On a Denver radio show Friday, Rep. Mike Coffman affirmed his opposition to the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, adding that, even now, he’d deploy U.S. military personnel to Iraq, if they were invited, to serve in an advisory role.

Asked by KNUS talk-show host Dan Caplis if he’d support “boots back on the ground in Iraq,” Coffman replied:

Coffman: Certainly an advisory role, but certainly not anything beyond that. And that’s if requested. I think we have to be very careful once out about reentering that particular conflict. I would say, in terms of regular troops on the gound, absolutely not.”

During the interview, Coffman expressed regret that U.S. troops are not on the ground in Iraq today, to help the Iraqi government confront sectarian violence.

“Some residual force would have maintained at least that military-military, government-to-government ties that we would have had some influence there,” Coffman told KNUS’ Dan Caplis Friday. “Right now we have no influence.”

Listen to Coffman say he favors re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq.

Coffman didn’t offer details on the size of the “residual force” he had in mind, but back in 2009 he endorsed the Administration’s plan envisioning an American force of up to 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq.

On the radio, Coffman criticized President Barack Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq. If Obama hadn’t pulled out so many troops, it’s possible a residual force could have been left in Iraq, Coffman said, and the current crisis might have been avoided.

Coffman: “I think the Administration was looking for a narrative that we ended war in Iraq.  And the Iraqi government had requested some kind of residual presence, if anything to be symbolic to the Iraqi people that we were still engaged. And that’s, I think, very important, probably to this day, although the decision has been made… But what the Administration kept doing is lowering the number of troops, and obviously insisting, as they should, that Status of Forces Agreement keep U.S. military personnel under U.S. jurisdiction, as we always insist on. The Iraqi government clearly had to expend the political capital to accept that. And they were willing to until the numbers dropped so low that it wasn’t worth it to them to do that. And so the Administration is now saying, ‘Well, we gave them the opportunity, and they didn’t take it, in terms of the Status of Forces Agreement.’ But the Administration just wanted out. And I think we’re suffering some of the consequences of that today.” [BigMedia emphasis]

Under the Status of Forces Agreement, Obama planned in 2011 on keeping 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, he lowered the number to about 5,000, before the troops were asked by the Iraqis to leave. Based on this, and his statement above, Coffman appears to have been prepared to leave at least 10,000 troops in Iraq or more, if necessary to make it worth it to the Iraqis politically.

Coffman’s announcement that he favors the re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq appears to be a reversal of a position he took in 2011, when he stated that he supported President Barack Obama’s decision to remove all troops from the country.

At a time when radio stations are dumping local talk shows in favor of national yakkers, Denver’s KNUS is heading in the opposite direction, filling its lineup with local flotsam and jetsam tossed from competing stations.

KNUS’ latest addition is Denver Attorney Dan Caplis, a social conservative with decades of experience on the Denver airwaves, most recently at KHOW, where he was paired with fellow attorney Craig Silverman.

For his first broadcast Monday, Caplis interviewed GOP gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo as well as former state GOP chair Dick Wadhams. He said he’d put any callers with differing opinions at the front of the line.

“For 20 years, it’s been my policy to take callers who disagree first,” Caplis told me later after I asked him if he was serious about wanting to talk to progressives. “People want a battle of ideas. All I want from a caller is to answer the question directly.”

Caplis’ first show made a news bit when Wadhams said Republicans need a fresh face in the gubernatorial race, and Wadhams thinks the face of GOP candidate Mike Kopp has the best chance of defeating Gov. John Hickenlooper in 2014.

Will Caplis’ show focus on politics?

Caplis says politics will be part of his show, but his content will be determined largely but what’s happening on the ground.

“I don’t want to sit around talking about this stuff; I want to affect the outcome,” he told me, citing Boyles’ recent focus on Masterpiece Bake Shop, which got into trouble for turning away a gay couple seeking a wedding cake.

Caplis promises “lots of investigative reporting and the use of public records to expose corruption.”

At KHOW, Caplis and Silverman dove deep into the JonBenet Ramsey case, and Caplis took the national spotlight for supporting Broncos QB Tim Tebow. They also had a major impact on the 2010 election, with their frequent and intelligent interviews of political candidates.

A Caplis interview with Rep. Mike Coffman might come into play during the upcoming election. Coffman asked Caplis to clarify, on air, that Coffman opposes all abortion, even for rape and incest.

The show’s interviews will likely be diminished without Silverman’s edgier questioning of conservative guests and with most progressives refusing to appear.

“We did smart, tough talk radio,” Caplis said, adding the he hopes Silverman will be a regular part of his new show. “Craig asked tough questions of Republicans, me of Democrats. I will continue to invite Democrats, but I doubt they’ll accept because, frankly, they don’t have the answers–with the impressive exception of [Boulder Congressman] Jared Polis. He comes on.”

Caplis calls it a “brilliant” move of KNUS, which owned by Salem Communications, to scoop up talk-radio hosts, like Boyles, Kelley, and him, who have name recognition in the Denver market.

“There’s a demand,” he said. “It’s a very smart move on their part to go live and local.”

He has a point. The market for a brand runs deep. Twinkies was even scooped up by some big company. Boyles, Kelley, and Caplis have their followers.

I asked Caplis if he had a contract or any expectation of how long his newest gig would last.

“In the words of Chris Brown on ESPN, ‘We’re all day-to-day,'” Caplis replied. “I only want to do the show if it’s succeeding. I have other things to do in life.”

It looks to me like progressive Keith Olbermann said the day-to-day line first, but it doesn’t matter. It’s true, especially in radio.

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Aurora) delivered a major buzz kill on the radio Wednesday, saying he’s worried that pot legalization might keep Fortune 500 companies out of Colorado and drive down the state economy.

“I worry, ‘What about that Fortune 500 corporation that wants to move to Colorado?'” Coffman said on KOA’s Colorado Morning News (@3:45). “And the chief executive officer has young kids, and to say, ‘Do I want my children exposed to a culture where this is acceptable for adults? And will that influence their behavior as kids?'”

Without the cloud of marijuana in the mix,  you’d think a big CEO would move his or her company  to Colorado based on bottom-line considerations, but unfortunately KOA co-host April Zesbaugh didn’t delve into the facts underlying Coffman’s fear of Fortune-500 flight.

Overall, Coffman said he’s worried that pot legalization could be a bummer for Colorado’s economy, and unfortunately he wasn’t asked about the benefits.

“So we are really charting into an unknown world, and I certainly worry about the effect on this economy,” Coffman said (at 4:05 in the interview).

Listen to Coffman discuss his concern that pot legalization will drive down state economy 12-31-13

Also in the KOA interview, Coffman said he was concerned that military recruitment might be hurt by Colorado’s new pot law, because potential enlistees could be rejected due to their use of marijuana.

What’s more, he said current military personnel might get tripped up by the law.

“In terms of the military, we have a fairly significant military population [in Colorado],” Coffman said on KOA. “The military has screening tests that they spring, quite frankly, on their uniform folks every now and then. And if they test positive for drugs, to include marijuana, that’s really an issue that leads to a discharge.”

Coffman wasn’t asked what he could do, legislation-wise, to address this.

Coffman is considered one of the most endangered incumbents in the nation. His Colorado House district was re-drawn in 2010, and he defeated a weak Democratic opponent in 2012 by a slim two-percent margin. This year, analysts agree, he faces a much tougher challenger in Democrat Andrew Romanoff. Observers also point out that lower voter turnout, compared that of the presidential year in 2012, could work in Coffman’s favor, if voters stay home November.

I reported last week that Rep. Mike Coffman said on a radio show that America is in a “Constitutional crisis,” because of Obama’s “abusive interpretation of the Constitution.”

Sounds bad, even in the paranoid and crisis-filled world you find on conservative talk radio.

When asked for a solution by KHOW host Mandy Connell, Coffman talked about filing a lawsuit, maybe a personal one, against Obama!

Yesterday, The Denver Post’s Allison Sherry reported that Coffman’s spokesman “tried to soften the congressman’s assertion last week that he is looking into whether to sue President Barack Obama on abuse of power, saying, ‘litigation, legislation — all of it is on the table.'”

Coffman is becoming known for walking back statements made in front of friendly microphones, most memorably his repeated sort-of apology for his assertion that Obama isn’t an American “in his heart” and his statement that he didn’t know whether “Obama was born in the United States  of America.” (He later said his birther moment was overblown.)

In this week’s case, I appreciated that Sherry noted not only that Coffman’s backpedal was made by a spokesman, not Coffman himself, but also through a statement by the spokesman, not the spokesman himself.

What’s more, Sherry did the right thing by informing us that the Coffman spokesman “wouldn’t elaborate beyond the statement.”

Sherry’s reporting allows us to understand the different ways Coffman deals with these situations.

Rep. Mike Coffman announced Tues. that he may file a personal lawsuit against President Barack Obama over what Coffman sees as Obama’s abuse of power.

Speaking on KHOW radio’s Mandy Connell show, Coffman said America is in a “Constitutional crisis” due to Obama’s “abuse of waving the so-called magic wand of this prosecutorial discretion.”

Obama is “creating new law by not enforcing existing law, without going through Congress, a co-equal branch of government,” Coffman said on air. (Listen to Coffman say, on KHOW 11-26-13, that he’s considering legal action against Obama.)

“My office is engaged in the legal research right now of how do we take on the Administration,” said Coffman on the radio.  “It appears right now that we may have to do it, that I may have to do it, or somebody may have to do it, as an individual, outside of Congress, to litigate on one of these issues, the constitutionality. And I think you can litigate on one of them and establish a precedent that impacts all of them.”

On the radio, Coffman was unclear about the specific instances of prosecutorial discretion would be the focus of his legal action.

In June, Coffman voted to strip “Dreamers,” undocumented immigrants brought to this country illegally by their parents, of work permits and start deporting them, because, Coffman said, Obama over-stepped his authority in allowing immigration officials to defer deportation of them. (Yet, Coffman is also opposed to comprehensive-immigration-reform legislation, passed by Senate Republicans and Democrats, and he has yet to propose a specific plan that he would support.)

On KHOW, Coffman said he believes Obama exceeded his authority in lifting “certain elements of the [Iran] sanctions,” in deciding that governors had some discretion under the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, and in implementing Obamacare.

One wonders what else Coffman is thinking of. Relaxing some federal drug enforcement measures relating to Colorado’s marijuana statutes? (unlikely since Coffman has signed on to a bill allowing banks to conduct business with dispensaries). Maybe Coffman is also upset about Coffman’s approach to DOMA?

Reporters might explore the irony that Coffman is wasting time with a hail-Mary lawsuit trying to stop Obama from getting stuff done via executive orders, which Obama has arguably been forced to use thanks to Coffman and his fellow obstructionist House Republicans.

Partial Transcript of Rep. Mike Coffman’s Appearance on KHOW Nov. 26, 2013

Listen to Coffman say, on KHOW 11-26-13, that he’s considering legal action against Obama

Coffman: I think this country is in a Constitutional crisis because of this President’s ability or abuse of waving the so-called magic wand of this prosecutorial discretion, and basically creating law by not enforcing existing law, creating new law by not enforcing existing law, without going through Congress, a co-equal branch of government.

Connell: …One of my great frustrations with the Republicans DC is that there does not seem to be a concerted effort to push back against these exact Constitutional abuses that you are talking about. Is this something that comes up in the Caucus about if there’s any strategy. There has to be some way to tell the President of the United States that he cannot just on a whim choose to enforce or not enforce pieces of legislation that have been created by the Congress.

Coffman: My office is engaged in the legal research right now of how do we take on the Administration It appears right now that we may have to do it, that I may have to do it, or somebody may have to do it, as an individual, outside of Congress, to litigate on one of these issues, the constitutionality. And I think you can litigate on one of them and establish a precedent that impacts all of them.

From a post of mine on rhrealitycheck.org yesterday:

Rep. Mike Coffman is on record opposing embryonic stem-cell research, but that didn’t stop the Colorado Republican from touring a stem-cell laboratory at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and tweeting, “Happy to get the chance to tour the Stem Cell Research facility.”

A spokesman for the school, which is located in Coffman’s district, confirmed that the stem-cell facility visited by Coffman November 8 uses stem cells obtained from human embryos.

In 2008 and 2010, Coffman supported Colorado’s failed “personhood” initiatives, which aimed to define life as beginning at conception, when embryos form, and would have banned not only embryonic stem-cell research but also all abortions and some common forms of birth control.

Coffman is one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the U.S. Congress, and reporters should be watching for him to make statements and stage events, like this stem-cell tour, that may appeal to moderate voters but run counter to Coffman forever-held beliefs and policy positions.

Other examples include Coffman’s shifting position on the government shutdown, his attempt to label himself a no-labels politician, his once hard stance against allowing abortion after rape and incest,  and his evolving position toward undocumented immigrants and their children.

Reporters should remind readers of Coffman’s major and mini-makeovers as more emerge. The pattern is now part of the story.

Over the weekend, The Denver Post’s Allison Sherry reported Rep. Mike Coffman’s position, as Coffman has said before, that undocumented adults should be given the opportunity to apply for U.S. citizenship, but only when the U.S. has an “independently verified secure border.”

It’s fair enough to report that Coffman claims to favor citizenship with conditions. But if a reporter like Sherry is going to take Coffman at his word, she owes it to us to report more details on what an “independently verified secure border” means to Coffman.

To her credit, Sherry did report that Coffman does not support the immigration bill passed by the U.S. Senate that would beef up border security. Sherry reported:

The Senate bill, which no Colorado House Republican supports, commits $38 billion on border security — 20,000 new agents, 700 miles of new fencing, expensive technology such as drones and infrared cameras. [BigMedia emphasis]

Sherry could easily have asked Coffman what security he wants? Another 10,000 agents? Ten billion dollars more? With respect to verification, Coffman wrote in a Denver Post op-ed that he wants the border certified by “experts outside of the executive branch.” Who is Coffman thinking of?

And if Coffman won’t provide more details, a journalist could report his non-response.

Or a reporter might conclude that, until Coffman releases more details, it’s more fair to say he really doesn’t support citizenship for undocumented adults.

After interviewing Coffman about his immigration position in Sept. (Two months after Coffman’s Post op-ed appeared.) and trying to understand his position on citizenship, The Post’s Tim Hoover, for example,  concluded that Coffman “favors legal residency, but not citizenship, for adult illegal immigrants.”

The importance of providing specific information for the public become obvious when you contrast Coffman’s immigration position with his opponent’s.

Like Coffman, Democrat Andrew Romanoff says he supports “comprehensive immigration reform” and a path to citizenship. The difference is, Romanoff supports a specific plan, the bill already approved by the Senate.

Coffman doesn’t support the Senate bill, but holds up no specific plan of his own, even though he says he supports “comprehensive immigration reform,” like Romanoff does.

The public would be forgiven for not seeing much difference between Coffman and Romanoff on this issue because, without more details on what Coffman’s thinking, their positions sound close to identical.

And maybe they are similar, but we’re all in the dark unless reporters do their job and tell us what Coffman is thinking with enough specificity to make his broad rhetoric meaningful. Then his constituents will be able to make up their own minds.

I try not to miss any of the fact-checks of political ads on local TV. But somehow 9News’ Aug. 21 “Truth Test” of an ad attacking Rep. Mike Coffman got by me. It was the ad showing photos of ostriches and claiming that Coffman has his head in the sand about global warming.

9News’ Brandon Rittiman concluded that, even though part of the ad is an “overstatement,” it’s “fair to say” Coffman questions whether “we can do much” about climate change, because he’s “said repeatedly that ‘climate change is naturally occurring’ and it’s still up for debate how much of an impact people are having.”

Rittiman reports:

“Despite saying on his website that he wants to reduce carbon emissions, Coffman does have a solid record of voting against controls for carbon.”

“Bottom line, if you want someone in office who will vote for more control of carbon emissions, Mike Coffman isn’t your guy.”

Rittiman’s analysis of the ad demonstrated basic integrity and attention to detail that was nowhere to be found in the work of Denver Post columnist Mike Rosen, who also critiqued the ad.

Rosen starts his Aug. 11 Denver Post column by writing that the ad, paid for by the League of Conservation Voters, “dishonestly attacked Rep. Mike Coffman,” and “absurdly calls Coffman an anti-science extremist.”

But where are the dishonest attacks on Coffman? Rosen never tells us. Instead, he just writes that “science is never settled,” and, it’s “highly speculative” whether humans are causing global warming.

Rosen doesn’t try to defend Coffman for being the climate-change denier that the ad accurately says he is. Instead, Rosen holds hands with Coffman and questions whether humans are causing climate change. Rosen asserts that the ad falsely claims that “97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real.”

Rosen: The league charges that Coffman is out of step, claiming “97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real.” Of course climate change is real. Coffman doesn’t deny that. The Earth’s climate perpetually changes. Ice ages and warm ages predated human existence. Yes, global temperatures have increased since 1800. That was the low point of what’s called the “little ice age.” And the increase was driven by solar radiation, not SUVs. But notice the League of Conservation Voters’ sneaky wording. It didn’t say that 97 percent of scientists agree that “human activity” is a primary cause of global warming, because the survey it cites made no such claim. And the impact of human activity is the key, disputed variable.

Actually, the survey cited in the ad says that 97 percent of scientists do, in fact, agree global warming is “very likely due to human activities.”  They didn’t assert that it’s absolutely positively the primary cause, but “very likely” sounds like agreement to me.

That’s probably why Rittiman also found the ad’s fact that 97% of scientists believe climate change is real “to be true, among climate scientists.”

Rittiman reported:

CLAIM: 97 percent of scientists agree climate change is happening and NASA says it’s worsening extreme weather. VERDICT: TRUE

The ad should have specified that the figure represents agreement specifically among climate scientists, but it is a well documented figure, backed up by reputable research.

You can also find articles from NASA discussing extreme weather as it relates to climate change and worsening fire conditions, too.

It turns out, surprise, Rosen denies climate-change science just like Coffman does.

So, ironically, in trying to defend Coffman, Rosen reinforces the basic facts in the ad, which were affirmed by Rittiman, that scientists agree humans are causing global warming and Coffman doesn’t believe mainstream scientific opinion on the topic.

Activists led by Personhood USA yesterday submitted over 50,000 more signatures than the 86,000 required to make the 2014 election ballot, making it likely voters will cast ballots next year on a measure that would add “unborn human beings” to the definition of a “person” and “child” in Colorado’s criminal code.

Backers and opponents of the measure disagree on whether it would affect abortion rights, but the fact is that supporters of the amendment, including its designated representative and a spokesperson for Colorado Right to Life, have referred to it as “personhood.”

So this means it’s likely that political candidates will face questions next year about their views on the personhood concept, under which all abortion would be banned, even for rape and incest, as well as common forms of birth control.

In 2010, the last time a personhood amendment was on the Colorado ballot, all Republican candidates for Governor and Senate supported the measure.

This year, most top-line Republican candidates are on record supporting personhood (See below), while no Democrat has done so publicly. The Colorado Statesman’s Peter Marcus has sought comments from this year’s crop of candidates, but he’s faced some resistance.

Coverage of the yesterday’s signature submission, including informative pieces by CBS4’s Shaun Boyd and the Colorado Independent’s John Tomasic, didn’t provided a tally of personhood support among top candidates. So I will supply it below:

Governor

State Sen. Greg Brophy endorsed personhood in 2008 telling 7News at the time, “Clearly it’’s always the right time to take the stand for the sanctity of life.” Colorado Right to Life writes on its blog that Brophy “supports personhood” and is “pro-life with no exceptions.”

Secretary of State Scott Gessler is apparently not on record on personhood.

Former lawmaker Mike Kopp “supports personhood” and is “pro-life with no exceptions,” according to the Colorado Right to Life blog.

Former Rep. Tancredo supports personhood.

U.S. Senate

Sen. Randy Baumgardner is “100% pro-life with no exceptions” and “supports personhood,” according to the 2012 Colorado Right to Life blog.

Weld Country DA Ken Buck withdrew his support for the personhood amendment in 2010, but stood behind is position against abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest.

Sen. Owen Hill is “pro-life” and “supports personhood” according to CRTL in 2012.

U.S. House

Rep. Mike Coffman is listed by CRTL as a personhood supporter, and he has been held up by Personhood USA as a model personhood-supporting candidate. He’s against abortion for rape and incest.

Rep. Cory Gardner supports personhood.

Rep. Doug Lamborn supports personhood.

Rep. Scott Tipton is not on record as a personhood supporter.

The Denver Post’s Allison Sherry set a good example for her fellow journalists today by usng Twitter to tell us who isn’t talking to her.

Sherry tweeted: @RepMikeCoffman refuses to answer in person questions on the CR, says will only talk about funding federal govt ‘in writing’

It’s a great use of Twitter, in part because it allows the dwindling numbers of political journalists to know how they might be able to act collectively to get info from hiding politicians, who often choose to grant interviews to some reporters while ignoring others.

A public-minded reporter, lucky enough to have access to Coffman (or any bunkered pol), might see a tweet like Sherry’s and step up with questions. Reporters at different outlets are still competitors, for sure, but these days you see them taking more collective action for the greater good.

It’s obviously easier and easier for pubic officials to avoid journalists, as their ranks and audience declines. Tweeting the media-avoidance habits of politicians on a regular basis is a good response to a bad situation.