Last month, after Rep. Mike Coffman said he didn’t know whether President Obama was an American “in his heart,” KNUS morning show host Steve Kelley wanted to talk to Coffman.

He told his listeners May 25 that, maybe, Coffman’s comments weren’t “worthy of a major apology,” and he wanted to talk to the Congressman about it.

But Coffman, who’d been on Kelley’s show “many, many times,” wasn’t returning phone calls, and Kelley was getting increasingly pissed.

So Kelley, a conservative talk-radio host who’s been amping up his attacks on Obama in recent months, took a stand that you wouldn’t expect to hear on rightie radio.

Kelley said on air that he’d give Coffman four more days to call back. After that, since Coffman was refusing to return calls during a tough time, Kelley wouldn’t accept Coffman’s requests, as he had in the past, to come on the radio show and promote himself and his agenda.

Kelley: When Mr. Coffman’s people call and say look, he’s got an initiative, he’s got this, he’d like to come on the air–

Kelley’s Co-host: A ribbon cutting ceremony.

Kelley: Yes. The answer is no. Tank you very much. You weren’t willing to come in during a heated time. You’re not coming on to tout and pump yourself up.  I don’t care what party you are.  I don’t care if I happen to agree with your politics. You’re not going to – you know, that’s not how you manipulate and use the media, at least, you’re not going to here.

It’s been over three weeks now, and Kelley still hasn’t heard from Coffman’s office, Kelley said in a phone interview Monday.

“Unless he can make a reasonable case, he’s not welcome on the show now,” Kelley said. “Fair is fair. I understand it’s uncomfortable, but it’s not like I was going to crucify him or anything.”

“The great thing about radio is you can say what you want, and it’s not edited,” Kelley said. “You’ve got an opportunity to make your case, particularly on our ‘friendly station.'”

Other than an appearance on KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman, Coffman apparently hasn’t talked to reporters since he delivered the same soundbite to 9News about his birther moment five times in a row.

In reporting that incident, 9News reporter Kyle Clark echoed Kelley’s comments about Coffman, stating on air that Coffman was normally eager to talk to the press, but things changed after 9News reported the birther comments Coffman had made at a Republican fundraiser in Elbert County.

Clark: The  Congressman is usually willing to talk about anything. He’s been on 9News 16 times in the past year, weighing in on everything from wildfires to Memorial Day celebrations. Seems the only thing he didn’t want to talk about was what he said at a fundraiser in Elbert County May 12.

Clark told viewers that he didn’t think Coffman would be able to avoid questions about his birther-moment comments “till election day.”

“At some point, you have to think, there’s going to be a full discussion of this,” Clark said on the air.

The story continues about Rep. Mike Coffman’s apology for saying Obama isn’t an American “in his heart.”

And when an apology drags on, questions rise up, like did he really want to apologize? Did he mean it? Who’s pressuring him? What’s wrong with him? Etc.

You recall that after 9News aired “Coffman’s Birther Moment,” Coffman first said he misspoke, and he apologized, but not fully, because he was defensive. Coffman stated:

COFFMAN: “I don’t believe the president shares my belief in American Exceptionalism. His policies reflect a philosophy that America is but one nation among many equals,” the statement read. “As a Marine, I believe America is unique and based on a core set of principles that make it superior to other nations.”

Then Coffman wrote a letter to The Denver Post with a full-out, nondefensive apology.

Later, when confronted by 9News, he apologized five times in a row, saying the same apologetic words unapologetically in response to five different questions, including, “Is there anything I can ask you that you’ll answer differently?”

Two days later, Coffman said on KHOW that “to some extent” he’d apologized for political reasons.

On KHOW, he also said of the birthers: “God bless those people; they’re well meaning people,” and he said, “I understand their passion.”

Meanwhile, Peter Boyles called Coffman’s apology “weenie”, and KNUS Steve Kelley was thinking the same thing, though he didn’t put it that way.

So, on June 8, to his credit, Kelley asked Rep. Cory Gardner what he thought about it:

KELLEY: Listen, we haven’t spoken since – and I don’t want to drag you into this unnecessarily, but Congressman, your colleague Mike Coffman and his comments. And I guess it speaks to on some level this whole idea of investigation and you know, qualifications and birther and Fast and Furious – it’s all kind of bundled together which really causes one to question anything that goes on in this White House. Have you talked to Congressman Coffman? We cannot get him to get back on the air, here, and it frustrates me to no end. I don’t know that he needed to apologize as vociferously as he did. A comment on that, please.

GARDNER: Well, you know I certainly talk to Mike Coffman and understand his frustration with the president. I believe the President, as does Mike Coffman, that the President is a citizen of the United States, born in this country. I think what you saw was somebody who is extremely frustrated with the failed policies of this president that is actually making our economy worse. You know, this country needed the president to succeed in 2008 when he was elected. We’ve now seen forty months in a row where unemployment’s been at or above eight percent. The jobs numbers that came out last week where unemployment actually increased. Mike Coffman, myself, and others are all extremely frustrated with the failure of this president’s policies to move the country in the right direction. And so, you know, I think he did what he felt was necessary, and I think he did the right thing. But again, the issue in November is what we are going to do to move this country in the right direction.

Gardner is defending Coffman in a similar fashion as Coffman defended himself immediately after the story broke, saying Coffman did the right thing by apologizing, but implying that the underlying frustrations that Coffman has toward Obama might somehow explain or justify Coffman’s birther moment.

And Gardner’s apology/defense, which includes the line, “he did what he felt was necessary,” also harkens back to Coffman’s statement on KHOW, where Coffman acknowledge that his apology was motivated partially by political necessity.

The evolving apologies and strange behavior by Coffman, and his current position, which is one of silence and avoidance of reporters, points to the need for journalists to air out this issue fully with Coffman, when this becomes possible.

Obviously, this will happen at some point, probably sooner rather than later, and when it does, the full details of Coffman’s response to the 9News story, when it broke last month, as recounted above, should be covered.

After Rep. Mike Coffman told supporters that “in his heart,” Obama is “just not an American,” some in the media debated whether Coffman’s statement, which he apologized for, was 1) a departure from Coffman’s image as a moderate or 2) a continuation of his alignment with extremists and fringe causes.

On abortion, the topic of today’s blog post, reporters should note that it’s clearly the latter. That would be number two, above.

In its latest comments on Coffman, Colorado Right to Life’s blog stated in 2010 update, that Coffman is “on record supporting Personhood and is on record as Pro-Life with no exceptions.”

Earlier this year, Colorado Right to Life Vice President Leslie Hanks told me that “no exceptions” means abortion would not be allowed in the case of rape and incest.

Coffman has opposed abortion even in the case of rape and incest going back to at least 2008, according to the Colorado Right to Life website.

For example, in 2008 Colorado Right to Life complained to Coffman after hearing him say, on the Caplis and Silverman show, that he favored allowing abortion in the case of rape and incest.

Coffman subsequently sent a letter to Caplis and Silverman, and to Colorado Right to Life, clarifying that he is opposed to abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.  Here’s the story, as told on Colorado Right to Life’s website:

Last week, while appearing on the Caplis & Silverman radio show (630 KHOW, Denver), Congressional candidate Mike Coffman was heard to say that he did not oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest. This sent CRTL and many other pro-lifers into a tizzy, because it went against what Mike had pledged in his Candidate Survey, as well as what we all thought we knew about Mike’s beliefs.

When contacted about this, Mike immediately expressed surprise that he’d said any such thing. He thinks he may have gotten confused and said the opposite of what he meant. While with many candidates, we might suspect evasion, this didn’t seem to be the case with Mike. He has written to attempt to clarify with Dan Caplis, so no one will misunderstand. Here is his note (copied to CRTL):

Dan,

First of all, thanks so much for your help with my campaign and for inviting me on your show. During the debate, Craig Silverman was questioning me on the issue of abortion. My response was focused on arguing that Roe v Wade was bad law. During that exchange, Craig asked me about the issue of rape and incest. Apparently, my answer came across as supporting abortions under a rape and incest exception. I absolutely do not believe in that.

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.

Thanks again, Mike Coffman

It takes a big man to admit such a mistake. And Mike Coffman’s strong relationship with the pro-life community over many years is obviously important enough to him that he wanted to make this correction/clarification despite the fact that he surely has Colorado’s 6th District race locked up and will almost certainly be one of Colorado’s newly elected Congressmen in 2009.

This is great news for unborn children!

The above exchange came after Coffman, who gave $75 to the Colorado Right to Life Committee in 2008, according to campaign donation records on TRACER, defeated Ted Harvey and Wil Armstrong in a tough primary battle to represent the ultra-conservative 6th Congressional district. Now the 6th is considered much more moderate.

During the 2008 primary, Colorado Right to Life wrote of Coffman:

In a previous blog post, we reported that we believed both Sen. Ted Harvey and Sec. State Mike Coffman hold uncompromised positions on Personhood and Life issues, according to the CRTL candidate questionnaire. Sadly, we must correct this information.

We now know that Sec. State Mike Coffman is the only candidate for the GOP 6th District Congressional primary who holds uncompromised views on abortion, and the only candidate who has promised not to continue supporting compromised legislation….

Mike Coffman also has a decades-long history (20 years or more) of not just support, but active involvement in the pro-life community, over and above what would be expected of any typical Republican official.

Mike Coffman has been a good and consistent friend to CRTL for many years, up to and including the last couple of years when even CRTL’s strongest legislative supporters (including Harvey) found excuses not to attend CRTL events.

Coffman has yet to comment this election cycle on his abortion stance, and he hasn’t said whether he’ll support this year’s personhood measure.

Obviously, these are issues that reporters should pursue, assuming Coffman talks to reporters again, as he used to do frequently, before he made his comments about Obama’s heart.

The right-leaning Colorado Observer reported last week that Jessica Peck was “outraged, stunned–and strangely flattered” when her organization was named in a recent Colorado Ethics Watch complaint to the IRS.

The Observer piece didn’t explain why Peck was “outraged and stunned,” but it did say that Peck was flattered because her organization is considered important and powerful enough to be taken seriously by Colorado Ethics Watch.

If I’m a reporter, and someone tells me they’re flattered to be accused of violating IRS rules, I’d present an itsy bitsy bit of detail about the alleged violations.

But the Observer’s reporter, Valerie Richardson, didn’t offer any information about the substance of Colorado Ethics Watch’s complaint against Peck’s organization, the Open Government Institute.

Richardson deep-sixed the details and wrote:

Whatever the merits of the complaint, Peck’s biggest crime may have been her Republican registration, according to CEW’s legion of conservative critics.

I’m glad to know what the legion of conservative critics think, but why not present more information about this case, since it frames the entire Observer story about Colorado Ethics Watch?

“I seriously pondered doing that,” Richardson told me. “But the story was getting too long, and I thought, at this point, that’s a separate story. One of the things I am going to do next is write a story about the details of that complaint. It was already getting so long that I was afraid no one would read it.”

I’ll provide a few details here, to fill in the gap until Richardson writes what I hope will be a longer analysis.

Colorado Ethics Watch wrote a letter to the IRS after coloradopols.com posted a video on its website showing Peck, the Open Government Institute’s Executive Director, stating:

“Congressman Coffman, we’re working on some things that may, in a very non-partisan way, benefit you in your endeavors in November, so I’ll talk a little about that. So, I come here as a partisan Republican…”

On its website, Colorado Ethics Watch writes that this “can be interpreted as stating that OGI [which bills itelf as nonpartisan] has already taken specific actions to ‘benefit’ U.S. Rep. Coffman’s ‘endeavors’ in November, i.e. his reelection. Ms. Peck’s remarks also allude to future activities that will be conducted by OGI between now and Rep. Coffman’s November election.”

In its complaint to the IRS, Colorado Ethics Watch wrote:

As set forth more fully below, it appears that this organization is currently involved in activities, and planning for future actions, which constitute political campaign intervention in violation of federal tax law governing 501(c)(3) organizations. Accordingly, Ethics Watch requests that the IRS closely examine the activities of OGI before determining of OGI’s pending application for 501(c)(3) status.

This is a serious accusation, raising questions about the legitimacy of OGI’s claim of nonpartisanship and non-profit status, allowing for tax-deductible donations.

In a telephone interview, Peck dismissed the charge, saying:

“We have not heard back from the IRS. We believe we’re in complete compliance with laws governing nonprofits. Anyone can file a complaint.”

She added that Colorado Ethics Watch “does a lot of great work.” But not this time, she said.

One of the critics of Colorado Ethics Watch, cited in the Observer article, was Mario Nicolais, an attorney at the Hackstaff Law Group.

I asked him if he’d advise a client to say the things Peck said about Coffman.

“The Open Government Institute was a client of mine, prior to any of this happening, so I’m not going to be able to comment,” Nicolais told me, adding that he represented them for “about a month when they first were opening up.”

“Anyone who’s been a client, I’m not going to comment without their direction.”

In Richardson’s upcoming article about Colorado Ethics Watch’s complaint, I hope she asks the aforementioned “legion of conservative critics” the same question I asked Nicolais, as she lays out more detail about the IRS complaint against the Open Government Institute.

KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show featured Mike Coffman for a long segment yesterday, talking about his statement at a GOP fundraiser that Obama “in his heart” is “just not an American.”

Coffman happily answered Dan Caplis’ questions after his spokeswoman, Danielle Adams, told The Denver Post Coffman had nothing to say for a Post article about the “possibility of repercussions and challenges to his campaign.”

(Nothing to say? Coffman? You’d think The Post wouldn’t lie there and accept this response, but that’s what it did, running a tiny sentence in paragraph 15 about Coffman’s rude treatment of the state’s leading news outlet. When will The Post show its loyal readers that the newspaper hates it when public figures blow off its reporters?)

If it makes The Post feel better, Coffman is also ignoring KNUS’ Kelley and Company, a morning radio show that’s getting more conservative by the minute. KNUS’ Steve Kelley said today on air that Coffman, a frequent guest on the show, did not return calls (plural) to be on the program.

Under soft questioning from KHOW’s Dan Caplis, with Craig Silverman away for the day, Coffman reiterated his apology for the birtherish statement. Coffman did not do so in the automaton-fashion he used the other night when confronted by 9News’ Kyle Clark, who deserves a lot of credit for tracking down Coffman after he’d been ignoring his interview requests as well.

A progressive website, Think Progress, pointed out, in a blog post titled Birther Congressman Confirms That He Only Walked Back His Comments ‘For Political Reasons’, that Coffman acknowledged during the KHOW interview that “to some extent” Coffman actually believes Obama is not an American “in his heart.” Think Progress’ Scott Keyes wrote:

The hosts told Coffman that a gaffe in Washington “is when somebody tells the truth” before asking the Colorado Republican, “Were you just at that moment speaking what was in your heart and are you now feeling you need to walk it back for political reasons?” Coffman conceded that this was the case — “to some extent that’s true” — before explaining that his main regret was talking about the issue because birtherism is a “horrible issue” for Republican.

Think Progress also spotlighted Coffman’s statement, in the KHOW interview, praising birthers:

Later, Coffman praised those who don’t believe President Obama was born in the United States. “[Issues are] going to determine this election, not focusing on the birther question. God bless people that do that. I understand their passion.”

Yesterday’s Coffman interview on KHOW, as well as his response to 9News’ questions this week, shows the value, from a public-interest perspective, of going the extra mile to get public figures to air out their views on topics they’d rather dismiss with a simple sorry-I-misspoke soundbite.

Journalists shouldn’t settle for this treatment during the election season which is upon us.

KHOW talk-radio host Peter Boyles spent the morning saying that, despite his apology, Coffman really does believe that Obama, “in hisheart,” is “not an American.”

“The only reason he backpedals is because he got caught,” Boyles told his listeners during the 7 a.m. hour.

“Tragically, or luckily, whatever way it goes, I’ve spent almost five years listening and reading, and there’s more holes in [Obama’s] story than you can drive a truck through. What if Coffman had said, as a U.S. Congressman, we know more about the life of George Washington than we know about Barack Obama. That would have been a bombshell…

If [Coffman] had schooled himself on all the right questions, when Channel 9 came to him and said, hey, we have this recording of you, he could have said, yeah, and plus, let me add to that.”

Boyles continued:

“Coffman writes an apology letter to Channel 9. It’s weenie. Dude, you could have said, by the way, what about that social security number, how about that draft number. … [Coffman] says, ‘I misspoke.’ Come on.”

In 9News’ story yesterday about Rep. Mike Coffman’s statement that “in his heart,” Obama is “just not an American,” Political Analyst Floyd Ciruli was paraphrased as saying Coffman’s comment is a “blow to his moderate image.”

I’m tainted, I know, and possibly unable to fathom the mainstream image of Coffman, but my perception is that Coffman is pretty far to the right on the political spectrum, a far cry from a “moderate.”

So I called Ciruli to find out if, indeed, he thought Coffman had a “moderate image.”

Ciruli said the 9News’ paraphrase was accurate, but his view wasn’t based on any polling he’d seen on Coffman.

“Coffman’s major image comes from some his statewide offices, which have essentially been of the administrative type and have not led him to be known as a person of intensely right-wing views,” Ciruli told me. “He’s been the Secretary of State. He’s been the Treasurer. Those are administrative jobs that don’t lead you to have a particular image.”

Ciruli also said his view of Coffman’s image is partially based on the fact that Coffman replaced Tom Tancredo.

“And under those circumstances, you’re always a moderate,” Ciruli said, adding also that Coffman is “not really a favorite of the Republican establishment.”

I told Ciruli that I hadn’t seen any polling either, but I did notice that Coffman repeatedly called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” that he supported Colorado’s personhood amendment, that he wanted to pull the Peace Corps out of China, and that he said the flat tax has “tremendous value.” (I forgot to mention that Coffman supported Rick Perry for President and Paul Ryan for Vice President.)

“I don’t disagree with you,” Ciruli told me, adding that Coffman’s immigration views are out of the moderate range.

“They are relatively new issues,” Ciruli said. “They reflect to some extent his new environment, which is a very conservative Congress.”

“I assume [the Obama comment] was a faux pas, and he wisely apologized very quickly,” Ciruli told me, pointing out that Coffman’s mostly Arapahoe-County district is one of the most competitive in the country.

“He had not apologized when I did my interview last night at 5:30,” said Ciruli. “I specifically asked because I thought, my gosh, he should get out from under this, unless this is actually what he thinks, and he did.”

On KNUS’ Kelley and Company yesterday, host Steve Kelley asked Rep. Mike Coffman to name his choices to serve as the GOP vice presidential candidate.

Here’s what Coffman said:

“I think there are a number of people. I think Marco Rubio, though he’s said repeatedly he’s not interested. He’s certainly a possibility. As a United States Senator, I think he’d make a good vice president. I think on my side, Paul Ryan I think would make a great vice president. I think Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana would be good. And I’ve said Eric Cantor, Majority Leader in the House of Representatives. So I think we’ve got a pretty deep bench on the Republican side.”

[Listen to Rep. Coffman endorse Paul Ryan for Vice Prez on KNUS’ Kelley and Co 4-23-2012]

Kelley should have taken a couple minutes to allow Coffman to explain why he likes those guys. Why do they have what it takes to be VP?

Coffman’s suggestion of Rep. Ryan as a “great” VP choice is particularly significant, because you have to assume Coffman is saying that Ryan’s views (as expressed in his budget bill) would be advantageous Romney.

This would include, among other things, Ryan’s controversial proposal to end Medicare as currently designed for people born after 1956.

Maybe Kelley, or another reporter, will ask Coffman about his VP choices.

I’ve been thinking that journalists should add a “civility” beat to their shrinking offerings.

At least they should give a little extra air, ink (literal and digital) to challenge politicians when they hit below the belt, especially if they do it themselves, in a public forum.

An example is what Rep. Mike Coffman said about President Obama Feb. 15 on the Mike Rosen Show:

Apparently, for Coffman, the loving feelings of Valentine’s Day had worn off, because he said:

If so we continue on that trajectory, [mandatory spending] will literally crowd out discretionary spending and crowd out defense. And if you read the Constitution, which I’m sure the President at some point in his life has [laughs], but he probably won’t admit it, you know, certainly the one thing that’s, spelled out in the Constitution that’s the responsibility of Congress is to maintain the common defense.

Hear the segment: Mike Coffman on Mike Rosen Show Feb. 15, 2012

Of course, Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, so it’s more than fair to say that Coffman’s remark is utterly disrespectful.

You wouldn’t expect Rosen to ask Coffman whether that’s the kind of discourse he thinks the American people want.

You wouldn’t expect Rosen to ask Coffman why he feels the need to insult Obama like this.

But, if Coffman throws around more insults, and a journalist hears him, I’m hoping we can get some answers to questions like those.

Coverage of political incivility, with the aim of making politicians explain why they do it, should be a priority of reporters.

Mike Coffman appeared on KNUS’ morning show, Kelley and Company, yesterday, and he came out swinging at Mitt Romney, saying that Romney “needs to have a more conservative message that appeals to the base of the Republican Party,” that he “needs a more coherent, better defined economic and tax policy,” and that the Santorum victory “changes the ballgame.”

“Are we going to get the governor of Massachusetts [laughs] as the president?” Coffman asked on air. “Or are we going to get the guy who’s saying what he’s saying on the stump now?”

The interview made good radio, but the trouble was, host Steve Kelley didn’t even try to get Coffman to be more specific about how Romney should move to the right, so listeners were left with little understanding of what Coffman thinks Romney should actually do and say in the real world away from the radio.

Kelley should have Coffman back on the show and ask him to, please, be more specific.

What’s Romney’s “more conservative message” look like?

What should Romney say to re-assure the GOP base that he’s the “conservative guy?”

What aspects of Romney’s economic policy are “cluttered” and how should Romney simplify things?

How, specifically, does Romney assure Republicans that they will not “get the governor of Massachusetts as the president?”

Click to hear Coffman on KNUS Kelley and Company 2-8-12.

Partial transcript of Coffman on Denver’s KNUS (710 AM) Kelley and Company 2-8-12:

Coffman: It definitely changes the ballgame. I do think that Romney needs to have a more conservative message that appeals to the base of the Republican Party. And I think he’s going to kind of re-examine his approach, his ground game, his message….This is not good for the Romney team. And it’s good for the Santorum team….

Quite frankly, I think he’s running for the general. Maybe he got over-confident and he refashioned his message more for the general election and a different electorate. And at some point in time, I think you do pivot, and I think he did that pivot a little too early. And I think he’s going to have to backtrack and make sure that, and say, hey, look, this is what I am going to do in terms of advancing conservative causes and in terms of repealing some of the things this administration has put in place. So I think he needs to re-assure the Republican electorate that he’s going to do that….

I think what [Romney] has to do is retool his own message, and I think he has to retool his own message in terms of, you know, appealing to the conservative base. You know. Because I think there are a lot of conservatives who don’t trust him in that they worry that, you know, who is this guy? Do we really know him? Are we going to get the governor of Massachusetts [laughs] as the president? Or are we going to get the guy who’s saying what he’s saying on the stump now? And so I think he needs to reassure the Republican voters that, hey, I’m going to be the conservative guy. I am going to repeal Obamacare even though he said [laughs] that on the stump quite a bit. And I think he needs a more coherent, better defined economic and tax policy. It’s a little cluttered. It’s a little complicated. He needs to drill down to where it makes sense certainly to the average Republican voter in this primary.