Mike Coffman told The Denver Post’s Kurtis Lee over the weekend that Coffman himself will provide “very specific” answers to any question from his constituents.

As the people’s representatives, reporters should throw queries to Coffman, as well, because the Congressman’s record has yet to be fully aired out in the Denver media, possibly because just three months ago he was ducking not only journalists but friendly talk radio hosts.

Here are a few questions for Coffman:

If Coffman is a true believer in Social Security, as he says he is, why does Coffman repeatedly call it a Ponzi scheme, which is a criminal enterprise?

In light of Coffman’s position in favor of banning abortion in the case of rape and incest, with no exceptions, what would Coffman say to a teen girl who wants an abortion after being raped by her brother?

And what does Coffman have to say to women who use common birth control, like the IUD, that would be banned by personhood amendments, which Coffman endorsed in 2008 and 2010?

Does Coffman still think the Arizona immigration law is an “understandable response” to illegal immigration, now that the law has been struck down by the Supreme Court?

Why does Coffman oppose the Dream Act, which would help high-achieving children of illegal immigrants to attend college and give them a path to citizenship?

Does Coffman still think Obama is rushing “illegal” immigrants onto the voting rolls to influence the November election?

Why does Coffman think that too big a deal was made of his comment that Obama is not an American “in his heart” and too big a deal was also made of his statement that he doesn’t know if Obama was “born in the United States of America.”

Why did Coffman’s website call his private meetings at large corporations, like Home Depot and LabCorp, “town hall meetings?”

What is it about the flat tax that makes it have, in Coffman’s words, “tremendous value?” The taxing groceries part?

Why did Coffman vote in 2011 for the first Ryan Budget, which would have eliminated Medicare as an insurance option and would have forced seniors to choose among private insurance options? (The 2012 Ryan budget allowed seniors to choose from private insurance plans AND Medicare. But the 2011 version, which Coffman also voted for, did not.)

Those are just a few samples.

The Post explained how Coffman’s constituents can submit questions, but journalists might just have his direct line.

Should anyone care that KHOW talk-radio host Peter Boyles is saying Romney and Coffman will lose big time?

I think it matters, to a small degree, because one thing you can say about Boyles, he knows his audience, and he realizes they also think Romney and Coffman are losers. Otherwise, Boyles might have held back.

“I’ve been watching Mitt Romney, and they jammed him up on that 47 percent thing…now he’s trying to ‘soften’ his approach to the ‘47 percent,’” Boyles said on air Thursday. “Now Romney is counter-programming. In other words, once somebody takes the lead, and it’s true in radio when somebody tries to counter-program another program, they’ve already lost, if they’re counter-programming. And now Romney is counter-programming Obama. At that point, he’s lost. I really believe it…

Does anyone in this audience really think Romney is going to win this election?

…Coffman is going to get clipped too.

…I say Republicans are going to get clubbed in Colorado as well as nationally… If you can you defend the Republican Party, please call the show.”

Boyles knows his conservative/independent/checked-out audience agrees with him, even the ones who don’t want to acknowledge it, like this caller:

Brett: Hey, I just wanted to call and be straight up honest with you. I definitely have a problem with you calling this election when it’s not even over. It’s 40 days, and there’s so much that can happen in 40 days, and, like you said earlier, talk radio is dominated by conservatives.

Boyles: I take it back. Talk radio is dominated by Republicans.

Brett: OK, even if that’s true, then the majority of the listening audience would be Republicans.

Boyles: Do you want me say what I don’t believe, or do you want me to say what I believe?

Brett: The problem is, when you say that, even for the few people, and I know it’s not your job to care about those people [who may be discouraged from voting]…. We can’t take four more years of Obama.

Callers were getting mad at Boyles, but you could tell they respected him for it, for saying what they see as the sad truth about the President, whom Boyles has been bashing for years.

Boyles: “It’s the truth, and if the truth hurts, so be it,” says Boyles. “Most of the time I hope I’m wrong in the things I believe. I think we’re an empire sliding off into the sea. I believe we’re headed toward such incredible economic chaos in this country…The western world is broke. Brett, it’s over.”

So Boyles gets to be the truth teller, earn some respect from people who don’t want to hear it but agree with him. Brett even admitted Obama will win.

And Boyles gets a couple really good hours of talk radio out of it. Truly, it made great radio.

That’s how Boyles has survived for so long in Denver, and it’s another small sign that Romney is heading south.

Anyone think Medicare will fall out of the news this election cycle?

Not likely. And at the center of the Medicare debate is, of course, Paul Ryan’s proposals, as outlined in his two budgets approved by the House of Representatives.

Not the word “two.”

Ryan’s first budget, in 2011, ended Medicare for people under 55, replacing it with a voucher system, giving seniors a fixed amount of money to buy their own health insurance.

His second proposal, this year, differs from his 2011 proposal, as it includes Medicare as an option, among private insurance plans. Seniors could spend their voucher on Medicare or a list of approved health-insurance plans.

As reporters evaluate claims about Medicare, they need to be sure to distinguish between the two Ryan plans, without ignoring either one of them.

For example, a recent ad from Joe Miklosi states that his opponent, Rep. Mike Coffman, “wants to end Medicare.”

Fact checkers at The Denver Post and 9News found this be false, without qualifications, even though Coffman voted for Paul Ryan’s budget last year (which eliminated Medicare for those under 55) and this year (which offers it as an option, for voucher use, with an uncertain price tag).

In Aug., ABC News’ The Note, summarized the 2011 Ryan plan this way:

Critics have called Ryan’s 2011 proposal the “end of Medicare as we know it,” and that’s true. Until now, Medicare has operated as a “fee-for-service” system; under Ryan’s plan, it would operate more like a voucher system, although Ryan and his aides have resisted this term. Medicare would cease to pay for health services directly, instead operating as a board that approves a menu of health plans for public sale and doles out predetermined lumps of money to people enrolled in Medicare, to help them buy those plans.

The Note points out that Ryan’s 2012 plan “made major revisions, including a provision like Democrats’ ‘public option,’ where seniors could opt out of Ryan’s most basic change altogether, enrolling in Medicare as a fee-for-service program that would continue to pay directly for care.”

Factcheck.org also does a decent job of comparing the two versions of Ryan’s Medicare proposal.

In a recent Westword blog post, Rep. Mike Coffman’s spokesman was quoted as saying his boss has held “dozens of public events over the summer,” including “town halls,” proving Coffman is an “open-and-available” Congressman.

But as I reported Monday, Coffman’s summer “town hall meetings” appear to be private gatherings for small groups of employees at large corporations (Home Depot, LabCorp, and Tyco Fire & Security). Not very town hallish.

In the case of the Aurora Home Depot, it turns out Coffman was originally invited to the store to learn about the business.

“We’ll invite government representatives to do these store visits,” said Stephen Holmes, a spokesperson for Home Depot.

“The objective is to have them learn about our business and the contributions we make to the local community,” he told me, adding that roughly the same number of Democrats and Republicans have visited Home Depot stores.

At these store visits, he said, “it’s a common practice for store associates to walk into the break room and ask questions.”

If you look at the photo from Coffman’s website below, it appears that his Home Depot “town hall meeting” had about 15 associates in attendance.

You wonder if Coffman has ever thought more expansively about a “town hall meeting,” as in inviting the public.

Turns out, if you search his website, you find out that Coffman held a couple “town hall meetings” back in early 2011, before he was running for Congress in a more competitive district.

These “town hall” meetings seemed to be the real deal, complete with a public invitation and news release, quoting Coffman as saying:

“I always look forward to my town hall meetings,” Coffman said. “There is nothing more important than listening to constituents and understanding their concerns.”

Now Coffman’s conception of a “town hall meeting” has shifted inward and private.

Mike Coffman "town hall" at Aurora Home Depot Aug. 24 with “employees at the Aurora Home Depot”

Pretend you’re a Westword reporter, and you’re writing a story about a new website, called “Where’s Mike Coffman,” which accuses the Congressman of being virtually invisible lately (as in, he’s hiding).

You go to the Coffman campaign for a response, and his spokesperson issues you a statement. Here’s part of it:

Congressman Coffman prides himself as being open and available to meet with his constituents and has had dozens of public events over the summer, including forums, meet-and-greets, town halls, parades, roundtables and meetings with civic organization like the Veterans of Foreign Wars across the district, including in his home town of Aurora.

You include this response in your story, along with quotes from people who say it’s bullshit, that Coffman invites the public to see him only if they want to go to a fundraiser, and he’s essentially unavailable to discuss issues.

That’s what Westword’s Sam Levin did a “Latest Word” blog post Sept. 6. He laid out information from both sides.

The question is, should he have dug deeper, and told us more about the “public events” Coffman claims to have attended? Was the public invited? Were issues discussed? How many public events did he sponsor?

I don’t blame Levin for not doing this, because he gave Coffman and his detractors plenty of space to lay out their cases, he pointed to their websites, and he was only writing a blog post, for god’s sake.

Time is short for reporters these days, even at previously long-winded Westword, and sorting out the adequacy and nature of public events on a congressman’s calendar is complicated and filled with gray areas.

So that’s why it’s fortunate I’m around to fill in a little bit of information that was omitted and appears not to have been spotlighted anywhere else.

If you look at the events that Coffman’s spokesman recited to Westword, to show how out-and-about the Congressman is, “town halls,” jumps out as something that should be pretty easy to check out.

I mean, if Coffman had a town hall meeting, there would be an invitation for the public to attend. Maybe there’d be press coverage, even photos.

It took me a while but I eventually went to Coffman’s congressional website and perused a photo gallery on the home page. And sure enough, three “town hall meetings” were pictured. All three took place in August, showing summer action, as alleged in the statement by Coffman’s office above.

One was a “town hall meeting with employees of LabCorp” Aug. 14.

Then there was a “townhall meeting with Tyco Fire and Security personel” Aug. 17.

And, finally there was an Aug. 24 “town hall with employees at the Aurora Home Depot.”

When I think of a “town hall meeting,” what does not come to mind is a private gathering for employees at a big corporation.

And my way of thinking was confirmed by a look at wikipedia and the dictionary, which both emphasized the “public” nature of town hall meetings.

But maybe in today’s scripted political world, the phrase “town hall meeting” takes on a different meaning?

I asked Metro State University political science professor Norman Proviser about this:

“The way to look it is, where does the term comes from?” Proviser told me. “It refers back to the notion of Massachusetts town hall meetings with direct democracy and participation in decisions. It was a community coming together in a town hall to make decisions.”

Today, Proviser explained, the term “town meeting” refers to a public event allowing for community input and exchange of ideas.

“By definiton, a private meeting is not a town hall meeting,” Proviser said. “That’s like saying we want to hear from the community and hear their views, and we’ll invite the praticipants.”

So, it turns out, Coffman is apparently re-inventing the term “town hall meeting” as a private, corporate affair.

Or maybe not. Maybe, the public was invited to his “town hall meetings,” but I couldn’t find any evidence of this, and Coffman’s office did not return my call. (If you’re a reporter, and you happen to be one of the three people still reading way down here, maybe you could give Coffman a call?)

And I did not immediately hear back from LabCorp, Tyco Fire and Security, or the Aurora Home Depot, which referred me to corporate HQ. I’ll keep you posted on my progress on that front.

Conservative talk-radio hosts are fairly unified in their condemnation of GOP Senate candidate Todd Akin’s statement that the female body has a natural ability to identify and repel the sperm of rapists.

But they’ve been a bit more iffy on the question of how serious it was for Akin, who’s vowing not to drop out of the Missouri Senate race, to distinguish between “legitimate” rape from other kinds.

“If you’re a guy, and you throw the word ‘legitimate’ in front of rape, you’re in trouble,” KLZ radio host Jason Worley told listeners Monday. “You’re already in trouble. If that was all he did, he could actually come back, and he honestly could, and say, what I meant was ‘actual’ rape cases, like when there was a crime committed…He may have been able to come back from it.”

KOA’s Mike Rosen also sort of defended Akin:

“He had a very ill-phrased remark, put his foot in the mouth, talking about whether abortion should be allowed in cases, as he put it, of ‘legitimate’ rape. What he meant to say was in the case of very clear forcible rape. In any event, this is an area into which he should not have gone.”

These radio wordsmiths have developed new categories of rape. For Worley, it’s “actual” rape cases, presumably versus the fake kind.

For Rosen, it’s “very clear forcible” rape cases.

By adding the adverb “very clear,” Rosen is one-upping Rep. Mike Coffman, Rep. Cory Gardner, Rep. Doug Lamborn, and Rep. Scott Tipton, who all voted to redefine the definition of rape so that federal funding would only be available for “forcible” rape, not other kinds.

For Rosen, it looks like only the “very forcible” kind of rape counts?

I didn’t get a chance to listen to all our favorite radio hosts, but one can only imagine all the other categories of rape that they might come up with.

Please send me any and all new rape categories that you hear from conservative radio hosts. I’m working on a comprehensive list that I want to share with the talk-radio crowd, to see if I can get them on the same page, like they are so often when it comes to President Obama.

UPDATE: Coffman told The Denver Post late yesterday that, because he’s running for federal office, he would not endorse personhood or any state ballot measure this year. He also said he’s against all abortions, except when necessary to save the life of the mother, so presumbably that would include opposition to abortion even in the case of rape and incest. Also, by Coffman’s definition of abortion, he’d oppose some common forms of birth control. Coffman did not say why he supported personhood while he was running for federal office in 2008 and 2010.
————–
If you dig deep on the Colorado Right to Life website, you find a letter from Mike Coffman to Dan Caplis, host of KHOW’s now-defunct Caplis & Silverman show. Part of the letter reads:

Dan, I would deeply appreciate it if, during your show, you could state that I wanted to make sure that my position was clear, unequivocally, that I oppose abortion in all cases of rape and incest. I believe that all life is equally sacred irregardless of how it came into being.

I’ve listened to a lot of talk radio, and you don’t hear about guests asking for clarifications very often. Amplification they’ll ask for, but clarification, not so much.

So you have to wonder if this letter from Coffman is real. And did Caplis actually clarify Coffman’s position on air?

Coffman’s letter to Caplis has no date, but Colorado Right to Life’s website states that Coffman made his original rape-and-incest comments on the Caplis & Silverman show during the week of Oct. 14, 2009.

The Caplis-&-Silverman show’s archives don’t go back that far, unfortunately, but one person popped into my mind who ought to remember the incident: Dan Caplis!

“I had forgotten all about that until I saw your note,” Caplis wrote in response to my email about Coffman. “That’s a long time ago, but I do have a vague recollection of that happening, and of reporting Mike’s clarification on air. Mike has always been such a champion of the pro-life cause that I think the issue was quickly resolved.”

Caplis’ confirmation of Coffman’s abortion stance will be useful as the debate about the personhood amendment heats up.

Colorado’s proposed personhood amendment would outlaw all abortions, including those performed after rape or incest.

Personhood supporters make no attempt to hide this. Their belief, reflected in Coffman’s letter above, is that a zygote (fertilized egg) conceived after a rape should not be punished (aborted) for the crime (rape) committed by the father.

Coffman endorsed Colorado’s personhood amendments in both 2008 and again 2010, according to the Colorado Right to Life blog.

But Coffman has yet to tell personhood organizers, who submitted signatures Tues. to place their measure on the ballot, if he’ll back their amendment this year.

You’d think, given Coffman’s unwavering opposition to all abortion and his deep ties to the anti-abortion movement, that he’d endorse personhood again.

If he backpedals, like Ken Buck before him, and Joe Coors yesterday, reporters would obviously want to know why.

But they’ll also want to know what components of the personhood amendment Coffman still stands by, like his view, duly clarified by Dan Caplis on his former radio show, that abortion should banned even for a women who’s been raped by her father.

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

During their final, good-bye broadcast Friday, Craig Silverman and Dan Caplis thanked Rep. Mike Coffman for “being a real friend of the show” and for being “accessible.”

Caplis told Coffman, “You never ever ducked us,” which definitely ain’t what 9News and other media types have been saying lately about Coffman’s refusal to answer questions about his statement that Obama is not an American in his heart. (Coffman’s dodgings led Democrats to mock him on a website, AskCoffmanAnything.com, unveiled today.)

If I were Silverman, I couldn’t stomach complimenting Coffman for his grand openness when he’s in the midst of hiding from most reporters in town.

I might even ask him, “Hey Mike, any plans to talk to Kyle Clark at 9News? Or Steve Kelley at KNUS?” (Coffman has been refusing to talk to both.)

Wouldn’t it be great if media types stood up for journalism by asking those types of questions of politicians who are hiding from other reporters? So what if they’re loose competitors. Media figures build up their own platforms nowadays by promoting their competition. And in the case of Silverman, he’s on his way out of the biz anyway.

But Silverman took the insular route, thanking Coffman for being “good enough to come on our show to break your silence” about his birther statement.

Coffman was on Silverman’s show over a month ago, and questions have piled up since then, including a troubling question flowing from Coffman’s comment on KOA radio that his birther comment has been hyped by journalists.

Coffman attacked journalists in a similar vein Friday, telling Silverman that the press “won’t care” about Nancy Pelosi’s remark Friday that Republicans are attacking Attorney General Eric Holder as part of a GOP voter suppression effort.

“That’s unfortunate that she made that statement,” Coffman said. “Of course, it won’t resonate like the statement I made, I’m sure. [Laughs.] The press won’t care about that.”

Coffman is right that Pelosi left the door open for more questions about the GOP’s motivations in attacking Holder, but does that mean Coffman’s birther moment was overplayed by journalists?

Coffman thinks he’s being unfairly targeted for his birther comments, while Pelosi gets a pass.

As if it’s unfair for journalists to simply want to talk to him about it?

What’s a reporter supposed to do when Coffman will only talk to conservative talk-radio hosts like Caplis and Silverman?

Look the other way and forget about the story because Coffman wants it to go away?

I hope not.

Here’s a partial transcript of the appearance of Rep. Mike Coffman on KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman Show Friday, June 23, 2012.

Caplis: …A real friend of the show, a guy I respect so much, Rep. Mike Coffman kind enough to spend a minute with us. How you doing Congressman?

Coffman: Well, not too good. I mean, I’m in my office getting ready to leave and listen to Caplis and Silverman on my way home, and somebody just told me that this is the last show. And it breaks my heart. Is this true?

Silverman: Look at the bright side. It’s another three job losses under the Obama Administration.

Coffman: [Laughs] Oh boy.

Silverman: …You were accesible. That latest controversy, you were good enough to come on our show to break your silence…. I can’t believe what Nancy Pelosi said today, that the reason the House Republicans are going after Eric Holder is because you are a bunch of racists. Aren’t you offended by that?

Coffman: The reason we are going after Eric Holder is we have a dead law-enforcement agent from the United States. That’s unfortunate that she made that statement. Of course, it won’t resonate like the statement I made, I’m sure. [Laughs.] The press won’t care about that. You know, it’s a tough times for the country, and you all helped us navigate it. I loved your show, and I always listened to it when I was driving, when it was on. And I’m really saddened to hear about this. It’s gonna be tough on the Denver Metro area.

Caplis: …It’s been great having you as part of the show. You never ever ducked us. It’s also really been fun watching you emerge as an effective and influential Congressman. And it’s just been great… Craig, I don’t know whether you’ve made your decision but I am going to stay on air, Congressman. It’s just a matter now of working out the details. So hopefully you’ll continue to be a guest.

Coffman: I certainly hope so. But you two were a great team and I love it. And whatever you do, I’m sure you’ll be very successful at.

Mike Coffman’s been dodging reporters since his birther moment last month, when he said he didn’t know if Obama “was born in the United States of America,” but he did know that “in his heart, he’s not an American.”

Coffman’s media avoidance tactics have turned his apology into a dramatic multi-part series.

So you’d hope any media figure interviewing Coffman on any topic would bring up the birther subject to help clarify things for the public, not to mention us media watchers.  You’d hope so, but you also know some media types would proudly and arrogantly ignore it.

But KOA radio’s Steffan Tubbs didn’t shy away from the topic this morning, even though Coffman was on his show to talk about Eric Holder.

Tubbs: Ah, I hate to bring it up, but I have to because we haven’t talked to you about it.  I mean, are you over this whole Obama controversy?  Has that gone by the way-side?  Was it made too big of a deal?  Were you taken out of context with the un-American comment with the President?

Coffman: [nervous chuckling] I’d say all of the above.  What I found out, certainly, is that when you make a mistake like that and you’re off message, it certainly hurts.  And obviously, be more careful going forward, much more measured in my comments so I can’t be misinterpreted, and also to, I think, clearly be more professional in my demeanor, because the American people have to make a decision in this election coming up – on president, on my race, on other races.  This is such a critical time for the country. I think we’re at a tipping point.    And we need to stick with the issues.

I would have preferred if Tubbs hadn’t told Coffman that he hated to bring up Coffman’s birther moment, as if there were something wrong with questioning Coffman about it, but, still, Tubbs’ questioning of Coffman, however short, shows, again, that KOA radio’s newsroom is a serious spot news operation and is worth listening to.

Tubbs’ questioning of Coffman sheds new light on Coffman’s thinking on the matter, illuminating that Coffman thinks:

1. He’s over the controversy.
2. It’s gone by the way-side, he thinks.
3. It was made too big a deal of.
4. And Coffman thinks he was taken out of context.

How many follow up questions for Coffman flow from this? Many, to put it mildly. So there’s plenty of material for journalists to work with when Coffman comes out of hiding again and wants too talk about something that’s on his agenda, like he did on KOA today.