To my way of thinking, Rep. Mike Coffman dropped a bombshell on KNUS’ Dan Caplis show last month, when he said he “certainly” supports re-deployment of advisory troops in Iraq, if invited.

Caplis listened as Coffman said America is “suffering the consequences” of not having troops in Iraq today. This would have given the U.S. “some influence there” to help keep the country from falling apart.

The counter view, omitted on KNUS, was articulated this week on the Huffington Post by Jon Soltz, co-founder of VoteVets.org.

First, there is no such thing as “advisory, or “non-regular troops,” when it comes to Iraq. As soon as an American service member enters Iraq, they are a target. If attacked, they will respond, and thus are combat troops. In a 360-degree battlefield, where any innocent looking person may actually be an insurgent, those troops must always keep a combat posture, for their own defense…

Second, Iraq is in the midst of a civil war and always has been. Interestingly, it’s the same civil war that Syria is now seeing — namely, Sunni versus Shia, fought between proxies, including Iran. That was true when we were there, and is now that we’ve left. That was always going to be the case. What is also true is that this civil war would never end until Iraqis fought it out amongst themselves, either in a political settlement, or in battle. Our troop presence actually delayed that, and kept the cork on the bottle. But now, it is fully raging, as the radical Sunni group, the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), has taken Fallujah, and Iraq’s government is poised to take the city back. To put American troops back in at this juncture, on the side of the government, makes them instant participants in Iraq’s and Syria’s Civil War, no matter how “advisory” we want to say they are.

Third, as with the last Iraq war, Congressman Coffman offers up no end-state, and no exit strategy. Just toss troops back in there, and see how it goes. We’ve been there and done that, and I think we all know how it goes. If things go badly, the answer from the right is “more troops.” Ten thousand troops becomes 20,000, and 30,000. And next thing you know, we’re back in conventional war, complete with the “regular troops,” that Coffman says he wouldn’t send.

Soltz calls Coffman’s proposal a “path to a third Iraq War,” and I’m sure a lot of Caplis’ conservative listeners would agree with him–and Caplis should let them hear form Soltz directly. This  issue doesn’t divide along progressive-conservative lines. That’s for sure.

I was worried that the re-constituted Dan Caplis radio show (minus the occasional left-leaning questions from Craig Silverman) would turn out to be a combination of ritualistic chest-thumping and high-school cheerleading for Colorado Republicans.

But Caplis isn’t giving his GOP guests complete cheerleader treatment.

For example, Caplis has been trying to convince GOP gubernatorial candidates Scott Gessler and Tom Tancredo, both of whom have refused to participate in Republican primary debates, to reconsider and do the debates.

And when they offer up lame excuses, Caplis calls them on it. For example, see this exchange on Caplis’ KNUS 710-AM show this moring:

Caplis: At the end of the day, what I am asking, as a consumer, is ‘Hey, if you are not going to participate in these debates, I hope you spend whatever time you need to refining your skill set. You’re a really talented guy, but whoever the nominee is, they are really going to have to do well in these debates to expose the true John Hickenlooper.

Gessler: Here’s what I will give you as a suggestion. Invite me on your radio show, and ask me tough questions. And I think I’ll respond pretty well.

Caplis: I just think it’s a different dynamic live under the lights with your opponent who is trying to duck and weave, etcetera. But, hey, nobody who knows you would doubt your abilities. I think it’s just a matter of training for this particular big event.

Listen to Caplis tell Gessler that his talk radio show isn’t like a candidate debate 2.6.14

Okay, it’s a bit like a cheerleading session, but still. Caplis gets credit for having enough self-awareness to know that conservative talk radio isn’t, in the actual real world, like a candidate debate, which takes place out of the echo chamber with moderators and even, gasp, real people possibly asking questions.

But, if Caplis does take Gessler up on his offer to practice debating on KNUS, one wonders if Gessler would allow his opponents to call the Caplis show for a little candidate-versus-candidate on-air chit chat.

If you’ve been following Tom Tancredo from microphone to microphone over the years, like I have, you know he doesn’t think his position on immigration is a liability for him in getting elected governor of Colorado. He thinks he can win in spite of it.

So it was no surprise to hear Tancredo tell KNUS talk-show host Jimmy Sengenberger Sat. that he doesn’t care if the Democrats hit him on immigration, if he’s running against John Hickenlooper.

Tancredo: Does anyone think I won’t be hit on immigration? I intend to be very, very aggressive about that particular issue.

Sengenberger: Do you want them to bring it to you?

Tancredo: Absolutely.

Tom Tancredo on KNUS says, bring on immigration debate 2-1-2014

Tancredo doesn’t believe most Hispanics care about his extreme positions on immigration, which, presumably, would include his view that immigration reform is “impossible” to achieve in Washington. (His solution is to require businesses to use e-verify to make it impossible to hire undocumented immigrants.)

Instead, the GOP gubernatorial front-runner argued in Saturday’s radio interview that he’ll try to reach Hispanics by talking about the importance of legal immigration as well as fiscal conservatism and such. For details, Tancredo directed listeners to VivaTancredo.com.

But left out during his radio appearance was Tancredo’s core belief about Hispanic voters: Republicans shouldn’t toss their principles out the window in an effort to win them over. It’s a waste of time.

As he said last year, “We’ve seen that trying to woo the Latino is a losing proposition. Latinos vote for Democrats because they want big government. It has nothing to do with immigration.”

From the moment after KNUS Peter Boyles’ introduced him, rocker Ted Nugent delivered a bizarre series of insults and slurs on Denver radio this morning, saying the “media in this country is basically Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda ministry” and singing his “New American National Anthem,” which consisted only of the cry of a sheep:  “baa-aa—aa—aa, baa-aa-aa.”

“It breaks my heart to have to say these things,” Nugent said. “But we have to say these things. Because if you don’t get rid of the bad and the ugly, the good will continue to be strangled.”

“Ted, what has happened to the Republican Party?” asked Boyles.

“Someone extracted their scrotum with a rusty shiv,” Nugent said. “They have no balls.  I don’t know where this ‘Let’s be Mr. Rogers with a Lawrence Welk soundtrack tie adjusting’ mantra came from, but my god! If there’s a life-support system attached to the GOP, it’s flat-lining.”

Nugent, who’s a leading opponent of gun-safety laws, like those passed in Colorado, said he’s spoiled because he lives in Texas, which, he said, should “not be confused with Colorado, [which is] the suburb of San Francisco.”

“It’s true!” replied Boyles.

“If ever there was a poster child for apathy, disconnect, laziness, and abandonment of We the people, and moral dereliction, it is Colorado,” Nugent said, praising recall activists for sending the state in a better direction.

Here’s a suggestion for Boyles, who has Tancredo on his show all the time: How about playing Nugent’s interview for Tanc, and discussing it line-by-line. And then, at the end, finding out if Tancredo is proud to be endorsed by Nugent.

Conservative activist Kelly “ish” Maher, who was a guest host on KNUS’ Kelley and Company Friday, asked gubernatorial candidate Amy Stephens a question that’s been an obsession on conservative talk-radio lately:

Maher: “Potentially, let’s say, you make it out of the primary. And you are in a primary with some people whom many here consider to be friends. But once you get to that point where you are theoretically running against Udall, how are you going to separate yourself from him and create a contrast because a lot of people are putting the exchange creation on you. As soon as you announced that you were running, Twitter blew up and called it Amycare. So that’s an important contrast. How are you going to clarify that for people.”

Stephens: “…I’m not sure with my opponents–I don’t know if they were tweeting. I don’t know if they were getting a tattoo. Or whatever. I was in the weeds, you know, with John Suthers and others, trying to make the best decision for the people of Colorado.” [BigMedia emphasis]

If you know Maher, you know she self-identifies as a seeker of the lighter moments in politics, and so you have to be surprised that Maher didn’t jump all over Stephens’ “getting-a-tattoo” line.

Does Stephens think her Tea-Party opponents, like KLZ talk-show hosts Ken Clark and Jason Worley, are tattoo-covered? Is there a correlation between tattoos and Tea Party types?

Or was it simply the tweet-tattoo alliteration that Stephens was going for? It sounded like Stephens may have been reaching for a joke. But why tattoos?

Maher missed a chance to have some fun with Stephens, with acid undertones, but maybe KLZ morning show host Randy Corporon (560 KLZ-AM 5-7 a.m.) can pick up the baton.

At a meeting of the Arapahoe Country Republican’s Men’s club in early January, Stephens told Corporon, who chairs the Arapahoe County Tea Party, that she’d appear on KLZ’s morning show to discuss the issues, Corporon said on air Friday.

Corporon: “As her time was ending, I told her she’d be welcome to come to the Arapahoe Tea Party and speak, and that anyone who was rude of vile would be asked to leave–and that she would be welcome to come in to the studio and sit down and for an interview on the morning show on KLZ. And she said that she would do it. Now, when I went and gave my card to her scheduler, he didn’t seem quite so sure. We’ll see how that plays out.”

..It will be very,  very interesting to see if Rep. Stephens follows through and comes to speak to you at the Arapahoe Tea Party and comes in here to talk to us, where we can really get her to try to explain her decision-making on Amycare and on some of the other bills and statements that she has made.”

Listen to KLZ’s Corporon Discusses Amy Stephens 1.24.14

During her speech, Stephens said she’d been treated “vilely” by Tea Party members, according to Corporon. So if Stephens comes on Corporon’s show, they’ll have a lot more to discuss than tattoos.

In her appearance on KNUS’ Dan Caplis show last week, Rep. Amy Stephens, who’s running for U.S. Senate, said she “would not be able to go the assembly route” and “win a statewide election and to take on an incumbent.”

Stephens pointed to State Treasurer Walker Stapleton as her poster child of a Republican who petitioned on the primary ballot and won. And she named Rep. Doug Lamborn, even though he didn’t win statewide.

Absent during the conversation, however, was the name of Jane Norton, whom Caplis should have mentioned as having successfully petitioned onto the U.S. Senate primary ballot in 2010 before losing to Weld County DA Ken Buck.

Arguably, Norton serves as a better poster child for why Stephens should participate in the caucus process than Stapleton does for why she should petition on.

Stephens @ 5 min: “We had a very contentious 2010 Senate race that we should have been won against an unknown. And I was on the receiving end of that, because we were trying to take the House Majority. And we saw our numbers, as the top of the ticket begin to go down, down, down, down, when my opponent, Ken, exploded, and then we had the governor’s debacle…

“I have understood, and the team that is with me, we believe that in order to win statewide and to take on an incumbent, that I would not be able to go the assembly route. I am going to petition onto the ballot through the petition process. Walker Stapleton did it. Others have done it. Doug Lamborn.  My reasoning here is to reach a broader audience. You know you have to get a minimum of 1,500 signatures per congressional district. Let’s just say you’re getting 14,000 for the sake of the argument, out of 7 districts. That’s 14,000 you’ve reached versus, in the case of our assembly, which is good, but we have 4,000 very committed Republicans. If you come out of this, and then you get on the ballot, what you do is you target this on a broader level. I believe that has to been done to take on an incumbent. Others may not. It’s a strategy issue.”

On KNUS 1-15-14, Rep. Amy Stephens explains why she’s skipping the GOP caucuses

Asked  by Caplis why she has the best chance to win, whatever ballot route she takes, Stephens said:

Stephens @6 min: “Because I know what it is to win. I win. I was in the most-watched primary in the state, as you know, through redistricting and re-apportionment, with a fellow Republican, which was awful. And  I was outspent 3-1, and I won by 20 points. And I did that by working smart and disciplined and really reaching out to people. I think we’re going to have to have the same thing this time.”

In an article yesterday, The Denver Post’sKurtis Lee reports Rep. Amy Stephens’ response to Ken Buck’s comment Monday comparing pregnancy with cancer:

“It’s Ken again being Ken,” Stephens, who is among several Republicans vying to unseat U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, insisted Thursday. “Just like in 2010, we have high-heels comments, we have alcoholism and homosexuality, now we’ve got cancer and pregnancy.” Buck in 2010 was the nominee for U.S. Senate against Democrat Michael Bennet. His statement on “Meet the Press” comparing homosexuality to alcoholism was considered the turning point in a campaign he had been expected to win.

Before telling Lee about “Ken again being Ken,” Stephens was on KNUS’ Dan Caplis Show Wed., where she made her opinion of Buck’s candidacy even more clear, saying she does not believe Colorado Republicans will unify around Buck if he wins the nomination, and saying, based on what Buck’s offered so far, it would be the “definition of insanity” to run Buck again.

Stephens @10 min: I am not convinced Ken has given us an argument as to why we should go down this path again. And I call the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over with the same results. …

I also believe nationally, and I have heard this in my travels, that there is not going to be — You know, when somebody wins a primary, people rally, come around. The party goes, whatever. I do not believe that’s going to happen should Ken be the nominee. I do believe this would happen should I become the nominee, because I think  there will be a lot more interest in this race and a lot more support. [BigMedia emphasis]

Listen to Rep. Amy Stephens tout herself as a woman and slam Buck on KNUS 1-15-14

On the radio, Stephens went on to say that she’d be better able to “take on Sen. Udall on issues that they normally love to hit our men with, and I think as a woman, I have a very strong voice to speak about.”

But as Caplis should have pointed out, Stephens’ anti-abortion record, including ten years on the staff of Focus on the Family, sets herself up for  the same criticism Buck has faced.

Stephens voted in favor of last year’s version of an anti-abortion bill that’s under consideration again this year in the Legislature. (This year’s bill has the exact same summary as last year’s.)

In his article about Buck’s pregnancy-cancer comment, The Denver Post’s Lee pointed out that Buck and Stephens both “oppose abortion.” He also reported that Buck’s wife, Perry Buck, is a co-sponsor of this year’s abortion-ban bill, sponsored once again by Rep. Stephen Humphrey, but Lee did not include the fact that that Stephens voted for it last year. In 2012, she also supported a Colorado Right to Life-backed“fetal homicide” bill that could have banned abortion in Colorado.

Asked by Caplis directly whether she thought she had an advantage as a woman in her Senate bid, Stephens cited her position on “the life issue,” saying:

Stephens: “I do. I actually do, because of the time and the year in which were are, and because of the issues that Democrats bring up. I think  I have a unique ability to speak to that. I have a unique ability to speak to the life issue and/or family and other issues such as health care, public safety, all the things I’ve advocated for. So, yes, I do. In this election, I think it’s going to matter.”

But it looks like Buck’s and Stephens’ extreme records on abortion are about the same.

On KNUS radio this morning, host Dan Caplis said it was “legitimate” for Sen. Greg Brophy to spotlight Tom Tancredo’s post-Columbine vote for a House resolution limiting, among other things, the size of magazines to 10 rounds or fewer,  the same limitation put on magazines by one of Colorado’s new gun-safety laws.

In response,  Tancredo, who’s battling Brophy for the chance to take on Gov. John Hickenlooper in November, downplayed the importance of the gun-safety issues in the upcoming general election, saying, “We are not going to win an election on this.”

Here’s part of Tanc’s response, as heard on KNUS:

Tancredo: “I’ll tell you that if, indeed, anybody believes that the Republican nominee, whoever that might be, can win the general election on this [gun] issue, or a couple of others that are fairly focused, they’re wrong. We will not beat Hickenlooper, I don’t care who it is, we will not beat Hickenlooper on this issue… We are not going to win an election on this. …

The NRA has always supported me. These things are essentially frivolous attacks that do not help in the long run. And as I say, I do not agree with you that this is something that the other side will use. Do you really believe that Hickenlooper would be attacking me for being soft on guns?”

Caplis: I think it would come up. And I think you’d handle it well…. Here’s how I would definitely see it coming up in the campaign. You’re running against Hickenlooper. You’re the nominee. You’re bashing him…he tried to restrict Coloradans’ gun rights. And then Hickenlooper turns around with their 527s… ‘Wait a second. Tom agrees with Hickelooper on this.’

Listen to Tancredo on Caplis saying GOP won’t beat Hick on Guns

On a Denver radio show Friday, Rep. Mike Coffman affirmed his opposition to the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq, adding that, even now, he’d deploy U.S. military personnel to Iraq, if they were invited, to serve in an advisory role.

Asked by KNUS talk-show host Dan Caplis if he’d support “boots back on the ground in Iraq,” Coffman replied:

Coffman: Certainly an advisory role, but certainly not anything beyond that. And that’s if requested. I think we have to be very careful once out about reentering that particular conflict. I would say, in terms of regular troops on the gound, absolutely not.”

During the interview, Coffman expressed regret that U.S. troops are not on the ground in Iraq today, to help the Iraqi government confront sectarian violence.

“Some residual force would have maintained at least that military-military, government-to-government ties that we would have had some influence there,” Coffman told KNUS’ Dan Caplis Friday. “Right now we have no influence.”

Listen to Coffman say he favors re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq.

Coffman didn’t offer details on the size of the “residual force” he had in mind, but back in 2009 he endorsed the Administration’s plan envisioning an American force of up to 50,000 troops remaining in Iraq.

On the radio, Coffman criticized President Barack Obama for withdrawing troops from Iraq. If Obama hadn’t pulled out so many troops, it’s possible a residual force could have been left in Iraq, Coffman said, and the current crisis might have been avoided.

Coffman: “I think the Administration was looking for a narrative that we ended war in Iraq.  And the Iraqi government had requested some kind of residual presence, if anything to be symbolic to the Iraqi people that we were still engaged. And that’s, I think, very important, probably to this day, although the decision has been made… But what the Administration kept doing is lowering the number of troops, and obviously insisting, as they should, that Status of Forces Agreement keep U.S. military personnel under U.S. jurisdiction, as we always insist on. The Iraqi government clearly had to expend the political capital to accept that. And they were willing to until the numbers dropped so low that it wasn’t worth it to them to do that. And so the Administration is now saying, ‘Well, we gave them the opportunity, and they didn’t take it, in terms of the Status of Forces Agreement.’ But the Administration just wanted out. And I think we’re suffering some of the consequences of that today.” [BigMedia emphasis]

Under the Status of Forces Agreement, Obama planned in 2011 on keeping 10,000 troops in Iraq. Later, he lowered the number to about 5,000, before the troops were asked by the Iraqis to leave. Based on this, and his statement above, Coffman appears to have been prepared to leave at least 10,000 troops in Iraq or more, if necessary to make it worth it to the Iraqis politically.

Coffman’s announcement that he favors the re-deployment of advisory troops to Iraq appears to be a reversal of a position he took in 2011, when he stated that he supported President Barack Obama’s decision to remove all troops from the country.

The Denver Post’s Lynn Bartels took us down the GOP-Nightmare-Memory-Loop in an article yesterday pointing out that Sen. Greg Brophy  endorsed former Congressman Tom Tancredo in 2010, calling him a “selfless hero,” but now Brophy says Tancredo is “unprepared” to be governor.

Asked by Bartels to explain his change, Brophy said:

“He was our best choice in 2010, so I worked really hard for him and lent him my credibility,” Brophy said. “No matter how much of an optimist I am, I know not to back a loser twice.”

Discussing Bartels’ article yesterday morning on KNUS’ newly retreaded Dan Caplis Show (7-9 am), Brophy expanded on his comments to Bartels

Caplis: How can you say he’s unprepared now, when you thought he was well-prepared two years ago.

Brophy: I guess that’s in comparison to a guy like me who has experience running his own small business and current experience working on the policy issues that really matter to the people of Colorado.  So it’s a comparison of preparedness, and compared to me, frankly, he’s not ready to debate the issues of the day, because these are things  I’ve been working on for the last half-dozen years, and he’s been writing books [BigMedia emphasis].

Listen here to Brophy explain why Tancredo is no longer prepared to be governor

For the record, and Caplis should clarify on air, if you know Tancredo, you know he hasn’t been bunkered down writing books over the past “half-dozen years,” while Brophy was out riding his bike and battling the left.

First, Tancredo has written only one measly book, Hating America:: The Left’s Long History of Despising (And Slowly Destroying) Our Great Country with Phil Ross (2013). It sounds like fiction, which is easy to write, plus he’s got a co-author, which could have reduced Tanc’s time spent writing to near zero.

Second, if you know Tancredo, you know he’s been rushing from microphone to microphone over the past half dozen years, and for a while he actually had his own Colorado Springs talk-radio show, complete with microphone, giving him plenty of time to polish his debating skills.

Overall, if you review Tancredo’s last six years, it looks like he’s been running for office constantly, including running for president. And that’s not counting all the years he spent running for office when he was in Congress.

Tanc’s book is a throwaway, in more ways than one. You can say a lot about Tancredo, but it’s inaccurate to say he’s been writing books over the past six years, isolating himself, ivory-tower-like, from the debate.