Since she left her job as communications director for the Jefferson County Schools, Lisa Pinto took the highly unusual step, for a low-level public relations professional (alleged), of actually whining about her tenure at Jeffco and drawing media attention to herself.

In an June 19 op-ed in the Colorado Statesman, and an earlier interview on KNUS 710-AM’s Kelley and Company, Pinto slammed the community activists, the teachers’ union, and other villains for making her job miserable and undermining public education in Jeffco. She’s relieved, as she told KNUS below, to now be playing golf and not thinking about politics. (And, she adds, she’s a good golfer!)

Of course, one of the worst aspects of conservative talk radio is its one-sided nature, so I thought it would be worth spotlighting a counter op-ed that appeared in the Colorado Statesman yesterday, by Jim Earley, a Jeffco community activist.

Earley: There is no question that Lisa Pinto’s short tenure as chief communications officer for Jeffco Public Schools was troubled from the start. From the flawed interview process and dubious qualifications, her connections to school board member Ken Witt and others through the Leadership of the Rockies program, her subsequent decision to hire known conservative media consultancy Novitas Communications for $50,000 to assist in what should be her core job duties, to a series of mind-boggling social media debacles, and culminating in a PR disaster when the district refused to host the governor for a bill signing, there’s little doubt that Pinto was not a good fit for the job.

Pinto’s resignation should have been the end of it. Yet, in a guest column published by The Colorado Statesman last week, Pinto combines what can only be considered as sour grapes about her time in Jeffco, with the standard, party line, union-as-thug rhetoric. It stands to reason that with so much controversy surrounding Pinto’s tenure that a little self-reflection ought to be the order of the day; perhaps, as Pinto herself noted, “a CT scan” would do to introspect on what really went wrong.

“… a billion-dollar professional services corporation is going through a necessary turnaround while under attack by a guerrilla group …” Pinto fails to recognize that many Jeffco residents do understand what is happening. Using terms like “guerrilla group” as a connotation for the JCEA is debasing, and serves no purpose other than to vilify teachers, and many Jeffco residents aren’t buying into the petty name-calling.

“This was a lesson for me, not having an ego, trying to do the right thing,” says Pinto at the end of her radio interview. “And I realize there are some things that can’t be fixed.” Not by her. She’s right there.

Listen to Lisa Pinto on KNUS 710-AM on 6-17-2015

Prior to this week’s coup attempt, state Republican leader Steve House was under fire from Tea Party activists for cozying up too closely with the Republican National Committee (RNC). It seems unlikely that the failed ouster was inspired by disagreements about RNC involvement in Colorado, but I’ll offer up some background about the dispute anyway, in case there’s more to it that I don’t understand.

Plus, the details about the relationship between the RNC and the state Republican Party, which emerge in the radio interview below, show that the state party is an important part of national Republican voter mobilization. This counters the argument you sometimes hear about the irrelevancy of the state party–beyond its role in candidate selection and the caucus process.

In a contentious June 3 interview on KLZ 560-AM, House fought off allegations from host Kris Cook and guest Ken Clark that the RNC was planning to implement voter mobilization strategies in Colorado, without cooperating or working with Republican County Chairs. Both hosts express little or no trust in the RNC, because they don’t think the RNC’s goals (e.g., electing Jeb Bush) align with the state party goals of winning the state house and lower ballot races. And they worry that House is allowing RNC to take control in Colorado.

Also floating around in the background is the 2014 campaign by the Republican Governor’s Association to knock out Tom Tancredo during the GOP primary.

In any case, here’s a few samples of House’s response to Clark and Cook earlier this month. (Listen to the entire interview below,)

House: “I would be screaming loudly if I saw anything in [the RNC’s] actions, or our strategy sessions, or conversation, that they’re going to go to Adams County and cut out Anil Mathai. They’re not going to do that. I’m going with them to Adams County […]. “But we also have to hire people who are smart enough and capable enough to execute a strategy that gets us to victory without Jeff [El Paso County GOP staffer] having to hold their hand. The most important part is we’ve committed to the fact that all of these employees that are hired are going to be interviewed by the county leadership, as well. That is absolutely going to happen. And myself.”

House tried to emphasize that the RNC needs the state party and vice versa:

House: “If you think about what happened in ‘14, in ’14 there were 31 field offices created in the state […] called Victory Offices, etc. This time, the decision was made that it was actually more important to have people than offices. So, we may see two, three, four offices in the state. But it’s mostly about the field organization to get out the vote. And, you know, Chariman Priebus and I, and we’ve had conversations along with Matt Pinnel who is the Chair of Chairs, along with Peter Grace who is the APD for our area from RNC, you know, the strategy is, look, you have to execute on the ground so much better than we have in the past to win in a Presidential year. So the strategy in a presidential year is different than it is in the midterm year. And it really involves all these people because the belief is if we don’t enable minority voters, if we don’t get out the vote at a much higher rate, we’re not going to get there. And offices are not going to do that. So, I think it’s coincidence on the primary, Ken. I’ve talked to these guys five times, six times, in the last two days about strategy. I’ve asked the hard questions all along. I don’t believe we’re going to see –. I wouldn’t let it happen! I mean, I really wouldn’t. I mean, we – there’s no reason in the world, and there’s no way the RNC really can run their strategy without involving county Parties in what’s going on, because there’s not enough with 43 or 45 people on the ground to do that. They have to integrate into our volunteer structure and our counties, or there won’t be enough people.

House emphasized that in 2014, the RNC transferred money to the state party to cover the payroll of over 700 people, including staff, walkers, and field directors.

“So it all flows through the Colorado GOP,” he said.

On KNUS  radio show this morning, Tom Tancredo said he, along with Attorney General Cynthia Coffman and Pueblo Country GOP Chair Becky Mizel, were “selected” by fellow Republicans to demand the resignation of GOP Chair Steve House.

Though Coffman called the meeting, they acted at the “behest of a lot of people,” he told KNUS 710-AM’s Peter Boyles, adding that they were supported by “state legislators who were supportive of him at one time, who are now not.”

Tancredo told KNUS’ Dan Caplis (See transcript below.)

Tancredo: We were strong supporters, and — which is the reason why we ended up being sort of, I don’t know, — selected, asked, whatever you want to say – to confront with him and meet with him, because we wanted – they wanted to — everybody wanted to make sure he understood the seriousness of the issue. And so, I did, but certainly not because I have just a desire to step back into this kind of ugly stuff. I don’t.

Tancredo told KNUS’ Peter Boyles the same thing, in more detail:

Tancredo: I can tell you this:  that the reason that we met with Steve House was to express concerns of a lot of people.  It was not something that I, Cynthia Coffman, and Becky Mizel chose unilaterally to do.  We were asked to do that because we represented the people who were the most supportive of Steve when he ran.  And we certainly were

As you can read below, Tancredo did not specify who selected the group to confront house, nor did he say what the serious issue was, leaving a mystery that will most certainly be revealed, perhaps in multiple versions, in the days ahead.

As Tanc put it to Boyles, the reasons for demanding for his resignation “may very well all certainly come out.”

Partial Transcript of the Dan Caplis Show, June 17, 2015, with Guest Tom Tancredo

CAPLIS: You know, the question is: Okay, you’ve got this situation, now, with Steve House. You have the stories that have appeared so far. Um, how does this get fixed? You’ve been such a prominent leader in the Party for so many years, you’ve dealt with so many situations, how does this get fixed going forward?

TANCREDO: The best way, and I think perhaps the only way for it to get it, quote, fixed is for the Executive Committee of the State Party to take some action that would bring the whole issue to a vote of the Central Committee, the entire Central Committee. There is a process that is, you know, laid out in the by-laws of the state Party if there is a vacancy. But only if that vacancy occurs, can that process go forward. So, the – you know, it is to a large extent, it is up to Steve as to how he wants to handle it. And he says he wants to stay. Well, you know, that certainly can be a way to handle it. I do not know – I do not believe that is the best way, but I have no ability to change it. I’m not on the Central Committee. I’m not on any committee of the State Republican Party. But, uh –.

CAPLIS: Tom, can the Central committee remove him?

TANCREDO: No.

CAPLIS: Wow! So, once you’re it, there’s no recall?

TANCREDO: Oh! I’m sorry! Central Committee! Yes, yes. That can happen.

CAPLIS: Yeah, okay. Okay.

TANCREDO: There is two parts. One is the Executive Committee, and it’s a, you know, a group of, I don’t know — 10 to 15, 20 or 25 people, something like that.

CAPLIS: Yeah.

TANCREDO: Um, they can take action. They can call for a vote of no confidence. That’s one thing that could happen. Um, then – but, but then, if nothing –if Steve chooses not to resign, it’s my understanding – and Danny, believe me, I – most of this – I [inaudible] have been around a long time and it is true, but not in really in Party politics – at least, in the bowels of the Republican Party, if you know what I mean.

CAPLIS: Sure.

TANCREDO: And so, the way I understand it, if he chooses not to step down, then really, there’s nothing else, I think, that could happen, except if somehow a vote of the Central Committee can be held, they can remove him. And it takes, I think, 70%.

CAPLIS: Wow! I mean –.

TANCREDO: Yeah, so, it’s kind of a convoluted process.

CAPLIS: What a situation! I’ve got to tell you, if you write a book, I’m going to buy it! I’ll be the first guy in line to buy it! I’ll be that guy at Barnes & Nobles [sic] who camps out to stand there first and buy it. Because when you think of everything you’ve been through, including trying to salvage things [clears throat] when Dan Maes wouldn’t cooperate and do the right thing and step aside, I mean, you’ve been in so many of these interesting situations, it just seems to me this is one that really does need to be fixed in a hurry, with everything going on.

TANCREDO: Oh, and with that I certainly agree with.

CAPLIS: But, uh, wow!

TANCREDO: But Danny, um, as I say, I assure you, with God as my judge, and he is, that um, this is nothing that I or anybody else wanted to do, um, or have happen.

CAPLIS: Yeah.

TANCREDO: We were strong supporters, and — which is the reason why we ended up being sort of, I don’t know, — selected, asked, whatever you want to say – to confront with him and meet with him, because we wanted – they wanted to — everybody wanted to make sure he understood the seriousness of the issue. And so, I did, but certainly not because I have just any desire to step back into this kind of ugly stuff. I don’t. Like I say, riding my motorcycle with Peter – that’s a nice day. Not this kind of stuff

CAPLIS: Mm-hmm. That would be a nice day. That would — But, you know, you have so much hard earned credibility, and clout, and influence, I’m just hoping that you’ll be able to use that, given this current mess to help clean things up, because Lord knows, it’s going to be tough enough in the ’16 cycle. And I know you know that better than anybody because you’ve been in the arena. You’ve been in these races. You’ve been in these fights. So, I’m just am, uh –.

TANCREDO: Yeah, [I] hope it’s done quickly, certainly would be the best thing for the Party. And–and I don’t know – I don’t—I mean, I don’t have a candidate. It’s not as if I –. I don’t know where it goes from now. I don’t know who gets to, you know — elected. I don’t even know who we would get into the arena. I hope that we will make better decisions than we’ve made in the past.

CAPLIS: Yeah. Wow! And, uh, I know you’re limited on what you can say this morning. I appreciate the chance to talk with you about this. And I know you’ll do everything you can do to try to make sure this ends well, and quickly, so the focus can turn back to the races.

Partial Transcript of the KNUS Peter Boyles Show, June 17, 2015, with Guest Tom Tancredo

BOYLES:  What is the truth about this Chairman Steve House story?

TANCREDO:  Well, I can tell you this:  that the reason that we met with Steve House was to express concerns of a lot of people.  It was not something that I, Cynthia Coffman, and Becky Mizel chose unilaterally to do.  We were asked to do that because we represented the people who were the most supportive of Steve when he ran.  And we certainly were.  Cynthia, the Attorney General, was of course, you know, his—she made the nominating speech.  She was an incredibly gutsy—and is an incredibly gutsy person, to stand up when a lot of people would think that it’s not the right thing – or it’s a scary thing for an incumbent.  But, she did.  And we all believed that we had something better than we were dealing with in the form of Ryan Call.  And the issues that we had to bring to Steve’s attention were serious, and were such –were of such a nature that, um, a meeting of this sort was necessary.  What was not necessary was for it to become, uh, a public discussion of things that are untoward.  Uh, he could have done, and stayed with the course which he set out on, which was to resign. Ten minutes after our meeting, he sent out an email to that effect.  And that would have pretty much ended it.  It would have been a quiet and um, — and certainly a less ugly situation than we now face.  But all I’m telling you is that there was nothing that – you know, the three of us weren’t sitting around one day and say, “Hey! I know what!  Let’s go and tell Steve that he’s got to quit!”  This came about as a result of lots of folks, including state legislators who were supportive of him at one time, who are now not.  And they are not for reasons that may very well all certainly come out.  But, certainly – you know, it’s one of those things — I hate to say it just because it sounds so legalese, but things may end up in court.  You’d better– we have to be very, very careful how we proceed in this nature.  We are not saying – you know, all of these things that are in the paper are his allegations about what happened.  They’re his.  I mean, he is making the statements.  We are not.  All I’m telling you is that, um, I, like you, supported him, wanted him to succeed. It is certainly apparent to us that we may have made the wrong choice.  But anyway, we’ll see where it goes.  I don’t know – I mean, we did what we had to do, um, and as I say, at the behest of a lot of people.  It certainly wasn’t just us.  I want to reiterate that, because that’s the way it’s being portrayed, that either I, or Becky Mizel who’s the state chair in Pu—I mean, the county chair in Pueblo–.

BOYLES: Who we—We like her a lot. We like [inaudible]. 

TANCREDO:  Oh, my gosh!  She is absolutely the best.  And Cynthia Coffman, you know?  Um, I got a text message from Channel 9 news last night saying – the allegation was from Steve, that Cynthia wanted to meet with him, and that Becky and I crashed his – this meeting [chuckling] for the purpose of, quote, blackmailing him.  Well, I mean, it was Becky—it was – excuse me, Cynthia who called the meeting.  And she did so because, as I say, we were — the three of us were his primary supporters.  And so we wanted to impress upon him the concerns of a lot of people, and the fact that this was serious, and that um, the best thing – we believed—for him to do was resign.  And he agreed. And, I mean, he did so by, as I say, ten minutes afterward.  Then, whatever happened happened, and he chose to renege.  So, it’s a – it’s—it just didn’t have to be this way, but what can you do?  Um, the — the issues are serious, and that’s really all I can say about them.  They certainly are not things that, you know, are trivial in nature, or – or have anything to do, by the way, with, um, personalities or, uh, motives that are, um, of the highest order.  Nobody is looking to be – [starts to laugh]  I don’t intend to be Chairman of the Republican Party!  I guarantee—somebody said to me, “Why don’t you do that?  You’re a unifier! You unify everybody against you!”

BOYLES:  Ha!  Yeah, sure!  [laughing]  That guy in Lebanon said, “Forever – for ever —whatever you do, don’t help us!”

TANCREDO:  [laughing]  Right!

BOYLES:  Ha! That was a great line!  “Whatever you do, for God’s sake, don’t help us!”

TANCREDO:  I mean, there are no ulterior motives, here.  What in the world would Cynthia Coffman, who is – I mean, her credibility, her reputation.  I mean, do you think it would be easy for her, especially?  She is the Attorney General of the state of Colorado.  She was his nominating speech!  And do you think it is an easy thing to do to then have to take this step – meet with him to discuss these kinds of issues? You think anybody wanted to do that?  I assure you, and I told him when we were there, “I would rather be almost anywhere than here, tonight, to do this!” And so, I don’t know how it will play out.  I certainly have no idea.  This –now it is essentially up to the executive committee of the state Republican Party to take whatever action they wish to take, if any.  I mean, they could do nothing.

BOYLES:  I mean, like I said, and I know we’re on a time frame.  Danny [Caplis] is standing by.  But, when we first met Steve, he came in the studio, spent time with us, we supported him.  And his dumping Ryan Call, I was jazzed, I thought his move –

TANCREDO:  Yeah, me too!

BOYLES:  –with the Log Cabin Republicans, to get them to the Western Conservative [Summit], I thought it was Kissinger, Machiavellian, brilliant move.

TANCREDO:  Yeah, we talked about it.

BOYLES:  Yeah!  I thought that was just great!  And now this!  And if everything that John Ransom has said is true is true, and others have said is true is true, if he is start, stop the story now, and walk away.  And, Steve, with all the respect in the world,  I’m sure you on the – listening to us now,– walk away because, it’s almost like that crazy woman who keeps trying to insist she’s black, and she keeps the story alive by saying crazier things the next day.  And all she has to do to stop all of this right now – and she did some weird Obama thing, “No one saw me born.”  There’s a weird birth certificate.  I’m thinking, “Oh, my God!”

TANCREDO:  [laughing]

BOYLES:  I mean, it’s like Barack Obama story stuff! And so, as I told you, the only thing the Lebanese asked me, “Is he a Muslim?”

TANCREDO:  [laughs]

BOYLES:  Sure!  Why not?  But, I’m saying the same thing. It’s like, um, walk away.  And um, we’ll see.  I know that the beat goes on.

TANCREDO:  Yeah, [inaudible] I don’t know where it goes from here.  But we did what we could do.

BOYLES: I’ll give you a call.  Since I can’t sleep, maybe we’ll go ride motorcycles!

TANCREDO:  Yeah!  Believe me, it was such a nice day yesterday

BOYLES:  Yeah, it was great!

TANCREDO:  And to ride afterwards, after all this crap, it was very therapeutic.

BOYLES:  All right.  I’ll give you a call!  We’ll go ride this afternoon.  They want to talk to you on hold.

TANCREDO:  All right.

BOYLES:  I love you!  Allright!  Congressman – former Congressman –.

TANCREDO:  Take care, bud!

Last year, then U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner had a nice-sounding proposal: offer birth control over the counter, easy and quick.

But… more expensive, journalists pointed out, because under Obamacare, birth control prescribed by doctors is free. Insurance companies are required to cover it.

Not to worry, replied Gardner. He promised to fix an “obscure provision” in Obamacare and require insurance companies to pay for over-the-counter birth control.

Women should “still be able to find an insurance policy and use their insurance to pay for it,” Gardner told Fox 31 reporter Eli Stokols Sept. 28 (at 15 seconds in the video).  “That’s why we need to fix Obamacare.”

Women “will have an insurance policy that covers it,” Gardner promised a skeptical Stokols.

“We should change Obamacare to make sure that insurance can reimburse for that over-the-counter contraceptive purchase,” Gardner told reporter Lynn Bartels (at 50 seconds in the video) during The Denver Post debate against Democrat Mark Udall. Gardner even attacked Democrats, telling the Denver Post during the campaign: “If Democrats are serious about making oral contraception affordable and accessible,” Gardner wrote, “we can reverse that technical provision [in Obamacare].”

Once elected, however, Gardner didn’t deliver on his promise. He introduced a bill that simply offers incentives to drug companies to gain FDA approval to sell contraception over the counter.

Nothing in the bill mandates that insurance companies would be required to cover birth control that’s sold over the counter. Instead, the bill allows Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Accounts to be used to purchase over-the-counter medications. Those are savings accounts, with tax advantages, that individuals can set up. That’s not anything like insurance coverage.

News coverage of Gardner’s OTC bill has noted that women’s health groups, including the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have condemned the freshman senator’s proposal as insufficient and expensive for women. Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado’s statement that the bill is a “sham” has been duly noted.

But reporters have yet to spotlight the fact that Gardner did not deliver on the pledge he made during the campaign. The question is, why? Was he lying? Did he change his mind? Did he determine that his original promise was unworkable?

Reporters should find out.

Partial transcript of Sept. 28 Fox 31 interview with Cory Gardner:

Gardner (@ 15 seconds): We ought to talk about access. We ought to increase access to oral contraception. We ought to make it easier, 24-hours-a-day, around the clock availability. That’s why I’ve supported making it available over-the-counter without a prescription. We need to change the provision of Obamacare that would prohibit insurance to be paying for it. That’s an obscure provision. Those are the things we can do to make it easier to access.

Stokols: You say it’s cheaper that way. Politifact says that’s mostly false, that under the Affordable Care Act, two-thirds of women get their birth control for free.

Gardner: Well, they’d still be able to find an insurance policy and use their insurance to pay for it. That’s why we need to fix Obamacare.

Stokols: How though, if you repeal Obamacare, about 27 percent of women, I believe, actually use the pill. So you make the pill available over the counter. Still, about three out of four women use another form of birth control. If you repeal Obamacare, what happens to their coverage?

Gardner: They will have an insurance policy that covers it.

THURSDAY UPDATE: Coffman voted for the 20-week abortion ban yesterday. Under the bill’s exceptions, a raped woman can have an abortion only “if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency.” And a child who’s a victim of incest can obtain an abortion if the “incest against a minor has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to an appropriate law enforcement agency or to a government agency legally authorized to act on reports of child abuse or neglect.” There is no exception for adult incest victims.

———

Abortion continues to be a major focus of House Republicans, as they prepare to vote today on the latest version of their 20-week abortion ban.

The bill mandates exceptions for rape and incest victims, but to be allowed to have an abortion, a raped woman has to seek counseling or medical help within 48 hours of the procedure.

Coffman’s vote on the bill should be of interest to reporters. For most of his political career, Coffman took a hard-line position against any rape-or-incest exception to his anti-abortion stance. But facing a tough re-election fight, he announced his support for abortion for rape and incest.

In his vote on a similar measure in 2013, Coffman favored exceptions for rape and incest but he also voted for the requirement that rape victims report the crime to police, in order to be allowed to have an abortion. Will the requirement for counseling or medical help be enough for him?

If no, why? If so, what’s the explanation for his change of heart on this issue? Why does he no longer support police reporting?  Why the evolution from someone who was fiercely opposed to abortion, even for rape and incest, to someone who favors exceptions? The makeup of his new district? A personal story?

Just as House Republicans in Washington are again fighting over which exceptions should be included  in their 20-week abortion ban, the left-leaning People for the American Way has released a new report, “The Personhood Movement: Where It Comes From and What it Means for the Future of Choice,” which explains the strategic thinking of the different factions of the anti-choice movement.

The report offers a broad overview of the politics and policy of personhood, focusing on the current disputes among personhood leaders over where to take the movement going forward. And it explains why some anti-choice leaders oppose state personhood amendments, even though they share the common goal of outlawing abortion.

The report points out that personhood leaders denounce anti-choice allies, like Coffman, when they support exceptions for rape and incest, even when done in an obvious effort to make themselves or their anti-abortion legislation more palatable to the public. The report states:

“But the greatest betrayal in the eyes of these personhood advocates is the willingness of major anti-choice groups to endorse legislation that includes exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest. The personhood movement’s leaders contend that these political concessions are not only immoral and intellectually inconsistent, but also threaten to undermine the movement’s goals in the long term.”

We’ve seen this play out in Colorado, as personhood leaders have turned against Republicans like Coffman.

In any case, Colorado continues to be ground zero for the personhood movement, and the PFAW report helps put what we see in front of us in a national context.

In a great article summarizing the death of a bill, changing the definition of the “hospital provider fee” under TABOR and thus freeing up $167 million for transportation and education, the Colorado Statesman’s Marianne Goodland reported that the Hickenlooper Administration hopes to bring the legislation back early next session possibly using a dramatic double-budget visual to spotlight the importance of the measure:

By next year, this will be more of an “on the ground” issue for legislators, [Hickenlooper budget director Henry] Sobanet said Tuesday. Once the budget request for 2016-17 comes out in November, people will start to see the impact of the hospital provider fee on available dollars. “It will be more real than an intellectual issue.”

Sobanet said the 2016-17 budget will be developed based on current law. However, he said he would work with the governor throughout the fall and decide if they would do a “budget A” and “budget B” that would show the impact of changing the provider fee.

Unfortunately, it looks like Hick’s dual budgets will have to be extremely persuasive to convince Republican Senate President Bill Cadman, whose party sent the bill to a kill committee after it passed the Democrat-controlled House on a party-line vote.

Goodland didn’t quote Cadman, but the GOP leader told KNUS 710-AM’s Krista Kafer Tuesday that the hospital-provider fee was the number-one bad idea proposed by Democrats.

Kafer:  I’m so glad Republicans have the state senate…  What is the number one bad  idea you guys stopped?

Cadman: Oh my god. How much time do you have left? Let me put my list together and come back on. I will tell you though, my predecessor said, you’re better to be known for the things you defeated here, than the things that you pass. I’d hate to say it right now, but probably wouldbe  the hospital-provider fee, as written, which was a multi-hundred million dollar hit into the TABOR situation, that died actually just as I was calling in.

Listen to Cadman discuss his opposition to the Hosp Prov Fee on KNUS 5.5.15

Goodland reported on a committee hearing Tuesday, during which the hospital provider fee won the support of most everyone who testified, including business interests. Those opposed? Only entity: the ideological anti-tax Colorado Union of Taxpayers.

Goodland reported on what’s at stake:

Hickenlooper’s budget director, Henry Sobanet, told the committee without passage of HB 1389, three out of four general fund dollars available in 2016-17 will have to go to K-12 education, to keep the negative factor from growing. The negative factor is a budgetary device, first employed in 2010, to allow the state to cut funding to K-12. The total cut was about $1 billion; it was reduced by $100 million last year and will be reduced by $25 million in the recently passed 2015-16 budget.

If HB 1389 were to pass, Steadman told the committee, it would free up $167 million for appropriations in 2016-17. That could go for transportation projects or to reduce the negative factor. Otherwise, in 2016-17, the budget will be bleak. “This isn’t how the state’s budget priorities should go,” he said.

After being investigated by Washington DC authorities for having an AR-15 assault rifle in his Washington office, freshman Republican Congressman Ken Buck said he intends to be part a congressional effort to weaken DC gun-safety laws, which are among the nation’s toughest.

Asked on NRA News’ “Cam and Co” Show April 23 if his experience gives him “added impetus” to address DC’s gun laws, Buck replied, “Yes, it does,” noting that the issue falls under the jurisdiction of two committees on which he sits: the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees.

“It’s something I will look at,” said Buck on the podcast, noting that it’s not “on the top of the heap,” but he’s already talked to other Members of Congress about it.

“There is going to be an effort to look at what DC does and to try to rein in the really irrational–if you’re an honest law-abiding citizen, you want to have a means to protect yourself,” Buck said on air, discussing Washington’s gun-safety laws. “And it’s just unbelievable that people in DC believe that honest people should not be able to protect themselves. They should be victimized.”

Buck revealed the presence of the assault weapon in his office last week, when he tweeted a photo of it along with: “My friend Trey Gowdy stopped by the office — had to show him my AR-15 to commemorate the occasion.”

The tweet was first reported by the progressive blog ColoradoPols, which Buck referred to as “knuckleheads” in his NRA news interview.

“There were some knuckleheads back in Colorado that decided they wanted to cause some problems, and so they forwarded the picture to the Attorney General here in DC,” Buck said, when asked how Washington authorities became aware of the assault weapon in his office.

It appears that Buck did not break Capitol-Police rules by having the weapon in his office, but the Metropolitan DC Police have apparently not commented. The Washington DC Attorney General looked into the matter and referred it to the DC police,

“As conservatives, we are more cautious [with their weapons], because we understand that there is a double standard,” Buck said on air. “But in this case they ate crow, and I hope they continue to eat crow for a long time. I hope other Congressmen see that they can have a gun in their office and follow the lead.”

“I have a very patriotic AR15 hanging in my office. It hangs directly above my Second Amendment flag,” Buck said in a statement, as reported by The Denver Post.

It’s not for everybody, but if you’re me, you can’t help but be curious about a guy who asks Azucar Bakery, on Broadway in Denver, to make cakes shaped like an open Bible with the these messages:

One cake: God Hates Sin, Psalm 45-7. Homosexuality Is a Detestable Sin, Leviticus 18-22.

The other cake: God Loves Sinners. While We Were Yet Sinners, God Died for Us. Romans 5-8.

It turns out that Bill Jack, the man who placed this cake order, is also a sometime talk-show host, which gives a radio aficionado an opening to find out more about him.

After listening to a few hours of his shows on “Generations Radio,” a fundamentalist Christian outlet, and talking with him on the phone, I would describe him as a deeply religious individual who feels so besieged and alienated by cultural norms that he has to carve out an extreme path to function in everyday society.  His path has an internal logic to it, but to the rest of us, it can be hateful and discriminatory.

For example, on a podcasted “Generations Radio” show in January (below), Jack and co-host Steve Vaughan got angry about Planned Parenthood teaching sex-education in public school.

They read an article alleging that a student felt “pressured to have sex” by the lessons. This led to some harsh words about Planned Parenthood and public school education.

Vaughan: (@23:45 below): “The reason why, especially with Planned Parenthood, tthe more sex these kids have, the more business [Planned Parenthood] has in aborting the babies.

Jack: It’s conflict of interest [for Planned Parenthood to be teaching sex education], I would think.”

Vaughan (at @26:15 below): “If you are a Christian, you should not have your kids in public school anyway. This is not a place for them to be witnessing to other people. Bad company corrupts good morals. And your children are going to be the ones to get changed. If you hug a pig, the pig doesn’t get cleaner. Your kid gets dirty. [Laughs]

Jack: I never heard that one before. [Laughs] But everybody needs a hug. But this is what Planned Parenthood does. They want your children to be pigs.

Vaughan: Yeah.

Jack: They want them to wallow in the muck. And what we need to is, we as Christians need to expose evil…Shine the light of truth and grace on such activities. And so I urge you, as home schooling parents, to investigate what’s being taught in the public schools.

I told Jack that my kids go to public school, and even though rats were discovered at East High School in Denver this year, the place is full of beautiful kids. Why call my kid a pig?

Jack: That’s an illustration. It’s an analogy, and the analogy is fairly succinct and pithy, and makes it clear. You don’t want to entrust your student to someone who has an opposing worldview. That’s not as pithy, as punchy.

Salzman: But it’s mean. Would you agree?

Jack: No. it’s not mean. It’s a statement of fact.

Salzman: I take it as mean. I respect what you just said about not sending your kid to public school. That’s your right. But you’re telling me my kid is dirty?

Jack: No. I didn’t say your kid’s dirtier. Your kid gets polluted by a secular worldview.

Jack’s war against the “secular worldview” is key to understanding where he’s coming from.

“For a Christian, your faith dictates your economics, you view of science, of art, of education,” said Jack, who’s a founder of Worldview Academy, which “trains Christians to think and live in accord with a biblical worldview.”  “It’s not compartmentalized.”

Jack has produced a video, showing one way he applies this thinking. It’s titled, “Biblically Correct Tour of The Denver Zoo, The Denver Museum of Nature and Science, The Denver Museum of Art, Law and Order at the Colorado State Capitol, and Dinosaur Ridge outside Denver.”

Which brings us back to Jack’s cake order, with the anti-gay message.

When we spoke, Jack was upset that The Denver Post characterized what he’d asked the baker to write on the cake as “gay slurs” and “hateful words.”

I told Jack I agreed with The Post’s decision to report, in a news story, that the phrase “homosexuality is detestable sin” is a slur, even if it’s in the Bible. Our laws and cultural values affirm this, and so did Colorado’s Civil Rights Division when it rejected Jack’s complaint that his civil rights had been violated when Azucar Bakery refused his order for a cake emblazoned with “homosexuality is a detestable sin” and other phrases.

But Jack believes the “the Civil Rights Commission is acting like the Nazis. They are acting like those who want to re-educate the public.”

It’s a bible verse, Jack has said in numerous interviews about homosexuality being a sin. He emphasized that if the Civil Rights Division is going to force one baker not to discriminate against gays who request cakes for their weddings, then it should force another baker not to discriminate against Christians who request an anti-gay Bible verse on another cake.

“So the Bible is an illegal, immoral book to be censored from the public arena?” he says. “That is offensive. It’s censorship. It’s tyranny. You either believe in the First Amendment or you believe in tyranny.  My bottom line is that this is an effort to censor God from the public square.”

But there are competing rights, I told Jack. Colorado’s public accommodation law bars businesses from discriminating based on sexual orientation and religion, among other things. Even Colorado Republican John Suthers agreed that, under Colorado law, a baker must serve gay costumers. Or it’s discrimination.

But, under the law, a baker isn’t discriminating against a Christian if he or she refuses to make a cake with slurs on it. Civil society can reject the hateful words in the Bible, and still protect Christians from legitimate discrimination.

“We are gutting the First Amendment,” Jack said. “I’m talking about Bible verses, and suddenly they are being labeled gay slurs.”

So for Jack, his religion, his practice of strict adherence to the Bible, no matter how archaic and out-of-step with how most people practice Christianity, is the trump card, his license to do things that most people—as well as Colorado law—see as hateful and discriminatory.

It’s also the reason why he thinks my public-school-attending children are dirty, polluted by a secular worldview. It’s part of the same continuum.

Tea-Party activists in Colorado are feeling good about themselves after booting GOP state Chair Ryan Call, and their momentum could spell trouble (as in, P-R-I-M-A-R-Y) for newly elected Sen. Cory Gardner–as well as fellow Republican Rep. Mike Coffman.

Before last month’s election, which put the Tea Party in control of the state GOP, you might have ignored threats about primaries–about ousting Gardner or Coffman. But now, reporters and others should pay attention to these folks on conservative radio shows.

“I want to plant this seed in everyone’s mind,” said former state GOP vice chair Mark Baisley on KLZ radio March 19. “Now, the priority has become the principle. The priority has become liberty; it has become founding princicples. It has become the party platform, which I’ve been preaching for years. That’s become the priority over the people in office.

“Be ready to hold [to] account,” continued Baisley, who’s aligned with the insurgent liberty wing of the Colorado Republican Party, even though he lost his vice-race last month. “And be ready to throw out people like Cory Gardner, people like Mike Coffman, who are not toeing the line. Hold folks to account and let them know, ‘Hey, we’re in a mood. And hop on, or you’re not as important as the movement; you’re not as important as founding principles.'”

“Boy, you’ve been dying to be in a position where you could just make that last statement, haven’t you.” KLZ host Randy Corporon told Baisley, “because you couldn’t say those things as vice-chairman of the Colorado State Republican Party.”

“Yeah, it would not have been appropriate,” replied Baisley. (Listen to Mark Baisley here, beginning at 2:15)

“Yeah, so, power to you, man!” replied Corporon, who’s the founder of the Arapahoe Country Tea Party. “God bless you for saying so and being honest.  Because, absolutely, you know, Mike Coffman is my Congressman.  Primaries – there is such talk about primaries right now, because we can’t have people who continue to allow the big government agenda to go forward.  I don’t care how strong you are on the VA. I don’t care how likeable and charismatic you are on CNN, and that you have good hair.  If you don’t stand up for the Constitution, if you don’t push back with everything you’ve got at every opportunity against this advancing progressive agenda, then I’m done with you.”

Corporon and Baisley are upset about Republican votes on immigration and budget issues. And Gardner’s refusal to appear on Corporon’s radio show, Wake Up, is having a salt-on-the-wound effect.

Corporon’s dogged campaign to get newly elected Senator Cory Gardner to appear on his radio show got a boost from an icon of the conservative right, Bill Kristol, the editor of the Weekly Standard, who told Corporon March 19  that, in principle, he believes Gardner should appear on Corporon’s early morning show on KLZ 560-AM.

“Don’t you think that these elected officials are obligated to talk to everyone who has supported them and who they were elected to represent?” Corporon asked Kristol.

“Especially Republican and conservative-oriented politicians,” Kristol replied, “foolishly think that conservative radio hosts [and] magazine editors somehow are going to be on the team. And they get really annoyed if you occasionally say what you think. I’ve criticized people for not making compromises when I thought it was prudent to do so. And I’ve certainly criticized politicians at times for compromising too much and too early and not standing up for principle. And at times, they want you to pay a price. So they’ll give the interview that they think is so valuable to someone else. They won’t cooperate with one of our writers writing a profile. It’s part of the business, honestly. I think the good politicians get beyond that. In fact, I’d say politicians get a lot of credit, including pretty liberal Republican Senators who are very open, who will talk to everyone in their state, who don’t duck tough interviews. And then I go to some states and I hear about a certain Senator I think Rob Portly of Ohio is a good example, probably a little more moderate than the Tea-Party guys would want. He answers the questions. He takes the interviews, does the town halls. And people feel, you know, at least he listens to us, he’s respectful, and we differ on some things. I don’t want to say anything on Cory Gardner because I don’t know the details, obviously, but in general I think it’s a good idea to be open, especially, as you say, to people who have supported you and answer to criticism and perhaps push you back on the right path.” (Listen to Bill Kristol here.)

But what’s the right path, and does it lead to a primary battle? Those are questions Gardner, Coffman, Baisley, Corporon, and uppity Tea Partiers in Colorado will be working out for a long time, I have the feeling.

Jefferson County Republican State Rep. Justin Everett wants Sen. Cory Gardner to appear on a tea-party radio show that Gardner has been dodging.

KLZ 560-AM’s Randy Corporon has been airing his displeasure with Gardner for rejecting his pleas to appear on his “Wake Up with Randy Corporon” morning show.

“He and I have always gotten along well, had good conversations in the past,” Corporon told his listeners Wednesday, explaining that he’d personally asked Gardner to come on his show. “And I said, ‘Are you going to come on and explain some of the decisions that have been made.’ And [Gardner] started to talk like he would, and then he said, ‘You know what, you guys beat the crap out of me all the time.'”

“I think it would be excellent for both of you to be on the air and hash some things out,” Everett told KLZ’s Corporon Wednesday. “I think it would be very good for your listeners and the state of Colorado. So people can actually hear Cory on the radio talking to someone who’s not going to let him slide or use message points or whatever. And actually get to the meat of the matter and find out what’s going on, because I know there is a lot of definite grassroots activists on our side who aren’t too happy with Cory. You know, on Saturday [during the Republican State convention], I thought he got a pretty tepid response when he spoke.”

Corporon responded: “Well I wasn’t there Friday night, but I’m told at the big celebratory dinner before the election that he got a similarly tepid response… In fact, I think the sound defeat of Ryan Call by Steve House was a repudiation of Cory Gardner as well because Cory expended a lot of resources trying to get Ryan Call re-elected.

Corporon asked Everett if he’s been invited on liberal talk-radio shows, and “if you got invited would you take the challenge?”

Everett replied that he hadn’t been invited but, “Of course I’d take the challenge.”

“If you believe in how you voted, and you went through an adequate thought process, and you feel comfortable with how you’re voting and what you’re doing, then you should be able to defend it,” Everett told Corporon. “Cory is a really smart guy. I’ve known Cory for a number of years. It’s a little surprising that he wouldn’t come on. Randy, we talk all the time. You’re reasonable. You’re also an attorney, and you can ask a lot of good rhetorical and leading questions. But so is Cory.”

Listen to State Rep. Justin Everett on KLZ’s 560-AM Wednesday, March 17, starting at on hour thirty-four minutes and forty seconds (@ 1:34:40)