Back in August, Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s office issued an election rule stating that voters must reside in the same district in which they vote, and, in case someone like Jon Caldara was wondering, Gessler’s rule stated that “intent to move, in and of itself, does not establish residence.”

This sounded sensible to people who believe in representative government.

But about a week later, the residency rule was rescinded by Gessler’s office for no apparent reason. It was part of a set of election rules, one of which was thrown out by a judge, but Gessler wasn’t required to dump the residency rule. But he did anyway.

About a month later, people who believe in representative government were surprised when Gessler stepped up to a talk-show microphone on KNUS radio and proclaimed that under Colorado’s new election law, “you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there, which I think is just absurd.”

Now, even people who don’t believe in representative government were puzzled, because in August Gessler’s office had arrived at the exact opposite conclusion about the new law.

The eternal question: What would Gessler say next?

Well, on Oct. 9, the residency rule was re-issued by Gessler’s office in almost the exact same words as before, stating that “intent to move to a new district or county, in and of itself, is not enough to establish residency.”

The rule also says: “An elector may not register to vote in a new district or county unless he or she has already moved and established his or her primary residence in the new district or county.”

Just like before, this makes sense to most everyone, except maybe Jon Caldara and…we don’t know if Gessler’s on board with it, even though it emanated from his office.

Will Gessler again be asked to step up to a talk-radio microphone and explain if he still thinks, like he said before, that Colorado’s new election law mandates that “you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there?”

How could he possibly think so, now that his office has twice concluded otherwise? I’ll be sitting by my radio, waiting for his answer on KOA, KNUS, KLZ, or wherever.

Actually, wouldn’t it be fun if Jon Caldara asked Gessler about it on his Sunday KHOW show?

Yesterday, Fox 31 Denver reported that GOP Chairman Ryan Call doesn’t support the latest recall effort against Democratic Senator Evie Hudak, saying the recall could “undermine” Republican efforts to win elections next year.

But Fox 31 didn’t report who is backing the Hudak recall effort. That would be Dudley Brown, Director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, according to the RMGO website as well as Laura Waters and Mike McAlpine, who are apparently leading the petition-gathering effort.

On Peter Boyles’ KNUS morning show today, Waters and McAlpine thanked Brown for his in-kind support. They also said they did not vote for Ryan Call when he ran for GOP State Chair:

Laura Waters: I want to say a big shout out to Dudley Brown and the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

Boyles: Oh, he’s our guy. We love Dudley.

Waters: Those guys have come alongside us. They are helping us by mobilizing their members and getting the message out that we need volunteers. And we could not be more thankful to Dudley and his group…

Mike McAlpine: I gotta echo what Laura says. Nobody is as tall as man who stands on principle, and that’s Dudley Brown. He is a rock star….

Boyles: By the way, who voted for Ryan Call to become the head of the GOP?

McAlpine: I’m looking around the room, no one is raising their hand, Peter.

Boyles: And what about you [to Waters]? Nobody’s hand is up.

McAlpine: [laughing]

Boyles: How did this guy get this gig?

Listen here: Waters and McAlpine on KNUS 710 AM Peter Boyles Oct 08 2013

 

Tin foil hats are the hot fashion at conservative talk-radio stations this week, with hosts, like KNUS’ Peter Boyles, saying Monday he thinks the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, signed Wednesday by the United States, might really be aimed at bringing on world government. (Listen to Boyles say Small Arms Treaty and IPCC might lead to world government.)

If a really smart guy like Boyles chooses to spread lies about the Treaty, which is about saving innocent lives, mostly in Africa, how can you expect other talk-show hosts down in Colorado Springs to correct callers and guests when they air paranoia and falsehoods about the Treaty, even if the guest is State Senator-elect Bernie Herpin, who just defeated John  Morse in a recall election?

Herpin was a guest on Colorado Springs’ KVOR radio Sat. morning, with Herpin taking questions from callers (Listen here):

Caller: “And basically I think that’s part of the ultimate goal to use [the Small Arms Treaty] to disarm American citizens across the board.  And I think that’s why Obama is supporting the Morse / Giron gun control the way he did.”

The KVOR guest-host Tom Antkow didn’t correct the caller. Instead, the conversation degraded further, and he and Herpin eventually agreed that the Treaty is part of a plan, supported by President Obama, for the United Nations to control America.

Herpin: The United Nations wants to restrict or control the sale of small arms throughout the world, and including the United States.  Hopefully, our Senate will not ratify – our U.S. Senate will not ratify that treaty.

Here’s where host Antkow and Herpin agree that the Small Arms Treaty is part of the New World Order, favored by Obama, under which, as Antkow put it, “they want to control the United States through the United Nations.”

HOST:  It’s that New World Order, you know.

HERPIN:  [chuckles]

HOST TOM:  And they want to control the United States through the United Nations—

HERPIN:  Yep.

HOST:  — and I think Obama is a big proponent of that.  He wants to get the United Nations –

HERPIN:  Right.

HOST:  — to kind of control everything, so. Listen to Ankow and Herpin trash Small Arms Treaty on KVOR 9-28-13

Is it too much to ask book-loving Boyles or gun-loving Antkow to inform someone like Herpin, before he enters the Colorado Senate, about what the Small Arms Treaty would actually do.

Here’s the gist of it, as reported by the New York Times Wed.:

The treaty, which took seven years to negotiate, is considered by rights advocates to be a landmark document that would for the first time impose moral standards on the enormous cross-border trade in conventional arms that fuel conflicts around the world, most notably in Africa.

It is devised to thwart sales to users who would break humanitarian law, foment genocide or war crimes, engage in terrorism, or kill women and children. Although the treaty has no enforcement power, its disclosure provisions could embarrass and shame violators…

The National Rifle Association and other American gun-rights advocacy groups still object to the treaty, contending it infringes on the Second Amendment. They have vowed that it would never be ratified by the Senate, even though language in the final draft specifies that nothing in the treaty could infringe on any nation’s constitutional rights. [BigMedia emphasis]

Even someone who can fold a tin foil hat can understand that the treaty isn’t about confiscating guns, right?

I just hope Herpin remembered to take off his hat when he signed off from his KVOR interview Saturday, and he’s not still wearing it when he’s sworn in as a new State Senator tomorrow.

Or maybe Boyles and Antkow will be present at Herpin’s swearing-in ceremony, and they can all wear their tin-foil hats together.

Transcript of conversation between KVOR guest host Tom Antkow and State Sen. Bernie Herpin on KVOR radio Sat., Sept. 28. Listen to Ankow and Herpin trash Small Arms Treaty on KVOR 9-28-13.

HOST:  All right.  We are going to take a call from Don.  Don, you want to talk about guns also.  So gosh, guns are always popular. CALLER DON:  Yeah, yeah, I do want to kind of supplement on what Ron was saying, and I mean, you know,  why Morse and Giron did what they did.  I’m going to say, this is not just a local or a national agenda, it’s really actually an international agenda.  Because I don’t know what Bernie Herpin can do about it, but I’m going to make him aware that John Kerry signed the UN treaty– HERPIN:  Yes, I know that. CALLER DON:  And I think, that’s kind of, you know, under the radar.  And basically I think that’s part of the ultimate goal to use that to disarm American citizens across the board.  And I think that’s why Obama is supporting the Morse / Giron gun control the way he did. HOST:  All right.  Briefly, Bernie, tell people about the United Nations resolution, I think—or bill that Kerry got involved in.  Thanks for the call. HERPIN @16:45:  Thanks.  Yeah, that’s – the United Nations wants to restrict or control the sale of small arms throughout the world, and including the United States.  Hopefully, our Senate will not ratify – our U.S. Senate will not ratify that treaty. HOST:  It’s that New World Order, you know. HERPIN:  [chuckles] HOST TOM:  And they want to control the United States through the United Nations— HERPIN:  Yep. HOST:  — and I think Obama is a big proponent of that.  He wants to get the United Nations – HERPIN:  Right. HOST:  — to kind of control everything, so.

Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler told KNUS talk-radio host Steve Kelley yesterday: “Now, apparently, you don’t have to live in the district in order to be able to vote there, which I think is just absurd.”

Listen to Gessler on KNUS radio 9-18-13

Gessler’s comment to Kelley contradicts voting rules issued by Gessler’s own office in August. On the subject of residency requirements, Gessler’s rule (32.7.3.D) stated that voters must, in fact, reside in the district in which they vote.

Among other things, the rule stated that “intent to move, in and of itself, does not establish residence.”

AN ELECTOR MUST ESTABLISH A RESIDENCE BEFORE REGISTERING TO VOTE OR CHANGING HIS OR HER RESIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1-2-102, C.R.S. AN ELECTOR’S RESIDENCE IS HIS OR HER PRIMARY HOME TO WHICH HE OR SHE, WHENEVER ABSENT, HAS THE PRESENT INTENT OF RETURNING. AN ELECTOR ESTABLISHES A RESIDENCE EITHER BY MAINTAINING A RESIDENCE AS HIS OR HER PRIMARY HOME OR BY PHYSICALLY MOVING TO A NEW RESIDENCE WITH THE INTENT TO MAINTAIN THAT RESIDENCE AS A PRIMARY HOME. INTENT TO MOVE, IN AND OF ITSELF, DOES NOT ESTABLISH RESIDENCE….

This residency rule was part of a set of election guidelines that also included a measure, later thrown out by a judge, that would have made it harder for military families and students to vote.

Rather than just rescind the portion rejected by the courts, Gessler’s office struck all of the guidelines in the rule, including the portion on residency requirements. So the SOS’ residency guidelines are now off the books. Still, it’s the last word we’d gotten from Gessler’s office on the residency topic, and it contradicts what Gessler told Kelley yesterday.

And, re-focusing on the bigger picture, it’s Alice-and-Wonderland logic to assert that Colorado’s new election law allows you to vote anywhere you want in the entire state, regardless of where you live. And it’s Mad Hatter-like for Secretary of State to say this, especially when his office contradicted him a couple months ago.

In a conversation with The Colorado Independent’s Mike Littwin Tuesday, Gessler hinted that he knows deep down that you’re required to vote where you reside. Gessler seemed to praise Jon Caldara for “staying in El Paso” after he voted there as part of a media stunt that’s gotten Caldara in legal trouble. But as Littwin pointed out, Caldara has announced that he will continue to reside in Boulder.

But the day after he talked to Littwin, Gessler stepped up his rhetoric, saying on the radio if “you say you intend to live there then I guess that’s good enough.” Then he went into full attack mode on the election law, forgetting that it was promoted by a bipartisan group of county clerks from across the state:

Gessler: But it just goes to show that the pull behind this bill really didn’t care about fairness. They didn’t care about listening to any other opinions except their own. They didn’t care about anything except, in my view a ruthless partisan power play. And that’s what they did. And when they froze everyone out, anyone who might disagree with them, they froze them out and refused to even talk to them about it. It shows you they were up to something, and you see the result. Apparently, you don’t have to live in the district anymore to be able to vote there. And that’s absurd.

What’s really absurd would be if Gessler’s comments go uncorrected in Denver media circles.

KNUS’ Steve Kelley put some good questions to GOP Rep. Kathleen Conti Friday:

Steve Kelley: What’s the state of affairs of the Republican Party of Colorado?

Kathleen Conti: Well, the Republican Party is—you know, we have just a strong chasm. You know, there’s those on the far right. And there’s those on the not-so-far right. And it seems to me sometimes that our chasm is a little bit wider than those on the Democratic side….

Kelley: Is the Republican Party [as Peter Boyles says] an ugly baby right now in Colorado?

Conti: I certainly hope not….

Conti raises a good question, and Kelley should get into it with her on a future show. Which party in Colorado has a wider chasm?

Conti is the Republicans’ Minority Caucus Chair in the State House, so she knows what she’s talking about. Her party consists of a sharply divided “far right” and “not-so-far right.”  Those in the center and left-leaning are so scant as to be irrelevant.

Democrats, as Conti points out, are different, aren’t they? They’re mostly in the center with a straggler on the not-so-far-left.

The Dems are centrists on immigration (ASSET, driver’s licenses), abortion (pro-choice), renewable energy (efficiency and moderate mandates), gun safety (common-sense background checks), gay rights (civil unions, marriage), sex ed (yes), voter registration (convenience with secure voting), taxation (when necessary), etc., etc., etc. (Here’s a nice visual representation of some of these.)

The Colorado GOP comes down just as Conti said, on the far-right and not-so-far-right, with a wide and vocal chasm running down the middle.

A hatchet might be a better word for what separates the two right wings of the GOP but, like I said, Conti is in leadership, so she knows her caucus. So let it be “chasm.”

In any event, you can’t make much of a list of  issues where the Democrats are on the far left and not-so-far-left. and Republicans are in the middle.

As someone who wants the Dems to move left, I wish you could. But face it, you can’t. It’s a centrist/right party.

And “hatchet” doesn’t come to mind when you think of most of the Democrats’ disagreements.

Kelley (who’s now on KNUS 710 AM from 1 to 4 p.m.) should ask Conti to tell us her thinking on the “chasm” (and the hatchet) in more detail, including an explanation of where she stands on the chasm scale.

UPDATED June 22 with a response from Jimmy Sengenberger and a correction that the organization I am Created Equal donated over $55,000 to Colorado-Springs consulting company Kennedy Enterprises, as opposed to at least $14,000 as previously reported, to gather signatures and perform other functions for the Morse recall campaign.

————–

On KNUS yesterday morning, guest host Jimmy Sengenberger convened a panel so that listeners could, as Sengenberger put it, “learn exactly what’s going on” regarding the campaign to recall State Senate President John Morse.

How you learn “exactly what’s going on” from a one-sided panel is beyond me, but that’s standard fare for conservative talk radio.

But Sengenberger’s discussion went beyond misleading into grossly-manipulating territory due to the way he introduced one of the three panelists.

The panelists were Jennifer Kerns, identified as a “Spokeswoman for Recall Morse;” Jeff Hays, identified as “Chairman of El Paso Republican Party;” and Mario Nicolais, identified as an “election attorney” on the panel to give “legal insights.” Sengenberger later referred to Nicolais as an “election attorney” or an “election lawyer.”

What Sengenberger didn’t say was that Nicolais is a staff attorney for Scott Gessler’s former firm, the Hackstaff Law Group (formerly called Hackstaff Gessler), which is obviously a conservative outfit. Gessler’s office will be presiding at a hearing to determine the validity of a protest, filed by Morse backers, of the language used on the Morse-recall petitions.

What’s more, and you wouldn’t expect Sengenberger to know this, Nicolais’ name, along with the Hackstaff Law Group, appears on the Articles of Incorporation for IAmCreatedEqual.com, Inc., which donated over $55,000 to the Morse recall effort in in-kind contributions to Kennedy Enterprises to support a paid signature-gathering campaign and other activities. The fact that the signature gatherers were paid is often omitted on talk radio.

Sengenberger should inform KNUS listeners about Nicolais’ conservative affiliations, as well as the fact that Nicolais’ law firm (which is also Gessler’s former law firm) represents a major funder of the recall, and now Gessler’s office is presiding over the petition-protest hearing.

Sengenberger was very precise, and fair, in identifying the other guests on the show but, for some reason, he was incredibly vague about Nicolais.

I asked Sengenberger via email why he didn’t identify Nicolais more precisely.

“Regrettably, I was unaware that Hackstaff is the former law firm of Secretary of State Scott Gessler, so that particular point of emphasis wouldn’t have come to mind,” wrote Sengenberger. “As for not mentioning the law firm where Mario Nicolais is an attorney, this was simply an unintentional oversight on my part that is inconsistent with what I usually do when I have attorneys on. However, I don’t see how anyone listening wouldn’t be able to determine his political leanings based on the tone and tenor of the conversation, including his comments.”

Just a couple days before Cynthia Coffman officially launched her campaign for Colorado state attorney general, State Rep. Mark Waller sounded awfully serious when he told KNUS’ Jimmy Sengenberger that he was considering entering the race as well.

Here’s what Waller told Sengenberger June 10:

Sengenberger: Rumor has it, your name has been tossed about in consideration for Attorney General. Is that a thought process that you are going through, or what can you tell us?

Waller: You know, certainly several people have approached me on that issue. They have asked me to do that. They think given my law enforcement background, my background as an Iraqi war veteran, and my background in the legislature, that that might be a great opportunity for me to serve going forward. So, we are certainly considering that. We haven’t made any final decisions at this moment in time, but I’d be looking for something soon.

Sengenberger was subbing for Steve Kelley, who’s been out recovering from a car crash, and he should bring Waller back on the KNUS morning show to find out if Coffman’s official announcement affected Waller’s thinking on the AG race.

Reporters apparently missed Secretary of State Scott Gessler’s first direct response to the Colorado Independent Ethics Commission’s finding that he violated state ethics law and “breeched the public trust for private gain.”

Gessler made his comments on KNUS’ Kelley and Company (710-AM) this morning, and reporters should have tuned in. So I’ll fill in the media gap and provide a transcript of most of his comments below. And I’ll update this post with audio of the interview later today.

Guest host Jimmy Sengenberger, filling in for regular host Steve Kelley, did a decent job interviewing Gessler.

Click Here for Audio

Sengenberger: What’s your side of the story?

Gessler: …The Elections Commission, unfortunately, is a just very partisan-driven organization. I mean, two of the members have actually contributed to Hickenlooper, sort of really staunch partisan Democrats. It was pretty clear seven months ago which direction these guys were going. It took them eight months to figure out how to do it. But it was really sort of an unfair process, and it’s frustrating, because you want to think that these guys are going to be fair and even-handed and you want to think that the IRS is going to be fair and even-handed, and you want to think that, you know, things work. But they really don’t a lot of the time. So we are going to be appealing. I’m pretty confident that we’re going to get it overturned because of the way these guys handled themselves.

Sengenberger: I’m curious as to what the Independent Ethics Commission claimed you violated in terms of a statute, rule, or anything in the Constitution that might be in play?

Gessler: Right now I just don’t know. I don’t know. I really don’t know. I mean they had deliberations and they said learning about elections is not official business, which just sort of seems crazy when everyone else disagrees with them.  And that was one of the most frustrating things. We spent seven months trying to get them to tell us what the legal standards were. And then a month ago they said the legal standards could be one of these two things or they could be something else, and we’ll tell you afterwards. And so we still don’t know. So, I mean, maybe when the draw up the report they’ll sort of tell me at that point. But that’s one of the frustrating areas. They just sort of make up the rules as they go along.

Sengenberger: …What do you make of the argument that, well, that you shouldn’t have done it, used discretionary funds, taxpayer money, for something that had a partisan tilt to it?

Gessler: Well, it didn’t have a partisan tilt. That’s the bottom line….We produced a three-hundred-page binder of all the materials that were discussed. None of it was partisan stuff…. I know it had the word Republican in front of it, that was the sponsoring organization, but it was not a partisan event. It was straight-up education. And all the evidence before the commission said that. But they are not really interested in the evidence before them. It was a very partisan-driven outlook.

Sengenberger: …I’m curious as to why you ended up paying back the twelve-hundred-something that you chose to pay back?

Gessler: $1278. Here’s why. I’m just trying to move on when it comes to what goes on with the people of the state of Colorado. But, the money here has been an absolute waste. The last Republican Secretary of State we had, Mike Coffman, also received a complaint from the same organization in front of the same ethics commission. And that cost probably about probably $100,000 to dispute. So these types of frivolous things have cost the state around a quarter million dollars already. And it is just sort of absurd. And you want to put it behind you. You want to have fair elections. You want to move on to trying to make it easier for people to do business and have jobs in the state of Colorado and things like that. I’m trying to put it behind me. I’m trying to push forward. And of course it’s a very vindictive organization and they’re not interested in that–the ethics commission. So that was the purpose. And I was very clear. Look, I don’t think we’ve done anything wrong. I don’t think we’ve ever done anything wrong. But $1,278 is a pretty big distraction when there’s been hundreds of thousands spent arguing over it. Let’s try to put it behind us. Let’s try to move forward. But, you know, even that’s not acceptable because the Ethics Watch organization—no I’m sorry—Ethics Commission. They all sort of blend together after a while.

Sengenbrenner: Yeah.

Gessler: They’re not really interested in that. They’re interested in progressive [inaudible] because they know there’s an election coming up. So they can use this as a way to generate television ads and what not. I mean, that’s really what it’s about. So it’s very frustrating.

Sengenberger: [The left is saying you should have used funds from the travel budget, not the discretionary budget.]

Gessler: They are really sort of nonsensical. I mean, they’re saying I should have used a different fund rather than this fund to go. But it was ok, but if it wasn’t ok, then I shouldn’t have done it. It’s absolutely nonsensical. What it is is a talking point. A talking point. There’s no sense or coherence. Bottom line. Everybody who’s reviewed this, except of course the Ethics Commission, the Colorado Supreme Court, an outside auditor, the State Comptroller, said this was absolutely appropriate for me to do. That’s the bottom line. The left can jabber all they want, and, of course, the Ethics Commission is part of the left. I mean they are driven by my political adversaries.  I mean those are the people who judged me on this. They can jabber all they want. We now go before a real court, the district court and federal courts here. We’re going before a real court with real-world procedure. And this is just a stop on the way going forward, because, look, if you believe in this. You shouldn’t have a government agency that’s politically driven that chews people up. We’ve seen that at the IRS. We’ve seen that with the Ethics Commission. Look at it from that standpoint. I’m not going to stand for it.

An anti-abortion organization has launched a radio campaign to publicize a ballot initiative, referred to by supporters as the “Brady Amendment,” that would allow law enforcement officials to prosecute people who commit crimes against “unborn human beings.”

“A main goal of [the radio ad] is to let people know the Brady amendment is out there, so people could sign it and get a petition for themselves,” said Bob Enyart, a spokesperson for Colorado Right to Life. “It’s an awareness thing.”

Colorado Right to Life has a $4,600 budget for the ad, which is airing on Christian station KRKS and conservative talk station KNUS, Enyart said.

Here’s the text of the ad:

An abortionist has been convicted of murder. Kermit Gosnell’s house of horrors closed. But Colorado kills many kids from conception through late term. Like Brady Surovik, killed by a drunk driver, these kids are persons. Yet listen to Princeton University’s Peter Singer.

“No, I don’t think it’s problematic to say that a four-month old baby is not actually a person. I think that’s simply true.”

This is widespread, and even taints the White House. It’s up to us to stop this taking of innocent life.

The University of Colorado’s Michael Tooley advocates both abortion and infanticide. Discover Magazine defends the evolution of infanticide. The New York Times published a call to kill newborns. So did the Journal of Medical Ethics.

It’s up to us to stop the horror. Sign the pro-life Brady Amendment. It’s urgent. Call any Colorado Personhood group to get a petition, or just go to AVoiceForBrady.com. That’s avoiceforbrady.com.

Listen to the radio ad here, as aired on KNUS May 30.

In April, activists started collecting signatures to put the fetal-homicide measure, which is backed by a Personhood USA, on the 2014 ballot in Colorado.

“We’re doing this because we sense this urgency that people, who get a pass from people like you, are calling for infanticide,” Enyart told me. “They call for infanticide is gaining momentum. We’re trying to wake up people who’ve a bit complacent, pro-lifers and Christians.”

Enyart wasn’t able to say if the ad has produced more signatures on petitions, but he said: “I’ve had people tell me how excited they are to hear a great ad on KNUS. And they didn’t know it was my voice on the ad.”

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains has described the fetal homicide initiative, which is officially titled “Definition of Person and Child,” as another attempt to codify personhood in Colorado.

Asked to comment on the CRTL’s radio ad, Planned Parenthood of he Rocky Mountains spokeswoman Monica McCafferty emailed me:

“Gosnell ran a criminal enterprise, not a health care facility. Unfortunately opponents of safe and legal abortion have seized on this case in the hope that it would fuel their agenda of restricting access to abortion—and ultimately banning it outright. If there’s one thing everyone observing this case can agree on, it’s that all women, regardless of means, deserve access to high-quality health care delivered by licensed healthcare professionals who adhere to the most rigorous professional standards, including providing emergency care. That clearly did not happen at Gosnell’s facility.

“Ultimately, the lesson of the Gosnell case is that we must have and enforce laws that protect access to safe and legal abortion; we must reject misguided laws that will limit women’s options. The Brady Amendment, as with previous ‘personhood’ attempts officially rejected by Colorado voters twice now at the ballot, could potentially outlaw various forms of birth control. We know increasing access to affordable birth control helps decrease the need for abortion. Let’s focus on policies that actually help women.”

The text of the initiative doesn’t define the phrase “unborn human beings.”

Colorado Right to Life’s radio ad appears to be the first ad campaign for a 2014 ballot initiative.

Just after the November election, a chastened Cory Gardner told Fox 31’s Eli Stokols:

Gardner: “Republicans have always talked about having a big tent, but it doesn’t do any good if the tent doesn’t have any chairs in it. Bringing Latinos to the forefront, bringing women in, is absolutely critical.”

So you’d think Gardner, who represents Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, would, over the ensuing six months, at least make room in the GOP tent for the children of undocumented immigrants, who were brought to this country through no fault of their own.

You’d think Gardner would get on board with Colorado’s ASSET law, which allows colleges to offer these so-called “Dreamers” the normal in-state tuition rate.

But on Monday, the same day that Gov. John Hickenlooper signed ASSET into law, Gardner told KNUS’ Steve Kelley, that he still opposes Colorado’s new policy of granting in-state tuition to the Dreamers, because Gardner does not believe the U.S. borders are secure enough, and that’s his first priority.

Kelley: Comments on Colorado, now. The Governor, last Friday, rescinded a bill, repealed a bill on notification of illegals. This all ties together, by the way, the Boston bombings and all of these are connected. Obviously, you deal with these things on a federal level, but as a state, now, we’ve repealed this notification thing. And then, in-state tuition for illegals in Colorado, you must have a comment on that.

Gardner: I think we’re actually doing everything backwards. The solution has to come from the federal government on border security with an immigration policy that actually works to identify those who want to come into this country legally, who want to work here legally. But we can’t start putting in place in-state tuition, whether it’s other things that are being in placed [sic] by the states, without actually addressing the root problem that will only continue more illegal immigration into this country. And so, that’s why we’ve got to have a policy that actually works, and I believe it starts with border security.

Gardner, who’s long opposed ASSET, isn’t the only GOP muckety muck who promised to be nice to Hispanics after the 2012 election collapse. Who can forget former GOP lawmakers Josh Penry’s and Rob Witwer’s clarion call for a more loving Republican Party or a dead one. They wrote of the Dreamers: “These kids grow up in households where parents work hard and attend church on Sunday. These are American values. But yes, some of these kids — through no fault of their own — were not born American citizens.”

If Kelley won’t ask a guy like Gardner about the substance of his promise to open the GOP tent to Hispanics, I’m hoping real journalists won’t forget next time they’re standing in front of Gardner and others like him.