KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show is drifting rightward these days, as Silverman talks about registering as a Republican so the GOP will select an electable prez candidate in 2012.

But Silverman, who leans right but says he’s an independent, can’t convince GOP-talking-point-machine Caplis that Rick Perry is unelectable. Caplis seems warm to Perry and is keeping an open mind.

Silverman put his sharp questioning skills to work on this topic Sept. 9, when GOP National Committee Chair Reince Priebus was on the show. Silverman was hoping Priebus would agree with him that Perry’s views on Social Security make him look more like a loser.

But Pribus wouldn’t bite. He rejected Silverman’s assertion in this exchange.

Silverman: Mitt Romney went on our KHOW colleague Sean Hannity’s show today and said, “If we nominate someone who the Democrats can correctly characterize as being opposed to Social Security, we will be obliterated as a party.” Romney’s read Perry’s book, Fed Up. So did I. I watched that debate the other night. Didn’t Rick Perry make himself unelectable or at least start down that road.”

Priebus: No. You know, first of all, refereeing between the candidates, that’s a pretty dicey spot for me to be in, and I try not to do that.

Maybe he tries not to, but Priebus turned against Romney here by disagreeing with Silverman. He sided with Perry, who obviously thinks his position on Social Security will not obliterate him from being POTUS.

Conservative talk radio is probably at its worst when bigotry against Muslims fills the air.

You don’t hear it all the time, or on all the Denver shows, but it’s out there.

I thought I’d see how long it would take me to find an example, and within an hour of looking online, there it was, in the form of Dr. Robert Greer, being interviwed by Doug Kellett, who was subbing for Jon Caldara on KOA Aug. 25.

With nothing but encouragement by Kellett, Greer said:

The way that the religion of Islam has been presented in our country, and unfortunately even with President Bush, who I admire, but in this case I think he made a mistake, is that it presented Islam as fundamentally a peaceful religion, and it was only the fringe elements, the extremists, that were the problem people, who we had to be concerned about. And therefore it left a false impression about this religion.

Kellett didn’t ask Greer what we should do about “the problem people,” but you do have to wonder, especially later when Greer tells us that the Quran leads Muslims to Sharia Law, which, in turn, leads to jihad, stoning, extreme subjugation of women, and more.

As I’ve discussed before, Muslim scholars refute this. They say literal interpretations of Sharia are practiced by extremists and tribalists, and that, in reality, Islam is much like other major religions, and the vast majority of the two billion or so Muslims worldwide are not extremists at all.

You’d never know this, if you listen to some talk radio, because differing views aren’t presented. That’s no surprise, and the one-sidedness of right-wing radio is frustrating to a progressive/socialist/bleeding heart like me.

But when bigotry is in full swing during a one-sided conversation on the radio, your feelings change from frustration to fear pretty fast.

That’s why the mainstream media shouldn’t overlook these subterranean views. Somehow I don’t think they’d be ignored if Judaism or Christianity were under attack in the same way, even on the radio.

Yet, when I searched for the word “Sharia” in The Denver Post, I came up with only one staff-written news story in the last year. Only twice has the word appeared in staff-written news stories in the last five years, and one of those was just a passing mention.

A few opinion articles addressed the Sharia topic, and it was mentioned in an excellent Post editorial and some columns by Ed Quillen.

The Post editorial, published after the GOP presidential debate in June, called out GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain, who made anti-Muslim statements during the debate. He later sort of backed away from these.

But I particularly liked  The Post’s observation that, “Maybe the low point of the debate was that none of Cain’s rivals bothered to challenge him.”

This is exactly why news reporters should find ways to write about the undercurrent of anti-Islamic sentiment that’s out there. To air it out, so it can be challenged.

There are different ways to do to this, but one is to raise the issue when the Presidential candidates start traipsing through Colorado. If reporters have any access to them, that is.

Mitt Romney, for example, who’s coming through town this week, doesn’t condemn the Muslim religion. As he said in a 2007 speech:

Merely closing our eyes and hoping that radical Jihad will go away is not an acceptable answer. And American military action cannot change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims. Only Muslims will be able to defeat the violent radicals. But we can help them. And we must help them. For the consequences – for America and for all nations – of a radicalized Islamic world, possessing nuclear weapons, are unthinkable.

I’m not sure what Romney means here. He could be saying that there are hundreds of millions of Muslim jihadists out there. Or he could be saying there are hundreds of millions who are on the fence, who are potentially jihadists? Or, if we win the minds of these hundreds of millions, out of the worldwide population of over 2 billion, then we’ll stop the extremists. And, in any case, what’s Romney’s plan for winning the hearts and minds of Muslims overseas? I’m not sure what he’s thinking, but I’d like to know.

And what do he and the other GOP presidential candidates say to those bigots who denounce Islam and say that Muslims, not just extremists, are a threat to our country?

Bob Enyart, a local anti-abortion radio-show host, is planning a national campaign aiming to convince GOP primary and caucus voters of this: “When Mitt Romney says he’s a pro-family, pro-life conservative, he is a liar to the base that he needs for the nomination.”

“We plan on doing again what we did four years ago, starting in December,” Enyart told me. “We began running TV ads in the early contest states, where there’s a significant pro-life voter bloc. We skipped New Hampshire, and we plan on skipping New Hampshire again, and focusing on Iowa and South Carolina. Florida is such a huge state, and it’s very expensive. But we’ll try to get more money for Florida this time, but we had a pretty effective strategy for Florida last time.”

Enyart crusaded for Colorado’s failed Personhood Amendments and similar causes.  Today, for example, his website says he’s in Durango protesting at a Catholic hospital that allegedly allows one of Enyart’s targeted doctors to treat patients there.

Enyart contends that Romney “singlehandedly instituted homosexual marriage in Massachusetts, and he used tax dollars to pay for surgical abortions on demand,” making Romney “low-hanging fruit” for his campaign.

“Romney has done more to further those two goals [gay marriage and government-funded abortion] than Barack Obama has,” Enyart believes. “Romney instituted homosexual marriage, never mind Obama’s uncertainty on the issue. Romney funded abortion on demand with tax dollars. Barack Obama may dream of doing those things but hasn’t yet.”

Enyart, whose radio show airs locally on “Colorado Christian Station” KLTT 670 AM, spent “tens of thousands of dollars” in 2008 and expects to spend more this time. The money went to grassroots educational activities and commercials, which were used other groups as well, he says.

“We’re very effective at convincing rank-and-file Republican base voters that Romney is the enemy,” Enyart told me.

“How so?” I asked.

“The message is effective,” he replied with confidence. “Romney got trounced in Iowa. He had boots on the ground for a year and a state-wide organization, and he got slaughtered. And the number one reason given by Republicans for voting against him in the caucuses was that he was lying about being pro-life.”

I couldn’t find an exit poll showing that caucus attendees though Romney was lying about being pro-choice, but plenty of polls show that evangelicals are a major GOP voting bloc in Iowa.

In 2008, ABC News described its exit poll of Iowa caucus goers this way:

While a range of factors rumbled through the Democratic race, the Republican contest was essentially about one thing: religion. Evangelical Christians accounted for a remarkable six in 10 GOP caucus-goers, and they favored Huckabee, a Baptist minister, over Mitt Romney, who’s Mormon, by a broad 46-19 percent.

And for hard core anti-abortion Republicans, the abortion issue often blows every other concern off the table.

Even rabid anti-abortionist Dan Caplis, co-host of KHOW’s worthwhile Caplis and Silverman show, told Enyart June 21 he wouldn’t vote for Romney, even over Obama, if it turns out he’s not sufficiently anti-abortion. Caplis, who “likes Mitt Romney,” said:

“If I’m missing something about him, factually, historically,  if he truly is not pro-life, well then, I wouldn’t vote for him. So, if there’s a question out there, I want to find the answer to it. There have been all sorts of candidates out there who call themselves pro-life and then don’t act that way. I as a consumer want to make sure that I’m not fooled.”

So are Enyart’s claims about Romney true?

The allegation about Romney instituting gay marriage in Massachusetts appears to be false. I didn’t have time to get to figure it out for sure, but I looked through news coverage around time that the gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, and Romney was described as powerless to stop it, and he was quoted as an ardent opponent of gay marriage throughout. It appears that Romney was not in a position to stop gay marriage there.

Enyart says his claims about Romney’s acceptance of publicly-funded abortion are fully documented on his website ProlifeProfiles.com.

I looked through Enyart’s site, but did not have time to determine for sure if Romney had the ability to stop his state-wide health insurance plan, so-called RomenyCare, from covering abortion. I’ll do this in the future, but please inform me, in the comment section below, if you have insight into this issue.

Meanwhile, look for Enyart to stick his face directly in front of the GOP establishement on this issue. Ann Coulter even hung up on him, and I’m sure she won’t be the last.

Two days before a major address by President Obama on Afghanistan, in which he’s expected to announce the drawdown of troops, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney has again changed his message on Afghanistan.

In Denver yesterday, Romney said the Afghan surge should be seen as one of Obama’s successes, as reported by The Denver Post:

Asked whether he credited Obama for any successful policies, Romney said: “He got Osama bin Laden. I appreciate the fact that he did that and made the decision to go after the guy. That was a good decision. I also agree with his decision to pursue a surge in Afghanistan.”

But in covering the Romney press conference (starting at the six minute mark in this video), Denver reporters didn’t ask Romney how this squares with his statement during June 13 GOP presidential debate that U.S. troops should be brought home as soon as possible:

“It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can — as soon as our generals think it’s okay,” Romney said. “One lesson we‘ve learned in Afghanistan is that Americans cannot fight another nation’s war of independence.”

Does Romney think that the surge was a success, and the U.S. is now ready to go home?

And how do both of Romney’s recent statements comport with his Dec. 2009 comments on CNN that he may have added even more U.S. troops to the Afghan surge, if he had been President?

These questions, flowing from Romney’s statements about Obama’s successful surge in Afghanistan, went unasked during Romney’s visit to Denver yesterday.

As recently as January of this year, Romney said U.S. troops should not leave Afghanistan, according to a Boston Globe report.