Updated at 2:30 p.m. with a comment from Personhood USA

————

Given decisive role the abortion issue apparently plays in Colorado elections nowadays, local reporters should pay attention to a statement issued by Personhood USA Monday, showering praise on Rep. Mike Coffman for not backpedaling on his “100% pro-life” position during the last election.

Personhood spokesperson Jennifer Mason wrote that Coffman’s victory is proof that her organization’s (and Coffman’s) uncompromising stance against abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest, leads to Republican victories.

Mason slammed Sen. John McCain’s recent argument that the GOP should soften its stance on abortion in order to win future elections. She believes moderate Republicans are unelectable, and the socially conservative wing of the GOP is growing and represents the future of the Republican Party.

Mason wrote:

In Colorado, where the personhood movement began in 2008, voters shied away from Republican candidates who had flip flopped on the issue. These candidates, following the unproven John McCain formula of “backing away” on abortion issues, lost.

Congressman Mike Coffman, although he did not endorse any state amendments this year including personhood, maintained his 100% pro-life position (without compromising or denying the personhood of children) and won.

There is a lesson to be learned here. The old guard of the GOP is dying. Their moderate candidates are unelectable, their base is unmoved by their attempts to energize the left, and their foundation is crumbling.

There is a Civil War brewing in the GOP, and it’s not pretty. If McCain and his ilk are successful, we are looking at a major defection to a third party, and the ultimate death of the Republican party.

During the campaign, Coffman said he wasn’t “focused on social issues,” and he barely discussed abortion, other than to say he was against all abortion, except to save the life of the mother.

Coffman’s stated exception allowing for abortion, to save the life of the mother, is apparently acceptable to the personhood backers, who argue that if the life of a pregnant woman is in danger due to a pregnancy or for whatever reason, the doctor needs to realize that he or she is treating two patients, the woman and the fetus at whatever stage of development.

As then Vice President of Colorado Right to Life Leslie Hanks told me via email ealier this year:

“If mom’s life is in danger, the doctor has two patients & he should make every effort to save both.”

In other words, the doctor would have two patients in one body to care for.

It’s unclear to me, under a personhood law, how a doctor would decide between saving the fetus or the pregnant woman, if both could not be saved. Would he or she be a death panel of one? How long would the doctor continue treating both woman and fetus if it meant that both were more likely to die if the doctor didn’t make a choice between the two?

Coffman has never stated that he’d always save the woman’s life over the fetus’, just that abortion would be an allowable choice for the doctor to make.

So Coffman’s position, allowing for abortion to save the life of the mother, seems to be consistent with that of personhood backers.

Jennifer Mason said the issue whether to allow abortion to save the mother’s life is one of “semantics” and “splitting hairs.”

“Of course, you try to save the mother first,” she told me, “and then you try to save save the baby. We’re painted all the time as only caring about the baby. But there’s no purpose in that. If the mom dies, the baby dies too. Nobody wants that. We try to save both, but of course the mother’s life has to be prioritized.”

“There is no case where it’s medically necessary to kill the child to save the mother,” Mason said. The surgery for an ectopic pregnancy, she said, requires the removal of the “baby,” which doctors can then try to save. If it dies, this would be an “unintended consequence” and therefore not an abortion, she said.

One of the highlights of election-season radio was ultra-conservative KNUS talker Steve Kelley banning Mike Coffman from his radio show because Coffman wouldn’t answer questions about Coffman’s comment that Obama is not an American “in his heart.”

I wondered, given Kelley’s over-heated partisanship on the air these days, if he’d lifted the Coffman ban in order to give Coffman some friendly air time in his tight race against Democrat Joe Miklosi.

So I called Kelley, who’d just spent 32 hours in a swing, literally, trying to swing the vote toward Romney, whether he’d let Coffman on his radio show. During our on-air conversation on KNUS this morning, Kelley said:

Kelley: “We have not invited Mike Coffman back on, as I said I wouldn’t. And really, I meant it…But no, I really felt that Congressman Coffman was hiding at that point, not wanting to stand behind that statement and I didn’t necessarily disagree with it. I didn’t think is it was that outrageously bad. We’ve heard a whole lot worse. So not to have his campaign be willing to get the candidate on shortly after that when it was timely upset me.

Jason Salzman: So you’re still done with him?

Kelley: Well, yeah. He’s really not invited on the program at this point, though I’ve bumped into Congressman Coffman a few times. I just didn’t appreciate that, but, I will say this, I will still be voting for him.

So if I were Kelley, I’d see how the election goes, then decide whether to reach out to Coffman again. He might be more open to talking about the details of his “birther moment,” as 9News put it, after the votes are cast.

When Ken Buck ran for Senate in 2010, he was asked, directly on at least two occasions, why he was against allowing a raped woman to have an abortion.

But, as far as I know, no one has reported Mike Coffman’s extended thoughts on the subject, beyond his statement that he’s “against all abortions, except when it is necessary to protect the life of the mother.”

So I tried to put the question to him at a public event this morning. I didn’t get a chance to discuss the issue with Coffman, or even explain who I was and what I was doing, because he walked away so quickly, but here’s what transpired.

Jason Salzman: Say, on this question of rape and incest, is it really something–would you stop a person from having, who’s been raped, an abortion? [Editor’s note: Sorry for being so inarticulate.]

Mike Coffman: You know, we just don’t–I’m not focused on social issues.

(See the video here: Mike Coffman won’t explain why he’s opposed to abortion, even for rape and incest.)

I wasn’t  expecting such treatment from a candidate who promised The Denver Post to give “very specific” answers to all questions. Oh, and to do so “personally.” But he walked away.

The aborted conversation took place this morning prior to the final debate between Coffman, a Republican, and his Democratic opponent Joe Miklosi. They’re running to represent Colorado’s sixth congressional district, regarded as among the most hotly contested in the country. In the country! The entire nation!

As such, you’d think Coffman and Miklosi would  have been pressed by national and local reporters on pretty much every issue out there, particularly on the issues that matter to a swing voting bloc like women.

But, somehow, the details of Coffman’s thinking on abortion, why he’s come to take such a hard-line stance, have fallen through the journalistic cracks.

Outside the auditorium, activists with Colorado Fair Share, Campaign for a Strong Colorado, Colorado Progressive Action, and ProgressNow Colorado,  held signs in support of Miklosi, who’s staked out a clear and detailed pro-choice position, in contrast to Coffman’s anti-abortion stance.

Reporter photographing inflatable "Fat Cat," erected by activists to show Rep. Mike Coffman's ties to wealthier Americans

“I’m fed up with Congressman Coffman because he just doesn’t represent average people like me,” said Wanda Ramey, an Aurora grandmother and former Republican.  “Medicare and education are important to me, both of which he would cut dramatically – just to pay for even more tax breaks for the richest 1% who don’t even need them.”

Rep. Mike Coffman stands alone as a major Colorado politician in close election who has not withdrawn his previous support for the personhood amendment, which would ban all abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

In 2010, Ken Buck walked away from personhood, saying he didn’t understand the amendment, though he stuck to his position against abortion for rape.

And this election, personhood donor Joe Coors withdrew support of the amendment with no explanation, as if he’d never been a backer.

I honestly feel bad for personhood activists who stand there watching these guys flip like this. And I’m not just saying that. It happens on the left side of the political spectrum too. It sucks.

But Coffman isn’t running away from his personhood past. He’s not jumping up and down for personhood. In fact, he says social issues aren’t his focus, but he has yet to denounce it, and he’s maintaining his opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.

I would have liked to read an article, even an itsy bitsy one, on how personhood folks feel about Coffman. So I asked well-known personhood organizer Leslie Hanks if she was surprised by Coffman’s stance.

“Not at all,” she emailed me. “That’s the difference between a statesman and a politician.”

Hanks, who recently retired as president of Colorado Right to Life, is a veteran personhood leader in the state.

“It’s a courageous stand, especially that district,” said one well-placed national pro-life activist, who didn’t want his name used due to possible political backlash. “It says a lot about Mike Coffman. It pleases me greatly.”

Coffman’s dedication to this issue appears to be longstanding.

Mike Coffman once wrote a letter to Dan Caplis to clarify his position against abortion, even in the case of rape and incest. It was incorrectly announced on the radio show that Coffman was pro-choice when it came to abortion for rape or incest.

Asked about this in August, Caplis emailed me he wasn’t surprised that Coffman went out of his way to be clear that he was against abortion in the case of rape and incest. “Mike has always been such a champion of the pro-life cause that I think the issue was quickly resolved,” Caplis wrote.

In a good story today, Associated Press reporter Ivan Moreno, discusses how the personhood amendment isn’t on the Colorado ballot but it’s nonetheless a big part of this year’s election debate. The Associated Press reported:

An anti-abortion proposal to ban the procedure in all circumstances isn’t on Colorado ballots this year — but the divisive measure is still playing a big role in the state’s political campaigns.

The article goes on to report the details, which I’ll get into below, but readers would have benefited from some background on how GOP candidates in Colorado talked about their ties to personhood in 2010. And compared that to what’s happening today.

Two years ago, U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck decided to un-endorse personhood, but stuck to his position opposing abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest. Other top-line personhood supporters in 2010, like Rep. Cory Gardner and Rep. Mike Coffman, did not back off their positions.

This time, as AP reports, GOP congressional candidate Joe Coors has apparently un-endorsed personhood, and he’s definitely flipped on his position opposing abortion in the case of rape and incest.

But Mike Coffman is following Ken Buck’s path on personhood, distancing himself from the measure itself, but standing firm with key elements of personhood, including opposition to embryonic stem cell research and abortion for rape and incest.

He told The Denver Post in August, with no elaboration, that he’s against all abortion, except to save the mother’s life.

Today’s AP article points out that Coffman is trying to skirt personhood-related questions by saying he’s not focused on abortion rights.

That’s exactly what Buck tried to do, but reporters and other media types, like KHOW’s Craig Silverman, rightfully wouldn’t let him get away with continuing the dodge. They pressed Buck on the issue, forcing him to explain his thinking fully and openly.

And they were right to do so, as women’s issues are of obvious importance to voters.

Recall this exchange with Buck on KHOW’s defunct Caplis and Silverman radio show:

Craig: Let’s say, god forbid, that a 13-year-old boy impregnates his 14-year-old sister and does it by forced rape. You’re saying that the 14-year-old and anybody involved in the abortion should be prosecuted, if they choose to terminate the pregnancy, either through surgical abortion or a morning after pill?

Buck: I think it is wrong, Craig. I think it is morally wrong. And you are taking a very small group of cases and making a point about abortion. We have hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of abortions in this country every year. And the example that you give is a very poignant one but an extremely rare occurrence.

Craig: Incest happens. I’m sure your office prosecutes it. And we know rape and sexual assault happen all the time, and your office prosecutes it. So it’s not completely rare. I agree that most abortions have nothing to do with that. I don’t know if I’d go with rare.

And during a televised debate on CBS4, Gloria Neal asked Buck, “Will you really make a raped woman carry a child to full term?”

Buck said that “we need to stay focused on the issues that voters in this state care about, and those are spending and jobs.”

Neal responded:

“Social issues are important to the voters in this state. I am one of them. So I need you to answer that question, because in addition to votes and jobs and all of that abortion is very important, and when you start talking about rape and incest, that is important to the voters. So, please, answer that question.”

Buck then said:

“I am pro-life, and I don’t believe in the exceptions of rape and incest.”

This is the kind of questioning we need from reporters when Mike Coffman tries to dodge questions about personhood/rape because these issues allegedly aren’t his current focus, though obviously they have been in the past.

UPDATE: The Post’s Kurtis Lee has posted a Spot blog post, headlined, “Liberal group posts video revealing failed attempts to reach Congressman Coffman,” addressing whether Coffman has, in fact, been answering questions, as promised. Thanks to the Post for following up on this matter.

—————
A recent post in the Spot Blog had a headline that grabbed your attention, if you’ve been following Rep. Mike Coffman’s up-and-down relationship with reporters, a talk show host, and other people who’ve wanted to ask him questions during this election season. The headline read:

“Have a question for Coffman? Reach out, he’ll respond with a ‘very specific’ answer”

A very specific answer? Great!

The article explained:

“Everybody who has a question can come on to my website, at any point and time, and they can get a very specific answer back,” Coffman said.

An answer from the Congressman directly?

“Absolutely,” Coffman said.

A spokesman told The Post that Coffman would take questions by phone and mail and email as well.

Coffman hadn’t been answering my queries, so I got excited after reading this and decided to post some questions that reporters and I could ask Coffman, while Coffman was in the mood for answering questions not hiding (e.g., holding private “town hall meetings” behind the closed doors of large corporations.)

I still got no response from Coffman.

It’s quite a promise Coffman made to personally answer all questions with specificity, when you think about it, especially the answering-questions-personally part, and I was glad Denver Post reporter Kurtis Lee wrote about it.

But now it’s been three weeks, and we don’t know if Coffman has kept his promise. There are signs, including this video and my experience, that he didn’t, but we don’t know for sure, because neither Lee nor any other reporter in town has informed us on how Coffman’s heat-of-the-election-openness-pledge has been working out.

The Post obviously has no obligation to follow up on every blog post, but in this case, given Coffman’s unusual promise, casting him in quite the flattering light, I think The Post owes readers another story assessing whether Coffman’s kept his promise, especially because it was made five weeks before the election and there’s about two weeks left.

One of the more memorable political ads this election is the House Majority PAC’s one-minute attack on Coffman for opposing embryonic stem cell research.

Reporter Chris Vanderveen fact checked the ad, as part of 9News’ admirable “Truth Test” series, and he found it to be true, but he mocked it for a severe lack of context.

I was surprised at this, because, I thought the ad was pretty straight forward. Too dramatic for my taste, but the ad isn’t targeting me (or the three people who read my blog).

The basic fact is that Coffman opposes embryonic stem cell research, which has huge medical potential.

The ad states: “Embryonic stem cell research could save lives, maybe yours or your family’s, someone you love. Only Congressman Coffman says no. ”

9News analysis: “This is a statement in dire need of context,” says Vanderveen. “While the National Institute of Health, among others, says stem cell research has huge potential, the medical community says it will take time.”

Okay, it might take time before embryonic stem cells might save the life of someone you love, but so what? Coffman is still opposing research that could save lives.

To Vanderveen’s credit, his piece quotes a 9News Medical Expert John Torres who confirmed this:

“The potential is huge, because stem cells can do so many things, as least we think they can, but it’s going to take a lot of time to figure this out. We’re talking a decade or two before we get to the point where it’s actually usable.”

Vanderveen goes on to paraphrase a comment from the Coffman campaign:

“A [Coffman] spokesperson says, [Coffman] isn’t against stem cell research in general, just embryonic, because the cells are harvested from embryos and he says that is a human life.”

The Coffman campaign’s statement is in greater need of context than the ad itself!

Why does Coffman think the cells flashed across the TV screen constitute human life?

As a backer of the personhood amendment, Coffman believes that human life begins at the fertilized-egg or “zygote” stage.

Personhood supporters like Coffman aim to codify this belief in law, so that the rest of us would have no choice but to adopt Coffman’s position, which includes a ban on all abortion and on embryonic stem cell research.

That’s because the “blastocysts” used in embryonic stem-cell research consist of about 150 cells formed four-five days after a human sperm has entered an egg. Many of the embryos used in research are donated by fertility clinics that ask women if they’d like to donate excess embryos to research. No pregnancy, as defined by the mainstream medical community, has occurred when a blastocyst forms, because it hasn’t even entered a woman’s uterus, much less implanted successfully.

So Coffman’s fringe position on abortion is linked to his opposition to embryonic stem-cell research.

Vanderveen concludes his Truth Test with the following comment:

“While the Democratic SuperPac is correct in its point about Coffman, Congress has a limited role at best when it comes to the future of stem cell research. And it isn’t clear it can cure all of the issues raised in this ad.”

Tell that to Rep. Diana DeGette, who’s made the advancement of embryonic stem cell research a focus of her career.

DeGette managed to push bipartisan legislation through Congress, expanding embryonic stem cell research, only to have it vetoed twice by President George Bush. Even though she lost, her efforts clearly kept pressure on Bush, who may well have stopped all embryonic stem cell research had it not been for Congress. (Recall the debate about cell lines.)

“As someone who just passed a bill through Congress twice to extend ethical stem-cell research, and was relying on every single vote I could find from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle, I would say Congress had a pretty big role,” DeGette told me.

“And if, heaven forbid, Mitt Romney was elected and reversed the executive order on stem cell research, Congress would be back in the middle of it again.”

Barack Obama passed an executive order reversing Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell research, much like DeGette’s legislation would have done.

“Because of President Obama’s executive order, there have been several studies that have gone to human-subject trials because of allowing research on embryonic stem cells,” DeGette told me.

DeGette is currently working on a bill that Coffman would almost certainly oppose. According to DeGette’s website, the bill, introduced with a Republican co-sponsor, would, among other things:

The ethical requirements defined by the bill mandate that stem cells be derived from human embryos donated from in vitro fertilization clinics that were created for reproductive purposes, but are in excess of clinical needs. The donated embryos would never be implanted in a woman, and would otherwise be discarded. The individuals who had sought reproductive treatment to begin with, must donate the embryos with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements.

“Researchers say they need all the forms of stem cells to do this research,” DeGette said. “Different types of cells show different applications for different types of diseases. Parkinson’s and diabetes and nerve regeneration are diseases for which stem cell research has shown tremendous promise.”

DeGette: “If a candidate like Mike Coffman says, I don’t support embryonic stem cell research but I support other types, that’s not supporting the full range of ethical stem cell research, which could block off research into some diseases and would impede the progress of the research in general.”

In its Truth Test on this topic, 9News should have told us more about the ramifications of Coffman’s position. So there it is, if you want it.

Romney and Obama are expected to bash China in full force tonight, as they’ve been doing on the campaign trail, with Romney calling the Chinese “cheaters” and Obama promising to raise tariffs.

This is in stark contrast to Rep. Mike Coffman, who’s written that the Chinese have enjoyed “economic growth based on the free market principles that we have long abandoned in favor of the redistributionist policies of a welfare state.” (Littleton Independent, May 22, 2011) Republican Michele Bachmann took a similar position.

Back on May 22 of last year, Coffman wrote in the Littleton Independent about a recent trip Coffman took to China:

Coffman: “No doubt, it felt strange to travel to a country that is the largest holder of U.S. debt, continues to expand its industrial base at the expense of ours, and has enjoyed sustained economic growth based on the free market principles that we have long abandoned in favor of the redistributionist policies of a welfare state. The ruling elite of China are communists in name only but cling to power based solely on an ideology of economic growth that most of the population accepts in exchange for a complete lack of political freedom. The government knows that if they are unable to sustain economic growth then the Chinese people will question their authoritarian rule and unrest will follow. The Chinese are nationalistic in their pride; in only three decades this economic experiment has already lifted a third of their nation out of abject poverty.

If China takes center stage in the debate tonight, reporters might find out from Coffman if he’d toss out health insurance for kids, Medicaid, school lunches, and other parts of the “Welfare state” in order to make capitalism in America look more like China’s version.

The Columbia Journalism Review scolded The Denver Post’s Kurtis Lee last week for not doing something that I had complimented Lee for doing just a couple months before.

CJR’s Mary Winter criticized Lee for failing to properly fact check a statement by Rep. Mike Coffman in a debate with Joe Miklosi, his Democratic challenger for the 6th Congressional District seat.

Lee reported Coffman’s accusation that Miklosi favors a “cut” to Medicare of $716 billion, based on Miklosi’s backing of Obamacare. Lee reported Miklosi’s denial of Coffman’s attack and left it at that.

Winter wrote:

Considering that the $716 billion complaint has been a leading GOP attack line for months, and has been factchecked many times, this sort of he-said/he-said isn’t good enough.

Had the Post delved into the issue, it might have noted that several nonpartisan health-care analysts and factchecking groups have found the thrust of the Republican challenge to be overstated, misleading, or even false.

A couple months earlier when Coffman spokesman Owen Loftus told Lee that Miklosi favored a $500 billion cut to Medicare, based on Miklosi’s support of Obamacare, Lee added the following paragraph to his article:

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.

This prompted me to write a blog post with the subtle headline of, “Denver Post reporter inspires respect for journalism by correcting Coffman spokesperson’s assertion that Dems cut Medicare.”

I wondered why Lee did the right thing in one case and the wrong thing the second time, but there was no comment from Lee in Winter’s article.

Why? Did Winter call Lee?

“No, I did not,” Winter told me. “What I try to do always is give anybody we’re dinging a heads up. Unfortunately, this got posted really fast. I emailed Kurtis and literally about three seconds later his story posted. And then I instantaneously sent him a link and said, Kurtis, by the way, it’s already up. Again, hope you understand it’s my job to do this. I dinged you.”

I don’t always reach out for a comment from journalists whom I criticize either, mostly because I don’t want to bother them too often. Or I don’t want to bother them with something that’s likely way less important to them than me. On a very rare occasion, I’m in too big a rush.

But in this case, especially for the Columbia Journalism Review, I thought Winter should have asked Lee about his reporting.

“In this case, we were looking through the prism of the reader, more than any other factor,” Winter told me, adding that if she were raising ethical concerns, she would definitely have contacted Lee. “We weren’t on an real tight time deadline. What’s the reader going to make of all this? The reader isn’t privy to his thoughts. That was our primary goal in this piece, to ask questions that a reader would have.”

For news reporting, she said, “it’s always best to err on the side of calling somebody, but this was criticism.”

That’s fair enough, but Winter made a broad crtique of the Post’s reporting, writing that the newspaper wasn’t correcting the GOP attack on Medicare, and she should have called to make sure she was correct. Had she done so, Lee might have pointed out that he had corrected the Coffman campaign’s Medicare assertion previously. Then Winter would have had a different set of questions to ask Lee.

So I thought I’d hear what Lee had to say.

I wrote him this email:

Why did you correct Loftus previously, or at least offer a nonpartisan perspective, but decided not to in the case Winter cites?

Do you agree with Winter that so many nonpartisan sources have found “the thrust of the Republican challenge [$716 billion “cut” from Medicare] to be overstated, misleading, or even false” that a reporter should present additional facts for readers when the accusation is made by someone like Coffman?

Guess what Lee had to say to me on the topic? Nothing.

He wrote that he respects my work, and Winter’s, but he did not want to respond.

And he didn’t respond to my follow-up email asking why he didn’t want to comment and if he would have responded to Winter, if she’d contacted him.

So where does this leave us?

You have to think, judging from Lee’s work in the past, that he thinks Coffman is seriously misleading us when he asserts that Miklosi favors a “cut” to Medicare. And you have to hope he thinks the issue is important enough, and sufficiently settled, that he gives readers the views of nonpartisan fact checkers in the future.

So let’s hope Lee does the right thing next time, as he’s done before, and informs readers about Coffman’s Medicare scare tactics.

Compared to the 2010 election in Colorado, this one has been mostly a snoozer, journalistically.

But the 2010 election wasn’t really an election. It was a dramatic comedy show, with so many stories to tell and scandals to uncover that journalists almost couldn’t help but be stars.

Still, reporters have turned out some excellent work this time around, and I’ve listed my favorite reporting below. I’m hoping to see more great work in the next few weeks, but this list is inspiring.

9News Kyle Clark: “Coffman won’t explain Obama ‘not an American’ comments” Rather than let Coffman hide, Clark went out and found him.

Fox 31’s Eli Stokols: “FOX31 Denver goes one-on-one with Paul Ryan” Stokols shows how an informed journalist can challenge a candidate’s spin.

The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels and Tim Hoover: “Anarchy, chaos behind Colorado civil unions bill may have long-lasting effects” They dug deep to show, among other things, how the upcoming election influenced the legislative debate on civil unions.

The Denver Post’s Tim Hoover: “Noncitizen ID’d fraction of those first alleged by Gessler” No matter where you sit on the political spectrum, to understand Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s behavior and priorities, you have to understand the blizzard of numbers Gessler tosses around. Hoover did a great job clarifying Gessler’s figures in this piece.

Associated Press’ Ivan Moreno: “Voter Purges Turn Up Little Evidence Of Fraud Despite Republican Insistence” Like Hoover, Moreno gets to the heart of the voter “fraud” issue by looking at the details.

Fox 31’s Eli Stokols: “Colo. girl registering ‘only Romney’ voters tied to firm dumped by RNC over fraud” Stokols quickly connected the dots from Colorado to a scandal that was developing nationally.

CBS4’s Shaun Boyd: “Romney Loses Cool When Questioned About Marijuana, Gay Marriage” Boyd keeps her cool and sticks to her questions even as Romney flips out.

KBNO radio host Fernando Sergio’s interview with President Obama, which makes the list because Sergio almost certainly got the first interview with a sitting president on Spanish language radio in Colorado.

Colorado Statesman’s Judy Hope Strogoff: “Perry campaigns with friends in Colorado” I love this scoop, with the photos. An illuminating and fun piece.

The Denver Post’s John Ingold: “GOP’s VP candidate, Paul Ryan, emphasizes contrast with Obama’s vision” I like how Ingold gets at the candidates’ underlying view of government, as he reports on a campaign stop.

Local TV news fact checkers Shaun Boyd (CBS4), Matt Flener (9News), Brandon Rittiman (9News), and (sometimes) Marshall Zellinger (7News). I don’t always agree with them, but what they do is really important, especially on local TV.