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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNOR

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

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

U.S. CONGRESS

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

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

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

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

COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL

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

COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE

Wayne Williams (expressed support for Trump’s candidacy)

COLORADO TREASURER

Brian Watson (supports Trump)

KEY STATE SENATE RACES

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

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

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

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

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

KEY STATE HOUSE RACES

Kristina Alley of Lakewood — (voted for Trump)

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

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

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

Donald Trump will reach out to “all candidates who were with [Trump] early” Colorado Trump campaign director Patrick Davis told radio listeners Wednesday.

“It’s a brave thing to be a Trump supporter early in Colorado,” Davis told KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles.

One of the first candidates in Colorado to support Trump was State Sen. Laura Woods (R-Westminster/Arvada), who in January called the mogul one of her two favorite presidential picks. She was the first elected official to express support for the celebrity politician.

Woods: “My favorites are Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.”

So, based on Davis’ interview, you’d expect the Trump campaign to be reaching out to Woods soon.

Asked by KNUS host Peter Boyles whether Trump would reach out specifically to George Athanasopoulos, who’s challenging U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, Davis said, “Trump and his people will reach out to all candidates like George, who were with him early.”

Athanasopoulos’ positions on a number of issues, as listed on his website, r eflect Trump’s to some degree.

On foreign policy, for example, he told me he differs from Trump in that “I would like to see specific objectives, like addressing the threat of ultra-orthodox Islamic terrorist groups.”

But some or the congressional candidate’s positions are even more unorthodox than Trump’s.

He once tweeted, for example, that a father has legal rights to stop an abortion because “that child is of him. It’s part of him.”

“Correct me if I’m wrong,” Athanasopoulos tweeted from his “@gjanthus” Twitter handle, “but men are involved in conceiving children. Therefore, we have rights as fathers.”

Listen to Davis on KNUS July 27 here.

In one of many good political stories recently, Westword reported this week that a recent ad campaign by Coorstek, the company formerly run by congressional candidate Joe Coors, was allegedly not intended to influence Coors’ race against Rep. Ed Perlmutter.

Westword quoted a statement from CoorsTek spokesman Dane Bartlett:

For over 100 years CoorsTek has been a proud employer in Colorado and like any other business, we are proud of our job creation record in the United States. In an effort to preserve and promote our good brand, CoorsTek distributed the mailer to our neighbors in and around Golden, Colorado.

CoorsTek sent the mailer to voters stating, in part, that the “Colorado-based company” invested $54M “in Colorado jobs this past year.”

Citing ColoradoPols, which originally broke the story, Westword’s Sam Levin reported:

CoorsTek, a ceramics business formerly called Coors Porcelain Company, recently sent out the mailer, which — at the height of election season in a race where millions of dollars are being spent on ads — certainly looks similar to political propaganda….

The mailer seemed odd to the Perlmutter campaigners, because it appears to be a direct response to their accusations that Coors, as the president and CEO of CoorsTek, outsourced manufacturing jobs to Asia. (The Perlmutter team has pointed to the opening of facilities in Korea, while Coors has said the company set up operations overseas to remain globally competitive but did not sacrifice any American jobs).

While the mailer, which points to a website called Creatingjobsincolorado.com, seems to be addressing one of the key debates that have emerged in the race, it does not have any political disclaimers. For that reason, it isn’t clear what connection it might have to the Coors campaign.

An interesting addition to the story is that this is not the first time a Coors company engaged in “reputational management” during the height of an election campaign.

In 2004, the Coors Brewing Co. did pretty much exactly the same thing, in apparent support of Pete Coors bid for U.S. Senate against Ken Salazar. Coors Brewing said that there had been no coordination between Coors’ campaign and the Coors Brewing Co. Like CoorsTek, Coors Brewing Co. denied that its advertising had anything to do with electing Coors, despite the appearance of it, and instead was based on business considerations only.

The Rocky Mountain News reported at the time (Oct. 30, 2004, “Timing of Coors Co. Ads Called  Improper”):

Full-page ads ran in the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post Friday touting the brewer’s environmental record, jobs creation and charitable contributions…
The ad depicts a mountain scene under the heading “Colorado Born & Raised, And Proud Of It.” The copy covers the beginnings of the company and an overview of its economic impact on the state.
This new wrinkle has surfaced at the tail end of a bitter campaign between Republican Coors , who stepped down as chairman of the family-founded company to run for office, and Democrat Ken Salazar. Anti-Coors ads portray the brewery as a polluter that cut hundreds of jobs and also outsourced them…
The brewery decided a week ago to place the ads as an answer to “ruthless and relentless attacks,” said Coors Brewing Co. spokeswoman Laura Sankey.

On KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado Wednesday, a caller put the following question to Joe Coors, who’s running against Rep. Ed Perlmutter for a congressional seat.

Caller Elkie: Hi Joe. I just want to call in because I [inaudible] you. And I’m a supporter. But I have a friend who said he was not going to vote for you because you’re anti-Semitic. I hadn’t heard anything about that, so I thought I’d ask you.

Strange question, to be sure. Here’s Coors’ answer:

Coors: Elkie. Thank you for the question. I can’t imagine where that comes from. I’m a big supporter of Israel. I have a lot of Jewish friends. And I can’t imagine that kind of–well, that’s a typical misconception that’s coming out of the Perlmutter camp. And it’s unfortunate. But I can honestly tell you that–and I’ve visited Israel. What a great place. And I just don’t understand.

Listen to the audio here: On KLZ Oct 31, Coors discusses “typical” misconception spread by “Perlmutter camp”

My first thought was, had host Jason Worley read Lynn Bartels great article about the personal connections between the Coors and Perlmutter families? Perlmutter hired Coors’ daughter. Coors and Perlmutter’s dad were friends and next-door neighbors for 16 years. Coors’ brother is the godfather of one of Perlmutter’s kids.

And now Coors’ is accusing the “Perlmutter camp,” which would presumably include Perlmutter himself, of spreading the rumor that Coors hates Jews? I would have thought Clark would have at least asked, “Joe, why do you think Ed would spread a rumor like that? And where’s your evidence?”

But later in the show, Worley and co-host Randy Corporon, who was subbing for regular host Ken Clark, raised questions about the caller, Elkie, saying she had misrepresented her question prior to coming on air.

Corporon: “We were talking off-air with our call screener about Elka who called in and sprung this phony-bologna allegation on Joe Coors. And we did call it, because Elka absolutely lied to our call screener about what she was calling about.”

Worley: “Yeah. She said she was going to ask a totally different question, something about Perlmutter….”

Corporon: “This is the desperation of the left.

Worley: That’s really awkward. I really do feel bad. We don’t purposely ever let a candidate have something like that happen to them. And you what, I think Joe handled it pretty darn well.”

On one hand, I don’t blame Corporon and Worley for being upset about a caller who allegedly lies to them about what they’re going to say, but the truth is, they didn’t offer us any proof that she, in fact, lied. This is a she-said-he-said situation.

Still, I actually think Worley’s call screener, and the KLZ hosts, are telling the truth. Why would they lie about it?

But, hey, welcome to talk radio. It’s all about people lying about who they are and what they’ll say. This unpredictability is part of what makes the talk medium so great. I mean, the guests, love them or hate them, are the best part of talk radio.

In any case, if Elkie’s question was a set up, it was a really strange one. You’d think an operative might have asked about why Coors flipped on personhood? Or why now, after being against abortion, even for rape and incest, he’s now ok with letting raped women have an abortion.

But even if you assume Elkie was secretly opposing Coors, Coors answer is still on the table. And the radio hosts should have dealt with it directly.

What evidence does Coors have to support his statement that it’s “typical” for the “Perlmutter camp” to spread “misconceptions” like Coors being anti-Semitic?

If this is a “typical” misconception, what are some of the other in-the-same-ballpark misconceptions that Coors thinks are being spread by the Perlmutter camp?

Does Coors really think Perlmutter himself would spread the rumor that Coors is an anti-Semite? If not, does Coors owe Perlmutter an apology?

Worley and Corporon should have Coors back on the show to answer these questions and others.

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: On Friday, Oct. 26, The Post added the column to its website.

———————

A couple weeks ago, syndicated columnist Al Lewis wrote a devastating piece about Joe Coors, which The Denver Post didn’t run.

That was a surprise, because The Post posts most all of Lewis’ columns online–and usually one runs in the business section of Sunday’s print edition.

Amped up by the election, I was thinking that the plain-spoken destruction of Coors by Lewis might have led to its absence from The Post’s slice of cyberspace.

Lewis’ column raised questions about how Coors can get away with touting his business expertise on the campaign trail when Coors “gave millions in 2002 to a con artist who promised him a 75% weekly rate of return.”

But what added value to this old story was Coors’ refusal to talk to Lewis, a former Post columnist who now writes for Dow Jones:

I would have let him tell the story in his own words, instead of the words in a trail of federal court documents, old news reports, and his adversaries. But his communications director, Michelle Yi, responded to my request in an email, saying that Coors was too busy with his campaign to give me an interview. “We can and will try to arrange something most definitely after the election,” she wrote. [Bigmedia emphasis]

Yi’s response goes down in my annals of public relations strategies as “nice try.” Coors wants to campaign on his record as a great businessman, but like a Las Vegas gambling addict, he only wants to talk about the deals he won.

If I were The Post, that’s the kind of writing I’d beg to have on my website, and in my newspaper. But it wasn’t there. Why?

“I’m happy to answer your question,” Post Business Editor Kristi Arellano emailed me yesterday. “But I’m afraid the answer won’t be nearly as interesting as you would like. We get Al Lewis’ column via email and it is manually dropped into our system and launched online by the editorial assistant in the business section. That individual was on vacation, and the column got overlooked. It was not an intentional decision. Rather, it was an unfortunate oversight caused by short-staffing.”

I told Arellano that, yes, if Lewis’ column had been spiked due to threatening calls from Coors, and intervention from Post Editor Greg Moore, it would have made a better blog post for me. (In fact, such questions about outside intervention were raised in 2010 when a Lewis column, telling the story of how John Elway called Lewis a “scumbag,” was not printed in The Post. Like Coors, Elway had also lost millions of dollars in a ponzi scheme. Here’s Westword blogger Michael Roberts’ 2010 account of this.)

In any case, I asked Arellano if she’d run the column, and she said she’d “circle back” and post it online, adding that the column “fell through the cracks–and that should not have happened.” I’ll update this blog post when the column appears online.

In a “Truth Test” check of a Perlmutter ad, 9News Brandon Rittiman concluded Thursday that it’s “arguable” whether Joe Coors opposes abortion, even in the case of rape and incest,” as Permutter’s ad asserts.

Even if you’re not a sponge for personhood trivia, like I am, you may know that Coors supported the personhood amendment in 2010, which would ban all abortions, including for rape and incest. He even donated $1,000 to the cause just two years ago.

Then, in August, he told The Denver Post that he would not support personhood again this year because the voters had already rejected it twice.

But Coors did not say that he withdrew his support for it permanently, or even that he disagreed with it.

So, given Coors support for personhood, how could 9News possibly find it “arguable” that Coors actually supports abortion in the case of rape and incest?

Well, because that’s what his campaign told 9News last month! Thursday’s Truth Test cites this 9News  interview with Coors, which was included in a September Truth Test:

…the Coors campaign says that Joe Coors would seek to ban abortion, but would allow exceptions in cases of rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is at risk.

A spokesperson for Coors says he would encourage women who are pregnant from instances of rape or incest not to terminate their pregnancies. But he does not believe the law should “criminalize” abortion in such traumatic circumstances.

The Coors Campaign also told 9News in September that Coors “does not want to make any kind of birth control illegal.” (Hello. It’s widely agreed that the personhood amendment would ban some forms of birth control.)

On Thursday, 9News went further, reporting that now “Coors states he would not support Personhood efforts.” This may be based on 9News’ report in September that “Joe Coors is still pro-life, and feels he can be pro-life, even without backing personhood efforts.”

It’s unclear whether 9News is referring to not backing this year’s efforts, which has been Coors’ position previously, or whether Coors has, like Ken Buck and Paul Ryan before him, and done a big old flip flop.

So what do you do with this, if you’re a journalist at 9News or anywhere else?

It’s time for a direct intervention with the candidate.

How did he come around to endorsing (and donating to) the personhood amendment in the first place? Even if he’s not supporting the personhood amendment this time, why has his abortion position, as reflected in his previous support for the amendment, changed? Did he understand what the personhood amendment would do, when he endorsed and donated $1,000?  (You’d think he’d have known what exactly he was donating to, since $1,000 is not a penny-ante money, unless you’re Scott Gessler)

Why is Coors no longer anti-abortion, with no exceptions? Did he go through some kind of life transition? Why did his thinking change? In other words, how could this happen?

We need to hear from Coors on this.

I’m a bit late posting this news, via the Colorado Springs Gazette, that Robert Blaha, who lost to Rep. Doug Lamborn in a bitter GOP primary race this year, has started a radio show that promises to “name names and call out people.”

That’s always fun, and some conservative talk shows, like the Steamboat-Springs based Cari and Rob Show, which is defunct, actually follow through and do it.

The Gazette’s John Schroyer reported last week:

Starting at 7 a.m.Saturday, Blaha will co-host an hour-long program on KZNT, 1460 AM [in Colorado Springs], with Derrick Wilburn, who founded the Rocky Mountain Black Tea Party. Their show is called “Black, White and Right.”

…The pair will go back and forth on political issues, Blaha said, and he promised they won’t discriminate based on party.

“If there’s stuff that’s being swept under the rug in either party, we’ll talk about that,” Blaha said. “We’re going to call out issues, name names and call out people.”

Blaha’s show is a happy local addition to the KZNT political lineup, which is waaaaay right wing, and syndicated.

On KOA’s Colorado Weekend on Saturday morning , GOP congressional candidate Joe Coors told co-hosts July Hayden and Chuck Bonniwell that his fundraising was going well, beyond the money he’s given to himself, and, Coors said, he’s gotten more individual donations than Ed Perlmutter, his opponent.

That didn’t sound right to me, knowing that Perlmutter goes to all those grocery stores, and I hadn’t heard that Coors went to grocery stores at all.

I checked the Federal Election Commission website and found that Coors has 524 individual contributors versus 871 for Perlmutter.

So I don’t understand Coors’ response to this question by Bonniwell:

Bonniwell: I know you’ve got a few bucks on your own to put in, but how’s the fundraising going?

Coors: “We’re very pleased with the fundraising effort. Just launched the Joe Coors 2012 Club, which has gotten some very nice grassroots support.  We have more donors, individual donors, than my competition does. And so we’re very pleased with that outreach.”

Hayden and Bonniwell should have Coors back on their show to explain what he meant, in light of the numbers I found.

And while they’ve got him, they should ask Coors if he can explain the general anger of the GOP toward the Colorado redistricting process, in view of his positive feelings toward it:

Coors: I think the redistricting was a very good thing to do, because it really consolidated population densities. If I benefited, or if Colorado District 7 benefited, it’s putting Aurora back where it really belongs, in Mike Coffman’s district, and making Jefferson County and Adams County more concentrated for CD 7.

Hayden and Bonniwell should find out from Coors if he’s taken any heat for backing the redistricting process from his fellow Republicans who were so upset by it last year.

Listen to Coors here: KOA Weekend-Joe Coors-08-25-2012

Rush Limbaugh’s 1950’s-era comments last week, calling a woman a “slut” for believing that her health insurance should cover birth control, came from the mouth of…Rush Limbaugh, an unelected publicity hound/entertainer of the first order.

And Limbaugh’s extremism got all kinds of coverage, locally and nationally.

Then ColoradoPols broke a story yesterday about extreme comments at home in Colorado, by elected Republican legislators at a rally on the west steps of the Capitol.

Pols posted videotape of GOP speakers, including Sen. Tim Neville comparing Nazi Germany to the Obama Administration. Other video clips consisted of, as described by Pols:

“Sen. Harvey declaring that a program of mandating contraceptive coverage is “not a slippery slope, but a cliff” to “genocide somewhere down the road.” Sen. Lambert called the policy “mind control,” and read from a right-wing column warning that the same authority could be used to force the purchase of “euthanasia pills.” Not to be outdone, Sen. Renfroe said that it could to a situation “where England was when their king decided he needed to rule the church.”

Reporters who didn’t make it to the rally should go back and cover these comments, handily posted on Pols, to air them out. That’s what journalism is about.

It’s obvious to me that the statements by elected GOP  officials deserved more attention from the local media than Limbaugh’s comments, weird as they were.  They’re elected officials. Maybe they’re publicity hounds too, but still.

Candidates like Joe Coors who make extreme comments in secondary media outlets, like talk radio, also deserve media scrutiny when they go off. There’s not much public-interest value in reporting that KNUS talk-show host Steve Kelly thinks Obamacare is leading to a government takeover of the individual, but when Joe Coors, who’s running against Rep. Ed Perlmutter, says it, it’s news.

Here’s what Coors said on KNUS’ Kelley and Company yesterday:

Kelley: How big an issue is [Obamacare] in this race?

Coors: It’s huge…. Governments that have controlled health care in their countries basically own the individual. And we cannot let Obamacare legislation dictate our lives in any matter shape or form, and I’m very much opposed to it and would certainly vote to repeal it or defund it or whatever I could do when I get back there. [BigMedia emphasis]

Kelley: You make a great point. Yeah. Think about that. If someone could make a decision on your health and decisions on your health, they have total control over you.

Coors: Yes, sir.

Listen here to Joe Coors on KNUS 3-13-2012 say Obamacare leads to total control of the individual.

A reporter might ask a veteran getting VA coverage if he or she feels the government owns him.  Or a Brit, or to a lesser degree a Canadian or someone on Medicare, for that matter. And what does government control over healthcare have to do with mild-mannered Obamacare anyway?

With depleted staff, reporters at legacy news outlets can’t be everywhere and do everything like they could before, or at least try to. They should throw out any hesitancy to use material from places like Pols or talk radio, if the material is verifiable and newsworthy.

For example, I was just listening to a podcast of Grassroots Radio Colorado from Monday, in which  Sen. Neville describes how he prepared his comments about Nazi’s and the Obama Administration for the rally.

He said:

I was doing some research last night, and I was putting my notes together [for his speech at the rally] and of course you pull things apart. You don’t like this. You don’t like that. And you know I was looking at the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany and the parallels I was seeing were pretty scary.

What’s scary to me is how many of us, including smart reporters, are ignoring this stuff.