Love him or hate him, Scott Gessler has brought an activist’s style to his job as Secretary of State, while others in his position, including Republicans, have tried to stay out of the partisan fray. Ditto for Colorado Attorney General John Suthers.

So going into November, when we’ll be voting for a new AG and SOS, the question is, do we want to elect an AG and SOS in the Gessler/Suthers mold. Or do we want more passive, traditional office holders, regardless of their political party?

It’s an important question for media figures to tease out of the candidates, and reporters can take a cue from State Rep. Mark Waller who addressed the issue spontaneously when asked Sat. by KNUS’ Jimmy Sengenberger what sets him “apart” from his primary challenger, Cynthia Coffman.

WALLER: You know, I think there are a couple of things that set us apart. Number one, we view the role of Attorney General’s office a little differently. You know, [Cynthia Coffman] has said a couple of times that she feels that I’d be more of an ‘activist’ Attorney General, if I were to become the AG, meaning that I would engage more upfront on the development of legislation and fight against bad legislation that’s moving forward. And I would be more. You know, I would take the role as an elected official more seriously and place more focus that way, on the office. Whereas, you know, the way she sees the office, it’s more of a nonpartisan office, where it’s the role and responsibility of the Attorney General to be the the lawyer for the state. So, I think we see those roles a little bit differently…. See, I’m an old military guy, Jimmy. I deployed to Bagdad, Iraq in 2006 where I prosecuted insurgents. I led other lawyers and paralegals there. You know, if I can lead lawyers and paralegals during a war in Bagdad, Iraq, I’m very confident I can do it in the state of Colorado, as well.

Listen to Waller discuss his promise to be activist attorney general

What about Democratic AG candidate Don Quick and the SOS candidates, Dem Joe Neguse and Republican Wayne Williams?

Do they see themselves in the Gessler/partisan mold? Or would they take the more nonpartisan approach of former GOP SOS Natalie Meyer, as explained here?

Just after gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo departed from from KNUS’ Peter Boyles show this morning, where Boyles told his listeners, “If there’s a god, [Tancredo] becomes governor,” Tancredo talked about immigration with Dan Caplis, whose KNUS radio show starts right after Boyles’.

Caplis: If you had that power, right now, what would you do with the folks who are already here?

Tancredo: …I think everyone who applies for a job in this country should have to be here legally and should have to prove that. Now, certainly, would there be hardships? I have no doubt. But a decision was made when the person came here illegally. I mean, that decision brought with it a lot of ramifications. One is that indeed you may end up having to leave at some point in time. And that means a lot of things to a lot of different people. Leave I-don’t-know-what behind, you know, familiar relationships and all that sort of thing. But you have to determine that you are ok with the idea that people who are here illegally would have to go home. [BigMedia emphasis]

Tancredo isn’t shy about discussing his proposed e-verify solution to the immigration problem, whereby employers would have to run the Social Security numbers of potential employees through a national database prior to hiring them, but Tancredo usually doesn’t mention the “hardships” involved for the undocumented immigrants.

Below, in a 2011 video shot during Tancredo’s 2011 presidential run, Tancredo said, “All you have to do is restrict the ability of an employer to give a job to somebody who is here illegally. People self deport when that happens. It happened in Arizona.”

Today on the radio, Tancredo again said that his e-verify solution “in effect” is “self-deportation,” but his heart peeked through when he talked about the “hardships” of leaving “familiar relationships,” which obviously include children, fathers, mothers, nieces, uncles, neighbors, teachers, entire communities in the most personal sense and beyond. Those are the human hardships involved.

Ironically, Tancredo began his interview with Caplis by saying that, as governor, he’d mandate that, as a high-school graduation requirement, all Colorado students be able “to articulate an appreciation for western civilization, American exceptionalism, and the Constitution.”

Absent was a discussion of how destroying the families and communities of undocumented immigrants fits in with Tancredo’s proposed high-school-graduation criteria.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo thinks he can ride his support for pot legalization into the governor’s office.

That’s what he said Tuesday on Michael “Heck’ve a job” Brownie’s KHOW talk show, when Brown asked him how he can “grab the unaffiliated” voters in the general election, if he wins GOP primary.

Tancredo: “One thing, admittedly, makes a lot of my more conservative friends mad at me, and that is my support for Amendment 64 [pot legalization]. But that translated into a lot of support among people who aren’t necessarily the typical Republican voter.”

No one pointed out that it’s Tancredo’s conservative friends who will be deciding whether he wins the Republican primary and is able to enter into an orbit where unaffiliated voters matter to him. [Then we can discuss how it plays among suburban women.]

Tancredo’s other explanation for his popularity among unaffiliated voters: “I am sort of the anti-Republican Republican.”

Ironically, being the anti-Republican Republican might help Tancredo among Republicans, but still, I was waiting for Brownie to ask, “Do you think unaffiliated voters might possibly remotely maybe find other reasons not to like you, like the fact that you’re anti-choice (anti-abortion, even for rape), anti-undocumented immigrant (round ’em up and throw ’em out), anti-environment (global warming is “Bull“), etc., etc. (and that’s a big fat etcetera, etcetera).”

To the people who tell me I should get hazard pay for listening to conservative talk radio, I prove you wrong by offering this intelligent insight from KHOW radio host Dan Caplis, delivered during a discussion about why Rep. Cory Gardner would take on Sen. Mark Udall in November:

Caplis: “My guess is, there’s a big-picture plan in play, and if should Cory lose, and I think he will likely win, but nothing is for certain, the campaign keeps rolling into ’16 and he beats Michael Bennet… So I think Cory gets two whacks at it here.”

Since I heard Caplis’ “two-whacks” Gardner theory last month, I’ve shared it with the three people I know who’ve heard of Gardner and are already paying attention to the Senate race, and everyone nods their heads in enlightenment. Of course. So I’ve decided to share it here, with a big hat tip to Caplis.

On the radio, Caplis didn’t get into the details on why Gardner would need two whacks, or even more, to win but it makes a ton of sense when you think about it.

First, there’s the simple fact that Gardner is essentially an untested candidate, with no state-wide campaign experience, who’s prevailed in safe elections in districts that welcome his far-right positions on everything the environment and Medicare and to women’s issues and gay rights.

He was first launched into elected office with no election at all, after he was appointed in July 2005 to a State House seat (HD63) left vacant by Greg Brophy, who ran for state State Senate. The next year, Gardner ran unopposed in the Republican primary, and his Democratic opponent had no hope in the safe GOP district that voted 73 percent for Gardner. Two years later, in 2008, Gardner was completely unopposed in both the GOP primary and general election.

Gardner briefly faced a handful of GOP opponents when he first ran for Congress in 2010. But they failed to gain the requisite 30 percent at the District Assembly, where Gardner successfully positioned himself to the right of his competitors on personhood, gay rights, and even the posting of the 10 commandments in public buildings. His opponents dropped out, and Gardner was left unopposed at the primary ballot box.

Going into the general election, Gardner was the overwhelming favorite to defeat Rep. Betsy Markey, who was seen as lucky to be holding the seat at all in the conservative district. Democrats, you recall, seemed to be praying that a third-party candidate could somehow propel Markey to victory, but the prayers weren’t answered, as Gardner won with 51 percent of the voter over Markey’s 40 percent. And, oh yeah, 2010 was the big Tea-Party wave year.

Gardner himself was probably surprised that his CD4 seat actually got even more conservative due to the 2010 redistricting process, setting up Gardner to win re-election in 2012 with 56 percent of the vote.

When I first heard Caplis two-whacks theory, I didn’t know all these details about Gardner’s softball campaign history, but I still thought Caplis had it right just based on Udall’s appeal and war chest, as well as all the uncertainty we see on the 2014 political landscape.

Everyone watching Gardner had this question in the back of their minds: Why would Gardner risk the end of his political career on one iffy election and, at the same time, forsake a political path that looked like it really could be heading toward Speaker of the House? Two whacks increases the odds and takes the pressure off.

But even with the two-whacks carrot, Caplis pointed out on air that really intense national pressure was required to push Gardner into the Senate race:

Caplis: I think what happened, my guess, is that there was so much pressure on Cory nationally because, as you know, the control of the U.S. Senate may very well depend on who wins this Colorado Senate seat.

This is quite a different story than what Gardner has been telling talk-radio audiences, that he decided to jump in the Senate race when he found out his health-insurance premium would jump due to Obamacare–a sob story that’s been debunked.

Caplis’ national-pressure explanation, coupled with his two-whacks theory, makes more sense than Gardner’s. It’s an example of how Caplis, in between repeating GOP talking points and obsessing on trivialities, provides a lot of political insight on his KHOW show.

“I happen to believe in something else,” Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo told KNUS radio host Jimmy Sengenberger last month. “And that is, there is a plan for all of us. God has a plan. I happen to believe that, okay? Do you, Jimmy, believe that God knows who’s going to be the governor next time in Colorado?”

“God himself does,” Sengenberger replied. “We don’t. But God does.”

“God knows that, right,” said Tancredo. “He knows right now. Therefore, it’s in his hands, right? And I put it there. And I say to myself, ‘I will do everything I can do. I will work as hard as I can. I will be as available as I can. But at the end of the day, it’s in his hands, and it will be determined.’ And so I have to tell you this also. If it works out that I am not the candidate…it’s ok with me. I am at ease with it. I am at peace in my own heart, because, frankly, it’s the way it should be. God has a plan.”

I’m an atheist, and so I obviously don’t agree with Tancredo/Sengenberger that God has a plan, but I admire how Tanc’s belief manifests in a Buddha-like attitude toward his political campaign.

In any event, you realize, after hearing Tanc talk, how little media focus there’s been, in recent CO elections, on the personal religious beliefs or habits of candidates.

During the last election, we read in The Denver Post that Joe Coors was on the golf course in San Diego (16th hole) when God told him to “Go home. Go home.”

The personhood amendment, which would ban all abortion, even for rape, forces a discussion about when life begins and why–which can lead to religion–as we saw in the video of Rep. Cory Gardner saying he circulated personhood petitions in his church.

But the attitude among reporters seems to be that religion is somewhat off limits in political discourse these days, particularly beyond the broadest identifiers, unless it’s relevant to a specific point in a debate–about banning abortion, for example.

But I enjoyed hearing Tanc talk openly about God. It was illuminating. And I’m sure most people would like reporters to bring up the subject more often, maybe in the context of how religion does or doesn’t guide their actions and decision-making.

One of the leaders and spokespeople of the campaign to recall State Sen. Evie Hudak was a woman allegedly named Laura Waters.

During the height of the Hudak recall campaign, “Waters” was on 710 KNUS Peter Boyles show almost daily, attacking Hudak and whipping up the radio crowd to join the recall fight.

Now “Waters” is running for Hudak’s former Colorado Senate seat, SD 19. In current the GOP primary, she’s battling Lang Sias, who lost to Hudak in 2012, for the right to take on Democratic State Sen. Rachel Zenzinger.

But she’s no longer calling herself “Laura Waters.” She’s referring to herself as “Laura Woods.”

Regular Boyles listeners like me were confused, and Boyles didn’t explain things. So to fill in the media gap, I called Waters/Woods to find out what’s up.

“There’s no secret to it,” Woods told me last week. “It’s just protection of family because of what went on down in Pueblo with those recalls. And I didn’t want to put my family at risk then. But you can’t run for office under a different name.”

Woods didn’t offer specifics on what happened, security-wise, in Pueblo that frightened her.

Woods has the endorsement, over her primary opponent Sias, of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which worked closely with Hudak recall organizers last year.

Minutes after State Sen. Bernie Herpin thanked KNUS talk-radio host Peter Boyles for being “fair and balanced,” Boyles called Fox 31 reporter Eli Stokols a “Butt Boy.”

Herpin and Boyles were angry over Fox 31 Denver coverage of Herpin’s statement that it was “maybe a good thing” that the Aurora m0vie-theater shooter had a 100-round magazine.

Asked by Boyles’ about Stokols’ coverage, Herpin said this morning, “As a media person you know it’s their job to sensationalize the news to attract readers and viewers and followers on their blogs.”

“Fortunately, we have people like you that stand up for us, that provide both sides of the story in a fair-and-balanced way,” Herpin told Boyles. “And I thank you for that.”

“Well, you’re kind,” responded Boyles, who really truly expressed his “love” Herpin earlier in the interview.

Listen to Herpin says Boyles is fair and balanced 02-13-14

After I tweeted Boyles’ conversation with Herpin, “Missing Pundit” responded with “Live from Kenya,” referring to Boyles’ birther obsessions.

Herpin stopped short of apologizing for his comment about the 100-round magazine, telling Boyles, “I certainly meant no disrespect to people.”

Boyles’ substantive criticism of Stokols’ reporting was that Stokols didn’t include the full context of Herpin’s quote until the lower portion of Stokols’ post. There, Stokols wrote: “Herpin was trying to say that larger magazines are less reliable, more prone to jamming up.” And then he provided Herpin’s full comment with video.

That doesn’t sound like reporting from a Butt Boy, whatever that means.

Republican gubernatorial candidates Scott Gessler and Tom Tancredo have said they won’t participate in primary debates, but Gessler changed course slightly Thursday, telling KHOW host Mandy Connell that he wouldn’t rule out a talk-radio debate organized by Connell.

Connell: Scott, let’s just say, if I were to have all the candidates on the show at the same time, would you participate in that, on the air? I mean we could really get into some issues.

Gessler: Maybe. Probably not at this point. My focus really is on the convention. You know, I have an election coming up on April 12, and that is the state assembly to get access to the ballot to be nominated to the Republican-primary ballot. So, my focus and strategy is, reaching out to the people who participate in that, whether it’s in big groups, media, as well as individual. And so I can’t tell you it would fit within that approach, but we’ll talk. I won’t rule it out. [BigMedia emphasis]

Connell: There will be donuts, Scott.

Listen to Gessler tell KHOW he won’t rule out talk-radio debate 2-6-2014

Connell and other conservative talkers have the ear of the exact group Gessler says he wants to reach: Republican primary voters. KHOW and KNUS are obviously in the “media” category that Gessler mentions above. So, Connell is in a position to exert some serious pressure on Gessler and Tanc.

The question is, will Connell push the issue (maybe offer lox and bagels in addition to donuts?). If not, will KNUS’ Dan Caplis, who’s said on air that he hopes to have candidates debate on his show, push the radio-debate idea? Connell seems pissed, as you can see below from her Feb. 6 show, so maybe she’ll persevere:

Connell: I hate this decision [not to debate]. I’m not going to lie. I don’t like it… Isn’t there any part of you that thinks you’re doing a disservice to voters on this?

Gessler: I’m spending my time elsewhere reaching out to voters in a pretty intensive way. And by the way, I’m happy to send you my schedule. You’re welcome to come, and ask me any tough question you would like.

Connell: I will. You better be careful what you invite, Scott, because I will come.

Connell should up the ante and put a KHOW all-candidate event on Gessler’s schedule.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Greg Brophy took a playful swipe at Denver Post reporters Lynn Bartels and Kurtis Lee yesterday, saying on a Denver radio station that if Scott Gessler and Tom Tancredo “can’t take on Lynn Bartels and Kurtis Lee right now, how on Earth are [Gessler and Tancredo] gong to take on John Hickenlooper in September?”

On KHOW’s Mandy Connell show, Brophy was making the point that Gessler and Tancredo, who say they won’t participate in primary debates, including a Feb. 18 debate sponsored by The Denver Post, should subject themselves to tough questions now, to prepare themselves for battle with Hick, if one of them wins the primary and faces Hick.

Brophy, for example, referred to questions about Tancredo’s broken term-limits pledge and his support for gun control, and Gessler’s eithics troubles and problems with his office budget.

I’d rather have trained journalists (Bartels, Lee) asking Tancredo questions about term limits, for example, than a geologist (Hick), who’s known to be too nice. That’s why debates are moderated by journalists! They’re the smart ones in the room.

Brophy: I brought up Tom Tancredo’s past support of gun control. He needs to be able to talk about that in a way that settles the voters down now, not late September. Secretary Gessler a problem with his office budget. He’s upside down by about $4.1 million that no one can explain.  And he needs to make is case to the people of Colorado. He needs to make it in February, not in September.”

“I mean, come on guys,” Brophy said later in the KHOW interview, “if you can’t take on Lynn Bartels and Kurtis Lee right now, how on Earth are you gong to take on John Hickenlooper in September? Just come to the debate.”

On KNUS’ Kelley and Company Feb. 6, Brophy made the same point.

Kelley: Who do you want to challenge most of those five other guys out there?

Brophy: I think we need to ask and have the hard questions answered by Tom Tancredo. Why did you vote for gun control back in 1999. Why did you break your term-limits pledge. What makes us think we can trust you now? Why do you think you can win a general election in Colorado? Secretary Gessler, explain to us why you have to have your budget bailed out by the State of Colorado when every other secretary of state in the history of Colorado has balanced their budget successfully as secretary of state. Explain to us how improper use of office resources for personal political gain was ok back in 2012 when the Ethics Commission found 5-0 against you and ultimately you paid the money back.”

Kelley: Folks, we are having a one-way debate right here?

Brophy: You are going to have to answer these questions sometime.

I hope the questions come from Bartels, Lee,  and other journalists, not from a geologist-turned-bartender-turned-politician.

Reporters don’t always offer differing views in trivial news stories about a speech or a minor partisan event. It’s nice, but you don’t expect it, like you would in more significant stories.

Such was the case in yesterday’s one-sided Denver Post article about a speech by Republican operatives saying the next two elections will be good for Republicans like them. A surprising claim coming from Republican operatives, but not surprising in a story headlined, “Republican analysts optimistic about future of party.”

Nancy Dwight, former executive director of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, was quoted thusly:

“There has been a maturation in the Republican party since 2012, that we need to win,” Dwight argued, but said to win races going forward the party needed “to represent the 50 plus percent of the country who are concerned about growth in the private sector and agree that there should be limited centralized government.”

I read this, and I thought about an interview I’d just heard on KNUS radio with Dudley Brown, Executive Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. He might not be the most powerful Republican in Colorado, but he’s probably up there. I offer this quote to you for perspective on the news of GOP maturity alleged in The Post piece:

“The Republican Party itself has largely been castrated,” Brown told Peter Boyles, echoing cruder GOP castration comments made by rocker Ted Nugent recently on Boyles’ show.

“And they really can’t do much in the line of elections or politics anymore. And they generally don’t help anytime there’s a conservative involved either… Peter, I’ve never been surprised by the lack of principles from the Republican Party or the leadership of the Republican Party… Whenever they stick the mic in the face of a Republican official, it’s always Ryan Call and some of his predecessors, Dick Wadhams, and none of those people have been conservative allies.  I’ve been doing battle with them ever since I’ve been involved in politics and see no reason that’s ever going to change.”

Listen to Dudley Brown on KNUS Boyles 2-7-14

Despite this, Brown told Boyles he’s ready to fight Democrats during the upcoming election.

“I guess you could say it’s hunting season,” Brown said on air, getting high marks for maturity from Boyles, who said earlier, “in my world” Dudley Brown is a “winner” and “one of our favorites.”