SquareState - KLZ

How about "legitimate" or "forcible" murder?

Jason Salzman — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 16:16:15 GMT

Colorado's conservative talk-radio hosts are unified in denouncing of Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin's statement that the female body has a natural ability to repel the sperm of rapists.

But they've been a bit more iffy on the question of how serious it was for Akin, who's vowing not to drop out of the Missouri Senate race, to distinguish between "legitimate" rape from other kinds.

"If you're a guy, and you throw the word 'legitimate' in front of rape, you're in trouble," KLZ radio host Jason Worley told listeners Monday. "You're already in trouble."

In trouble? As if you were asked to take out the trash by your wife and you forgot?
Is Worley saying that if Akin had been a woman, she could have thrown out the phrase "legitimate rape" without much backlash?

All you women, send me an email if you agree with that one.

Worley has a decent sense of humor, and let's hope he was trying to make a man joke, but he certainly wasn't joking when he started to speculate about how Akin could have better articulated his position on "legitimate rape."

What would have been the proper adjective for Akin to use to modify the word "rape?" Here's what Akin should have said, according to Worley:

If [saying "legitimate rape"] was all he did, he could actually come back, and he honestly could, and say, what I meant was 'actual' rape cases, like when there was a crime committed...He may have been able to come back from it."

Now you understand what he means, right? It's simple. Rape needs an adjective like "actual" before it.

So that means other crimes need modifiers too? Actual murder? Actual burglary? Actual theft?

We need the word "actual" to distinguish these crimes from the fake ones?

Denver talk-show host Mike Rosen, on Denver's KOA Tuesday, also sort of defended Akin:

"He had a very ill-phrased remark, put his foot in the mouth, talking about whether abortion should be allowed in cases, as he put it, of 'legitimate' rape. What he meant to say was in the case of very clear forcible rape. In any event, this is an area into which he should not have gone."

Take a close look and you'll see that Rosen, like Worley, has developed a new category of rape.

It's the "very clear forcible" rape.

By adding the adverbs "very clear," Rosen is one-upping Rep. Mike Coffman, Rep. Cory Gardner, Rep. Doug Lamborn, and Rep. Scott Tipton, who all voted to redefine the definition of rape so that federal funding would only be available for "forcible" rape, not other kinds.

For Rosen, it looks like only the "very forcible" kind of rape counts?

I didn't get a chance to listen to all Colorado radio hosts, but one can only imagine all the other categories of rape that they might come up with.

Please send me any and all new rape categories you hear from those creative conservative radio hosts -- and from anyone else for that matter.

I'm working on a comprehensive list of rape categories, which I'm hoping to pair up with other crimes, so we can wordsmith the entire criminal

Do KLZ radio hosts know the difference between protecting consumers and killing them?

Jason Salzman — Fri, 18 May 2012 17:49:56 GMT

I spend a lot of time criticizing conservative talk-radio hosts, and some people think I'm beating my head against the keyboard.

Too bad for me. Here I go again.

I can't accept that KLZ host's Ken Clark and Jason Worley agree with Sen. Ted Harvey when he says, on the radio, that Rep. Morgan Carroll's bill requiring hospitals to post a list of services that they do not provide is like "putting yellow stars on the door of religious hospitals."

Even if you disagree with her bill, proposed legislation like Carroll's and Nazi Germany have zero in common with one another.

You may think it's ridiculous that I even write the above paragraph, but that's what we bloggers have been reduced to, particularly because the legacy media is mostly ignoring the Colorado GOP's Nazi talk this year.

The Nazis killed people and Carroll's bill informs them. Carroll's bill would've helped consumers make a purchase. That's it.

Even if you're anti-abortion, Carroll's bill can't be remotely linked to genocide in any way.

So, if you're Ken Clark and Jason Worley, how could you possibly listen to this exchange without objecting?

Sen. Kevin Grantham (at 16:30 in the podcast): "Ken, I kind of wonder if Patrick Malone would have made the same statement, or did even ask the same question to Rep. Carrol when she was running her Senate Bill 93, wondering whether she is going to have a legacy... or she's worried about her legacy as a bigot for what she's doing to hospitals and to private religious hospitals. Doesn't that make her a bigot as well?"

Asked to explain, Grantham said that SB 93 would require "religious hospitals to post the services they do not provide," which would be a requirement targeted specifically at catholic hospitals. This is not correct, since it would apply to all hospitals, but Grantham maintained that the bill was targeted specifically at abortion issues and other life issues.

Later, in a discussion about how the Democrats' strategy on civil unions will backfire, Harvey said:

Sen. Ted Harvey (at 39:32): I don't like to repeat the negative and talk about what their talking points are. And what my talking points are is that this is an attack on religion. This is [an] attack on the right of conscience, and the ability of people to exercise their faith the way that they believe is best for them. And I think that the people of faith are seeing this for what it is, and it's a direct attack on them and they are now not sitting on the couch, not sitting in the pews, and just trying to live their lives and take their kids to school, and go to work and do those kinds of things. They are truly scared of what this is we're talking about. We're talking about an entire party in the United States that thinks it's okay to force people of religious faith to do something against their religion. And that's never happened in the United States before. You heard Kevin [Grantham] talking about Senate Bill 93 where it forced hospitals to put on their door a yellow star, for all practical purposes. To say, 'this is who we are, and we have to tell you who we are.' Never in American history have we had a major political party say that that's okay. And that is what you are seeing right now. And people of faith across the country are rising up and saying, 'No, not in our country.' SB-93 is like putting yellow stars on the door of religious hospitals.

How would you recruit Hispanics, if you were the GOP?

Jason Salzman — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:17:43 GMT

At the top of the home page of Colorado Hispanic Republicans' website sits this quote by President Ronald Reagan:

"Latinos are Republicans. They just don't know it yet."

It's not a quote that I'd slap across the top of my website if I were trying to make friends with Hispanics, but I have to admit I'm not a Republican.

But what would you do if you were a Republican, and it was your job to convince Democratic Hispanics to vote for your people in November?

It's a good question, and a group of Republicans tried to answer it in an honest and illuminating discussion on KLZ's Grassroots Radio Colorado April 11.

Radio host Ken Clark didn't sugar coat the GOP's problem in his first question to Pauline Olvera, a board member of Colorado Hispanic Republicans, whose website features the Reagan quote above.

"So the biggest problem I've seen in the Hispanic community and the black community is that they share our values; they just hate the Republican Party," said Clark. "So what are you doing about that?"

Olvera gave a big broad answer, as she's done before on the radio, practically bereft of specifics, saying her organization is trying "to connect with those communities' values of 'faith, family, and freedom.'" (Olvera is also a vice chair of the Denver Republican Party.)

Then Solomon Martinez, the Northern Colorado Chapter Chair for Colorado Hispanic Republicans, explained how Hispanics mindlessly cling to the Democratic Party because that's the way they've always been. He cited his own parents.

How does he deal with these stubborn Hispanic Democrats?

Martinez: "I tell people, 'Take the test.' There's websites you can go onto. You know, it's Republican Democrat Test. Take the test. If it still shows that you're a Democrat, then stay the Democrat Party. But you're going to find that you'll probably be a Republican, in most cases."

So now you see how the Reagan quote fits in.

It may sound condescending for Martinez to say that Colorado's Hispanics are so clueless about politics that they don't know the difference between Democrats and Republicans. But just take the Republican-Democrat test anyway. It's about being open-minded. Hispanics will probably find their inner Democrat and forget any possible condescension involved in getting them there.

Another angle for the Colorado Hispanic Republicans, and the radio segment gives you the sense that this is the core strategy, is to encourage Hispanic Democrats to vote for Republicans without leaving the Democratic Party.

Forget the online Democrat-Republican test if you must, there's no need to be a Democrat to vote Republican.

Martinez: We're saying, 'Come and join us! Come and talk to us! I'm not going to try and switch you over to Republican. Come and talk. Hear our values, hear our views. If you align with that, join us!'

This would be done by somehow identifying disaffected Hispanic Democrats, and connecting with them.

Everyone on the Grassroots Radio Colorado radio show was happy to discuss their own periods of disaffection with the Republican Party, and therefore show how they can relate to Hispanics who might be alienated by the Democratic Party. They seemed to be saying to Hispanics that it's okay not to love your political party. We haven't always loved ours, but we stuck to our party (though you should abandon yours), and our Republican Party has changed!

Olvera: I know I woke up when we had McCain, and I thought that here is a man that is going to sign that TARP bill, this is a man who is for amnesty - blanket amnesty, and I thought, "is this what the Republican party is giving us?" There really wasn't that much difference. So it could have been something on that line that had people disenfranchised from the Republican Party. But now we stand a firm line in the sand, as to where we stand as a Republican Party. We have to stand firm on those principles, and get in there and do the right thing.

Some conservative radio hosts might have let this go, without bringing up the name of Mitt Romney, whose name almost no one would think of when Olvera said that Republicans are now "firm line in the sand" when it comes to where they "stand as a Republican Party."

But to his credit, Clark said later in the interview:

"I don't know what's going to happen when we throw Romney up there. I really don't. I mean we had some real conservative choices, and the only thing that I would say to people is that Obama is so much worse."

Olvera said previously that the Colorado Hispanic Republicans will be at Cinco De Mayo in Denver with a big banner, trying to put their tactics into action. This radio interview made me want to go see how they're received.

Conservative talk-radio hosts turn off not only women but also Hispanics?

Jason Salzman — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 16:34:00 GMT

Conservative talk-radio hosts are obviously a big part of the reason the Republican Party has a problem with women voters.

But they're also a serious drag on the GOP's appeal to Hispanics.

"I'm still looking for that immigrant who came to America who had a burning desire for free birth control," said KLZ talk-radio host Jason Worley on the air Wednesday. "I haven't found them yet. If we do find them, I will offer to put them on the air, so we can get the ditsy college girl from Illinois who can come on and go, 'Yah, what I'd like for freedom and liberty is, ahh, free birth control, Yeah me!'"

This elicited laughter not only from co-host Ken Clark but also from Pauline Olvera, a vice chair of the Denver Republican Party.

Olvera is also on the Board of Directors for Colorado Hispanic Republicans, a new group trying to recruit Colorado Hispanics to join the GOP.

Asked by Worley "what message is catching on in those Hispanic communities," Olvera answered:

"Well, we don't really talk about [Republican] party issues," she said.

One wonders why. Do Hispanics maybe dislike Republican issues? Worley didn't ask, and Olvera flew up to a cruising altitude of 5,000 feet and waxed broad and meaningless.

"We talk about our values," she told Worley. Our values are faith, family, freedom, individual freedom. And those are very strong values in our Hispanic community. And those values are exactly what the Republican stands for. So when we talk about those things, it clicks, right away. A lot of small business owners are in our community. They want a really good education for their children. They want choices in the education of their children."

So why is Olvera's organization opposing legislation that would give the top-achieving children of undocumented parents a break on college tuition in Colorado? How does that comport with giving Hispanic children choice and freedom?

Worley didn't ask, but you get the feeling he understood the problem his party faces with Hispanics, when it comes to real-life issues, because he did ask Olvera, "What kind of resistance, if any, do you find to the quote-unquote Republican Party?"

"Well, she answered, you know there is always going to be, for the time being, that little bit of a negative connotation to the Republican name, unfortunately."

Full stop. You'd think Worley would have wanted to delve into this a bit. Is it because Hispanics understand that freedom is meaningless without opportunity? Opportunities provided by stuff like the college tuition bill, Obamacare, and government protections that create the kind of level playing field that give immigrants a chance?

Worley didn't ask, so Olvera continued:

We go out there and we just start talking to people. And asking them questions about their values. And doing surveys and stuff. And we're going to be going to Cinco de Mayo in May. And we're going to have our booth up there. And we'll have our nice big banner. We're going to be bringing people along and inviting them to our meet-and-greets.

Great. The organization plans to fly a big banner a couple months from now. Nothing fired in Worley's mind to make him as the question, "Where's the substance?"

So on went Olvera:

"The reason we all came to this country is because of individual freedom. We left tyranny and dictatorship. I think people are starting to wake up and see America kind of going toward the type of government immigrants are leaving and starting to resonate with our message."

Olvera's statement is so out there, along the lines of a GOP state Senator comparing Obama to Hitler last week, that I doubt it's ever been put to Hispanics in any of the gazillion polls Olvera is obviously thinking of when she talks about the "values" Hispanics embrace.

Again, one wonders about the specifics here, but Worley didn't ask for any.

Which was probably good for Olvera's cause, because if Worley and Olvera tried to explain with a few details why America is heading toward dictatorship, probably citing stuff like Obamacare, Medicare, worker protections, etc., basically government acting on behalf of people, they'd be offering up a list of reasons Hispanics are known to dislike the GOP. Of course, I could be wrong, but with shallow interviews like this one, we'll never know.

Should elected officials talk to all journalists, progressive, conservative, or rabid?

Jason Salzman — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 15:29:57 GMT

Secretary of State Scott Gessler recently made an appearance Colorado's flagship Tea-Party radio show, KLZ's Grassroots Radio Colorado.

I was jealous because Gessler's office won't talk to me, and it's possible that even my audience of three people is bigger than KLZ's.

But it made me feel a little bit better when I found out that Gessler's also boycotting the Colorado Independent and AM760's David Sirota show, as I'll explain below.

Still, it raises the question of whether it matters much that a conservative elected official, not just Gessler but any of them, boycotts progressive media outlets. Or whether a progressive office holder should feel obligated to talk to conservative media types.
If I were Gessler, I'd look at the actual work of the journalist or media person who's requesting the interview. If their work shows them to be unfair, inaccurate, and generally unconcerned about civil discourse, then an elected official can justify not talking to them.

For my part, I can't help but be nicer to people if they let me interview them. I normally try to be fair, I'm even more careful if I actually talk to someone. I'm pushing 50 and I still think most writers are this way.

I asked progressive columnist and talk-show host David Sirota for his thoughts on this broad topic. According to John Turk, producer of the David Sirota Show on AM 760, Gessler spokesman Rich Coolidge told him last week, just after Gessler appeared on Grassroots Radio Colorado, that Gessler had "no interest" in coming on Sirota's show to talk about possible voter fraud.

Sirota emailed me:

My view is that the best elected officials are those who make themselves available to the widest possible audience of their constituents. In Colorado, though, that's the exception (Ed Perlmutter is one for instance), not the norm. Here, most politicians see themselves - and carry themselves - as if they are part of an elite country club. They typically only make themselves available to their friends in the media who they know won't ask them a single substantive or hard-hitting question - those who will simply propagandize for their agenda and kiss their ass in a very public way. I'm not surprised by that. I'm a journalist, and genuine journalism is a threat to those in power who are either ashamed of their behavior or who shouldn't have to answer to anyone. Most of the politicians in the state know that regardless of party, I don't pull punches and will ask them tough questions, and so many of them avoid my show. I see that as a badge of honor.

The Colorado Independent's John Tomasic has also gotten the cold shoulder from Gessler. Tomasic offered these thoughts in an email:

The question of officeholder responsiveness matters mostly in its relationship to accountability.
It seems obvious that when people elected to office are willing to go on public record regularly on topics big and small and to field unscripted questions, it's always a good sign for the city or state or country they're serving. As any fair-minded person in a position of authority knows, explaining your actions means making the case for them. If you can do that well, you gain legitimacy for those actions and support for them and cooperation to bring off your grand plans.
The energy it takes to explain yourself, even in fraught political or business environments, is worth it
Our secretary of state is a longtime controversial figure. It's my opinion that he revels in it. He's a courtroom attorney. I like that about him, the fact that he's a fighter, if for no other reason than he's fun to write about. Unfortunately, in office, it seems clear he is increasingly adopting what has become a familiar approach to the media on the right, which is to malign the media and retreat into a silo of friendly outlets while delivering an occasional stock quote to the paper of record. That just seems like a short-haul strategy to me.
Gessler is not a representative from some very conservative district.
He is a state officeholder. The topics he deals with every day as secretary of state are enormously important for all the citizens of Colorado. He oversees voting, campaign finance rules-- really basic stuff that is of equal interest to citizens all across the political spectrum. For that reason alone, he is a person of interest for everyone reporting about politics in this state: newspaper people, broadcast people, bloggers, etc, and he has a crack staff of communication experts at his disposal. Use them, I say! Let's hear more every day from spokespeople Rich and Andrew at the secretary of state's office. Turn those guys loose! "Free Rich!" "Free Andrew!"
Granted, the media is a player in the political process and dealing with the media as an elected official can certainly be like navigating a mine field. It's only my opinion but, as someone who has watched this politics-media tug of war with keen interest for years and who has watched big political stories unfold from the inside, as an editor and reporter, I can say that the subjects of those stories would have nearly always fared better by talking to the reporters writing the stories.
I'm reporting on the war over voting laws that has taken the nation by storm in the past two years. Gessler has put himself on the frontlines of that war, proposing major changes to our state election rules. So I'll keep asking questions. Maybe some day soon, I'll get a response.
Meantime, I'm developing a cordial and, I must say, fruitful relationship with the secretary's office conducted via the Colorado Open Records Act. It could be worse.

I'm ready to join the "Free Rich" campaign, and I'm thinking about offering myself up for the dunk tank at the first "Free Rich" fundraiser.

But as Tomasic illustrates, part of the trick of journalism is to find ways to get information when you can't get it mouth-to-mouth. Who else knows? What documents are available? Getting blacklisted for interviews, even in an apparently partisan manner from the Secretary of State, is how it goes.

And obviously both parties do this. Gov. John Hickenlooper won't go on KHOW's Caplis and Silverman show, the hosts allege on air. Though he's on KOA's Mike Rosen's Show monthly.

Rep. Scott Tipton isn't talking to the tea-party-leaning radio program, the Cari and Rob Show. But Tipton's Democratic challenger Sal Pace will go on the show.

KHOW's Peter Boyles likes to say no elected official will go on his show anymore, though I heard Rep. Chris Holbert and Sen. Ted Harvey on Boyles' show Feb. 15 to discuss their gun bills.

Mitt Romney skipped over all the major Denver media last month, eliciting an admirable Howard-Beale-like outcry from Fox 31 political reporter Eli Stokols.

It's always been this way, you'd say. But the changes in the media make the situation worse for real people (who stopped reading this blog post before the first paragraph, even though I put "rabid" in the title to lure them in).

With the major media in decline, and more small outlets lining up along ideological lines, many people are less likely to hear from elected officials they disagree with.

Progressives, for example, who consume news from progressive news outlets, won't be hearing from Scott Gessler directly any time soon, it appears.

That's not good, and you have to think it will get worse, because, politically, Gessler can write off the left, talk to his conservative base, and try to reach moderates through other means, which may or may not include The Denver Post in the long run.

Under this scenario, how does the partisan divide do anything but get wider?

To be fair, and this is my attempt at ending on a hopeful note, I should tell you that even after Gessler's office rejected my own interview requests, Gessler was willing to speak with me when I approached him after a speech he gave at Colorado Christian University. I told him I was a liberal blogger, and he still spoke with me.

In the semi-public setting, maybe he felt a responsibility, as an elected official, not to turn away from me?

But, like Westword, I didn't ask him the right follow-up question. Who knows if I'll get another chance?

My tax cuts versus your sick kids

Jason Salzman — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:23:00 GMT

I love politicians who have guts to talk about their "messaging" in public. Everyone knows it chews up huge amounts of behind-the-scenes time (and money), but the insider debate about messages doesn't spill out much.

When it does, reporters should be all over it, not to play "gotcha," but to help real people (none of whom read this blog) understand how different communications "frames" illuminate competing worldviews about government and values.

For example, on KLZ's Grassroots Radio Colorado Feb. 17, the hosts and Colorado Rep. Robert Ramirez got into an honest discussion about how the GOP should talk about poor people and budget cuts.

Ramirez started off by saying, "The Democrats have a benefit. Everything they say makes somebody feel good about something in their life. When we say, 'we got to quit spending so much, we can't take any more money to pay for those poor kids,' it doesn't sound as good."

He has a point. This makes the GOP sound like they aren't very concerned about the poor.

Ramirez went on: "We have to say something more like, we need to spend the money responsibly to be able to help people the most, and not just waste dollars in places they aren't helping anyone."

So the frame here is that government is the bad guy. It's wasting money in useless dark places, some of which may sound like they're helping kids, but they're really not.

Ramirez continued:

But when somebody says, you're trying to kill children, you have to say, that's an interesting comment. Honestly, we have to spend the money the best way to help the most people. So it doesn't matter what they say, we have to, one, stay on message, and we have to keep the message in a positive arena, not negative against the other side. And that's the key, positive towards our message versus negative against them. Negative doesn't work.

Here, Ramirez presents a progressive counter "frame" that the GOP is "trying to kill children" by cutting government, whose programs (like generous children's health insurance) save lives and should not be axed if you care about giving impoverished kids in the world's richest nation the basic opportunity to succeed in life. (Okay, that's a dramatic rendition of this frame, but I'm just making a point.)
Actually, I don't know any progressives who think Ramirez or other conservatives want to kill our children. But progressives point to studies showing that if conservatives succeed at, for example, charging more for state-run health insurance, more kids could certainly get sick, and, yes, possibly die. (Colorado Sen. Greg Brophy, among others, acknowledges the risk to kids.)

So you see how the two frames of "good government" versus "bad government" play out in Ramirez's statements on the radio.

Underlying these competing frames about government is, of course, the debate about taxes.

And so it was fitting that, at the end of his Grassroots Radio Colorado interview, Ramirez turned the topic to taxes.

Ramirez, who's indicated his opposition to the extension of unemployment benefits and who's supported Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan in the past, argued that everyone should pay the same percentage of their income in taxes:

"You know what," Ramirez said on the air, "it doesn't matter if it's 1o percent, 50 percent, 30 percent, 60, the moral part is, everyone should pay the same percent. If you are making $100 per week, you should pay 10 percent. If you are making a million dollars a week, you should pay 10 percent.

I don't know how this translates in the real world into anything but a massive tax cut, and as such, major slashes in government spending for the poor.

If he stayed on message, and didn't talk about taking money away from poor children, Ramirez would probably say he's cutting waste, creating a responsible, smaller government, and helping people most through tax cuts.

And a progressive might say Ramirez is undermining what we all want, to work together through government to give poor children and families basic opportunity and a fair shot at success, and we can raise taxes a little bit to do it, on people who can afford it.

Reporters should look for chances, like Ramirez's radio appearance, to illustrate these competing worldviews underlying political "messaging."

Partial Transcript of Feb. 17 Interview with Rep. Robert Ramirez on Grassroots Radio Colorado on KLZ 560 AM, weekdays, 5 - 7 p.m.

Ramirez: Romney, much like many Republicans, allows someone else to dictate what his message will be, kind of like a senatorial candidate we had last year....

Host: Republicans don't know how to message. They're messaging sucks. In your mind, what can we do to change that?

Ramirez: You know, it's not just message. The Democrats have a benefit. Everything they say makes somebody feel good about something in their life.

Host: Yeah. I suppose that's true.

Ramirez: When we say, we got to quit spending so much, we can't take any more money to pay for those poor kids, it doesn't sound as good. So we have our message--

Host: Like Rollie Heath's message--

Ramirez: Yeah. We have to say something more like, we need to spend the money responsibly to be able to help people the most, and not just waste dollars in places they aren't helping anyone. But when somebody says, you're trying to kill children, you have to say, that's an interestingt comment. Honestly, we have to spend the money the best way to help the most people. So it doesn't matter what they say, we have to, one, stay on message, and we have to keep the message in a positive arena, not negative against the other side. And that's the key, positive towards our message versus negative against them. Negative doesn't work.

Host: ...Morally, how much should someone pay in taxes?...If you are a successful contributing member of the economic class, a business owner, something like that, you're at 30, 40, 50 percent. At what point is it immoral?

Ramirez: You know what, it doesn't matter if it's 1o percent, 50 percent, 30 percent, 60, the moral part is, everyone should pay the same percent. If you are making $100 per week, you should pay 10 percent. If you are making a million dollars a week, you should pay 10 percent.

Host: I agree. I could not agree more, actually.

Ramirez: I don't know an actual percentage, but you understand what I'm saying. It should be a percentage based on everyone. That encourages people to make more money and create more jobs.

On radio, Ramirez says spite and retribution were motivating Carrera

Jason Salzman — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:30:49 GMT

We all know the process of hammering out new state legislative districts is difficult for everyone involved: the governor, legislators, judges, and regular people, as well as the journalists reporting on it.

So even conservative talk-show hosts, like Jason Worley and Ken Clark on KLZ's Grassroots Radio Colorado, should at least make a pass at presenting the issue with some measure of decency and fairness.

I know, it's talk radio, but still.
This should start with Worley and Clark mentioning, however briefly when they discuss this issue, the fact that Democrats and Republicans agree that competitive districts are good for Colorado, because competition makes politicians on both sides of the aisle more responsive to their constituents, so they'll do the things they want them to do, like create jobs, boost education, and listen to each other at least as well as my 14-year-old listens to my 11-year-old.

I mean, as has been reported previously, it's not just the Democrats who recognize that competitive districts are desirable, but it's also former GOP Chairs Dick Wadhams and Bo Callaway. Also, in December, then GOP Senate Minority Leader Mike Kopp told the Colorado Statesman, "Citizens want a fair and open process with competitive districts." The Fort Collins Coloradoan reported that Rep. Amy Stephens wants competitive districts, as does Sen. Steve Ward, R-Littleton, who told the Associated Press (April 24, 2008),"It's the lack of competitive districts that have led to the polarization of politics."

And both Republicans and Democrats can find aspects of the new legislative maps, currently under review by the Colorado Supreme Court, that increase competitiveness. So key elements of both parties would agree that this is a good thing, though, obviously, many leading Republicans believe that the latest set of maps give Democrats an unfair advantage overall.

But, as The Denver Post reported Sunday, not all Democrats are happy with the new districts either, and hearing their fellow Democrats say that the maps were drawn to meet the Supreme Court's requirements to keep more counties whole doesn't seem to satisfy them either.

But Worley and Clark failed to tilt their rhetoric anywhere near fairness and decency during a broadcast Tuesday.

Regardless of where they stand on this issue, Worley and Clark do no one any good when they nod, like Soviet generals, as Rep. Robert Ramirez, with no evidence, accuses reapportionment committee chairman Mario Carrera Tuesday of approving maps that would allegedly hurt Ramirez's chances of re-election because of their old dispute over whether to allow undocumented children of illegal immigrants to qualify for in-state college tuition.

Retribution and spite, that's what was motivating Carerra on the maps, Ramirez told told Grassroots Radio Colorado.

I mean, no matter where you sit on the political spectrum, you have to hope that a baseline level of evidence and facts are required before talk show hosts engage in a conversation like this one, which occurred on Grassroots Radio Colorado Nov. 29:

RAMIREZ: You know, its funny because the one vote this year that you guys actually praised me on, and we have seen different eye to eye on a couple things, was the ASSET vote. The in-state tuition for undocumented.... or illegals. And he actually came to visit me the morning before that vote, brought me a letter and basically said please vote for this. It's really important and I really want it. And I think we need to do this. It's good for the Hispanic people. Blah blah blah blah. And really I went into that vote open-minded, thinking okay let's see if there is something constitutionally we can do here. And they never found that. It was never there. Well then I hear...I overheard a Democrat [sic] commissioner talking to another commissioner hearing that while they were working on the maps, Carrera was discussing with people that he was upset with my vote on ASSET. And then I heard from a couple commissioners that he directly told them that he was mad about my vote on ASSET. So when I got my first map drawn, the primarily adopted, I am like wow ok so this is true, it's working. But the new map with Carrera, and they dumped a 70 percent Democrat [sic] voting margin group in and took out my highest Republican voting margin. It was very obvious that he was playing the partisan game.
CLARK: So not to put words in your mouth. I'll let you finish this Rep. Ramirez, but in your opinion you believe that pretty much everything he has been doing is been from a I'm mad at you for this, I'm mad at you for that, how dare you question me on this, and moving towards vindictiveness. And he is using the maps to get back at people he's mad at.
RAMIREZ: Well, if you look, Ken Summers originally the only people that were really badly damaged that he could do anything with on the original maps were Republicans who had voted against the ASSET bill. And now it's just, how dare you go against my word, so I'm really going to mess with you. I think it is. I think his pride has got in the way. And it's unfortunate because I truly thought that he was a man of integrity. And he is proving that not so.
WORLEY: So now we can use M for Vendetta. M for Vendetta, we'll have a new movie title going. Mario for Vendetta.
RAMIREZ: The main thing I wanted to say was, I wanted to thank Mario Nicolais. I wanted to thank the people who were actually trying to do their job. The Republicans that are on there. And it's not a just a partisan thing. I've watched them, I've listened to them. And when you go to one of these meetings and you see the eye rolling of Atencio, Web, Matt...oh gosh...Matt Jones and Carroll. I mean literally, whenever a Republican or a conservative or a non-Democrat would say anything at these meetings they just [sign noise], roll their eyes, and really disrespect them. You never saw that from the people on the Republican side. They would get back at them.
WORLEY: I have heard Ms. Atencio is kind of nasty.
RAMIREZ: Oh absolutely. Without saying. I want to say that I appreciate the commissioners that are in there really trying to really be honest and hold true to the Constitution. Because the original map they gave me wasn't a better map. It was a little worse than when I ran last year. But it was an honest map. And it followed the rules like you guys were saying earlier. We follow the rules. We go out there and try to do what's right and then every time the Democrats...and we know they are going to do it, sweep in the last minute with lies.