when he emails county leadership, it’s all posted to Facebook within minutes and used likewise.”

Wilburn wrote that such scrutiny will not force House to resign, and if he is forced out, the party will suffer.

“Having some nine months of up-close & personal observation I can attest this much – Chairman House is not incompetent,” wrote Wilburn prior to describing House’s activities as state chair.

“Don’t get me wrong, watch dog activity brings with it accountability. Questioning is a good thing,” wrote Wilburn. “But there’s a line. When we (Republicans) are the ones helping HuffPo, Colorado Pols and the rest fill up their libraries with talking points and things they can use against us in the future, it’s time to question whether we’re holding people accountable or doing more damage than good…”

“If you have issues the way to handle them is set an appointment, come into the office for a face-to-face and get your questions satisfactorily answered; not blast them onto social media for two days of point/counter-point that end up as screen captures on ColoradoPols.”

“We have a nation in need,” wrote Wilburn.

Here’s Wilburn’s Dec. 28 Facebook post:

Fellow Republicans,

Imagine you’re head of an organization, be it a corporate, political or other. And further, that every time you communicate to others in the organization your words are immediately ceased, posted to social media and used in an effort to somehow, some way bring you down. These are the conditions the Colorado GOP leadership currently finds itself in and its beyond unhealthy and dysfunctional.

Steve House, Brandi Meek & I were elected in March by our fellow Republicans to guide the state party. We (mostly Chairman House) now find ourselves facing a very serious handicap that’s hurting the party, state, and cause of liberty and could quite possibly cost the entire nation depending how things shake out in the 2016 general election.

Chairman House can no longer give a speech, send an email or letter to the ExComm and/or SCC without his words immediately being blared onto social media in full view of the entire political universe, both friendly and ‘other’. His words are then dissected –again, in full view— word-by-word, line-by-line in an effort to demonstrate his incompetence (at best) or corruptness (at worst), by members of our own party. When he speaks someone (a Republican) is recording with the intent of using his words against him. When he sends an internal memo, when we file with a compliance agency, when he emails county leadership, it’s all posted to Facebook within minutes and used likewise.

In whatever station of life you occupy imagine trying to operate under such conditions. It’s time for us all to examine our motives.

What is the motive of this constant hounding of Chairman House? If the goal is to force him to resign, it ain’t happen’n. I have personally asked him about this on multiple occasions and the Chairman has made it crystal clear, “I was elected to do a job by a vote of 60% of the electorate and I’m going to do it. I’m not going to be forced out by 5 or 6 people who want me gone and thereby turn my back on the hundreds who placed their confidence in me.”

If the goal (of some individuals) is to force the Chairman out, let’s think about that. What is the the on-the-ground reality?

If House were to resign that’d leave me as the interim Chair until a special election could be held and a new Chair voted in. In an election year that would mean that in the midst of caucuses, state assembly, choosing delegates, RNC, et. al, we’d be attempting to hold a special election to elect our third Chair in ten’ish months. In addition to the obvious issues of staff, getting up to speed on everything, etc., the new Chair would also have to face donors. S/he will somehow have to convince them to continue to support the party and state candidates; that this changing of jockeys mid-race will have no adverse effects and convince them to please continue writing checks. Good luck with that.

Having some nine months of up-close & personal observation I can attest this much – Chairman House is not incompetent. Have there been zero missteps, is our administration 100% error free? Of course not. No one is going to be liked by everyone including you and me, but this isn’t a popularity contest. In the real world of “does this guy know what he’s doing?” I am confident in casting my “yes” vote.

In addition, Chairman House has rescinded the previous Chair’s (rather cushy) salary and for the most part does not submit expense reports. The man is putting in 60, 70, 80-hour weeks on a volunteer basis. Drives all over our quite large state in his own car and mostly covers his own meals, hotel, incidentals. That’s another $150,000+ he’s not sucking up and is therefore available to candidates and infrastructure. Should he go byebye would his replacement do the same?

Don’t get me wrong, watch dog activity brings with it accountability. Questioning is a good thing. But there’s a line. When we (Republicans) are the ones helping HuffPo, Colorado Pols and the rest fill up their libraries with talking points and things they can use against us in the future, it’s time to question whether we’re holding people accountable or doing more damage than good.

The Colorado GOP is currently being handcuffed – by the Colorado GOP. We are not perfect, far from it. But we’re three people more dedicated and committed to victory you’ll never meet. The job in front of us is colossal and will require a massive team effort. We need all in the boat to have an oar and be rowing the same direction. Going out of our way to sabotage the person in front of you slows and misdirects the entire vessel. And to what point? To what end?

If you have issues the way to handle them is set an appointment, come into the office for a face-to-face and get your questions satisfactorily answered; not blast them onto social media for two days of point/counter-point that end up as screen captures on ColoradoPols. Let’s all realize who the true opposition is and cease sabotaging ALL of our opportunities for success though endless rounds of back-biting and passing of notes in study hall. We have a nation in need.

I hope all had a wonderful Christmas and are enjoying a fantastically blessed holiday season.

Respectfully submitted,

Derrick Wilburn, Vice Chairman

For perspectivce this New Year’s Eve, here are some statistics on tragedies of the past year.

Number of people killed in San Bernardino terrorist attack: 14

Number of prisoners executed in America each year: 28

Number of people killed in Paris terrorist attack: 130

Number of American teens who die in car crashes each year: 2,000

Number of Americans killed in car crashes each year: 35,000

Number of people killed in Planned Parenthood terrorist attack in Colorado Springs: 3

Number of Americans who commit suicide with a gun each year: 21,000

Number of women who die during pregnancy and childbith: 300,000

Number of malaria deaths worldwide, mostly in impoverished countries, yearly: 435,000

Number of children under 5 who die worldwide due to poor nutrition, yearly: 3.1 million

In honor of Denver talk-radio host Mike Rosen’s last regular show (today at noon), I thought I’d offer you some jokes Rosen told in April on air. He said he wanted to give “equal time” to women.

Rosen: “There are the old clichéd blond jokes and other techniques at taking pot shots at women. This falls into the heading of equal time. Here’s a woman fighting back with some personal experiences.

He said to me, ‘I don’t know why you wear a bra. You’ve got nothing to put in it.’

I said to him, ‘You wear pants, don’t you?’ [pause]

He said to me, ‘Shall we try swapping positions tonight?’

I said to him, ‘That’s a good idea. You stand by the stove and sink, while I sit on the sofa and do nothing but fart.’ [pause]

He said to me, ‘What have you been doing with all the grocery money I gave you?’

I said to him, ‘Why don’t you look sideways and look in the mirror?”  [pause]

He said to me, ‘Why don’t women blink during foreplay?”

I said to him, ‘They don’t have time.’  [pause]

He said to me, ‘How many men does it take to change a roll of toilet paper?’

I said to him, ‘I don’t know. I don’t know. It’s never happened.’  [pause]

He said to me, ‘Why is it difficult to find men who are sensitive, caring, and good looking.’

I said to him, ‘They already have boyfriends’  [pause]

He said to me, ‘What do you call a woman who knows where her husband is every night?’

I said to him, “A widow.”  [pause]

He said to me, ‘Why are married women heavier than single women?’

I said to him, ‘Single women come home, see what’s in the fridge and go to bed. Married women come home, see what’s in bed, and go to the fridge.”  [pause]

Equal time for women.

Obviously, most of these jokes are sexist against women, so presenting them as “equal time for women” makes no sense.

But that’s how Rosen was for about 30 years on KOA. You could disagree with him, or think he was rude or crazy or manipulative, but his facts were usually right. He was prepared and obviously worked hard on his show, which addressed serious policy issues day after day. He was provocative and smart, even if he was a partisan Republican.

And he was able to tone it done and be respectful during his monthly interviews over decades with Democratic and Republican governors and Denver mayors, who took questions from everyday listeners. This was a public service that everyone benefited from.

I’ll miss Rosen, and it will be good to hear him subbing every now and then when the regular hosts are gone.

With Hanukkah behind me, and fresh from celebrating the solstice (and looking forward to Christmas), I saw this Facebook post by Derrick Wilburn, Vice Chair of the Colorado Republican Party.

Wilburn: For what its worth, not one of the Democrat candidates in last night’s debate mentioned or invoked “God” at any point, not even closing statements. The Republican candidates, at the very least, would end their closing statements with “God bless America” or similar. As close as any of the three last night came was Hilary who closed with, “And may the force be with you.”

Is it relevant? To some yes, to some no, but this much is inarguable – from removing of “God” from the wording of it’s 2012 platform (then subsequently adding Him back in via a rigged vote resulting in God Himself being boo’d on the convention floor) to last night’s complete snubbing, the Democrat Party is marching toward a wholly secular existence at neck-breaking speed. Some may think that’s a good thing some may not, but neither side can dispute that it is truth.

Obviously religion is important in America, but how long will Republicans promote themselves, even in a veiled manner as Wilburn does, as the party of God and Country? While taking jabs at secularism? It can’t last, with the country going in the opposite direction? Well…

More Facebook viewing turned up this post, by State Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt (R-Colorado Springs), in which he goes further than Wilburn. He tells us who, among the believers, are the heretics and who aren’t .

“This graph separates the non-Christian, heretical, apostate churches from the true Christian churches in our generation,” wrote Klingenschmitt on Facebook, pointing to data showing that members of many Protestant denominations are now more accepting of homosexuality.

You don’t have to say “Thank God” to appreciate that trend, especially around Christmas.

I haven’t read former Denver Post reporter Mike McPhee’s biography of Denver developer and historic preservationist Dana Crawford, but I like how Post reviewer Dana Coffield, in describing what’s in the book, tells the story of  Crawford’s discovery of Larimer Square, which Crawford later turned into one of Denver’s first historic Denver attractions.

Coffield wrote a couple weeks ago:

As it is told by Mike McPhee in “Dana Crawford: 50 Years Saving the Soul of a City,” the renaissance began on a sizzling summer day in 1963, when a group of winos came to Crawford’s rescue after her puke-green Ford convertible died on Larimer Street.

“Vapor lock,” one of them rasped from the doorway of a building on Denver’s skid row.

She found what she was looking for in the 1400 block of Larimer, near where the band of drunks, rewarded for their trouble only with a big smile and twinkling blue eyes, solved her engine problem with a dirty rag and a little water.

McPhee conducted extensive interviews with Crawford and folks who know her. I’m going to buy it for myself for holiday reading.

Generations Radio host Kevin Swanson, whose right-wing show originates in Colorado’s Elbert County, is praising Elbert County Clerk Dallas Schroeder for hanging a poster in his government office with a quote from the Bible, “Each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband” — even though Schroeder has apparently removed the poster from his office, after local residents complained.

“If you come anywhere close to a heathen sacrifice, a heathen temple, or a heathen ceremony, much of which is represented by the modern pagan state,  and that is homosexual weddings, you ought to at least make it clear that you are not implicitly or explicitly approving of the idolatrous practice,” Swanson told his listeners during a podcasted show Thursday (at about 15 minutes). “And using a Bible verse would be a good way to do that.”

With his poster, Schroeder apparently wanted to wipe his conscience clean of any responsibility for the same same-sex marriage license issued by his office, according to a report by KMGH-TV in Denver, Denver’s ABC affiliate.

“My thought process is that they have to see the poster,” writes Schroeder in the email obtained by the TV station.  “And if they choose to violate God’s written Word, then that is on their head.”

That’s in line with the beliefs of radio host Swanson, who I’ve called a shock pastor in the past, due to his string of extreme statements, based on his take on the scripture.

“This guy is kind of following through on the principle that I have brought out a number of times on this radio broadcast concerning the question, ‘Should a Christian attend a homosexual wedding?'” Swanson said on air last week. “And I have said ‘yes’ as long as you hold up a Bible verse [opposing same-sex marriage].”

I won’t be holding up a Bible quote at the heathen solstice party I’m attending tonight, fyi. But if Swanson comes, and he wants to peacefully carry around a quotation on a poster or something, that’s fine with me. In fact, he’d fit right in, because people bring strange things to the party. But, please, keep such signs out our government buildings.

In response to my recent post, revealing another instance where Rep. Mike Coffman appears to resist criticizing Donald Trump, I received this letter:

Dear BigMedia:

The following psychological profile excerpt is a nearly one-to-one match with the qualities/behaviors that Trump supporters find attractive, in their own words:

“[N]ever allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

And the last bits — repetition of a big lie until enough people believe it — are not things Trump’s supporters would expressly agree with, but are near indisputable, given the well-established pattern of Trump making a false insinuation followed by his supporters adopting and propagating the falsehood as truth.

Now, there is already a well-developed narrative comparing Trump’s recent escalation of rhetoric to the template used by Hitler/Goebbels, etc.  What I have noticed is that the comparisons depend upon the writer’s subjective opinion about how close a comparison between the two can be justified.

And perhaps a pundit has already made this connection (and you may already have guessed as much), but the excerpt above is from a report prepared by the Office of Strategic Services in late-1943/early-1944, entitled “A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler. His Life and Legend”.

This sort of punch-line feels more compelling than the high-school-essay-type position, “I believe Trump is like Hitler because…”

Because this profile was a contemporary analysis of a living Hitler/enemy-of-America, it creates a brutally effective frame for understanding how/why Trump is building his support in the manner he has.

In other words, even if folks who are on the fence about Trump don’t trust any 2015-era critics making comparisons based on 60+ year-old history, they may be more persuaded when they recognize Trump in the words written by America’s best-and-brightest intelligence officers when America regarded this sort of leader as a mortal enemy.

Sincerely,

Anonymous

On KNUS-710 AM’s website today, you’ll find, from left to right, radio host Peter Boyles, Westword’s Patricia Calhoun, former Congressman Tom Tancredo, and fomer Denver Post reporter Lynn Bartels (seated). The photo is titled the “Takeover Crew,” with the subtitle, “Planning world domination over lunch.”

Last week, in response to Roll Call reporter Simone Pathe’s question of whether he’d vote for Donald Trump, Rep. Mike Coffman replied, “I’m not going to go there. Thanks.”

Coffman’s dodge came after he didn’t denounce Trump, as other Republicans did, when Trump called for temporarily banning all Muslims from entering the United States.

Something about Trump seems to be holding Coffman back from being too mean to him, and you can actually see it in the following exchange on Radio Luz, a Denver Spanish-language radio station, back in August (translated from Spanish):

Host Gil Guerra [beginning at 16:50 here]: We have arrived at the end of this segment. But I don’t want you to go without my thanks for being here with us. But, Congressman, let’s talk about this item: What possibility is there that you come visit us again, because I want to us to chat about a very controversial figure, that has gone viral in all of this, — the famous Donald Trump.

Coffman, speaking in Spanish: El Donald

Guerra: Yes I was going to say “Donald Duck”

Coffman: The Donald! [laughing] The duck, no! The Donald!

Guerra: Donald Duck.

Coffman: [laughing] Oh, no, duck. No, no, no!!! El Senor Donald.

Guerra: Donald Trump! It’s okay, that’s fine. You’re going to respect him. But what do you think if we talk about this because I want to differentiate the politics with respect to what is actually that of the Republicans.

Coffman: Donald Trump!

[…]

[commerical break]

Guerra: Alright, then. Now we’re back in our third segment. And we thanked the Congressman. He had to leave. He had a very tight schedule.

Guerra told me today that he subsequently asked Coffman to appear on the show, but his schedule didn’t permit it. Maybe in 2016, he said.

I’ve pointed out a couple times (e.g., here and here and here) that Coffman’s actual factual positions are quite similar to Trump’s, so his hesitancy to denounce Senor Donald isn’t completely surprising, but it’s one of the strangest political blips that’s surfaced of late in Colorado politics, ripe for a reporter to figure out.

For an RH Reality Check post today, I collected the responses of pro-choice activists to last week’s court appearance by the accused Planned Parenthood domestic terrorist, during which he shouted, “I’m a warrior for the babies.”

Were his outbursts further proof that extreme anti-choice rhetoric contributed to the November 27 murders?

“I think Dear’s comments remove any doubt as to what his motive was,” Amy Runyon-Harms, director of ProgressNow Colorado, said in an email to RH Reality Check. “Elected officials who use over-the-top rhetoric in an effort to appease their base need to think twice before doing so and recognize the impact their words have on others.”

Karen Middleton, director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, agreed.

“The attacks have gotten worse, and the fact that the gunman repeated the same rhetoric about ‘baby parts’ we’ve heard from abortion opponents is not a coincidence,” Middleton toldRH Reality Check. “Words have meaning, and people inclined to violence can act on that meaning in awful ways. The result here is that an Iraq war veteran, a mother of two, and a police officer lost their lives, and six children lost their parent….”

“We know that words matter,” Vicki Cowart, director of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, said in the statement. “It is time to put an end to the dangerous rhetoric that has permeated our political conversations. Enough is enough—this violence, whether inflicted with words or with weapons, cannot become our normal.”

You recall that at a December 1 news conference on the west steps of the capitol, activists named three anti-choice politicians, Rep. Mike Coffman, State Rep. Gordon Klingenschmitt, and State Sen. Tim Neville, as using rhetoric that contributed to the shooting in Colorado Springs.