SquareState - Mike Rosen

President Barack Obama ran - and Won Again - as a Progressive

Zappatero — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 19:47:08 GMT

The anti-tax radical Grover Norquist, and all those fooled by various far-right-wing radio snake-oil salesmen (thank you Peter Boyles and Mike Rosen!), will disagree, but dollars to donuts you can't find an objective, sane analyst that denies the President, and Democrats across the nation, won as Progressive candidates running on Progressive values:

If there is a single plank in the Democratic platform on which Obama can claim to have won, it is taxing the rich.
Obama ignored vast swaths of his agenda, barely mentioning climate change or education reform, but by God did he hammer home the fact that his winning would bring higher taxes on the rich. He raised it so relentlessly that at times it seemed out of proportion even to me, and I wrote a book on the topic. But polls consistently showed the public was on his side.
Obama's goal was to prove to the GOP that their rigid defense of the richest one percent was political poison and to force them to bend. For now, at least, their same monomaniacal refusal to increase any taxes on the rich is leading Republicans to deny any connection between the tax issue and Obama's victory. ...
The harsh truth that fend-for-yourself economic libertarianism is a worldview mainly confined to the shrinking, aging white electorate is a reality Republicans prefer not to acknowledge.
...
Of course, what the people want is all fairly beside the point now. What matters in Washington is power and leverage-two things that accrued dramatically in Obama's favor last week.
But it's not irrelevant that American voters had a chance to lay down their marker on the major social divide of our time: whether government can mitigate the skyrocketing inequality generated by the marketplace....
Here it was, right before our eyes: a class war, or the closest thing one might find to one in modern American history, as a presidential election. The outcome was plain.
The 47 percent turned out to be the 51 percent.

We won one battle in a class war that his been waged by Republicans, won by Millionaires and Billionaires for years.

Time to boldly take that victory bull by the horns as Republicans have never been hesitant to do.

Rosen tells caller, who admitted committing voter fraud, to consider lying to authorities

Jason Salzman — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:22:27 GMT

KOA's Mike Rosen began his radio show this morning in Denver by saying the left is unconcerned about "unethical, illegal, immoral behavior" and therefore willing to commit election fraud.

Then, in the next hour, Rosen suggested that a caller, who admitted forging the name of his son on a mail-in ballot, lie to authorities in order to avoid penalties.

To Rosen's credit, he told the caller he did the wrong thing, and he should probably report the fraud, which allegedly resulted in his son's voting twice for Romney.

But Rosen apparently forgot what he said earlier about conservatives being all law-abiding and the left being a bunch of liars.

So, Rosen actually did what he accused the left of doing, by suggesting the caller lie to authorities to avoid being charged with election fraud, most likely a felony.
Here's what Rosen said in hour one:

Rosen: The left imagines that the ends justify the means, which is why their unethical, illegal, immoral behavior, is not judged by them, as they rationalize, as any of those things, because the ends justify the means. Republicans tend to be more civil and constrained by the law and decorum.

Here's Rosen's conversation in hour three:

Brian: Hey Mike, I got a little dilemma here. I get the ballots by mail, and two of my kids are away at school.
Rosen: Yeah.
Brian: And you know being a good dad, I voted for them. I know you're not supposed to do that.
Rosen: You signed? You forged their name? On the mail-in ballot?
Brian: I'm afraid I did.
Rosen: You shouldn't do that.
Brian: I know. Well, I did do that, and because they asked me to last year.
Rosen: It doesn't matter [laughing]. You can't do that. It's illegal, what you did.
Brian: Well, I did use a fake name, by the way. But--
Rosen: What do you mean a fake name. You have to sign the name of the registrant.
Brian: Yeah, but it's just kind of scribbly. But let me ask you, so that's done. I know it was stupid. It won't happen again.
Rosen: Yeah.
Brian: But I just talked to my son and he's so happy he voted. He voted for Romney. So he voted for Romney twice. What do you think I ought to do?
Rosen: You ought to do the right thing. Call your county clerk and explain the situation. I don't know if you want to confess that you forged the signature [laughs]. I don't know what the penalty for that is. You can claim ignorance and say that your son told you to sign his name. But what you've done is wrong. [laughing] I don't know what kind of advice I can give you.
Brian: Do you think it's going to come out in the wash?
Rosen: I don't know. I don't know what processes are in place to record a double-counted vote. I mean, given the computers, it shouldn't be that tough.
Brian: Ok. All right. I think I'll call --- who is it I should call?
Rosen: Well, your county clerk and recorder. You might--you can call the Secretary of State's Office for guidance. And maybe don't give your name. [laughing]
Brian: [laughing] No, I won't.
Rosen: I don't know if you have a 5th Amendment problem here, for self-incrimination, but you haven't been sworn. So anyhow, so how did your son come to vote, if you had his absentee ballot?
Brian: [laughing]. I don't know. I don't know. He said he voted.
Rosen: Now this sounds strange to me. What vehicle would he have used to vote?
Brian: I assume he--
Rosen: Is he out of town?
Brian: Yeah.
Rosen: So he didn't show up at a polling place for an early vote?
Brian: I think he did.
Rosen: Oh.
Brian: I think he did. Like I said, I was just talking to him about the election. He said, 'Oh I already voted.'
Rosen: And so where does he live, your son?
Brian: Ummm. He's in Gunnison.
Rosen: So he's in Colorado.
Brian: Yeah.
Rosen: Hmmm. What's his voting precinct?
Brian: I have no idea.
Rosen: What's his legal address?
Brian: Good--His legal address is here in Denver.
Rosen: Well how's he voting in Gunnison?
Brian: I don't know. That's a good question.
Rosen: A lot of things we don't know about this. But as a lesson, everybody else, don't do this kind of stuff.
Brian: Ok. Public Service.
Rosen: Thanks for your call.

A message for the Job Creators and Mike Rosen on their "class warfare" lie

Zappatero — Sun, 04 Nov 2012 00:37:22 GMT

Well, and a message for Economic Austerians Mark Udall and Michael Bennet for that matter.

"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own."

Many of the 1%-ers are too greedy to want to pay forward a debt to the very society that enabled them to become wealthy. Yeah, there are bigger markets in China and India. But while the Billionaires and Millionaires might like paying their workers 1/10^th the wages of American workers I don't see them rushing off to live in those places where their ideal worker has to live and raise a family on the pittance they would offer.

UPDATE: Let me just add that the more I read Mike Rosen the more I realize he's just another threatened White Guy lashing out at his Enemies with lies, threatening Armageddon every day the White Male Oligarchy he belongs to shows its age, and using any and all grammatical constructions in use and available to persuade his listeners of our sickness, depravity, and unworthiness of living in the same America he does.

Post publishes Mike Rosen's most Specious, Fact-free, Thoughtless and Truly Sad column...ever

Zappatero — Sat, 03 Nov 2012 20:37:22 GMT

In addition to his full-time gig at 850KOA, Mike Rosen has the rare privilege of being published regularly in the Denver Post. He's a titan among Denver's media, "liberal" or otherwise.

The sad thing is the Post probably paid good money for his latest tired column that trashes Barack Obama using worn-out, fact-free insults while barely mustering a sentence of misleading praise for Mitt Romney.

Let's take a look:

The Denver presidential debate was a crucial turning point in this year's election. There have been many signs of desperation in the Obama campaign since then, both big and small.
The belligerent attitude of Joe Biden and Barack Obama in the subsequent debates is a prime example. That may have stirred the animal spirits of Obama stalwarts, but it's been a turn-off for moderate swing voters, especially women.

As they say, politics ain't beanbag. Nor is debating for the highest office in the land. The fact that Obama was very docile in the first debate is a mistake everyone admitted. Did it stir our "animial spirits"? Fight or flight? I say yes.

We've been fighting modern Republican ignorance and obstinance for ~~4 solid~~ 30-plus years.

'Bout time BO joined us.

The luster and the novelty have worn off. Beneath a cool veneer, Obama is a brutish politician tutored in the Chicago School, not Mr. Nice Guy.

Yeah, sure. OTOH, maybe it took Chicago tough to counter the Muslim, Socialist, anti-business, anti-American lies that Rosen and Friends have repeated since Obama's election.

[N]ow that more voters are seeing Mitt Romney up close and personal for themselves they're growing to like him.

The rarified air of those 850 studios, with Rush blasting into your brain at all hours, cannot be good for your sanity or our reality, eh Mike? Voters, especially women are reacting to Republicans' politcal assaults as you'd expect. I cheer them on!

A recent "unofficial" Obama campaign ad directed at young women displays desperation of a more squalid nature. The ad features Lena Dunham, who ... likens the act of voting for Obama with that of a young-woman voter having sex.

Here's the vid that got Rosen's ummmmm, dander up.

Pretty tame, actually. It gets to relevant political issues immediately, and the last thing I thought of was sex. But Mike is still threatened, bless his little heart, and projects his and his party's low regard for young women onto us:

[T]he style of it betrays a low regard for the intelligence of the young women it's targeting. Apparently, Obama partisans will stoop to any depths to pander for votes.

Like Mitt's lie that Jeep is sending jobs to China? Only one side does it in Mike Rosen's world.

Then Mike coins an acronym for the disease of liberalism, of which Obama has only shown fleeting signs, let alone "transmitted".

By that I mean politically transmitted diseases, the worst of which is life-long dependency on government handouts.

Hmmm, a lifetime gig on the public's airwaves, given to billion-dollar corporations at pennies on the dollar, for the profit and propaganda of its owners is a nice one, too. (And no, that wasn't "envy".)

This is what Democrats have been spreading for decades, ever since FDR and the New Deal, to expand their voting base.

Mike ignores all that "depression" stuff. No 1%-ers ever needed help from the stinking government in his world.

In his four years as president, Barack Obama has been a bad chief executive, lacking in managerial experience or ability and ineffective in getting along with others - like Republicans in Congress - to forge public policy compromises.

Not even close to reality. Mike, please see assasination of terrorist Osama bin Laden, how Obama has been praised for response to Hurricane Sandy, and the conveniently ignored plot by national Republican leaders to obstruct Obama from the day of his inaugural. How do you compromise with liars who have dedicated themselves to your failure?

(I guess we'll see how far the bipartisan ship bridge is when lame ducks Udall and Bennet forge on, with bipartisan Republican support, to a great betrayal after Tuesday's election.)

James Walcott reminds of the traitorous scene that no Republican can, or will ever, deny...

The Daily Beast:
The 15 Republicans were in a somber mood as they gathered at the Caucus Room in Washington, an upscale restaurant where a New York strip steak costs $51.
Attending the dinner were House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. From the Senate were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign (adulterer and extortionist) and Jon Kyl. Others present were former House Speaker and future - and failed - presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the Republican strategist Frank Luntz, who organised the dinner and sent out the invitations.
The session lasted four hours and by the end the sombre mood had lifted: they had conceived a plan. They would take back the House in November 2010, which they did, and use it as a spear to mortally wound Obama in 2011 and take back the Senate and White House in 2012.
"We've gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign."
The Republicans have done that, bringing Washington to a near standstill several times during Obama's first term over debt and other issues.

Their locked-shut buttocks will unclench of course should Mitt Romney be elected, at which point they'll be passing legislation like street hawkers handing out strip-club flyers. Every bill will be named after Reagan or some other sentimental favorite.

A couple more Rosen lies to close it out:

The centerpiece of the Obama campaign, which started the day he took office, has been class warfare and the politics of envy.
Obama himself has an inherent distrust of private enterprise and business along with unbridled, though unmerited, faith in the proficiency and benevolence of government.
(Rosen's a mind reader!)
He confuses ambition with greed, success with exploitation, and covetousness for the property of others with entitlement and social justice.

The only evidence of any of that is deep in Mike's lizard brain where his White Male Privilege is kept as a fuzzy memory.

Did Mike phone this one in, or what? Did Sirota find a chink in Rosen's armor by calling him a motherfucker. He's close, but even I don't think Rosen's that bad. After all, a guy's gotta make a living somehow.

What explains the tired repetition of provably false claims and specious insults? Pangs of guilt? Second thoughts by a far-right ideologue?

Never. Not when there's another bullshit column to be had. Not when when you can sleep-write this tripe and still get paid easy money by the liberal media. Not in Mike Rosen's world.

That's not a Right-Wing Talk-Radio Host You Hear. It's our Sec. of State!

Jason Salzman — Thu, 19 Jul 2012 15:43:09 GMT

As Secretary of State Scott Gessler's term drags on, you'd think even KOA's conservative talk-show host Mike Rosen would get sick of it when Gessler re-launches the partisan attacks he's been leveling since day one in office.

It's gotten to the point that you'd think even the Rosens of the world would ask Gessler to take his elected position, as the overseer of fair elections, seriously, instead of sounding like... Mike Rosen!

But I know it's a fantasy to expect this type of thinking from Rosen. In fact, you can hear the approval in Rosen's voice when Gessler is on the show and he trashes Democrats.

For example, on Rosen's show last week, Rosen read Gessler a Denver Post quote from Joanne Kron Schwartz, the Director of the progressive group ProgressNow, saying that Gessler's attempt to find noncitizens on the voter rolls could intimidate some eligible voters, particularly Latinos, and result in their not voting.

A normal Secretary of State, who wants people to have faith in elections, would answer Schwartz's reasonable objection with facts.

But Gessler isn't normal, and his immediate response sounds like something Rush Limbaugh might blast out.

"Unfortunately this is part of the left's common tactic," Gessler told Rosen, "just to scream voter intimidation whenever anything comes up they don't like."

Let me just say, I'm part of the left and I don't scream voter intimidation "whenever anything comes up" that I don't like. I never scream it at my 15-year-old son, for example, when he leaves a pig-pen-like trail of debris around the house.
Gessler's un-statesmanship continued, with Rosen's approval:

Gessler: "I mean if you look back, back in 2004, you know, the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign actually published a Colorado election-day manual, and in that, they specifically said, if no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a preemptive strike. And they go through a whole list of things where the Democrats are supposed to launch a preemptive strike, accusing Republicans of intimidation, rounding up minority people. And that's their word. It says, quote minority leadership denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting. So it's really sort of a cynical way for the Democrats to try and rile up, and I should say the left as well, to rile up their base by making these accusations whether or not there are any facts to support it."

Even if you accept Gessler's facts about the Kerry-Edwards campaign, and if you read the manual you find Gessler's fact to be wrong, do you really want your secretary of state to dismiss a historically legitimate concern about voter intimidation by accusing Democrats of cynically riling up their base?

It's this sort of brazen partisanship that, at the end of the day, is Gessler's core downfall as Secretary of State, epitomized in Gessler's quote to the Greeley Tribune about his job: "You're here to do something, to further the conservative viewpoint."

We can disagree with Gessler's loose-with-the-facts style, and policy initiatives, which the liberal group ProgressNow has catalogued in a new website called GesslerWatch.com.

But Gessler's sullying of the office is what kills me most--and should even kill a guy like Rosen, who has moments of being civic-minded.

"You have to sort of wonder at the motivations," Gessler said later in the Rosen interview, speculating about the evil leftists that seem to haunt him. "I think a lot of times, what they are trying to do is play the race card, play the disenfranchisement card, and use it as a political talking point to rile up their base."

A right-wing talk show host couldn't have said it better. Too bad it's our Secretary of State talking.

Mike Rosen will loooooooove this

Zappatero — Mon, 09 Jul 2012 15:40:20 GMT

Stupid, lazy slackers should beware:

Ignoring a federal judge's injunction, Scranton, Pennsylvania moved ahead with its plan to reduce the pay of city workers to the federal minimum wage starting Friday. Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty claims the city is broke and that the minimum wage payments are all it can possibly pay, the Scranton Times Tribune reports:
Amid Scranton's ever-deepening financial crisis, Mayor Chris Doherty said his administration is going forward with a plan to unilaterally slash the pay of 398 workers to the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour with today's payroll, insisting it is all the city can afford.
That will likely earn administration officials an appointment with Judge Michael Barrasse, who granted the city's police, fire and public works unions a special injunction temporarily barring the administration from imposing the pay cuts after a brief hearing Thursday.
Many of those workers are police officers, firefighters, and other public safety workers, industries that have been slammed by contractions in state and local budgets since the Great Recession. Congressional Do-Nothing, Tea Party Republicans repeatedly blocked efforts to extend aid to the states that would have helped shore up their budgets and keep these workers on payroll.

Rosen hates unions, though he may be in AFTRA for his job, so he'll applaud the screws being turned in Scranton. What the anti-tax, anti-union, anti-government crowd never takes into account is that these are the people who arrest criminals, keep your house and business from burning down, and make sure your streets are paved and your sewers aren't backing up into your basement.

But when you live in a million-dollar gated community you don't have to worry about such things, do you?

Rosen's baseless lies about Obama refudiated by Post Editor, Media Matters, Columbia Journo Review

Zappatero — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 07:07:15 GMT

Mike Rosen's baseless lies about President Obama, and the slander contained therein, were thoroughly rejected by Curtis Hubbard, the Editor of the Denver Post Opinion Page:

Mike Rosen charged in his column on Thursday that the president "apologized to the world for our foreign policy."
Given the fervency with which this position is held by many on the right, it's worth pointing out that it's not supported by facts.

The Post's Hubbard continued:

That's not just my opinion. It's also the conclusion reached by multiple fact-checkers who have investigated the claim.

Media Matters also took note of Rosen's piece of crap column that the Post didn't have to, and shouldn't have, published. Media Matters refers to the Columbia Journalism Review article that states in its headline - "Denver Post shows what not to do":

For a sense of what not to do, meanwhile, check out the website of The Denver Post. The Post's coverage area has recently seen what might be called a "birther lite" controversy, sparked when incumbent Republican Rep. Mike Coffman said this to supporters: "I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that. But I do know this, that in his heart, he's not an American. He's just not an American." [...]
[The Denver Post's] credibility took a further hit thanks to the paper's decision to publish on Thursday a column by Mike Rosen, an AM radio host at Denver's KOA, under the headline "Mike Coffman was right about Obama in the first place."
Much of the column is devoted to agreeing with Coffman's statement that Obama is not an American "in his heart," and to pillorying the president with a barrage of culture-war epithets: "leftist academic ideologues, blame-America-firsters and would-be revolutionaries," etc., etc.
To my eye, it's poor writing and poor political argument, but if the Post wants to make sure the Fox & Friends niche is represented in its opinion pages, that's the paper's choice.

Unfortunately, the Post is probably driven by that very need. I have a feeling the editors still can't shake the assumption that the halfway point between Democrats and Republicans is where the common sense center lives. Republicans pushed us off that cliff years ago.

Did we need printed proof of Mike Rosen's proud ignorance by way of the Post? Isn't 15 hours per week enough? I'm glad he did the deed - the smackdown has been universal. And the fact that Mike Coffman - and Mike Rosen - are both birthers is on the record and beyond doubt.

Mike Rosen's irrational hatred of our Democratically-elected, African-American President

Zappatero — Thu, 31 May 2012 20:11:00 GMT

Poor Mike Rosen just can't help himself. And he can't help but inflame his high-motivation, low-information voter/listeners. Rosen says today that Mike Coffman was correct in his slander and lies about Barack Obama. Since these guys are going after so many aspects of Obama's presidency, and COPols has proven Rosen is by definition a "birther", let's just look at another Obama criticism: the hyperbolic and completely irrational charge that Barack Obama (and all his constituents and supporters - that's you and me, folks) are European Socialists with a hidden Hatred of America.

Of course, no amount of evidence, no rational discussions, no comparisons of policies across the world will convince Rosen and his listeners otherwise. Nothing will stop the irrational hatred of a man who is implementing many fairly conservative (note: dictionary definition) policies, many of which were supported by Republicans in their own form or as policies before Obama also endorsed them.

Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Don't confuse this definition with the definition of "government" or "society" in general. If we have no rules, no common reference for acceptable behavior, we have anarchy -- which no one here advocates.

No socialism there. No socialism anywhere that Rosen can find or prove.
No one is trying to take away anyone's wealth. No one is proposing we tax the Forbes 400 List into poverty (though many among Rosen's listeners will make the accusation). Certainly no one with any power has proposed we take over the thieving banks or polluting energy companies or monopolistic media companies.

But none of these facts will change anything in this debate. Nothing. Never. No-how....will change the mind of Mike Rosen or anyone who claims Obama is Socialist.

And for our Democratic elected leaders please note: these are the people with whom you are negotiating to implement effective policies and with whom you eternally desire to be bipartisan.

A partisan commentator gap in the Denver news media

Jason Salzman — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:42:47 GMT

If you look at Denver media, you find way more partisan support for Republicans than Democrats.

I'm not talking about "conservative" media figures versus "progressive" ones. I'm talking about media types who urge people to vote Republican.

Here is my list of Denver media figures who are partisan Republicans:

Freeland Denver Post columnists John Andrews and Mike Rosen (also on KOA); Michael Brown, KOA; Ross Kaminsky, KOA; Jon Caldara, KHOW; Dan Caplis, KHOW; Steve Kelley, KNUS; Jimmy Sengenberger, KNUS.

As for partisan Democrats in the Denver media, I can't think of any. Can you?
AM 760's David Sirota, who no longer appears regularly in The Post, is a leftist, but he trashes Democrats repeatedly, even saying last year he didn't "give a shit" about who's elected president this year. KHOW's Craig Silverman, who will argue with GOP-talking-head Caplis on KHOW, wanted to attend GOP caucus meetings because of his love for Mitt Romney.

In my tally of partisan Republican media figures, I'm not even counting Denver Post columnist Vincent Carroll, who predictably sides with Republicans.

Carroll doesn't say, outright, to vote Republican or that he favors Republicans, though he routinely attacks Democrats and their initiatives.

Similarly, left-leaning Post freelance columnists Ed Quillen and Susan Barnes-Gelt don't tell us to vote Democratic or to support Dems. Same with Littwin, when he was at The Post.

In contrast, Post freelance columnists John Andrews and Mike Rosen don't hide their partisan support for Republicans.

Andrews' column can look like it's a memo to the GOP faithful, as it did in the Post in October:

"I have no foresight about how the race will go, other than to implore my fellow Republicans against overconfidence in the face of President Obama's potent incumbency and billion-dollar war chest."

Rosen, is unabashed partisan Republican, whose partisan support for the Republican party is boring. In a February Post column endorsing Romney, Rosen described himself "as a philosophical, principled, right-leaning, Reagan Republican."

He wrote:

"I see trillions of dollars' worth of difference between Republican supply-siders who want to balance the budget within our tax capacity, and left-wing Keynesians, like Paul Krugman, who boast trillion-dollar deficits are an economic stimulus, and want to double up. There are stark differences when it comes to energy, labor unions, social policy, education and, most important, limited government. Democrats are inherent statists."

I asked Wesword's Latest Word blogger Michael Roberts, who writes about media issues frequently, if he could think of a local media figure who's a partisan Democrat.

"You certainly have a few not-entirely conservative voices," he told me, citing AM 760's David Sirota. But he describes Sirota as "not a guy who says you must go out and vote for the Democrats."

"If there's an example out there, the equivalent of a Jon Caldara or something, I can't think of it right now."

Neither could right-leaning media-type Kelly Maher.

Reached by phone, the always-quotable John Andrews told me his Denver Post column was established when Andrews went to then Post Publisher Dean Singleton in 2004 and told him that The Post's commentary page lacked partisan Republicans.

Andrews said:

"I went to Dean Singleton and said, I see Gail Schoettler has a column in the newspaper. Wouldn't it be fair if I had a similar platform? But I haven't seen anything from Schoettler in a long time."

So now the opposite is true, I told Andrews. Partisan Democrats are needed at the Post for basic fairness.

"If your thesis is that there is an asymmetry, I would say there probably is," Andrews said. "It's partly a result of Democrats having decided that they are not going to be as out there saying their party is good. That partly accounts for the fact that you get a lot of liberal voices, but they are not saying, I'm a Democrat and proud of it."

Andrews says this is a strategy by Democrats, like former legislator Ken Gordon, to get more Democrats elected, by pretending political parties are a bad thing and "it's all about good government." But political parties enhance civil society, Andrews said.

In any case, whatever the reason, there's obviously a partisan commentator gap out there in the Denver media. You'd like to think the radio station executives in town would look to the greater good and create at least one itsy bitsy slot for a partisan local Dem, but this won't happen.

The Post is another matter. Its commentary page shouldn't favor partisan Republican over partisan Democratic columnists. More on The Post in a future blog post.

Gessler's false statements baffle County Clerks, not Mike Rosen

Zappatero — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:28:19 GMT

The Republo-Conservative conspiracy to reduce and suppress voting by likely Democrats continues. Civil Rights activists are fighting back, rejoining a fight they had bravely won almost 50 years ago. Courts and the Justice Department are striking down the first wave of those discriminatory laws in Wisconsin, South Carolina and Texas.

The unethical acts and false claims of our Republican Secretary of State, Scott Gessler, Colorado's Ambassador to Kochistan and its ALEC-written laws, have proven baffling even to Republican County Clerks around the state:

"I really have no idea what he is talking about," Republican Mesa County Clerk and Recorder Sheila Reiner told the Colorado Independent.
Reiner was referring to allegations made again recently by Secretary of State Scott Gessler that non-citizens are registered to vote in the state. Reiner said she has asked Gessler in the past to share what he knows so that she and the other clerks in the state can address any potential problem. She said that, in roughly the year that has passed since he first brought up the issue, details from Gessler's office have not materialized.
"I asked for the lists when I first heard about this. I haven't gotten any information. I just don't know," she said.

Gessler doesn't know what he's talking about, either. Mike Rosen, siding with Gessler and clinging to the wrong side of history, insists there is a problem and recently used the Post to expound:

There's no valid reason not to protect the integrity of our voting process with an inexpensive, basic technology like a photo ID. And contrary to the hollow, contrived, self-serving objections of the deniers, there's no reasonable downside.

Rosen is wrong. The Wisconsin judge reminded us of our Founders:

"A government that undermines the very foundation of its existence - the people's inherent, pre-constitutional right to vote - imperils its legitimacy as a government by the people, for the people, and especially of the people."

There is a downside, and it is not reasonable. These photo ID laws have and will disenfranchise soldiers, the elderly, recent immigrants, the poor and others. To an almost non-existent problem Republican Legislators and voting officials continue to propose this onerous fix. Rabid partisans like Rosen amplify their lies. But when those who administer elections at the local level, even Republicans, see no problem, then we know that those like Gessler and "Mouthpiece" Mike Rosen should move on, and let everyone who wants to vote legally vote.

We might even get a competent Secretary of State out of the deal.

Suthers says legal mandate to offer basic public education to undocumented kids is bogus

Jason Salzman — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 20:15:06 GMT

KOA's Mike Rosen agreed with Colorado Attorney General John Suthers Thursday that the legal decision forcing states to offer a grade-school education to undocumented children is bogus.

If you don't think this tidbit deserves to be my first blog post of the week, you would be wrong.

Here's what Suthers had to say on the topic, which came up during a discussion of the ASSET bill, granting a tuition break to children of illegal immigrants, which Suthers called the "a complete run around" of two federal statutes:

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers: For some incredible reason, in 1982, the United States Supreme Court in a case called Plyler v. Doe, I think it was a San Antonio case, said any child regardless of immigration status is eligible for a free primary or secondary education. I've never been able to find that in the United States Constitution, but they said it's in the 14th Amendment.
Rosen: Yes, which was all about slavery by the way, but that's another story.

The federal requirement to give a basic education to all children, regardless of immigration status, is a long-settled legal matter.

No reporter, no teacher, no chef, no mom, no dad, not even a Republican talk-radio host, should let Colorado's top-dog lawyer trash this Supreme Court's decision in favor of undocumented kids without any discussion or scrutiny whatsoever.

Too much is at stake. We're talking about grade-school education for some of the most vulnerable children in our country. And Suthers's unsympathetic tone on Rosen's radio show seems to show that it's not just the legal issues that bother him, but the notion that children of illegal immigrants should be offered a public-school education in the world's richest nation.

Rosen should have Suthers back on his radio show to illuminate more details on this topic, and, meanwhile, Rosen should bring a guest on air who will defend the basic humanity -- and legal reasoning -- for giving undocumented children a public-school education.

Rush Limbaugh raped the goose that laid the Golden Egg

Zappatero — Sat, 10 Mar 2012 19:53:24 GMT

The joys of the Free Market are few and far between for those of us in the 99%, but it looks like we are seeing a prime example now courtesy of Rush Limbaugh, Little Limbaughs everywhere, and a weak-willed Republican party that fears him more than they fear Iran. Think Progress has the gory details:

Premiere Networks is circulating a list of 98 advertisers who want to avoid "environments likely to stir negative sentiments."
"To all Traffic Managers: The information below applies to your Premiere Radio Networks commercial inventory...They've specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity).'

You'll notice Randi Rhodes is not on the list, because she actually criticizes both parties and does not lie. You'll also notice Premier states the program directors already know those in question are offensive - interesting. Tom Leykis, out of L.A., used to be really good - until the right-wing money became too hard to resist. Mike Rosen never went as far as his KOA neighbor Rush. And though he still lies regularly, he may be the prime beneficiary of Rush's ruin.

But I am hoping David Sirota, who already has more listeners than Peter Boyles (on the 3rd Clear Channel station in Denver) picks up the pieces. And while Boyles still hosts racists like Joe Arpaio (bonus - Peter had him on to accuse The President of being a Foreigner), Sirota is willing to criticize any public official who falls down on the job, and he doesn't need to lie to do it. That's a solid value that advertisers can surely appreciate.

Should we ignore the talk-radio crazies?

Jason Salzman — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:37:09 GMT

The media frenzy around Rush Limbaugh's "slut" comment last week, referring to a woman who believes birth control should be offered as part of her health insurance plan, makes you wonder whether we should ignore the right-wing whackadoos on the radio.

Obviously, insults run deep on the conservative airwaves, and you might think, about anything Limbaugh says, what else is new?

Limbaugh hit a nerve last week, but Rush-like comments aren't uncommon from radio hosts in Colorado, too. And all over the country.

Should the major media, or the minor progressive media critic like me, ignore them, given the relatively tiny audiences who listen?
The Denver Post's Joanne Ostrow wrote a good piece a couple weeks ago laying out different explanations for why conservatives dominate on talk radio and TV.

But she didn't address the question of whether they deserve the attention of reporters, like her or me.

Should progressive journalists listen to their shows, shine the sun of the blogoshphere on what they're saying, and hope the attention stops their insensitivity/hate/insults from infecting others and spreading underground? The assumption here is that educating the wider public about his stuff is a good thing.

Or does the light of day simply allow the worst of conservative talk to gain strength? The assumption being that publicity help these jokers get more people to listen to them.

But before we get to those questions, here are possible explanations, offered by Ostrow for why talk radio and TV is dominated by conservatives: 1) the right is more hate-filled, and the angrier the rhetoric, the more people gravitate to it in the talk format, and 2) conservatives own more radio conglomerates, which provide the infrastructure that the left lacks.

I'm not sure what the reason is, but I tend to agree with Michael Harrison, publisher of Talkers Magazine, whom Ostrow quoted her article:

Harrison of Talkers magazine believes conservatives dominate, "because the conservative audience is easier to target than the liberal audience."
Listeners of a conservative bent, who feel alienated and disenfranchised by big media, Hollywood and academia, represent "a perfect mind-set for radio, a niche medium, to target an audience that will be loyal," Harrison says. "They're seeking validation."
Harrison, who avers he is apolitical and speaks only as a broadcast expert, says, "the conservative audience mind-set is much more cohesive and uniform, whereas "liberal" is a broader term that takes in many different political philosophies, ethnicities, voting habits, socio-economic classes. It's not as cohesive a unit."

Ostrow reports that even though most of the radio airwaves are filled with righties ("Conservative talk radio rules 90 percent of the political airwaves today."), Denver's David Sirota pulls a cumulative weekly audience of 115,000 on AM760, beating KHOW's Peter Boyles by 2,000 listeners. But Sirota trails KOA's Mike Rosen by 30,000 listeners.

At the end of her piece, Ostrow writes that the "titans of talk actually draw tiny niche audiences."

That would include Rush Limbaugh. In other words, their voices are loud and shrill, but few real people are listening.

Unless, of course, a righty talker like Limbaugh ignites a media frenzy like he did last week. Then his audience is massive.

So this leads back to the question, should we ignore our local Colorado yappers when they get ugly (e.g., Democrat Donna Brazile as "ignorant slut," and Michele Obama as "Chewbacca," kill all Iranians, Katrina victims who didn't leave deserved their fate, etc. )

Or is the silent treatment the best way to fight back?

If you follow my blog, you know I'm on the side of listening and exposing them. That's why I follow these talk shows and write about the misinformation, omissions, and rudeness you find there (not all the time, for sure, but too often).

I like to think that pulicizing the latest talk-radio outrage, and possibly educating some people about it, undermines the audience for it in the long run, though maybe a few more people are drawn to it in the short term.

Limbaugh's idiocy last week proved my point. Now more people are educated about birth control, women, and Rush. More will dismiss the Limbaughs of the world when they say insulting or outrageous things about women who expect birth control to be covered by their health insurance. (OK, I knew, Republican Greg Brophy stands behind the substance of Limbaugh's comments, but still.,)

Limbaugh and his anti-woman cause lost ground last week--and advertisers.

And eventually Limbaugh and his allies in Colorado will lose their audience and their jobs, as they become more and more irrelevant, right? Or is that wishful thinking?

Old News: Stock returns significantly higher under Democratic Presidents

Zappatero — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:19:08 GMT

He's no socialist, like Clear-Channel spokesman Mike Rosen alleged. President Barack Obama is too conservative and has defaulted to too many DC formulas for my tastes, but has generally led as a common-sense, socially-moderate, somewhat-conservative Republican. This frames the RosenClones' constant assault against a rambunctious Dow Jones average that energetically bounds the 13,000 mark.

The Dow was at 8182 when Bush left office.

Of course, the unrequited bipartisanship, the deferred goals of the left, and the constant pandering to Congressional Republicans is still completely unacceptable to today's Republicans who have spun completely off the rails and are presently planting their brand into history's graveyard. While they go down fighting, lying, whining, and dividing, further proof Democrats are better at economic issues is undeniable:

The stock market has been flirting with 13,000 for days, a level at which it has not closed since 2008. As ThinkProgress' Scott Keyes reported, Republicans have been at pains to explain why President Obama deserves no credit for the Dow's rebound (even though the GOP was quite willing to blame Obama when the Dow tanked in 2008 and 2009).
But as it turns out, Obama is not the only Democratic President under whom the stock market has done well for investors. A Bloomberg Government report shows that since the 1960′s, stocks have done significantly better under Democratic administrations than under Republican ones:
The BGOV Barometer shows that, over the five decades since John F. Kennedy was inaugurated, $1,000 invested in a hypothetical fund that tracks the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (SPX) only when Democrats are in the White House would have been worth $10,920 at the close of trading yesterday.
That's more than nine times the dollar return an investor would have realized from following a similar strategy during Republican administrations. A $1,000 stake invested in a fund that followed the S&P 500 under Republican presidents, starting with Richard Nixon, would have grown to $2,087 on the day George W. Bush left office.

For those that believe money does buy happiness (re: Economic Republicans), that should be proof enough. For those who lie about Democrats as their day gig, they'll continue to ignore the truth. The rest of us don't need to be told again....

(h/t ThinkProgress)

Unconcerned about very poor? Then expanding Medicaid is "very radical"

Jason Salzman — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:08:17 GMT

Even people like Colorado Sen. Greg Brophy, who's told me he's willing to put the health, and even lives, of poverty-stricken kids at risk by charging more for state health insurance, says it's hard to decide what to do about Medicaid, given the complexities involved and the struggles of the poor, especially kids.

That's the tenor of the debate about cutting Medicaid in Colorado. It's not like the Republicans want to do it, we read in the media, because they know that cutting money for poor people can cause hardship, sickness, and even death.

But there's a budget problem (assuming we don't want to raise taxes on the vulnerable 1 percent) and, besides, skin should be inserted in the game.

When Mitt Romney changes the tone of the conversation about poverty, and says brazenly, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," that's news.

And rightly so, because in America, we're supposed to care about each other, and our country is supposed to provide basic opportunity for everyone, right? And, as the debate about Medicaid shows, no one's saying, let the poor get sick and die.

But what about proposals to expand Medicaid? These proposals save lives, yet politicians go around trashing the Medicaid-expansion aspects of Obamacare day in and day out, with near media immunity, as if saving poverty-stricken Americans from sickness and death is so outrageous.
You don't have to search very hard to find examples, but I'll use one from Rep. Mike Coffman, who, as I've written, deserves more media scrutiny now that he's in a competitive district.

Coffman told Mike Rosen during the debate on health care that "there are some very radical elements to [Obamacare] such as the expansion of Medicaid, a government run healthcare program."

Very radical elements? Sounds like communists are hiding in the bill, but Rosen treated the statement like normal air.

It turns out that, from perspective of anyone who is concerned about the very poor, Republicans and Democrats alike, the Medicaid expansion in Obamacare isn't so radical.

It sets a national standard for Medicaid eligibility at 133 percent of the poverty level, which amounts to about $30,000 for a family of four, according to Elisabeth Arenales, Health Program Director at Colorado Center for Law and Policy.

"Across the country, most people who are poor, if they are childless adults, unless they are disabled, don't have access to Medicaid," Arenales told me. "It's setting a uniform framework."

Very radical.

Arenales says the Medicaid expansion under Obmacare would also benefit early retirees, under age 65, who run into health problems.

As you can imagine, health insurance is expensive for people around 65, who have health problems. Under Obmacare, if these retirees with very low incomes will be covered by Medicaid, Arenales said.

She points to another example of an early retiree whose kids are grown, gets cancer, exhausts COBRA, and spends all their money on treatment. Under Obamacare, these people get treated under Medicaid. It gives them an option.

"You see those stories," Arenales said.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a debate about whether to cut or expand Medicaid, but my point is, why do we give the silent treatment to the Coffmans of the world who say Medicaid expansion is so radical, while a guy like Mitt Romney is slammed for making a similarly extreme statement that he's "not concerned about the very poor."

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.

Dick Armey's appearance on Mike Rosen show illustrates effectiveness of "Wall Street Greed" Protest

Jason Salzman — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:11:47 GMT

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who's a creator and promoter of the Tea Party, was on the Mike Rosen Show yesterday, and he and Rosen spent a couple minutes discussing the Wall Street Greed protest.

Armey's rambling about the demonstration shows why the simple message of Wall Street Greed is so effective.

The conservatives try to say, Wall Street is not greedy because.... and they immediately start to sound really out of touch.

Here's Dick Armey, who's not a stupid guy:

Armey: ...Goofballs that are walking around now protesting what they call, Wall Street greed is just ridiculous. I don't know how you even respond to people like that.

Rosen: You're talking about the, Occupy Wall Street, demonstration here.

Armey: Right, right. These folks first of all, the first thing the left does, progressives, there's a documented history of this is a design by them, is distort the language. Basically what they argue is that people who have gone out and worked hard and earned their living and want to keep the money they earned through their legal, honest effort, these people are greedy.... To me, greed was wanting something from someone else that you hadn't earned. That's what I always thought greed was. But to these folks, greed is wanting to keep what you worked very hard to earn. I mean, I don't get it. I don't get their line of thinking. You know, I think they've got a distorted sense of truth. I don't know, it's very frustrating to me because it's hard to know how anybody can be that misguided and that arrogant.

Rosen might have been alone, even among his audience, in not wanting to ask: Ok, about that Wall Street Greed that is self evident in America?

Mike Rosen's Hatred Is Overwhelming - Case Example

WeatherDem — Thu, 30 Dec 2010 19:40:54 GMT

Occasionally, I will read Mike Rosen's editorials in the Denver Post. Mostly, it's just to keep the latest right-wing hate messages fresh in my mind. His column always includes lies and innuendo. He usually resorts to name-calling. Like most Teabaggers, he can't seem to help himself. It is rare, however, that he achieves what he achieved today: multiple groups got lumped into the same hate speech.

The supposed topic is the repeal of the odious, unconstitutional "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy keeping certain Americans from serving their country as proudly as Americans who more neatly fit the idyllic vision of an imaginary America that Rosen and other scared, angry white males hold dear.
First, hatred of women,

When she [former Rep. Pat Schroeder] advocated the removal of restrictions on women in combat, it was to advance the cause of radical feminism.

then the real purpose of this diatribe, Rosen's hatred of homosexuals:

The same can be said for those gay activists whose main objective was to score a symbolic equal rights victory regardless of its toll on the military.

followed by those durned lib'ruls

Public opinion polls showing support for gays in the military include the views of a majority of people with no military experience and no desire to join - liberal sociology professors, for example, who might make lousy leathernecks.

But don't worry, Rosen's warrior-worship tendencies come out shining:

Far more significant will be the damage to careers of soldiers and their officers accused of insensitivity, and retention and recruitment losses of those with a warrior disposition - people we can least afford to lose - who will spurn military careers because of religious, moral or cultural objections to open homosexuality.

Heaven forbid a few bigots don't join or stay in the military. It would be far better, according to Rosen, if the bigots are allowed to openly display their hatred than allowing Americans who want to volunteer to actually do so. There will be no law preventing bigots from being openly bigoted, although that might do more to improve overall morale.

I have a better idea. Let's pass a law that keeps white, warrior worshipping, others-hating males from displaying those characteristics in public if they want the privilege of serving their country. Then maybe Rosen will want to seriously address civil rights issues.

This is no longer the 1750s, Mr. Rosen. Most of us are thankful that this country has moved beyond the ownership of certain human beings and the open denigration of one of the sexes. Advocating for the outright discrimination of a demographic is morally repugnant.