As the Colorado GOP caucuses approached last week, state Colorado GOP Chair Ryan Call told the Durango Herald that a lot was riding on the outcome. That is, if you believe the GOP delegates are an honorable bunch.

The Herald reported:

Those delegates [chosen at the caucuses] are “bound by honor” to vote for the presidential candidates they supported at the precinct caucus, said state Republican Party Chairman Ryan Call. If a candidate drops out before the assembly, his delegates are released to vote for someone else.

But the morning after the caucuses, Call was downplaying the significance of the Stantorum victory, telling KNUS’ Steve Kelley:

Call: Last night’s preference poll is really just a straw poll. The delegates elected in each of these precinct caucus meetings are now going to go on to participate in county and district assemblies. And then at the state assembly in April is where we will actually be electing the slate of delegates that will be sent from Colorado to the national convention…This is still an open race, and it can be expected to play out over the next couple months.

Kelley asked the follow-up question that was on my mind:

Kelley: It begs the question then, Ryan, why do the caucuses if you’re not going to secure the delegates for sure?

Call replied:

Call: The caucuses are the first step in a multi-step process. It’s that sort of winnowing of the field as the process moves along. It’s a very representative, grassroots-oriented process where the folks who took the time to show up are the ones whose votes matter and whose voices get heard.

An impartial observer, like a reporter, might want to know how all those grassroots folks “who took the time to show up” are feeling now, as their participation, not whom they voted for, seems to matter most to Call.

Call: I think the most exciting thing is the level of turnout, the level of participation, and then we move on to the next step.

You’d think delegates would, in fact, feel some commitment to support the candidate they were selected to vote for, as long as that candidate stayed in the race.

I’d feel betrayed (and pissed), if I voted for, say, a winner like Newt Gingrich, and my trusty Gingrich delegate dumped his chains of honor and switched to Romney at the county or state conventions.

But Call apparently doesn’t see it that way, and neither does former GOP Chair Dick Wadhams–or Ron Paul, who thinks he has stealth delegates faking it for other candidates.

Reporters should be wondering what the GOP caucus goers think of this situation. Just how committed do they believe their delegates should be to the preferences of the hard-working caucus attendees who selected them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On KNUS radio this morning, Rep. Doug Lamborn told host Steve Kelley that he wasn’t the only Member of Congress to skip President Barack Obama’s SOTU speech yesterday, implying, perhaps, that he was being singled out unfairly.

“The President didn’t know or care if I was there. And actually I know of others who were not there. I happen to be one who said in advance I wasn’t going to be there.” [laughs]

I called Lamborn’s office to find out whom Lamborn was thinking of. And were the other no-shows protestors?

“There’s no roll-call vote taken,” Lamborn’s Communications Director Catherine Mortensen told me “If someone shows up or doesn’t show up, there’s no record of it.”

She didn’t know which lawmakers Lamborn had in mind, but she did tell me that she’d read press reports that Rep. Tim Scott of South Carolina had considered skipping the event.

Scott was thinking about watching the speech with his brother, but he ended up attending. His idea to be a SOTU no show was not a protest, according to local press reports.

Kelley didn’t ask Lamborn how he knew that Barack Obama didn’t care if he attended the SOTU, but he did ask Lamborn if he thinks he made a difference by not being there:

Lamborn said: “I did get a chance to tell people why I oppose the President so strongly…I feel better.”

Rep. Scott Tipton said in a radio interview last week that Japan’s Fukushima nuclear reactors “held up reasonably well” after being struck by an earthquake and Tsunami.

So they could have been flattened, yes. But did they really hold up reasonably well?

It’s widely agreed now that the disaster caused a meltdown in three Fukushima reactors. Over ten thousand people were evacuated, and the fate of dozens of plant workers who experienced serious radiation exposure is unknown but of serious concern (at least three died, but not due to radiation exposure). Elevated levels of radiation have been found in rice, beef, milk, spinach, and tea. Leaks of radioactive material to the ocean and land still threaten fish and wildlife. The reactors remain vulnerable to earthquakes, and cleanup is estimated to take 40 years.

In his Jan. 12 KVNF interview, Tipton wasn’t asked how bad the Fukushima disaster needed to be in order for the reactors to move, in his view, from the “held-up-reasonably-well” category to the “collapsed-horribly-badly” category.

I called Tipton’s office to find out, but I didn’t get a call back.

Tipton made his comments about the world’s second-worst nuclear accident in a discussion of a proposed uranium mill for western Colorado. Tipton supports the mill.

He argued that nuclear power shouldn’t be held back due to the “big fear factor” caused by the Japanese disaster, which, he said, could be avoided if proper attention were paid to geography and safety.

“You know, as you go over into Europe, France is an example, there’s an abundance of nuclear power plants that are providing reliable energy,” Tipton told the KVNF audience. “The big fear factor, which we all understand, was after the tsunami in Japan. Those plants, for the most part, given multiple tragedies, earthquakes and Tsunami coming in, held up reasonably well. We can’t afford to have any sort of uranium leak, obviously. But we can design those plants with due consideration to where they’re going to be put, in terms of the geography that’s there, and to be able to provide reliable energy. I signed the letter in the State Legislature being supportive of the development of the [uranium] mill. When you get on the west end of Montrose County, these are good jobs. And again, we’re taking advantage of new technology, new protective measures, that are able to be put in place to be able to do it in a proper fashion to be able protect all of our varied interests. So it’s something I will be supportive of.”

“Hey everyone, this is Tim Tebow. And you’re listening to Kelley and Company on KNUS.”

You hear that on KNUS’ Kelley and Company many days, and you wonder, did Tebow mean to say, “KHOW.”

That’s Dan Caplis’ radio station, where Caplis promotes Tebow as if he were god.

Or did Tebow mean to say “KOA,” which is the radio station that almost certainly pays big bucks to have Tebow on the air Mondays.

So I called Steve Kelley, who recently returned from a three-day stint in Iowa, to find out how he scored the Tebow promotion, and it turns out Kelley landed Tebow himself to do the blurb for his show.

Around June, Kelley told me, Tebow was promoting his autobiography, Through My Eyes.

“Obviously he wants to get on some of the Christian stations speaking to his audience,” Kelley says. “I just happened to be at the right place at the right time.”

“Salem is a Christian-owned group of stations, and so there’s already a built-in network on the Christian side,” Kelley told me. “And KNUS is on the secular side of Salem Communications.”

Tebow was scheduled to speak on Denver’s KRKS, owned by Salem, which bills itself as offering “life-changing Christian radio broadcasts.” (Salem is known as a right-wing broadcaster.)

“But there were no live shows on KRKS  at the time Tebow was able to call,” Kelley told me. “I was hanging out, and so it was like, hey, it’s Tebow on the line, do you want to do an interview with him. I thought sure, I’ll talk to the kid. He wasn’t nearly as popular as he is know, at least as a Bronco.

“I said, hey Tim, would you mind doing a quick liner for me, because it’s a new show and it would be a great favor, and I’d appreciate it. And sure, he did it. He was gracious in doing it. I don’t know if he got himself in trouble. Or if someone would say, You can’t use Tebow. He’s ours!”

“KOA has a franchise on the Broncos,” Kelley pointed out. “But they don’t have the franchise on Tim Tebow necessarily.”

That’s the kind of thinking Tebow would love.

You have to hope the person most proud of Kelley is Dan Caplis.

You learn lots of little things when you listen to talk radio, and many of them you could do without knowing, like lawyer Dan Caplis’ assessment of Tim Tebow’s football skills.

But other small stuff catches your attention, like the fact that Colorado Attorney General John Suthers wants everyone to have health insurance.

You might think Suthers is the last person in Colorado who wants universal coverage, given that he’s pushing a lawsuit to stop Obamacare.

But that’s what he told KNUS morning host Steve Kelley Nov. 18:

SUTHERS: The founders never envisioned the federal government would be in the healthcare business. The individual mandate requiring every individual to buy insurance is premised, Congress said, on their Commerce Power, their power to regulate commerce among several states. In fact, the Commerce Power has been broadly construed to allow Congress to essentially regulate any economic activity that impacts interstate commerce. But therein lies the rub: this would be the first time in history that Congress will be reaching out to every individual American and saying we are going to punish you for your economic inactivity. For not engaging in commerce because your failure to do so impacts the marketplace by imposing burdens on other people who do buy insurance.

KELLEY: But aren’t they assuming [Obamacare] is for our own good though? Really, the betterment of everyone.

SUTHERS: Well, that’s right and that is kind of the typical liberal response. And that is what I get most. Gee, this is a good thing. And indeed it is. We want everybody to have insurance. [BigMedia emphasis]

So, how do we get everyone covered, like Suthers wants?

Why Steve Kelley didn’t ask him is beyond me, because it’s the most basic follow up question you can think of for anyone who trashes Obamacare in one breath and says they want the 44 million uninsured Americans to have health insurance in the next.

Now back to the little things you learn on talk radio.

Back in February, Suthers told KOA’s Mike Rosen that the states can require citizens to buy health insurance, not the feds:

SUTHERS: The state can exercise any power that the citizens don’t deprive them of in the Constitution. So unless you put a provision in the state constitution saying the state couldn’t force you to buy auto insurance or health insurance…that was one that we just voted on that in November, that’s what that was all about. Then the state can force you to do that.

You might wonder if I was mistakengly quoting Mitt Romney not John Suthers, because he’s been saying Romneycare is well and good for Massachusetts, but Obamacare is sick and bad for America.

And if you’re thinking that Suthers must have been talking to Romney, you might be right, because Suthers backed Romney in 2008 and remains on the Romney train to this day. Suthers didn’t endorse Romneycare, as far as I know, but he seems open to it, and it’s a question Kelley should keep in mind for next time.

In a Post titled, “It’s Alive! Despite GOP Warnings, Ponzi Scheme Meme Is Alive and Well on Capitol Hill,” Talking Points Memo’s Evan McMorris-Santoro reports today that Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WIS) has joined Rep. Mike Coffman in saying, on the radio, that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme.

He points out that “GOP superstar” Mitch Daniels told the New York Times that the phrase is not wrong but “too frank.”

McMorris-Santoro links to a Huffington Post piece by Jordan Howard quoting Ryan on the Laura Ingraham show today:

When asked by host Laura Ingraham on Tuesday whether the country’s social insurance program is a Ponzi scheme, Ryan replied, “That is how those schemes work.”

“So if you take a look at the technicality of Ponzi — I would — it’s not a criminal enterprise,” he said, according to a transcript. “But it is a pay-as-you-go system where … earlier investors or, say, taxpayers, get a positive rate of return and the most recent investors — or taxpayers — get a negative rate of return.”

Coffman didn’t explain last week on KNUS why he thinks Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, because KNUS host Steve Kelley failed to ask him about it.

A call to Coffman’s office yesterday for comment was not returned.

Politico’s David Catanese posts Coffman’s Ponzi-scheme comment and writes:

Even as recent as today, Democrats are attempting to link GOP candidates to Perry’s Social Security position, but it appears some are willing to openly embrace it without prodding.

Right now it’s mostly a talking point, but if Perry continues to gain steam towards the presidential nomination, House and Senate candidates will inevitably be pressed on whether they hold the same view as the sharp-tongued Texan.

The question is how many of them fall into the Coffman camp and how many are forced into verbal gymnastics to show separation without seeming disloyal to the nominee.

On a Denver radio program, “Kelley and Company” Wed., Rep. Mike Coffman called Social Security a Ponzi scheme and aligned himself with Gov. Rick Perry over Mitt Romney and other candidates in the race to be the GOP presidential nominee.

That’s news, if you ask me, especially the Ponzi scheme part, but it has yet to be picked up by other media outlets. I think Social Security is a hot topic, being the third rail of politics and all, but journalists could spice up this angle on the topic by interviewing Ponzi scheme experts, like Bernie Madoff. (Maybe not him, but his ilk.) Do they think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?

Here’s what Coffman told Steve Kelley, host of “Kelley and Company,” on KNUS-710 AM:

I am obviously going to support whoever the nominee is. But I have to admit to you philosophically I am closer to Perry. Obviously, I hope he gets better on the debate stuff. I think he did good. I think he did better on Social Security. I think obviously it is a Ponzi scheme, but he has to say he is going to fix it. And he did that in the last debate where he didn’t do that in the first debate. Now I think that was positive. [BigMedia emphasis]

Listen to the audio clip here:

The trouble with Coffman’s statement is, obviously, that Social Security isn’t a Ponzi scheme, and Kelley should have called him on this.

My online dictionary defines a Ponzi scheme as an “investment swindle in which supposed profits are paid to early investors from money actually invested by later participants.” Maybe that’s what Social Security sounds like to people who think government shouldn’t collect taxes and devise programs to help people, but if you’re not one of those people, you probably understand that Social Security is no swindle, but actually a successful government-run retirement system based on a funding formula that’s worked, with rational adjustments, for 76 years. It will continue to be a lifeline for many seniors for 25 more years with no changes at all. And with minor tweaks, it can be made to work indefinitely, as the LA Times pointed out Sunday in an editorial titled “Social Security Is No Ponzi Scheme.”

Why does Coffman think Social Security an investment swindle? Kelley should pose this question to Coffman next time he’s on his morning show. But it looks like Coffman is thinking less about Social Security and more about Rick Perry.

Coming before Thursday’s GOP presidential primary debate, Coffman may be illustrating that people (like him) believe in Perry so much that they’ll say that something (Social Security) is obviously something that it’s not (a Ponzi scheme) just to make it look normal for Perry to say it (when it’s not). And to help him connect with his core GOP audience.

Even while Gov. Mitt Romney has attacked Perry’s “Ponzi scheme” comments, he’s  on record supporting the George Bush plan for partial Social Security privatization and has been attacked by Perry for likening the funding mechanisms of the program to “criminal” activity.

This sentiment against Social Security, if not the same phrasing, was echoed by Perry supporters, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia, who agreed with the arguments Perry was making while stopping short of going the Full  Ponzi.

Further complicating the storyline for Romney are recent polling data showing that Republicans are just as likely to be attracted to Perry’s Ponzi Scheme message as they are to be turned away, and may in fact break his way in the context of a conservative primary electorate.

And just yesterday came reports in Politico that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, once a speculative candidate for president, came very close to the same wording in his upcoming book.

In Colorado Jane Norton did the same during her 2010 primary race against Ken Buck, but no one has resurrected this message at such a level in the presidential race.

In other words, the substance behind Rick Perry’s Ponzi scheme attack is in keeping with a broad range of Republican thinking. The question is whether his supporters will go once more into the Ponzi breach with him.

Coffman decided to do so.

Partial Transcript of KNUS morning radio program, “Kelley and Company,” Wed, Sept. 14, 2011.

KELLEY: Before we let you go, Congressman Coffman, the debate the other night I thought was excellent on CNN. It was a little more refined and a little opportunity to get a back and forth going. Of course Tim Pawlenty has backed Romney. Where do you stand right now, even 14 months out?

COFFMAN: I am obviously going to support whoever the nominee is. But I have to admit to you philosophically I am closer to Perry. Obviously, I hope he gets better on the debate stuff. I think he did good. I think he did better on Social Security. I think obviously it is a Ponzi scheme, but he has to say he is going to fix it. And he did that in the last debate where he didn’t do that in the first debate. Now I think that was positive. [BigMedia emphasis]

KELLEY: I see CNN really trying to blow up the HPV vaccination. The executive order he signed down in Texas. You don’t think that is going to haunt him?

COFFMAN: Not in the general election. I think it is certainly going to cost him some in the Republican primary. That is why I am interested in why CNN is weighing in on the issue. Because it is actually more a moderate position that he quite frankly took. I wouldn’t have done it. But that is probably more sympathetic with the general electorate than it is with a more conservative Republican primary voter.

KELLEY: With that, we thank you and will talk with you down the road, Congressman.