Now that Matt Arnold of Clear the Bench fame has entered the GOP race for GOP state party chair, media outlets should have reviewed how the position will be filled.

In 2009, the Colorado Republican Central Committee, which selects the new Dick Wadhams in a vote March 26, had about 400 delegates. This time, there will be 300 delegates.

Here’s the breakdown of who will be casting votes, as recently updated by Craig Steiner of the “Common Sense American Conservatism” website.

• 90 GOP elected officials (state/national party officials plus CO elected Republicans)
• 192 Republican Country Party representatives (64 counties; chair, vice-chair, and Secretary for each county)
• 18 bonus delegates (based on votes cast for Maes, and updated from the link above in an email to me. In the email, Steiner writes that these delegates come from: Arapahoe: 2; Douglas: 2; El Paso: 8; Jefferson: 4; Larimer: 2)

If you’ve been tracking this race, you know that Harvey seems to be the favorite, in terms of endorsements.

But if you’re like me, you’re thinking, could Matt Arnold and Sen. Ted Harvey possibly, theoretically, split the grassroots GOP vote and throw the election to one of the more moderate candidates, Ryan Call of the Denver GOP, or Leondray Gholston of the State Party.

I asked Steiner what happens if a state chair candidate does not get a majority of Central Committee votes. He answered via email:

The bylaws state: “If more than two persons are nominated for an office, and after three ballots no nominee has received the required majority vote, then, unless one or more nominees have withdrawn during or following this balloting, the nominee receiving the least votes on the last of the three ballots shall be ineligible on all subsequent ballots. The nominee receiving the least votes on each ballot thereafter shall also be ineligible on subsequent ballots, unless one or more other nominees withdraw following such ballot. Balloting shall continue in this manner until a majority vote is cast for one nominee.”

“So it’s not a single preliminary vote with a run-off for the two top candidates.  Rather, we start dropping the candidate who receives the fewest votes until a remaining candidate receives more than 50%.”

As a Feb. 24 candidate forum shows, it’s not easy to figure out what GOP grassroots activists, who control the majority of votes on the Central Committee, want. Do hey agree with a guy like Arnold, who, when asked what a RINO is, said:

“There are RINOs. They are not just endangered species.”

Arnold explained at the forum: “Our brand is important. And it’s not just the momentary victory of putting someone in office with an R behind their name.  It’s putting someone in office who will advance our principles and achieve policy success.  So yeah you might get a short-term victory by having guys with an R behind their names sitting in some elected office, but that ultimately undermines our potential for electoral and policy victory down the road if people don’t understand when they pop open that can of Coke, it can be Classic, Diet, different varieties, but you want Coke to be Coke.  Our brand is important.”

9News’ innovative public affairs program, YourShow, will air monthly as a stand-alone program, instead of weekly as currently scheduled, but each week, guests will be asked questions submitted by viewers, with their answers aired on newscasts, according to an email from YourShow host and 9News political reporter Adam Schrager.

YourShow, which solicits guest and question ideas from viewers, was developed by Schrager, who is departing for at Wisconsin Public Television. He leaves 9News next week.

9News reporters Chris Vanderveen, Kyle Clark and Matt Flener will take turns hosting YourShow, which airs on Channel 20.

In response to my question about the future of YourShow, Schrager emailed me:

My colleagues Chris Vanderveen, Kyle Clark and Matt Flener will all take turns on the program which is morphing a bit. It will not be a half hour long every week, but once a month. Weekly guests will still be asked viewers questions with segments on the Sunday morning and evening newscasts and I believe longer segments will be on line.

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers announced on KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show Monday that his office has given Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler an opinion regarding his plan to moonlight for his former law firm, but Suthers did not offer further details.

The radio show has been breaking newsbits on the Gessler moonlighting story, since it first broke in the Denver Business Journal.

On Thursday, for example, Gessler told Caplis and Siverman that his former law partners were “very uncomfortable” with his idea of making the names of his moonlighting clients public.

Yesterday, with Suthers on the program during the 3 p.m. hour to discuss recent court decisions about the federal health-care bill, Suthers answered the following question from Silverman about Gessler:

Craig: Scott Gessler has asked you for an opinion about whether his moonlighting is ok. You probably can’t tell us your decision, but can you give us some timing on when you might make the call?

John Suthers: We’ve already indicated to Scott what we think the issues are in regard to that decision. And I’m not free to comment what we’ve advised Mr. Gessler.

Today’s New York Times features a profile of Governor-elect John Hickenlooper, concluding that, if Hick does “well” and is re-elected in 2014, then “it’s not hard to believe” that there will be “murmurs” about a Hick presidential run in 2016.

That’s a convoluted way to say the murmurers have already started murmuring.

But there was more in the article to murmur about, especially if you’re a murmuring environmnentalist, and we all know those folks like to murmer (Sorry, I like typing “murmur,” I guess.).

NYT Reporter Frank Bruni quotes Hickenlooper as saying “we should drill the living daylights out of natural gas and cut regulation.” Bruni adds that the Gov-To-Be also considers himself an “environmentalist.”

It’s a 13-word quote in a loooong article, and Hick has said similar things before. But, still, he’s getting close to “drill, baby drill’ here.

So I emailed Bruni to find out if Hickenlooper might have added a couple dozen other words in their conversation that put the “living daylights” quote in more context. Unfortunatley, I did not get a response.

So I asked Alan Salazar, who will be Hick’s chief policy and political director, what Hick meant. Was there context that was left out?

He emailed me:

“Context was lost in what John would acknowledge was a clumsy reiteration of what he consistently said on the campaign trail, namely that we ought to push natural gas enthusiastically and adjust regulations that aren’t proven to be efficient or effective. But regulations that are necessary for protecting public health and the environment have to be upheld. It’s always a matter of balance and keeping an open mind to what works. John recalls making this latter point (as he did whenever the topic came up on the campaign trail) to Mr. Bruni, but it didn’t make the story.”

Here’s a summary, from a live blog on Colorado Pols, of a panel discussion yesterday on media coverage of the 2010 election in Colorado.

About 50 people attended the event, co-sponsored by UCD School of Public Affairs and Rocky Mountain Media Watch, which houses this blog.

Over about an hour and a half, the five panelists addressed issues ranging from the lack of day-to-day political coverage on Channels 4 and 7 to the reasons whether the The Post would have reported the McInnis plagiarism scandal if the Rocky had not folded.

The journalists on the panel responded to questions from the audience for about 45 minutes.

I’ll follow-up on some of the issues raised at the panel in future blog posts.

Don’t forget the panel discussion tomorrow, with five Colorado journalists, on media coverage of the 2010 election.  It takes place Wednesday at 2 p.m. at 1380 Lawrence, 2nd floor. The free event is sponsored by Rocky Mountain Media Watch, which houses this blog, and UCD School of Public Affairs.

Hope to see you there.

Five prominent Colorado journalists will answer your questions during a panel discussion Wed., Dec. 8, at 2 p.m. , on the topic, “Colorado Journalism and the 2010 Election.”

 The panelists are:

Charles Ashby, Reporter, Grand Junction Sentinel

Curtis Hubbard, Political Editor, The Denver Post

Adam Schrager, Political Reporter, 9News, Producer/Host YOUR SHOW

Eli Stokols, Political Reporter, KDVR Fox 31 and KWGN TV

Kristen Wyatt, Reporter, Associated Press

 The description of the panel is:

“With the Rocky Mountain News gone and journalism in the midst of major changes, did Denver media outlets provide citizens with the information needed to make informed decisions during the 2010 election? What were the journalistic triumphs and lapses during the election cycle?”

The event will take place Dec. 8 at 2 p.m. at Lawrence Street Center, 1380 Lawrence Street, in the Terrace Room on the second floor.

Panelists will offer introductory comments and then take questions from the audience.

If you can’t make the it, but you have a question, please email it to me (jason@bigmedia.org), and I’ll consider asking it.

The event is free and open to the public. No RSVP is required.

Questions? please contact Jason Salzman at 303-292-1524 or jason@bigmedia.org.

The event is co-sponsored by University of Colorado Denver’s School of Public Affairs and Rocky Mountain Media Watch, which houses this blog.

The Denver Post reports today that we can expect an intermittent or constant flow of political ads starting now and ending who knows when. Not surprising, but it’s something people should know

In some parts of the country, like Scranton, the post-election political ads already hit the airwaves, according to a professor quoted in the Post article.

The anti-union and anti-environmental group sponsoring these ads was clever to realize that their first-TV-ads-after-the-election-FLOOD would get noticed by ad-hating reporters, like the one who wrote today’s Post story, and they would get even more publicity, an earned-media bump, as it’s called.

It seems that I’m in a tiny minority who admits to liking the ads, even though I hate them, of course, for what they do to our political culture, which is basically kill it.

Still, if we’ve gotta have them, I’d rather see a political ad than an ad for used cars or something.

During the election, and I should have pointed this out previously, 9News actually posted a how-to guide to do your own political “truth test,” like the kind 9News does, fact-checking political ads.

The guide offers basic parameters for evaluating a political ad and an organization sponsoring it, including websites for tax information about charities, campaign finance figures, congressional votes, and such.

You gotta hand it to 9News for taking the time to put together the guide. I mean, any and all efforts to empower people to get involved in politics is obviously in the public interest. As 9News’ Adam Schrager has told me, fact-checking an ad is not so hard to do.

The Denver Post is missing a major element in its reporting on State Treasurer candidate Walker Stapleton’s 1999 DUI arrest, specifically that a victim’s eye witness account of the incident, reported in the Colorado Independent, directly contradicts portions of Stapleton’s version of the story.

During a KBDI debate, Walker admitted that he got the DUI, according to a Spot blog post Sept. 30.

The Post reported that after the debate, Stapleton confirmed that he got the DUI after 1) a taxicab hit his vehicle and 2) he drove about a block away and pulled over. Stapleton told The Post that police dropped a hit-and-run charge after he explained to police how the accident occurred.

Then, on Friday, the Post reported that ColoradoPols posted court documents stating that Stapleton hit two pedestrians and tried to drive away from the scene of the accident.

San Francisco police told The Post that the court documents were at least partially wrong, that no pedestrians were involved, but the police wouldn’t elaborate further.

Other details about the case, including 1) if the taxicab hit Stapleton’s car or if Stapleton ran a light and hit the cab and 2) whether Stapleton tried to drive away and was stopped, could be revealed in the police report, which Stapleton has requested, according to the Post. The Colorado Independent has reported that the charges indicate that Stapleton may have been using other drugs.

Trouble is, we already know from a story in the Independent on Monday that one victim’s version of the story contradicts portions of Stapleton’s, and The Post hasn’t reported this in yesterday’s story on the topic or in Friday’s piece.

On Monday, the Colorado Independent published an interview with a woman who was in the taxicab involved in Stapleton’s crash. She was one of two victims listed in court documents.

The Independent reported that she was in the taxicab and saw Stapleton’s car run a red light and hit the cab. It also quoted the victim saying:

“When the cab stopped spinning, I looked out the window and saw his jeep or whatever, a big car, pull to the side of the road down the hill. Then I saw his car start to move again. He was going to leave but two cabs came up the road…• I think it was two cabs…• they blocked him in. One went in front of him and the other went behind him, so he couldn’t drive away.”

(The name of the victim is not a secret, but Independent reporter John Tomasic told me the victim asked him not to use it, so he didn’t.)

I emailed Post reporter Tim Hoover and asked if he tried to contact the woman who was in the cab that Walker Stapleton allegedly hit. I also asked, if he hadn’t been able to reach her, why, in reporting on the topic, he didn’t at least refer to the Colorado Independent’s interview with her.

The victim’s version of the story is critical, because it partially corroborates the court documents and it provides an important perspective for voters who are trying to figure out whether to believe Stapleton’s story. A victim is a totally legitimate source for voters to hear from. If she has a hazy recollection of the incident, which does not appear to be the case, then The Post could simply report this.

I did not immediately hear back from Hoover.

If you’re a Republican, and you look at Ken Buck’s troubles, you can’t stop your mind from wondering back to the comforting image of-.Jane Norton.

Except it’s not so comforting, of course, because you wake up and see Ken Buck trying to talk about rape and incest, and you know Norton would have faired much better than Buck on numerous fronts, like the flip-flop front and the women-front, to name a couple.

This discussion, of whether Norton would have been a better candidate, will undoubtedly emerge in the media after the election.

At least that’s the way it used to be, before the advent of blogs.

Nowadays, the public soul-searching, among respected commentators and partisans, begins before the election.

For example, on the topic of Norton versus Bennet, one conservative, the prolific Rossputin blogger, Ross Kaminsky, has already weighed in.

In an Oct. 18 post that looks a bit like it was written by the Michael Bennet campaign, Kaminsky laments that Norton isn’t the GOP nominee because she’d be doing better:

Kaminsky: But I can’t help remembering the heated online discussions I had with the Buck faithful when I supported Jane Norton, my argument being essentially that “these two are almost identical on policy, but Norton will be much harder for the Democrats to demonize in the general election than Buck will be and therefore, I’ll back the person I think more likely to win the general election.”  Those words still ring true, even prescient, to me.

He went on to deliver some harsh words about Ken Buck. To be fair, Kaminsky wrote that he’s still planning on voting for Buck, and he emphasized this again in a subsequent blog post.

Still, this is some pretty harsh stuff coming from a conservative like Kaminsky:

Kaminsky: Ken Buck needs to stop putting his foot in his mouth and stop saying ridiculous things which turn him into a caricature of the narrow-minded bible-bound old white guy which Democrats use with great success against the GOP.  Sadly, when Republicans say things like Ken Buck said on Meet the Press, it’s hard to argue that that caricature is far off the mark.

Kaminsky doesn’t labor in obscurity. He shares a radio show with former CO Senate President John Andrews. His blog has a national audience, and he’s a fixture on the most prominent conservative blog in Colorado, the People’s Press Collective. He carried the conservative torch on The Denver Post’s blog for a number of years, outlasting his liberal counterparts who failed to post much toward the end.

Even though Kaminsky writes that he sees the GOP as imperfect, seeing it as the only serious vehicle to implement his favored policies, he’s actually good weather vane for the Republican establishment. For example, during the financial crisis in the fall of 2008, Kaminsky gave reluctant support for the bailout, which was supported by a Republican president, the Republican nominee for president and vice president (yes, Palin supported the bailout), the Republican Treasury Secretary, and by Republican members of Congress. Then, within days of supporting the bailout, Kaminsky reversed himself.  To be fair, Kaminsky was up front that he was changing his position, but it came almost immediately after we were hearing noises in the conservative intelligentsia that Republicans should oppose the bailout and use it for political leverage down the road.

That’s why when I read posts from him critical of Republican candidates, I have to wonder if he’s channeling the thoughts and feelings of Republican power brokers who would never dare air them in public.

So, when Kaminky starts wishing for Jane Norton, it means something.

In the days before blogs, uncomfortable conversations among respected commentators like Kaminsky would have taken place over the kitchen table.

But today, the speculation about what could have been begins now…-and in public.