It’s past time for reporters to start asking more key Colorado candidates where they stand on Trump.

Don’t yowl that it’s an unfair question, somehow beyond-the-pale partisan because Trump is so unpopular in Colorado and not relevant to state races.

If that’s what you think, you’re wishing you lived in a different America.

Trump’s presidency permeates every single political race and decision in our country, affecting every aspect of government (Bill of Rights, courts, press, FBI, EPA, voting, and so much more). His rhetoric and style upend civil discourse.

Whether you agree with that or not, you have to admit that Trump is a revolutionary-type force in our country.

As such, the opinions of all candidates about Trump should available to voters.

I don’t mean to say journalists have ignored candidates’ views on Trump, but the reporting has been spotty and, in the legislative races, it’s been absent in many cases, even in the state senate races that are so critical in this election.

I’ve scoured the public record, and called candidates, to find out which Colorado Republicans voted for Trump. Will they do so again? What do they like and don’t like about what he’s done? (I’m assuming Democrats oppose Trump.)

Objectively, these are legitimate questions for any candidate in the year 2018. Yet, many Republicans in key Colorado races have yet to answer them. Here’s what we know so far.

GOVERNOR

Walker Stapleton (embraced Trump’s endorsement.  Wants Trump to campaign with him here in Colorado)

Lang Sias (backs Trump now and is already dedicated to voting for him in 2020)

U.S. CONGRESS

U.S. Rep. Ken Buck (backed Trump in 2016; 88 percent pro-Trump voting record)

U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (voted for Pence in 2016; 96 percent pro-Trump voting record)

U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn (backed Trump in 2016; 94 percent pro-Trump voting record)

U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton (backed Trump in 2016;  96 percent pro-Trump voting record)

COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL

George Brauchler (says we’re “in pretty damn good hands” with Trump; voted for him)

COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE

Wayne Williams (expressed support for Trump’s candidacy)

COLORADO TREASURER

Brian Watson (supports Trump)

KEY STATE SENATE RACES

Beth Martinez Humenik of Thornton — (unknown, but she praised Trump’s Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke)

Christine Jensen of Wheat Ridge — (did not respond to a voice message asking for her views on the Trump presidency)

Olen Lund of Paonia — (did not respond to a voice message asking for his views on the Trump presidency)

Tim Neville of Littleton — (a loyal Trump backer, who celebrated Trump’s “Year of Greatness”)

Tony Sanchez of Lakewood — (did not respond to a voice message asking for his views on the Trump presidency)

KEY STATE HOUSE RACES

Kristina Alley of Lakewood — (voted for Trump)

Grady Nouis of Westminster — (stands with Trump 100%)

Toren Mushovic of Greenwood Village — (did not respond to a voice message asking for his views on the Trump presidency)

Kit Roupe of Colorado Springs — (wrote in 2016, “I ask you to vote and to vote for Trump.“)

This is why you need regional reporters who will hold elected officials accountable.

Realvail.com’s David O. Williams wanted to report the thoughts of his area Congressman, Scott Tipton, on Trump’s handling of the recent actions by Neo-Nazis. So he called his office last week, and here’s what he reported.

Williams noted in a post that Tipton had been “careful not to criticize the president, tweeting: ““Neo-Nazis are abhorrent & only try to drive America apart. We must stand up to racism, antisemitism & hateful rhetoric wherever we see it.”

Williams: I asked a Tipton spokeswoman for the congressman’s thoughts on the president’s handling of the situation, including his comments Tuesday that demonstrated sympathy for neo-Nazi, white supremacist and KKK protesters, calling some “very fine people.” I also wondered if there should be a federal law banning the use of Nazi and other white supremacist logos, the way there is in Germany.

But she referred to his original tweet, saying, “Those are his feelings on the situation, period.”

Colorado Republicans Gardner, Doug Lamborn and Mike Coffman all pushed push back directly against Trump’s comments on Charlottesville.

Although he called Trump’s Access Hollywood sexual assault comments “appalling,” Tipton steadfastly supported Trump and refused to outright condemn his anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim rhetoric during the campaign, instead trying to link his Democratic opponent — former state Sen. Gail Schwartz — to Hillary Clinton.

Obviously, this is a grain-of-sand contribution to the national and local debate about Trump and the local reaction to him. But it’s a grain that would never exist unless a reporter created it.

The Colorado Republican congressional delegation is talking a lot about a “replacement” for Obamacare, as if they have something in mind, without actually pointing to an actual factual replacement–or even any details leading in the direction of a replacement.

Reporters should be extra careful to point out that Republicans have no replacement plan, because all the talk about one can easily confuse already confused people into thinking that Colorado Republicans have a plan.

As an example of how Republicans try to disguise their absence of a plan as a plan, check out this passage from a Jan. 13 Denver Post opinion piece, authored by all of Colorado’s GOP members of Congress (with the glaring exception of U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner.)

And speaking of replacement plans, the narrative that Republicans have offered no plan to replace Obamacare is false. Republicans have introduced multiple alternative health care plans since 2010, and we encourage you to review them. The most recent replacement plan was offered by the Republican Study Committee, called the American Health Care Reform Act. The Empowering Patients First Act was a plan put forth in the 114th Congress by future Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Tom Price. Our Better Way Agenda also includes a blueprint for replacing Obamacare that is centered on more choices, lowers costs, and greater flexibility.

Many plans does not mean you have a plan. Gentlemen, which plan do you favor, if any?

Even though Gardner didn’t join his colleagues in the Denver Post opinion, he made a similar statement on KOA 850-AM Jan. 13 (audio below):

Gardner: We have introduced several bills — hundreds of bills, really — small and big over the past several years to replace Obamacare. Some are very targeted, some are much more comprehensive: legislation by Tom Price –soon to be the Secretary of Health; legislation by Dr. Grasso, a Senator from Wyoming who is a physician; legislation from Bill Cassidy, a physician himself from Louisiana that will be introduced next. These are all going to be considered as part of the replacement once it’s repealed.

Hundreds of bills! Small and big! Very targeted! All will be considered! (But, alas, still, no plan.)

But, it’s worth noting, and it’s in fact newsworthy, that  Colorado’s congressional Republicans are saying the Price plan is in the mix, because analysts say that millions of people would lose their health insurance under Price’s proposal. And Price is Trump’s nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The Cassidy plan, also mentioned by Gardner, would leave millions of people uninsured or underinsured, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In fact, Trump’s promises aside, I can’t find someone who’s making a credible case that any of the floated Republican plans, either individually or combined with one another, won’t throw millions of people off the health insurance rolls. (Here’s a look at a few more GOP plans.)

9News anchor Kyle Clark noted Gardner’s awareness of the problem, reporting that Gardner “would not commit to having an Affordable Care Act replacement that covers everyone with insurance now.”

But the big numbers involved might explain why Gardner literally turned and walked away from Vox.com editor Sarah Kliff when she asked about coverage under the Price plan, because millions lose it.

The numbers and obfuscation also are the reason reporters should press for an answer to the questions about a replacement plan and its impact. And not mince words in informing us of non-answers.

Listen to Cory Gardner on 850-KOA Jan. 13.

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.

The Pueblo Chieftain has excluded independent candidate Tisha Casida from a Chieftain-sponsored debate Oct. 10 featuring 3rd congressional district candidates Scott Tipton, a Republican, and Democrat Sal Pace.

“Voters want to hear from the candidates who do have a chance,” the Chieftain’s Managing Editor Steve Henson wrote in an email to Casida. “And we feel that we are reflecting the desires of our area voters and readers to focus on the candidates of the major parties.”

It’s a strange position for a newspaper to take, running contrary to journalism’s core job of airing out ideas, no matter how unpopular or meek.

But, it’s also true that a debate could get so diluted and unwieldy with lots of candidates on stage that voters would get little or nothing out of it.

So, if I were running a debate, I’d take a practical approach and see how many legitimate candidates, like Casida, wanted to participate and go from there.

If there were too many candidates, like there were during those loony GOP presidential debates recently, and I had no way of knowing which ones were most viable, I’d rotate them in and out. If there were only three or four legitimate candidates on the ballot, I’d include all of them them.

“You’re coming at it from the perspective of putting all the ideas out there,” Henson told me when I suggested this to him. “Our perspective reflects the wishes of our readers.” (He added that the Chieftain has given Casida a fair shake on its news pages, and this appears to me to be true.)

Henson says third-party or other candidates have gotten scant support over many years in southern Colorado.

“If a Libertarian were to get 15 percent of the vote in this election, they’d probably be included in our debate in the next election,” he said. “But that just hasn’t happened. It has nothing to do with the expression of ideas. For us, it’s really a numbers issue.”

The business organization, Club 20, apparently agrees with me that in an election debate, ideas should trump numbers, as Casida was included in the Sept. 9 Club 20 debate in Grand Junction, standing between Pace and Tipton on stage. The event worked just fine, I thought.

In a statement, Casida stated: “It is disappointing to be excluded from a debate in which we do represent a population of voters, and it is my hometown where I was born and raised, which is disheartening. I have worked very hard to petition onto the ballot and be a part of the process, to have a voice and be a voice for people who are frustrated with both Republicans and Democrats.”

Henson’s full statement, which he e-mailed to Casida, follows:

Henson: The Chieftain has not included third-party or independent or write-in candidates for political office because Pueblo and Southern Colorado voters historically have not supported them at the polls. Such candidates typically receive less than 10 percent and often less than 5 percent of the total votes cast.

In other words, frankly, area voters have made it clear that they will not elect a candidate who is not Democrat or Republican. Unless that situation changes, we will not include other candidates in our forums because it takes valuable time away from those candidates who have a legitimate chance of being elected.

Voters want to hear from the candidates who do have a chance, and we feel that we are reflecting the desires of our area voters and readers to focus on the candidates of the major parties.

Despite the onslaught of lies coming at them, some journalists push on, trying to set the record straight.

Take, for example, Kurtis Lee, writing in Wednesday’s Denver Post.

Lee paraphrased Coffman spokesman Owen Loftus as saying Democrats voted for “a perceived $500 billion in cuts to Medicare” as part of Obamacare.

Lee didn’t just let Loftus’ explosive salvo fly out the window. Instead, like the Pueblo Chieftain’s Peter Roper did a while back, he set the record straight.

Lee added the following paragraph after Loftus’ accusation:

In a Washington Post fact check of similar claims, the health care law tries to identify ways to save money, and so the $500 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as “the baseline”) and the changes the law makes to reduce spending.

In other words, the $500 billion reduction in spending was achieved through saving money, not cutting the program. (And, incidentally, Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget adopted the same Medicare savings.)

Here’s more information from the Washington Post article that Lee cites:

The savings actually are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries. These spending reductions presumably would be a good thing, since virtually everyone agrees that Medicare spending is out of control. In the House Republican budget, lawmakers repealed the Obama health care law but retained all but $10 billion of the nearly $500 billion in Medicare savings, suggesting the actual policies enacted to achieve these spending reductions were not that objectionable to GOP lawmakers.

Numerous other nonpartisan fact checkers have arrived at the same conclusion.

This hasn’t stopped the Romney campaign from leveling essentially the same Medicare attack in an ad airing today, and it’s depressing as shit to see factual discourse trashed to such an extreme degree.

But don’t you love journalism when a reporter, like Lee, stands up for the truth?

Obviously, the key news from today’s personhood press conference was that personhood supporters turned in 112,121 signatures to Colorado’s Secretary of State, hoping to get their measure on the November ballot.

But the political ramifications of the personhood amendment should continue to be a key part of the coverage. The amendment, which would ban all abortions and some common forms of birth control, is clearly of interest to women, in particular, and women are a key voters in Colorado elections.

Personhood supporters have yet to hear from Rep. Mike Coffman and Rep. Cory Gardner about whether they will endorse their amendment this year, as they did in 2010, Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones told reporters today.

Garcia Jones said they’d welcome their support again, as they would any candidate, Democrat or Republican.

“To me, they’d be shooting themseves in the foot, if they backtracked,” said Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks. “It would be their loss.”

Coffman was listed as a personhood supporter in 2010. Coffman also supported Personhood in 2008, and, on one occasion, Coffman wrote Dan Caplis, of KHOW’s defunct Caplis and Silverman Show, a letter, specifically clarifying that Coffman, like all personhood supporters, does not support abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

Likewise, Cory Gardner is praised on the Colorado Right to Life website for his support of personhood in 2010, and earlier this year, Kristi Brown, who initiated the personhood movement in Colorado, said that Rep. Cory Gardner was “one of our main supporters” in 2008.

“Kids are taught that life is cheap,” Hanks told me, referring to legalized abortion. “So we shouldn’t be shocked when we have massacres happening.”

She said collecting signatures is intended to counter this and is a “labor of love.”

“Coloradans trust and respect women,” said Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Director Vicki Cowart in a news release. “‘Personhood’ measures do not respect women and their families. Today, Planned Parenthood gears up for a third campaign. We’re hopeful that the third verse will be the same as the first and second.”

Personhood USA spokesman Keith Mason talks to reporters at a news conference Monday

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

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

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

——————-

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

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

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

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

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

An email to the club was not immediately returned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democrat Sal Pace and independent Tisha Casida, both running for Colorado’s 3rd congressional district, will face off later this year in a debate sponored by The Aspen Daily News and Aspen Public Radio, but Republican Scott Tipton will attend only if his “schedule permits,” according to Roger Adams, News Director of Aspen Public Radio.

A specific date for the debate has not been set, but it will likely occur between mid-Septembeer and mid-October, said Adams via email last week.

Other area candidates will be invited after the June 26 primary, and more details will be available next month.

The name “Tisha Casida” has yet to appear in The Denver Post and other legacy media in Denver, but that didn’t stop The New York Times from including Casida in a front page article Wednesday about how “Paulite candidates for Congress are sprouting up from Florida to Virginia to Colorado, challenging sitting Republicans and preaching the gospel of radically smaller government, an end to the Federal Reserve, restraints on Bush-era antiterrorism laws and a pullback from foreign military adventures.”

The Times piece showed how these so-called constitutionalist candidates are making waves if properly funded, and the piece spotlighted a PAC that’s backing some of them with serious money.

“I’ve called myself a constitutionalist from the get go,” Casida told me.  “People who believe in fiscal conservatism and social liberty will come to our side.”

The Times reported:

And lightly regarded Paulites running for Congress could become forces with the right amount of money. Tisha Casida, an independent in Colorado, is running against Representative Scott Tipton. Calen Fretts is chipping away at Representative Jeff Miller in Florida’s Panhandle, and Karen Kwiatkowski is challenging Representative Robert W. Goodlatte in Virginia.

“I think there’s a great movement going on in this country,” said Ms. Casida, who said she was pulled into politics by Mr. Paul’s message and the red tape she faced trying to open a local farmer’s market.

“We were really pleased by the article,” Casida told me today. “We’re hoping that people nationally see our platform, which is much like Ron Paul’s, and connect with us.”  The article sparked internet signups on her website, Cassida said.

I told Casida I was glad to see that The Times correctly identified her (above) as an independent candidate, but I was sorry the newspaper stated she was running against Scott Tipton and neglected to mention that she’s also running against Democrat Sal Pace.

She says she’s frustrated that reporters sometimes omit her name completely when reporting on the congressional race.

“I think my true competition is Pace,” she told me. “I don’t think Tipton has a chance of winning no matter what.”

Casida mentioned that a congressional debate, sponsored by the Aspen Daily News and Aspen Public Radio, is planned, but a date isn’t set yet. Pace is planning to attend, but Tipton hasn’t accepted his invitation, according to Casida. “I think it would be interesting to discuss issues with Sal Pace,” Casida said.

The New York Times article capped off a “good couple of weeks,” said Casida

“At any point in time, we could get an influx,” she said. “People are hungry for candidates who will talk about issues.”