Mitt Romney apparently forgot to read yesterday’s news coverage of his visit to Craig, Colorado.

Outlets from Denver’s Fox 31 to the National Journal and beyond pointed out that, despite Romney’s assertions, neither Colorado nor Obama policies had hurt the coal industry in Craig, and, overall, the town was weathering the recession pretty well.

But that didn’t stop Romney from appearing on KOA radio this morning, the day after his visit to Craig, and repeating statements that had been refuted by journalists.

Romney: There’s no question that Craig was an extraordinary welcome. We had about 1,500 people that joined in a rally, people from all walks of life, and they’re hurting. The regulations that have been put in place to try and drive out of business oil, coal, and gas are hard on Colorado, hard on Craig, Colorado, hard on various places across the country.

And I don’t think people recognize that as we try to replace oil, coal, and gas with very high-cost sources of energy, that we are going to drive more jobs away from America, not just from those mining and extractive industries, but also from all the industries that use energy in making their products. They will go elsewhere. They will go to China and other places that use coal and that use oil and gas. And that will mean more losses of jobs and further decline of income. So this is an important topic, and Craig is at the center of it.

KOA hosts April Zesbaugh and Steffan Tubbs didn’t ask if Romney was bothered by the fact that Craig is doing well or the fact, also cited by reporters, that nonpartisan analysis shows that Colorado’s green-energy economy has been a solid job creator.

KOA hosts April Zesbaugh and Steffan Tubbs, who did a good job asking Romney a range of questions, also queried Romney about Syria:

Host Zesbaugh: Is the President doing enough about Syria, and what would you be doing?

Romney: Well, the decision to expel diplomats is of course an appropriate decision but it’s a very small step. We need presidential leadership. This is not a time for America to be leading from behind. We have not only a slaughter of people, some 10,000 people have been killed by their own government in Syria, but also we recognize that Syria is the Arab ally for Iran. And Iran is seeking to become the leader of the Middle East with nuclear weapons. This is an opportunity to see new leadership in Syria, which could conceivably distance itself from Iran. So, the President ought to be all over this. We should be working with our friends in the region, like Turkey and Saudi Arabi,a to assure that the forces, that the rebel forces of Syria are well-armed and safe. This idea of holding back, this policy of paralysis is not the right course.

Host Tubbs: …How long are we going to wait, do you think, whether it’s this administration or yours. How many more massacres do we have to see where women and children are shot at point-blank range before the United States, which has, you go back centuries, we are the country the world looks to, like it or not?

Romney: Well, the right course for America is to be the leader in a setting like this, and that does not necessarily mean that we are putting in place our military resources. We do have friends in the region. We can support them in providing armament to the rebels. We can also communicate with the Alawites who are concerned about the removal of Assad because of their common faith. We need to make sure the Alawites know there will be a future for them in Syria. There will not be a slaughter or a degradation of their importance in the community. So the things we can be doing as a leader in the world that hopefully are being done, and if they’re not being done, they ought to be done aggressively. So that we take advantage of an opportunity but at the same time stop a tragedy, which we are seeing occur.

Neither host asked Romney about the risks, as articulated by the Obama Administration, and shared by some Republicans as well, of arming groups that may turn against America.

Yesterday marked the second Colorado visit in a row during which Romney has appeared on Colorado’s Morning News on KOA. Here’s what he had to say on the show in May.

Last time, he also spoke one-on-one with local TV reporters. He chose not to do so during yesterday’s Colorado trip, possibly because he became irritated during his May visit with the questions from CBS4 reporter Shaun Boyd.

Romney apparently did not take questions from The Denver Post during either of his last two visits, prioritizing radio and local television. During a visit in April, Romney spoke only to conservative talk shows, ignoring The Post again.

by Michael Lund

By now we’re all aware the pivotal role Hispanics will play in swing states (like Colorado) in November’s election.  As the political parties strategize and tune their message machines to reach Hispanics in Colorado and secure their votes, we wondered how well Denver’s English language TV news broadcasts cover Hispanic issues.

To do this, the BigMediaBlog designed a snapshot survey of Denver’s local television news broadcasts. We monitored the amount and type of coverage that included Hispanics on all four local stations:  CBS 4, KMGH 7, KUSA 9, and KVDR 31.

What we found can be classified as Good News/Bad News.  Here are the highlights of each:

Good news

• Hispanic reporters and anchors bring a welcome element of diversity and familiarity to Hispanic viewers. These include anchors Anne Trujillo (Channel 7 news, on vacation during our snapshot study period) and Dave Aguilera (CBS 4), and reporters Tammy Vigil, Melody Mendez, Nina Sporano (FOX 31), Dominic Garcia (CBS 4), and Valerie Castro (CBS4).  There are others, of course, but the aforementioned are those who appeared during the window of our study.
• Hispanics are featured in some local news coverage, representing our community across a range of topics (news, sports, weather, health, government, economic and business, public works, education, elections, labor, etc.).
• In news stories covering issues of shared interest and value to Hispanic and general audiences, coverage sometimes includes a Hispanic perspective.  For example, jobs and the economy are issues consistently highlighted by the Hispanic electorate and voters in general as being important to them in this election cycle.  In our snapshot survey, one story in particular stood out that qualified in this category:  Walmart’s opening of 5 neighborhood markets, bringing  new jobs to Denver.  While all four channels covered this story, only Fox31 expanded the story to interview job seekers, Hispanics included, and explored the relation and importance of the story to these individuals’ lives and job searches.  Their input made the story immediately more relevant and vital to an otherwise underrepresented population of TV news consumers.

Bad news

• In our study, crime stories dominate Hispanic related news, accounting for 60% of news stories that involve Hispanics.  These stories generally offer little to inform and engage the public and Hispanic populations, and often displace other stories on issues with equal or greater importance to our communities.  During the three days we were viewing, the predominant crime stories involved the murder of a clerk during a robbery of an auto parts store, escapees from a federal prison, and at least two cases of child abuse and negligence.   While crime trends might rate as important, these particular cases certainly were not highlighted as issues of reigning importance among Hispanics during this election cycle.  The economy was, however, and the only related story we found, excluding economic stories reported by Hispanic journalists, was the Walmart piece referenced above.
• The Hispanic community is misrepresented by an over-emphasis of crime.  In fact, when pictured in news stories, 38% of the time Hispanics were the accused or perpetrator in the story, as opposed to the reporter, a witness, a commentator, or a sympathetic subject.  Again, the proportion of Hispanic criminals to law-abiding Hispanics is grossly misrepresented by this figure, and alerts us to a need for more balanced coverage.
• Proportionately little time of a news broadcast is dedicated to covering Hispanic issues.  Excluding crime stories and weather and sports segments, Hispanic news accounts for just under 6% (on average) of the entire news coverage.  Obviously, to be representational of our Hispanic community in Denver, more substantive and engaging coverage of Hispanic news stories is needed.

This survey is a snapshot and as such gives a only a small glimpse of successes and areas for improvement in covering the people and the issues of priority to Hispanics, which often overlap with the composite population.  Hopefully, this study will at least serve to reflect on how our state and its citizens are portrayed during the upcoming election season, with our added notoriety and visibility as a swing state.  And more importantly, we hope that it reminds us all of the importance of an engaged and informed electorate, Hispanics and all voters alike.

Click here to view the data (stories, reporters, categories) upon which the snapshot study is based: Hispanics in Denver Local TV News

The annual Cinco de Mayo celebration falls on a Saturday this year, making it possible that more people will be participating in non-organized activities than have in recent years, particularly cruising along Federal Blvd.

Reconfigured medians along Federal, street closures, restricted exits from I-25, and other law enforcement crackdowns, like curfews, may explain the decreased Cinco-de-Mayo activities in the last few years. So the day of the week on which May 5 falls may not matter.

Efforts at collaborative peace keeping and ‘witnessing’ efforts organized by Nita Gonzalez, President of Escuela Tlaltelolco, may have decreased skirmishes and resultant visibility of cruising as well. Gonzales promoted safe cruising and respectful law enforcement.

Still, increased traffic problems and revelry, if they emerge this year, will likely attract media coverage, and so I thought I’d offer a few pro-active suggestions on how to encourage fairness in reporting on an event with a history of inflammatory coverage and divisive reactions within our community.

• Cinco de Mayo is not Mexican Independence Day, which is actually Sept. 16. Cinco de Mayo, which marks an historic victory by the Mexican Army at Puebla, Mexico, in 1862, is a celebration of Latin culture and freedom generally. The weaker and smaller Mexican farmers defeated the French.
• The organized Cinco de Mayo activities will take place at Civic Center Park May 5 and 6 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.  This is one of the largest Cinco de Mayo celebrations in the country, drawing hundreds of thousands of people in the past. It’s a fundraising event organized by NEWSED Community Development Corporation and Santa Fe Drive Redevelopment Corporation. Booth space is sold to vendors and exhibitors of many types. Music, dancing, food, and more will be offered.
• The cruising that typically occurs on Cinco de Mayo weekend is not an organized activity. It occurs spontaneously, often concentrating along Federal. In the past, police have restricted cruising to specific parts of Federal and curfews have been enforced.
• Cruising is legal, and it’s a popular and peaceful activity among Mexican-Americans. Maintaining lowriders and converted vehicles is a hobby no different from other hobbies people take up.
• The intention of cruisers is obviously not to tie up traffic or prevent people from driving across Federal Blvd. (It could be helpful to have some pre-emptive coverage of traffic detours and closures and suggestions for avoiding the traffic tie-ups, if any.)
• Flag waving has been a highly visible part of Cindo-de-Mayo activities in the past. It’s misleading to attribute the flag-waving to Mexican nationals. It’s more a symbol of cultural and ethnic identity and origin,  and relatively unrelated to expressions of geo-politics or sovereignty or the like.

On KHOW’s Caplis and Silverman show Wednesday, Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty tried to make the argument that it’s illegal to give undocumented college students a more affordable tuition rate.

Citing federal laws, McNulty said he doesn’t support “picking and choosing which laws we follow and which laws are okay to ignore.”

“Sure,” McNulty told co-host Craig Silverman. I get pulled over for speeding. I get a ticket. I pay my ticket. I have points taken off of my license. So there are penaltties there for ignoring the law.”

“Right,” Silverman responded. “But if your kid is in the car, he doesn’t get a ticket. You do.”

“Well, that’s true,” McNulty answered and quickly tried to move the conversation back toward picking and choosing laws.

It was a good point by Silverman, and he made it better than I could have, on a show that’s become more and more one-sided these days, when it comes to political topics.

Silverman could have sharpened his questioning earlier in the interview, when McNulty said:

McNulty: “And you know what? I get it! I get that these kids are here through no fault of their own. And I understand that that is, that that has a level of compassion that many of us share. But the bottom line is, the law is the law. And to say that we’re going to ignore the law in this one simple case, flies in the face of what our nation was founded on and is the main reason why I’m opposed to it.”

Neither Caplis nor Silverman pointed out that the legislation has passed in 13 other states, including Texas.

And even Colorado Attorney General John Suthers admitted on KOA’s Mike Rosen’s Show March 12 that the ASSET bill would be permissable under federal law, though Suthers said he didn’t like the way the bill was devised, saying it was “a complete run-around these two federal statutes.”

Suthers: As I say, twelve states have enacted similar legislation: Texas, California, Utah, New York, Washington, Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Maryland, and Connecticut. Two cases have been filed. In California, students paying out-of-state tuition attending California universities filed a lawsuit saying this is just an end-around and I’m still being discriminated against. The District Court in California said, “No.” The California Court of Appeals reinstated the lawsuit. But in November of 2010 the California Supreme Court upheld this method for providing in-state tuition, and said it did not conflict with federal law. And on June 6, 2011, the United States Supreme Court denied cert in that case. A similar case was brought by a Missouri resident who was attending college in Kansas, saying that they were being denied the status, and it was unlawful discrimination under federal law, and that case was dismissed for lack of standing, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined cert, way back in June of 2008.

Suthers called ASSET “lawyering at its finest, or worse, depending on your perspective,” but he said it’s legal.

So next time McNulty or another Republican is on Caplis and Silverman, and he or she says how sympathetic they are toward the poor undocumented kids, but, like McNulty said, sorry, the law is the law, so nothing can be done, Caplis and Silverman should pipe up and say, yes, the law is the law, and ASSET is legal.

What are your other reasons for opposing it?

For this year, though, it’s too late to correct McNulty and possibly allow him to be the compassionate man he wants to be.

Even if you weren’t paying attention, you probably remember back in 2010 when GOP gubernatorial candidate Dan Maes spoke up against then Mayor John Hickenlooper’s bicycle programs, which, along with other policies,  was “converting Denver into a United Nations community.”

“These aren’t just warm, fuzzy ideas from the mayor,” Maes was quoted as saying in The Denver Post, which broke the story.  “These are very specific strategies that are dictated to us by this United Nations program that mayors have signed on to.”

“This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed,” Maes said.

This prompted the progressive blog ColoradoPols to comment:

“Oh, Dan Maes! We don’t know where you came from, and we’re still amazed at how you got here, but we can’t deny that you are one amusing fellow. Even if you don’t mean to be.”

We know that one of the places Dan Maes came from was the Colorado tea party and its allies on conservative talk radio.

Now, however, the tea-party radio show “Grassroots Radio Colorado” has a specific policy to refer to Maes as the “Mr. Irrelevent” or the one “who shall not be named.”

Still, it’s clear that the themes of Maes’ once energetic campaign still live in tea party circles, incuding the U.N. paranoia stuff.

The other day, Rich Bratten with right-leaning Principles of Liberty Colorado gave listeners of KLZ’s Grassroots Radio Colorado a legislative update, specifically addressing Senate Bill 130, which would create the Office for Child and Youth Development in the Department of Human Services in Colorado.

The bill, which would simply consolidate various government functions, is the culmination of several years of work, going back to Gov. Kofi Bill Ritter’s administration.

A Colorado Springs church called this bill a “United Nations conspiracy,” which Bratten wouldn’t do.

“I don’t think this was a U.N. conspiracy…,” he said on the radio March 30.

But the funny part is, he went on, without objection from the radio-show hosts, to say that the Office of Child and Youth Development would lead to a  socialist takeover of America, possibly leadin’ to a U.N. power grab.

“However,” Bratten said, “[the Office of Child and Youth Development] is very consistent with the Convention on the Rights of the Child of the UN, if you’ve done any research on that.  You’re listeners might be more familiar with the UN Small Arms Treaty….

HOST:  Yeah, they’re very familiar with that one ….

BRATTEN:  Right, which would put constraints upon if we  .…   You know, of course, Clinton adpopted the UN… that treaty, but it hasn’t been ratified by the senate.  Obama says he would like to get it ratified by the senate.  If we were bound to that treaty, we would  basically be giving up our second amendment rights.  And you guys are very familiar with Agenda 21?

HOST:  Very! We spent half the day on it yesterday.

BRATTEN:  This Convention on the Rights of the Child is kind of a similar animal.  And so, is it a UN conspiracy?  No, of course not!  However, is it that inex-OR-orable slide that we’ve been seeing our federal government make towards European Socialist Democracy type of government?  And, you know, the answer is yes — honestly, it is.  So, I’m thrilled to see Speaker Mc Nulty assign this quickly to that committee, and I hope that it gets a quick hearing.

Who knew how much of a threat the U.N. is? I’ve been depressed that it was in decline, but I guess I was wrong.

In any case, no one thought Maes was a lone ranger in Colorado’s battle against the United Nations, but his view, or permutations of it, is alive and well on talk radio, even if the name Maes has been banished.

It’s great to see the Colorado Independent staying on the story of Scott Gessler’s hollow numbers and unsupported allegations of election fraud.

Today, after Gessler’s assertion Monday that “some” noncitizens voted in Colorado, the Independent’s John Tomasic asked country clerks if they knew of any noncitizens on their voting rolls.

County clerks and staff contacted by the Independent so far in some of the state’s most populous counties, including Adams, Boulder, Denver and Pueblo, have said that they, like Reiner in Mesa County, have no knowledge of any non-citizens ever being registered to vote nor have they knowingly received any requests to be removed from the voter rolls from non-citizen residents of the state.

The Colorado Independent today submitted another open records request asking for any related “work product” created or commissioned by the secretary’s office, including any database searches seeking information concerning non-citizens being registered to vote in Colorado.

You have to assume media outlets all over town are also filing open records requests with Gessler’s office, right?

But we don’t know, because they don’t tell us, like Tomasic did.

I’d like to see reporters from Denver Post and other major media outlets start telling readers on a regular basis when they file CORA requests. Or at least more often. Not after the fact.

This would make us proud of our big daily newspaper and legacy media, like we are of the Independent when it informs us of the actions it takes in the public interest.

Maybe The Post doesn’t make a huge deal of its CORAs all the time, though it might sometimes, because, hey, it adds some drama to a story, no? But it could at least mention more CORA requests in the Spot blog or within articles.

Not telling us about CORAs is old-school journalism, worrying about a scoop or thinking that how journalists do their jobs is not interesting to readers. That’s not true. Quite the opposite.

If you’re a talk-radio host and you feed on infotainment, you pretty much have to cover the topics people will talk about because you want people to…talk.

But that doesn’t mean you have to embrace bigots, like a gun instructor who says at the conclusion of a radio ad promoting his classes:

“Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class.”

If you’re KHOW’s Peter Boyles, and you actually want to have the man who ran the ad, Crockett Keller, on your radio show, you have a few choices.

You can expose and denounce his bigotry, have an even-handed discussion about the ad, or you can cozy up to him.

With Keller on his show Feb. 1, Boyles did the latter.

He didn’t ask his listeners if they thought it would have been okay for Keller not to teach Christians . Or Jews.

He didn’t ask Keller if he’d considered a different closer for his ad, like, “If you’re Jewish, I will not teach you the class.”

Would Boyles have sat in silence if the word “Islam” were changed to “Judaism” and the word “Muslim” to “Jew” in the following statement that Keller made to Boyles on his KHOW radio show?

Keller: I don’t consider Islam as a religion. Now that may sound ignorant. I think in practice it’s more of an ideology and a political entity as opposed to a religious entity… Until the moderate Muslims start picking up and rioting every time their less peaceable brethren make war against us, then we have to do that. You know, we didn’t bomb just Nazi Germany. We bombed the whole place. And I’m afraid that’s what it’s going to take at some point in time if we are going to preserve our way of life. I would like to think that the moderate Muslims would start standing up for the American way, as opposed to Sharia law and the Muslim way. What are they? Are they Muslims first or Americans first?

Boyles said to Keller that he’d heard different reactions from callers to Keller’s advertisement.

Boyles told Keller: “I find myself thinking that what you’re saying is probably closer to the truth, and that’s why it hurts… You da man.”

He closed by thanking Keller and telling him to call if he’s in Colorado so he can “have him in studio.”

I’ve listened to Boyles for years, and I could’t believe that he really felt warmly to Keller.

So I called Boyles to make sure he meant what he said, and I was relieved to find out that he did not.

Boyles said he didn’t remember saying this, and, if he did, he didn’t mean it.

He described Keller as “just a guy who draws attention to himself.”

But why Boyles would have a guy like this on his radio show, unless his plan was to slam him, is beyond me.

There’s ratings, and it’s obvious Boyles chases them, and he got carried away again.

Boyles told me that he has nothing against Muslims, and he recommended a book called, The Mirage, which is a novel about Christian terrorists who fly planes into buildings in the Mid East.

I asked Jacob Hornberger, President of the libertarian Future of Freedom Foundation, who was part of a recent “Civil Liberties College Tour,” addressing civil liberties and terrorism, whether bigoted speech like Keller’s, in an advertisement, is protected under the Frist Amendment.

He emailed me that it’s protected, saying:

“The man has the fundamental, God given right to say all of these things and to run his concealed carry course any way he wants, no matter how offensive his speech or conduct is to others.”

Because the speech is contained in an advertisement, he wrote that “the entity he’s paying, as the owner of the publication or station, has the right not to publish the advertisement.”

Attorney and author Bruce Fein, who was also part of the Civil Liberties College Tour, had a different view, stating in an email to me:

“The speech is unprotected by the First Amendment. Civil rights laws may properly prohibit speech that encourages persons offering services to the public generally for commercial gain from invidious discrimination in violation of the law. See US Supreme Court decision in Pittsburgh Human Relations case authored by Justice Potter Stewart.”

I’m no lawyer, but from what I’ve read, Fein seems to have it right.

Either way, Boyles, who failed to address the free speech issues, clearly has a First Amendment right to air the ad on his radio show.

But basic decency says he should refrain from spreading senseless attacks on Muslims.

Boyles should state on the air that he has nothing against Muslims. And he should have a discussion, as I’ve offered on my blog previously, about the different interpretations of Sharia law among Muslims.

Text of Crockett ad:

Crockett narrates: “Hello friends and neighbors in Mason and surrounding counties. Attention. Be a victor not a victim. We will be having a beginner’s concealed handgun class this coming Wednesday, October 26, at Keller’s Riverside Store on the beautiful Lionel River. Classes start at 8:30 a.m. This is an all-day event. We will attempt to teach you all the necessary information you need to obtain your CHL and hopefully when you can use your weapon to defend yourself if the need arises. We will also give you your handgun proficiency test as needed to get your license. The cost for the course is $100. We accept cash, check, credit cards, gold and silver, and used guns. For information, or to sign up, call Crocket Keller, 325-347-0055. If you are a socialist liberal and/or have voted for the current campaigner in chief, please do not take this class. You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision as required under the law. Also, if you are a non-Christian Arab or Muslim, I will not teach you the class. Once again, with no shame, I am Crocket Keller, 325-347-0055. Thank you, and god bless America.”

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?

Reporters are having a real hard time sorting out Mitt Romney’s position on personhood. Here’s a quick and easy way for journos to think about the issue, and Romney’s evolving stance on it.

Personhood has two tracks: federal and state. At the federal level, proponents are trying to pass a law giving fertilized eggs (or zygotes) the legal rights of a “person,” under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution. At the state level, the personhood campaign wants to pass amendments to state constitutions defining life as beginning at conception.

Romney on federal personhood. Romney has made it clear that he’s currently against federal personhood. This is a flip from his position in 2007, when he stated on national TV that he favored a GOP platform position supporting a “human life amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, which would ban abortion at the federal level. When Romney said this, he believed, like he does now, that life begins at conception, so Romney’s federal ban on abortion, based on his definition of “life,” would have met the requirements of Personhood USA for a national personhood law. But last year at a GOP prez forum, Romney abandoned this position because now thinks adding personhood to the U.S. Constitution could set up a “constituional crisis.”

Romney on state personhood. In October, Romney told Fox News’ Mike Huckabee that he “absolutely” would have signed an amendment to the Massachusetts constitution establishing that life begins a conception. Later, Romney’s spokespeople backed up this position by telling Politico’s Ben Smith and other reporters that Romney supports “efforts to ensure recognition that life begins at conception” and that “these matters should be left up to states to decide.”

Summary:  Romney isn’t completely clear on this issue (I’m rolling my eyes as I write that), but  it’s fair to say that Romney has flip flopped on personhood during his career. It’s also a fact that he’s currently against a federal personhood law but for state-based personhood amendments (consistent with his “life-begins-at-conception” belief and his statement to Huckabee).

One prominent journalist who’s clear on Romney’s personhood stance is Curtis Hubbard, editorial page editor of the centrist-right Denver Post. He qualifies as an expert on personhood, having directed news coverage of the personhood ballot initiative in Colorado in 2010. He recently stated on Colorado Public Television, KBDI, “Romney already came out for personhood at the state level.”

Reporters nationally will have a chance to clarify Romney’s views on personhood Saturday, as they report on Florida’s Personhood USA-sponsored presidential forum. Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum will attend.

Romney will not attend the event, replicating his pattern of skipping such forums in South Carolina and Iowa, but reporters can contrast his views with personhood promoters Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum.

Personhood USA may also hold a prez forum in Colorado, prior to its Feb. 7 caucus. Personhood USA legal analyst Gualberto Garcia Jones emailed me yesterday, in response to my query, that Colorado is a “definite candidate” for a personhood forum.

In all the hubbub of police marching in riot gear and protestors fleeing, reporters have been forgetting to tell us what’s at the heart of the matter for the Occupiers.

So, here’s a crib sheet for anyone writing about Occupy in coming year.

Income Inequality:  Occupy by the Numbers

Percentage of our nation’s wealth owned by the top 1% of earners:  33.8%

Percentage of U.S. wealth owned by the bottom 50% of Americans:  2.5%.

Percentage of investment assets (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc.) owned by top 1%:  over 50%

Percentage of investment assets owned by the bottom half:  0.5%

Percentage of the nation’s personal debt owed by the top 1% in the US:  5%

Percentage of the nation’s personal debt owed by the bottom 90% of Americans:  73%

Tax rate for highest income earners in 1944: 94%

Today: 35%

Between 1980 and 2005, percentage of all income gains that went to the top 1%:  80%

Percentage growth in real income for top 1% of earners since 1979:  275%

Percentage growth in real income for bottom 20% of earners since 1979:  18%

Last decade in U.S. history when the top 1% earned as high or higher a share of the national income as they do today (24%):  1920s

Last decade in which the super-elite (top .01% of earners) claimed a higher share:  Never

Percentage change in average CEO pay since 1990:  +300%

Percentage change in “production worker” pay since 1990: +4%

Last year when the purchasing power of U.S. federal minimum wage reached as low as it is today:  1955

Ratio of average worker’s income to top CEO salaries in 1970:  1 to 38

Today:  1 to 1,723

Amount of nation’s wealth controlled by the top 1% elite in Ancient Rome:  16%

Amount of nation’s wealth controlled by the top 1% elite in U.S. today:  40%

Fraction of U.S. public who think there is too much power in the hands of a few rich people and large corporations in the U.S.: 3/4

Fraction of Americans who believed this in 1941:  3/5

Percentage of American millionaires who agree who agree that Occupy “protestors are making a good and valid point”: 35%

Percentage of U.S. Congress who are millionaires:  47%

Percentage of U.S. Senators who are millionaires:  66%

Ratio of Americans living below the poverty line:  1 in 7

Rank of U.S. among rich nations in the percentage of children living in poverty:  2nd (21.9%)

In 2010 alone, percentage change in average income among the 24 million poorest families in U.S.:  -10 %

Rank of U.S. among developed nations of the world in income inequality: 1st

Follow Jason Salzman in Twitter @bigmediablog