Post noted GOP candidate's "kid in a candy shop" remark about gays in the military; will it note his other comments?
Summary: Profiling George Brauchler, who is seeking the Republican nomination for district attorney in Colorado's 18th judicial district, The Denver Post reported that the former 630 KHOW-AM and Newsradio 850 KOA guest host had "quit his gig as a radio talk show host" to campaign and stated that during one program, "he compared gays in the military to 'kids in a candy store.' " Will the Post mention Brauchler's other negative or misleading comments regarding gay issues, which Colorado Media Matters has documented?
The Denver Post reported May 4 on former 630 KHOW-AM and Newsradio 850 KOA guest host George Brauchler's candidacy for the Republican nomination for district attorney in Colorado's 18th judicial district, noting that Brauchler moved to a different law firm and "quit his gig as a radio talk show host" to run for office. The article stated that "[d]uring one radio show, he compared gays in the military to 'kids in a candy store,' " adding, "Brauchler said he is not anti-gay and the comments were taken out of context, that he was answering a question about whether he supports the military's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, which he does." The sentence apparently referred to statements that Brauchler made in July 2007 as a guest host of The Caplis & Silverman Show, when he asked whether being gay in the Navy is "like putting a kid in a candy shop," as Colorado Media Matters noted. However, the Post did not note any of Brauchler's other negative or misleading comments about gay issues, including his defense of right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's controversial reference to former Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (NC) as a "faggot," and a reference to the Navy as "the light-in-the-loafers service." In addition, Brauchler has used misleading information to argue against gays serving openly in the military, as Colorado Media Matters also pointed out.
The Post article by Carlos Illescas reported that Brauchler "is running against lightning rod District Attorney Carol Chambers for the 18th Judicial District's Republican nomination." It further reported, "Brauchler was with the firm of Caplis & Deasy, but now works for another firm that can give him time to run for office":
And he also quit his gig as a radio talk show host for 630 KHOW.
During one radio show, he compared gays in the military to "kids in a candy store."
Brauchler denies being anti-gay
Brauchler said he is not anti-gay and the comments were taken out of context, that he was answering a question about whether he supports the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which he does.
"Logistically, I don't see how we can do it," Brauchler said. "We physically segregate men and women because sexually they are different. In the military, the bottom line has to be the success of the mission." [boldface in original]
The Post cited Brauchler's "candy shop" remark -- which he made on the air on July 6, 2007 -- but did not provide the full context of his comment. During a discussion about gays in the military with guest Jason Knight, an openly gay former naval petty officer and current communications associate for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, Brauchler followed guest co-host Darren McKee's question about "the worst thing in the world about being gay in the Navy" by asking, "It's like putting a kid in a candy shop, isn't it?"
From the July 6 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show, with guest hosts George Brauchler and Darren McKee:
McKEE: I'm trying to think of what could possibly be bad, by the way, of serving with a gay person in the military. These are all the arguments that I hear: You wouldn't want to be in the foxhole; you have to trust people. Did the rest of your, the, the people you were with, did they trust you?
KNIGHT: Of course. Of course.
McKEE: Right, so what's the worst thing in the world about being gay in the Navy?
BRAUCHLER: It's like --
KNIGHT: I mean, I can't -- there isn't --
BRAUCHLER: It's like putting a kid in a candy shop, isn't it?
[McKee laughs and claps]
KNIGHT: -- I mean, obviously you're going to have your, your troublemakers on either side. But, I mean, it's just, it's ridiculous this, you know, that they're, that this is even going on.
McKEE: Well, see, that -- George just tried to say this sly little thing there. He said it's like putting a kid in the candy shop. And you're insinuating with that little joke there, George --
BRAUCHLER: I, I was being inappropriate and funny.
McKEE: But, but that's, see, I think that's the mentality, that, that all of a sudden, you know, oh, this is what's going to happen.
BRAUCHLER: No.
McKEE: So people like Jason are going to be starting hitting on his fellow soldiers.
BRAUCHLER: No, that's not my insinuation. Anybody in the Army and the Marines know exactly what my insinuation was, and that is that the Navy are the light-in-the-loafers service. [McKee laughs] That's not a reference to you, Jason. That's a -- and you, Jason, you've heard that too. You, you have your, you have --
McKEE: What are you talking about, George?
BRAUCHLER: Hang on, Darren. Jason, you have --
KNIGHT: Wow.
BRAUCHLER: -- you have your digs on the Army and the Marines, I'm sure. I mean, just like every inter-service rivalry exists, that was my sort of attempt at humor.
Both the "candy shop" and "light-in-the-loafers" remarks were referenced in a July 22 Post guest column by Stephen Benjamin, who identified himself as a gay former Arabic translator who had been "kicked out" of the Navy.
The May 4 Post article also did not mention that on June 28, 2007, Brauchler defended Coulter's slur at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on March 2, 2007, when she said that she "[couldn't] really talk about" Edwards because "you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.' " As Media Matters for America documented, after Coulter used the epithet, numerous newspapers dropped her nationally syndicated column. Yet referring to the remark, Brauchler stated, "I listened to that clip before, and I think she was trying to be funny -- you know, be a little coy -- and it didn't quite work out well."
On the air, Brauchler also has voiced misleading information to make arguments against gays serving openly in the military, as Colorado Media Matters has documented:
- On the July 6, 2007, broadcast, Brauchler also distorted a 2006 Zogby International poll that, according to McKee, found that in a "survey of military personnel who had served in Iraq or Afghanistan, three-quarters said they're comfortable interacting with gays and lesbians." Brauchler acknowledged that "75 percent of them said, 'Hey, I feel comfortable working around gays,' " but went on to claim that the "same group when they were asked this question: Do you agree or disagree with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military? -- 26 percent agreed. Twenty-six percent. So, that's the true numbers here."
Although the Zogby poll did show that 26 percent of respondents either "agree[d]" or "strongly agree[d]" "with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military," Brauchler did not mention that 32 percent of respondents said they were "neutral" on that question and 5 percent said they were "not sure." Thirty-seven percent of military personnel either "disagree[d]" or "strongly disagree[d]" with allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
- While guest hosting the July 23, 2007, broadcast of The Caplis & Silverman Show, Brauchler defended the U.S. military's policy of barring openly gay people from service by providing examples suggesting that the military does not accommodate special religious needs of service members. But in arguing that such a protocol regarding religion is consistent with the military's policy regarding homosexuals, Brauchler ignored military regulations that, under certain circumstances, specifically acknowledge and mandate accommodation of a wide variety of religious practices. Further, Brauchler did not acknowledge news reporting about ways in which the armed forces have put those regulations into effect.
—C.H.
Comments (4) Show
1 - 4 |
If candypants is so sure he won't be deployed to theatre that he can commit to a political race, he must be quite well connected. To date, over 1.6 million government issues (GI's) have cycled (and recycled) through Iraq. Not candypants. He draws all the perks of being "the major". He pays none of the dues. Over 4,000 dead. Over 63,000 wounded. But he calls himself the"the major". He personifies the perfect republican self styled "no nonsense tough guy"..All hat, no cattle. At least watchin' candypants and chambers beat eachother with their purses will be fun.
Hey, Letkemann! I’m sorry for the sparse posts, and I always appreciate your words and certainly your supportive words. I hope to answer some of what you posted lately regarding Caplis very soon, as that charlatan is firing me up again. I’ve had a small case of Caplis Fatigue, and I actually envy that you don’t listen to him regularly any more. He is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me as well, though if sniffer is irrelevant in his republican hack attempts, I believe his abuse of airwaves and his abuse of Colorado’s collective intelligence is still relevant. Every word, phrase, and sentence by Caplis is a contrived, purposeful, effort at personal and political gain, and is so deceptive on so many levels; it is outrageous that he cloaks it all as seeking the truth, when it is really a big lie, in my opinion. But more on this later, ‘cause I feel some posts coming on soon, lol, and I hope you’ll like the upcoming summary of his shenanigans over the last few weeks.
Regarding ‘candypants’, your monikers are hilarious, and what’s scary, it is instinctive to know who you’re referring to even weeks and months later. Now that Brauchler is in the political game (gee, what a surprise), I guess I can comment on his chinless, Alfred E. Neuman look as well, as he saw fit to compare Mark Udahl to Elmo.
CMM says Brauchler thought he was taken out of context on the gay/candy store comment?! Then why did Brauchler repeat the same comment in a Denver Post letter to the editor July 22, 2007, saying that without military physical segregation: “Common sense dictates that this is like ‘putting a kid in a candy shop,’ whether that kid is homosexual or heterosexual”? Men and women can’t keep their sexuality in check in the stressful, disciplined, and focused bounds of military service? Gee, I hope George never uses a locker room, there might be a gay guy nearby minding his own business and not getting into other’s like George seems to.
Frankly, what I find more interesting is that Caplis keeps up his seemingly high turnover of partners, and now employees, when Brauchler apparently had the need to leave Caplis’ firm for another firm that will give him the time to run for office. How ironic. Caplis has his own ‘focus’ on 2010 senate race, but Brauchler better leave his ambitions at the door. It lends more validity that Caplis is the rainmaker that uses the public airwaves and plugola to bring business in the door, and can work on his special agendas while keeping his minions working the cases. Caplis is all for special accommodations for pregnant women in the workplace, and touts his own feelings on this as an employer, and we’ve heard ad nauseam he hires gays (not George, of course…); but his golden boy employee wants to do the honorable thing and run for office and Caplis’ firm can’t or won’t keep him on staff? You can only have one narcissistic, publicity-craving, self-serving, center-of-attention-seeking lawyer at any given law firm, I guess. At least George had the decency to get off the air, though Caplis hasn’t renounced his focused-on-the-senate statement, and he should be off the air. I always liked George a little, though. Caplis? Not so much. Hehe. Just my opinion.NEWMAN, great to hear from you. And thanks for the update on the candypanted one's employment switch. Had no idea. Look forward to your upcoming posts. They are always worth the wait. Truthfully, the interest just isn't there concerning hearing sniffer live. One question: am I right or wrong in my thinking that a newly appointed U.S. Attorney might or would find sniffer in violation of Federal election laws concerning his prior active campaigning on his program? Obviously Eid won't step on a friend's toes, but would a professional U.S. Attorney have grounds to pursue this? (And I know anything is just opinion.)
Letkemann: re: Federal election laws and sniffer; Unfortunately, I think Caplis will leave himself enough wriggle room, and if the polling says he has any shot at beating Salazar early next year, miraculously, Dan will decide he indeed has the calling from above (his ego) to make a formal declaration. As I’ve said, by his own words, Caplis is a defacto declared candidate until he retracts focus-on-2010 comment, in my opinion. He has a free, and actually paid daily stump speech, and a chance to charm the republican elite. The ratings whores (yes, I’m labeling Clear Channel—if Caplis can label coeds whores, I can certainly label Clear Channel from their actions) he works for will let him get away with it, but that’s nothing new. Charges against Caplis? Probably not. Unethical? Absolutely. The only lawsuit I would laugh at being filed is the one Spagnuolo could file if Caplis wants to keep using the public airwaves to call him a do-nothing lazy phoney loser over and over again. That would be ironically funny. (BTW, to answer one of your questions, yes, I was referring to Spagnuolo and that CU incident an earlier post. Funny, but Caplis and Silverman thanked and said they liked Spagnuolo for coming on their show and being honest, however offensive some of his opinions are. Then, after Caplis chided Sagnuolo over and over to ‘be a man’, and state his offensive feelings for police, etc., and Spagnuolo called his dad guilty regarding police abuse in Chicago, everything changed, but it was at Caplis’ insistence, and it was clear Dan would have used violence against Spagnuolo if he was in the studio. Irony again. Caplis said yesterday that he dropped his defamation lawsuit against Spagnuolo because proceeding would put his family in danger. I submit that his family has nothing to do with his actions as a student at CU, and that if the statements were false as Caplis claims, there is absolutely no danger at all, and leaving them unchallenged is the only hazard. Why did he drop the case when he said he wouldn’t? It is despicable for him to use his family in such a tactic.) Anyway, one has to ask themselves if Colorado wants such a clueless guy as Caplis in office. This is the guy, after all, who says he campaigned at nearly every door on Boulder’s Campus, but never saw a hint of drug use in the 70’s, and says Boulder is unfairly targeted as a drug and/or party school. You wonder what Caplis is not smoking, and maybe he should, if that’s what he believes. This is the guy who basically says CU fans and students chanting the F-word is nearly charming during family football outings, and it is always the opposing fans that he’s found to cause trouble. But an opposing quarterback in an offensive ‘bitch’ T-shirt? That is classless. Caplis says there was ‘never a hint’ of priest impropriety during all his time in seminary school, parochial school, and in churches in Chicago, when there are around 80 Chicago diocese priests involved or accused of improprieties, many during Caplis formative years. http://www.bishop-accountability.org/il_chicago/ And Caplis says ‘never heard a hint?’ This is the guy who basically says there could have been a few bad cops in Chicago at the democratic convention, and ignores some well documented facts surrounding the ‘police riot’. I’m wondering if Caplis has his own ‘re-create 68’ going on in his very own head. This is the guy who finds all things that surround him generally very superior to all else and others, and rips to shreds all others who aren’t the charmed in Danny’s world? Do we want someone so clueless anywhere near a political office in Colorado? ‘Don’t think so. Just my opinion
1 - 20 |