SquareState - Caplis and Silverman

Suthers thinks feds pushing mandate "down our throats" unless it's done with fed incentives

Jason Salzman — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 15:29:23 GMT

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers was all over the media last week, talking about what a terrible thing it would be if the federal government forced Americans to buy health insurance.

But in an email back in 2010, Suthers told The Denver Post's Vincent Carroll that it wasn't the federal health insurance mandate itself that bothered him, from a legal perspective, but how the mandate was instituted.

In the email, obtained via that Colorado Opens Record Act by Colorado Ethics Watch, Suthers wrote to Carroll:

"The way to constitutionally mandate health insurance would be to incentivize the states to do it," Suthers wrote.

There's nothing wrong with a lawyer wanting things done in accordance with how he sees the law, but let's be clear that Suthers' federal incentives, if they're devised to "mandate health insurance," as Suthers suggests, are simply a more polite form of Obama's Commerce-Clause mandate.
Conservative objections about alleged federal intrusion or alleged lost individual freedom would, as a practical matter, be nearly identical if the health-insurance mandate were the result of federal incentives or federal powers under the Commerce Clause.

Either way, its federal action, which makes you wonder why Suthers gleefully told KNUS' Steve Kelley in November:

"Federalism has been on life support for 30 years. We are going to decide if the Court is going to pull the plug or resuscitate it. That is what this case is all about."

Really? How does that square with Suthers' view that the feds could accomplish the health-care mandate with incentives?

Anyway, in his media tour last week, Suthers told KHOW's Craig Silverman that "it shouldn't be the federal government pushing this down our throats." But again, this sounds hollow when you know that Suthers simply wants federal throat-pushing of a different manner.

Suthers also told Silverman that the expansion of Medicaid under Obmamcare, as a vehicle to cover uninsured people, is a state burden that's "so coercive as to violate federalism." Yet, he told Carroll that a health-care mandate could be achieved with state incentives. If he believes the incentives are constitutional, then you'd think he'd have to believe the Medicaid expansion would be constitutional as well.

In the broader picture, and this is the take-away from Suthers' behind-the-scenes correspondence with Carroll, conservatives should not be fooled into thinking that Suthers, by joining the lawsuit to stop Obamacare, is taking a principled stand against an alleged loss of individual freedom. He's clearly not. It's just this legal pathway he dislikes.

For Suthers, it's the form, not the substance.

Email exchange between Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll and Colorado Attorney General John Suthers, March 23, 2010

Suthers: Vince, I'm curious. I understood from my conversation with Alicia Caldwell that the editorial board doesn't think there is anything unprecedented about Congress using the Commerce Clause to sanction economic activity and force you to buy a product or service it deems beneficial. Even the Congressional Budget Office told Congress that was unprecedented. If Congress can sanction your commercial activity and force you to buy a product, where does it end? Can you enlighten me a bit?
Carroll: I am not sure what our official position will be regarding whether forcing Americans to buy health care insurance is an unprecedented action by the federal government. As you know, though, the Post's editorials have repeatedly backed a universal mandate, so it is extremely unlikely that the page would now argue that what it has been advocating is unconstitutional. Like many people, I too worry about what a court decision upholding the legislation would say about the reach of the commerce clause. But given recent legal precedents, I suspect the court would uphold the law.
Suthers: One last point. The way to constitutionally mandate health insurance would be to incentivize the states to do it.

Coffman wants to prohibit borrowing, except when he wants to borrow

Jason Salzman — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 21:27:35 GMT

Rep. Mike Coffman is in The Denver Post today telling us again that he led the charge for the Balanced Budget Amendment, which would have, in Coffman's words, held "Congress' feet to the fire with a Constitutional amendment requiring that they, like every family and nearly every state in the country, balance their budget."

Coffman's proposal specifies an exception. Deficits would be allowed during war or serious military conflict. (Families don't get such an exception, in case you're wondering whether your warring family can spend willy nilly.)

But Coffman himself has advocated for another crisis situation during which, he's said, deficit spending by the feds should be allowed.

On KHOW radio, back in April, 2009, Coffman said he "would certainly support deficit spending," if it were "truly stimulative" during the dark years of the great recession, 2009 and 2010.

In February, 2009, Coffman was equally clear on KHOW radio that the recession, which was slamming the country, was "so severe" that Coffman supported more deficit spending to stimulate the economy:

Silverman: So what are you suggesting? That we not do it? That we not have the stimulus package? Because Barack Obama said last night, hey, I didn't come up with this $800 billion figure on my own. This is what the Republicans and the Democrats are talking about. The size of the stimulus package that is necessary given the dire condition that we are in. I like to live within my means. I am not big on borrowing for anything other than to buy a house. Are you saying we shouldn't borrow money? I am not big on borrowing for anything other than to buy a house. Are you saying we shouldn't borrow money?
Coffman: I do think that the situation is so severe that it warrants it. And obviously, from my point of view, that the greatest stimulus to the economy is by allowing individuals, small businesses owners, and corporations to keep their money in their pockets. And let the individual spend it versus the government spend it. So they can spend it their way. [BigMedia emphasis]

Here's what Coffman told Caplis and Silverman April 15, 2009:

Coffman: I think it's all about today politically and not about tomorrow. And so it's kind of whatever happens tomorrow happens tomorrow. Let's see how much influence we can buy or how much political support we can buy today. It's a sad process. And I certainly support deficit spending, if it's wise, if it's truly simulative in this year and next year. I think the problem is that there is no effort in the budget plan that I see to close the deficit. We are going to be running trillion dollar deficits, you know, in the next ten years.

Later, as Coffman amped up his campaign for the Balanced Budget Amendment, KHOW's Caplis and Silverman should have had Coffman back on their show to find out why an exception for deficit spending, to stimulate the economy during bleak economic downturns, was not included in the Balanced Budget Amendment that Coffman helped craft. (It died in the House in November.)

Reporters are all about consistency, and so they should ask Coffman, who helped form the 70-member House Balanced Budget Amendment Caucus and then chaired it, to explain his view in favor deficit spending "if it's truly stimulative."

And while they're questioning Coffman about fiscal matters, reporters might ask to hear more about his unusual proposal, which he made on KHOW in 2009, to put Marines on U.S. merchant ships that might be threatened by pirates. Coffman claims this will save money, but further questioning about the risks of such a military presence are warranted.

Coffman: We don't have the naval resources to patrol this area, which is a little over a million square miles. And so we need a fly swatter instead of a sledgehammer. And it would be much more cost effective to put small military detachments on the US-flagged merchant ships in order to deal with the pirates. And it wouldn't take very many. We did this during World War II. And we can do it now. So we just deal with the problem and we write rules of engagement to where any of these pirate crafts approaching US merchant vessel that demonstrate hostile intent would be taken out.

Coffman could be right about the cost savings from the deployment of Marines, as he's a budget maven when it comes to military spending, having advocated sensible cuts in the past.

Equally bold, from a political and fiscal perspective, are Coffman's positions, aired on talk radio, against the Bush prescription drug plan and against using federal money to construct new DPS schools, because the DPS doesn't "need to build more schools" due to enrollment declines.

There's clearly public-interest value in airing out views of Congresspeople representing safe seats. But the time and space for political reporting, from serious journalists, is at a premium these days. So the media spotlight naturally should shine most brightly on politicians in competitive districts, especially guys like Coffman, and his likely opponent Joe Miklosi, whose words mean more because more voters with different opinions are listening to them now as they decide who to vote for in November.

Why does Coffman think soldiers know who's gay, and plus, who cares?

Jason Salzman — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:15:36 GMT

Now that Rep. Mike Coffman's congressional district is widely regarded as more competitive, reporters should take another look at Coffman's media appearances over the past years, and ask questions where none were asked before.

Of course, the low-hanging fruit is on local talk radio, where questions about Coffman pile up in your head so quickly you start forgetting good ones unless you write them down.

So I'm going to roll out a series of these interviews over the holiday season, to lay out some questions that linger about him.

Coffman has made no secret of his opposition to repealing the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, for example, at least for combat troops, who are, as he puts it, "at the tip of the spear."

He's argued, "Interjecting sexuality into a ground combat team potentially creates an emotional divide between Marines that undermines confidence and prevents that interdependent bond from forming, ultimately compromising the combat effectiveness of the unit."

That may sound extreme, but on the radio, mostly with, you-go-dude style enthusiasm from hosts, Coffman has gone further, arguing that combat troops can "just tell" when a fellow fighter is gay.

He dumps the qualifiers, like gays could "potentially" create problems, and goes straight to declarative assertions about the destructive impact of putting gay men in combat situations.

Below, former Bob Beauprez, subbing on the Caplis and Silverman show Dec. 21, 2009, got into the topic with Coffman:

Beauprez: You brought up something that I think is often forgotten. Outward displays of sexuality, however we want to, I guess, let our mind figure out what that really means, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual, they create a problem on the battlefield.
Coffman: Well they really do. And I think it's hard for people to understand that. But it's young people. And it's not you punch out and go home at 5 o'clock. And even if it is no overt sexuality, there is an emotional tension there where people can tell.
Beauprez: Yeah, and that is not a good place for emotional tension.
Coffman: No it's not.
Beauprez: You have enough of that going on.

I wish I could send one of those WTF Jon Stewart faces out of this blog, because reporters should ask Coffman how combat troops know who's gay and who isn't.

And if they think they do, how is that any different from them believing something else about a fellow soldier, like his race, class, or what have you? I mean, soldiers could suspect anything and everything, positive or negative, about fellow soldiers, and either they'd get over it or they'd get disciplined, end of story.

Gessler won't say there's fraud in Denver elections, as he did before, but there "very well may be"

Jason Salzman — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:08:57 GMT

My search for an explanation from Scott Gessler about why he's been telling the media there's actual "fraud" in Colorado elections bore fruit last night, when I asked him about it after he gave a lecture at Colorado Christian University's Centennial Institute, which run by former Senate President John Andrews.

I asked Gessler about his statement, on a radio show in September, that there was actual fraud among mail ballots returned by inactive voters in Denver.

He said he was "not quite sure" he made this statement about the last election. He didn't. He was referring to the 2009 municipal election, but the same question applies: Was there actual fraud, like he said?

In the radio interview, Gessler said there was a "pretty high incidence of fraud" in Denver's 2009 election among ballots returned by inactive voters. Listen to Gessler's Sept. 30 radio statement here.

Regarding 2009, Gessler told me last night:

Gessler: I think if you look at Denver, though, you'll see in 2009, for a large number of folks, the signatures didn't match. I think that's an indicium of fraud, right there, when the signatures don't match.
Jason: It's an indication of fraud, but you wouldn't say that it's fraud, would you?
Gessler: I said it's an indicium of fraud. It very well may be. It's not been fully investigated, to my knowledge.

After Gessler alleged fraud in Denver elections in September, Denver's Clerk and Recorder denied the accusation, and the head of the Secretary of State's election division later testified that he was not aware of any fraud relating to ballots mailed to inactive voters.

No talk show host or reporter that I know of asked Gessler what actual factual fraud he was talking about, so I tried to fill in the gap and ask his office, but I got no comment. Until last night.
Last week, Gessler made another vague statement to a reporter in Pueblo that some mail-in ballots are fraudulent. And during his election campaign in 2010, Gessler implied illegal behavior on the part of Denver election officials.

I respect Gessler for answering my question last night, even though a crowd was waiting in line to speak with him after his lecture at Colorado Christian University's Centennial Institute.

I identified myself as a "liberal blogger," and he hesitated but still responded.

I'd liked to have asked Gessler more questions about his allegations, but he didn't want to discuss it further, as you can see from the transcript of my interview below.

The biggest question in my mind is, but why in the world would a Secretary of State, who's gotta respect America's democratic ideals even more than the rest of us, play fast and loose with the F word?

I'm sorry if this sounds all high-minded, but does Gessler understand the damage he's potentially doing by making people think their election system, upon which we base our imperfect but respectable system of self government, is rotting around the edges, sprinkled with fraud, if not laced with it?

I can't think of a more serious accusation a Secretary of State could make, and I'm hoping to talk more with him about why he does this, with nothing but speculation to back him up.

Transcript of interview with Scott Gessler at Colorado Christian University, Nov. 14, 2011

Jason Salzman: I'm a blogger in town.

Scott Gessler: Nice to meet you.

Jason: I've been trying to talk to your spokespeople, I'm a liberal blogger, about a question. I'm hoping I could ask you directly.

Gessler: Probably not.

Jason: Probably not?

Gessler: Probably not.

Jason: But hear what it is.

Gessler: I'm going to chat with some of these folks.

Jason: On the radio you said there was fraud, actual fraud, among the inactive returned ballots in the Denver election.

Gessler: I'm not quite sure that's what I said for this particular election. I think if you look at Denver, though, you'll see in 2009, a large number of folks, the signatures didn't match. I think that's an indicium of fraud, right there, when the signatures don't match.

Jason: It's an indication of fraud, but you wouldn't say that it's fraud, would you?

Gessler: I said it's an indicium of fraud. It very well may be. It's not been fully investigated, to my knowledge.

Jason: And statewide, any instance of fraud that you can point to? Any single instance?

Gessler: I've given you my stand.

Jason: I appreciate the answer.

Gessler: Sure.

Why does Gessler think "fraud exists" in Denver elections? His office is "not going to comment"

Jason Salzman — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:28:16 GMT

For weeks, I've been asking Secretary of State Scott Gessler's media people if Gessler was serious when he said, in a radio interview, that "fraud exists" in Denver elections, and when, on another occasion, Gessler implied that there's election fraud in Denver.

I've left lots of messages and gotten no response.

This surprised me, truly, because you'd think the Secretary of State would want to make it clear either way.

If he thinks there is really fraud, that's obviously a huge problem that every active, inactive, and dead voter should hear about.

If there's no fraud, then we should hear this, to put us at ease since Gessler previously said there was fraud.

So I was overjoyed Tuesday when I got Gessler's media spokesperson Rich Coolidge, instead of an answering machine, when I called his direct line in Gessler's press office.

But disappointment followed....

Jason: Hi Rich. It's Jason Salzman, a blogger in Denver. I'm very sorry to keep bothering you. I don't know if you got my messages about whether there's fraud in Denver elections?
Gessler's spokesperson: I got the one last week, and we're not going to comment to you.
Jason: Why?
Gessler's spokesperson: We just don't reach out to ColoradoPols bloggers.
Jason: I'm not a ColoradoPols blogger. I post there. You've talked to me in the past, and I thought I represent you fairly when you tell me a fact. And if I don't, you can ask me, and I'll put whatever you want to say in my blog.
Gessler's spokesperson: I appreciate that. And you can write whatever you're going to write, and we understand that. And we're good to go. We're not going to comment.
Jason: Isn't it a basic question of whether you think there's fraud in Denver elections? I mean, don't you think that's a question that you'd want to comment on?
Gessler's spokesperson: Jason, you're going to write what you want to write, and that's fine.
Jason: Last time we talked...
Gessler's spokesperson: You have your bent. You're going to post on ColoradoPols. We don't have anything to say. But thank you for your call. We are not going to comment.
Jason: What if I were just a citizen, or any person, worried about fraud?
Gessler's spokesperson: You're going to post it on ColoradoPols, and you are free to do that.
Jason: Well, I won't. I have a blog; it's called BigMedia.org, and I post on Huffington Post. If you don't want it on ColoradoPols, I won't put it on ColoradoPols. [I should have mentioned SquareState as well. Sorry about that.]
Gessler's spokesperson: You're going to do what you're going to do. I don't read your blogs and your pieces. You know, go ahead and write it. And that's fine. We're not going to comment. Thanks for your call. I'm going to let you go now.
Jason: There's nothing I can do? Nothing at all?
Gessler's spokesperson: No.
Jason: There's no way we can negotiate this?
Gessler's spokesperson: No thank you.
Jason: Well okay, thank you very much.
Gessler's spokesperson: Thank you.
Jason: Have a good day.
Gessler's spokesperson: You too.
Jason: Bye.
Gessler's spokesperson: Bye.

Gessler's spokesman is correct that I write from a progressive perspective.

But I hope that anyone who follows my work knows that I try hard to be fair and accurate, especially when I interview someone. I do my best not to misquote anyone or present their views out of context. I will always update my blog posts with whatever my interviewees want me to add, if they don't like what I've written.

Were Demonstrators "Camping" or "Protesting"? First Amendment issues need more attention

Jason Salzman — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:22:55 GMT

Though not ignored by any stretch, the First-Amendment rights of the OccupyDener/Wall Street Greed protesters need to get more air time.

Since the tents appeared in Denver, I'd been wondering about the "protesters" I used to see as I rode my bike in front of the White House when I lived in DC 20 years ago. They got to stay there because their 24-hour protest, which included tent-like structures, was protected under the First Amendment.

The ACLU at one point brought their case all the way to the Supreme Court.

The question for them, and for our local protest camp, was, were they "camping," and in violation of anti-camping laws, or "protesting" 24 hours a day, and protected by the First Amendment?

KHOW's Caplis and Silverman aired a great interview with attorney David Lane on this topic yesterday.

Here's part of what Lane told Caplis and Silverman:

Lane: What is the competing interest against [the protest], Dan? Does Denver have some compelling need to use that space? And if the answer is no, then yes, you're allowed to stay there 24 hours a day, as long as you're not stopping someone else from exercising a constitutional right. It may be an eye sore. It may be inconvenient, and you may not like to see tents there when you drive by, but really if Denver has no compelling reason not to allow it, then Denver just has to allow it...
If someone is violating the health laws by camping there, if you want to call it camping, then they get a ticket for violating a health law. If theres's some public disorder occurring there, give them a ticket for public disorder. If there is no public disorder, if there's no health violation, then Denver has to put up with it under the First Amendment. ...
If there's public urination going on, Dan, give them a ticket for public urination....
Let me ask you, have you ever been to the White House? Have you ever seen the protesters who are permanently ensconsed. I mean, they are always there. They never leave. They have signs that say, I've been here for 27 years, 10 months, and 242 days. Yes, you can protest. You can protest 24-7. The issue is, is it really camping or what is it?... They have designated areas. Maybe Denver should designate an area.
There are reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. But who are you bothering? Are you bothering the drug dealers who normally exist in Civic Center Park? Is that the problem, Dan? Are there really people who are using this park at midnight so we have to move these guys out?...
Caplis: What about the governor's point that you have all these tents together...a fire could sweep through the camp.
Lane: You could come up with excuses like that. That's just nonsense. You know that's nonsense. It's an excuse to get rid of them...
In order to stop free speech, the government has to have a compelling interest in stopping it. If it involves speech, and it's not simply, gee I don't have anywhere to go sleep, so I'm going to sleep in the park, then I think the government is going to be hard pressed to stop it. ...

Caplis and Silverman rush Gessler off the air after he alleges election fraud in Denver

Jason Salzman — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:31:53 GMT

Under normal circumstances, I'd slam KHOW's Caplis and Silverman for letting Colorado's Secretary of State breeze onto their show Wednesday, assert that there's a "pretty high incidence of fraud" among one type of Denver voters, and then depart without being forced to explain what in the world he was talking about and what evidence he had to back it up.

But maybe Caplis and Silverman have heard Secretary of State Scott Gessler make so many unsubstantiated accusations of election fraud by now that it sounds normal, so normal that they think there's no need for follow-up questions.

Whatever they were thinking, KHOW talk-show hosts Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman listened in silence Wednesday as Scott Gessler made the startling assertion that "Denver itself admitted" that sending election ballots to inactive voters has resulted in a "pretty high incidence of fraud."
The issue arose last week when Gessler's office sued to block Denver from mailing ballots for the Nov. 1 election to voters who haven't cast a ballot since 2008 and did not respond to a letter asking if they wanted a ballot.

Gessler took the action partially to "reduce the potential for fraud," according to the lawsuit.

But on the radio, Gessler sharpened his accusation, saying he was fighting fraud itself, not just theoretical fraud.

Gessler said [at the 37 minute point in the podcast]: But Denver itself admitted, there's a pretty high incidence of fraud in inactive-voters returned ballots. They rejected in their municipal election well over 200. So we know fraud exists. The question is, what's the extent and what's the proper balance. The Legislature struck that balance. I'm going to respect it.

Denver has not admitted that there was any fraud resulting from ballots submitted by inactive voters, much less a "pretty high incidence" of it.

"I'm not sure what he [Gessler] is saying is fraud," Denver Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson told me. "He's using the word fraud loosely."

She said about 200 ballots in the 2011 Denver municipal election were found to have "signature discrepancies," meaning the voter's signature on the paper ballot was determined not to match the voter's signature in Denver's database. If a signature discrepancy is found, a voter is sent a letter and given eight days to clear up the matter.

"Every one of those is sent to the District Attorney," Johnson told me. "And none of those has been identified as fraudulent by the DA."

Johnson pointed out that it's not just the inactive voters who have signature discrepancies, it's also the active voters. 'We pulled our numbers from the last election, and they were the same, in terms of the percentage of ballots returned," she said.

The history of election fraud in Denver, it turns out, is deadly dull, even to a political junkie. And you'd have to think even Gessler, who seems to get excited about fraud even when it's not really fraud, would find it dull as well.

The last case of election fraud in Denver that was actually prosecuted occurred in 2005 and involved a single voter, according to Amber McReynolds, Director of Elections for Denver. She added that, in 2009, a circulator of a petition was found to be fraudulently signing names, and turned over to the DA, and in 2010, the state of Arizona asked Denver for information about a person who voted in Denver and also attempted to vote in Arizona.

Gessler's interview on Caplis and Silverman stands in stark contrast to comments he made Aug. 31, 2010, on KFKA's Amy Oliver Show.

At the time candidate Gessler was attacking then Colorado Secretary of State Bernie Buesher for allegedly failing to ensure that Colorado complied with a federal law requiring overseas military personnel be sent election ballots 45 days before the 2010 election. In the end, Buescher found a way for Colorado to comply.

Radio-host Oliver laughed it up with Gessler, who said something that Caplis and Silverman should play back to Gessler next time he's on their show:

Gessler said: "You're the Secretary of State. What the heck is your job? Your job is to make sure people can vote. That's one of your jobs!"

On Caplis and Silverman Wed., about a year after his appearance on KFKA, Gessler hadn't completely forgotten this notion of trying to make sure people can vote.

Asked by Caplis what he thought Denver was trying to accomplish by sending ballots to inactive voters, Gessler said, "I'm guessing they are trying to increase the number of people who vote in the turnout from inactive voters."

Silverman then asked Gessler why it "isn't a good thing, if more people vote."

"It's good if you don't have fraud," he replied.

And since there apparently is no fraud, where does that leave Gessler?

I'm hoping Caplis will ask him next time he's on the show. Letting him depart with a"keep-up-the-good-work" slap on the back is pretty hard to listen to.