Reader: Peter Boyles proves you can be conservative and intellectually honest...or an idiot

peter boyles portrait.jpg
What radio station are you listening to right now? If you have the radio on at all, odds are good that it's tuned to 630 AM, where Peter Boyles is not just beating the competition, but crushing it. But last week's report on KHOW's great early-morning numbers didn't surprise some readers.

Here's the take from Pete Zeigler:

I like how Mr. Boyles shows that one can be conservative AND intellectually honest. For example, his stance on gay marriage is well thought out, based on the sound observation that being gay is a natural condition people are BORN with. He proves it is possible to love your country and accept the world for what it truly is, without blinders.

Today's conservative is nothing like the red-neck caricature perpetuated by the "progressive" zealot. I am convinced Pete is better read than the most dust covered literary snob. The left simply can't come to grips with that, it simply does not jive with their bigoted view that only they can be educated and rational. Pete proves daily that the inverse is actually true. That the left is driven by emotion far more than intellect. He "gets it". People are drawn to that in a time when so much around us is bullshit.

He speaks to the reason and sanity that multiple decades on this earth can bring, yet still holds a schoolboy fascination and admiration of the street toughs and rough around the edges characters of his urban youth. He seems just at home near the wrestling ring or motorcycle gang, as he is sitting quietly alone absorbing contemporary or ancient wisdom. The dude is a freakin' renaissance man.

To me, he is IS the modern conservative. And when the shit hits the fan, I want to standing on his side of things.

But then there's this from A Denver Resident:

Ugh - the daily sausage-fest that is Boyles' show is an embarrassment to tin-foil hat wearers everywhere. Pete honestly believes he's all knowing about all the BS he makes up and finds guests, from World Nut Daily no less, to back up his crazy-assed conspiracies. His new face hasn't helped his show - he's as ugly on the inside as ever. It was great when Glenn Beck followed Pete - you couldn't tell where the local idiocy ended and the national idiocy began.

Decide for yourself if Boyles's show is a boon or an embarrassment or a boon. It runs until 9 a.m. today and every weekeday at 630 AM.

Is Rupert Murdoch mad enough to buy Colorado? More from our Media archives.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

I love Peter Boyles. He is honest and unlike the rest of Denver's so-called media, he isn't afraid to speak up on unpopular issues. I am a yellow dog Democrat with a master's degree and a woman, and I think his audience has a lot of diversity. I don't always agree with Boyles, sometimes he pisses me off, but I appreciate his candor. At least he isn't goostepping down Colfax Ave. with the rest of the politically correct media in this town.

Vill Robinson
Vill Robinson

Patty, you guys still haven't told us how these latest time slot ratings for Boyles compare with his numbers going back a year. Westword readers have no idea therefore whether you're touting quarterly ratings that are part of a sustained upward trend, or whether they're a clear outlier that you've presented misleadingly as some sort of proof that Boyles is relevant beyond his circle of pals and the white nativist community he routinely promote on his program. 

What are those figures and what do they show?


Boyles is the stereotypical carnival barker. He's the guy that's selling 5 throws at the weighted pins for a quarter, knowing that while most folks know the grift, there's always a sucker that doesn't.

Those "rubes" listen to 630 early morning.................and probably buy Caplis too.

His listening demographic is pretty identifiable. Older white males, teabagger types, anti-"guv'mint" grouches, mostly "conservative" (even though it's doubtful they even know the meaning of the word), self identified survivalists that spout nonsense like "when the shit hits the fan............". This is the same audience that bought the birther bullshit, the Patsy Ramsey witch hunt travesty, and felt the "pulse pounding, viagra fueled masculinity of the nasty "vagina dejette" insult that the old gasbag hurled at a sitting United States Congresswoman........while on the air, no less.

Boyles has run the same con for over 30 years, and it works..............with a few. Especially chest pounders, bully wannabees that see Boyles as their conduit to the "toughguy jargon" they can use as their own.

Make really outrageous accusations by asking questions about "intentions", Motives", and so forth, his targets being people in the news that an under informed, ill informed, and not informed audience is predisposed to despise. Democrats {"evil libruls") are a good target, a black Democratic President an absolute gold mine.

He brings on "experts", like Jerome Corsi and Ory Taitz, 1y tommy t tancredo, to fire up the anger, and divides and conquers by selling the long con that he's the way to the "truth".

Then when a woman he tortured for years is exonerated, in death, sadly, he moves on, "nothing to see here, folks", and when a birth certificate is validated..............officially..........over and over and over..........he moves to the next conspiracy.

Hey, I went for it too...................back in the early '90's, with the "plausible deniability" gag that lasted about 6 months.

He does back down though. A few years back he called Caplis a "jock sniffer". I'm thinking the higher up muckedy mucks at KHOW told him to apologize to the then popular conservative, self aggrandizing buffoon.

He did..........on air.  Like I said, a carny with a plausible grift. 630's got a bunch of 'em. 


Michael Roberts
Michael Roberts

Vill, the figures we got in December 2010 don't directly equate to the most recent batch. However, the latest have figures for January through July, and they show a steady, if not unbroken, rise in ratings shares at KHOW during the five a.m. to nine a.m. period: 5.6 for January, 5.5 for February, 6.6 for March, 8.3 for April, 8.5 for May and 9.0 for June.


michael's been out since that original post; I'm sure he'll look into it when he returns.


Vill, It's got to be an outlier.

Reason I say that is common sense dictates the demographic can't be that big. Sometimes when something just doesn't look or smell or sound right, it's not.

I do know some people that stuck with Boyles untill the birther thing just went beyond the point of reason, beyond the point of beyond. Then, that was it, he just lost his credibility with them. 

Pete Zeigler
Pete Zeigler


I have decided to take the low road and inform you that my mental image of you is of a greasy loner sniffing his finger. Now let's hear your rebuttal to THAT! You just can't refute that kind intellectual honesty can ya...punk. Make sure to mention masturbation when you fire back, you guys are facinated by that.

Vill Robinson
Vill Robinson

Thanks Michael. As any statistician will tell you, that's too small of a sample size to identify a had three low months and three high. It's a fallacy to assume that, in the absence of supporting data, the most recent figures imply a trend. Dee if your source can provide figures going back a full year at least, they may be quite illuminating one way or the other and provide fodder for the next quarter's results, assuming you can land those too.


Ya sound like a bully wannabe, boyles listener to me, pete.

Thanks for making my point. "toughguy".

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault