The Great Orange Satan vs. Tancredo

Without comment (that’s your job):

105 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. G Pulviczek says:

    Can dish it out but can’t take it.

      • G Pulviczek says:

        And where did I ever say that Republicans had a monopoly on ignorant masses?  The 9-11 “truthers” are every bit as detached from reality as Glen Beck’s “birther” shock troops.

        But, like it or not, TomT is on “your” side.  He and Michele and Sarah are going to have a grand old time in hell together.  And if you don’t do something about it, they will take the whole Republican party with them.

        • BoulderRepublican says:

          Glenn Beck isn’t a “birther.”  And I wasn’t admitting that Tancredo was a “typical chickenhawk.”

          And I can’t do anything but laugh at your last comment.  Not only was it completely out of line, but Tuesday should’ve set the record straight that the Republican party is absolutely anything but dead.

          • Steve Harvey says:

            when we apply the best analyses available to the most reliable data available, in pursuit of the realization of our shared core values and the goals that naturally emanate from those values, you get something that isn’t identical to the Democratic Party platform, but that is in almost diametrical opposition to the Republican Party platform.

            We live in a world that is most usefully understood in terms of systems; human systems: Economic, political, cultural, technological; and the natural systems with which they interact: Biological and ecological, geological, hydrological, atmospheric, physical. The people who devote their lives to studying these systems overwhelmingly endorse policies that more closely align with liberal Democratic policies than with conservative Republican policies. There’s a reason for that.

      • Old Time Dem says:

        Do you have pictures of Democratic leaders posing with those images?

        The fact is that the Republican party is closely associated with the teabaggers and birthers;  Democrats are not associated in any way with, say, 9/11 denialists.

        The GOP is currently dominated by cranks and morons.

        • BoulderRepublican says:

          You’re another in a long list of disrespectful people on here who use the term “teabaggers,” so I wont waste much breath trying to help you see reason.  But “teabaggers,” as you call them, are simply people who oppose the stampede of liberal legislation being stuffed through Congress.  That’s what we call “being logical.”

          “Truthers” are crazy insane people who believe 9/11 was an inside job.  That’s what we call “being an idiot.”  Democrats, I would agree, are overwhelmingly not associated with this group.  However, they are associated with socialists, and with people who believe Bush is a war criminal, either comparable to, or on par with, Hitler.

          Also, if by “dominated” you mean “run,” I would agree that the GOP is run by mostly “cranks and morons.”  But if by “dominated” you mean a majority of the rank and file, that’s just nonsense.  Again, I’ll point to Tuesday.  There were four major elections (two gubernatorial, two congressional).  There were swings of between 19 & 34 points to the Republican side in 3 of those races.  The other race was an anomaly, won by a Republican-endorsed Democrat.

          • Steve Harvey says:

            the enormous gap between what you “call being logical” and what actually is logical.

          • Old Time Dem says:

            “the stampede of liberal legislation being stuffed through Congress.”

            uh, health care reform…which is the central issue of the teabaggers…has been on the legislative agenda for, oh, about five decades.

            • BoulderRepublican says:

              It’s the fact that the method of “reform” is far to the left of what America is open to.  There is no better evidence of that than the elections of 1993, 1994, and 2009.

              • Old Time Dem says:

                So, the elections of 2006 and 2008–a presidential election, two-thirds of the Senate, and the House twice–mean nothing compared to two house races (one won by a Democrat for the first time in 120 years) and two governor’s races (neither of which was about health care).

                Or, to use all your examples, one big GOP win in the House (1994) and two off-year elections are important?

                • BoulderRepublican says:

                  2008 was a year ago.  Democrats got the White House, and unstoppable majorities in both houses.  Americans saw just how well (see: poorly) that worked, and voted accordingly on Tuesday.  In addition to the two governor races, elections for state house and senate seats, city council seats, etc… all across the country were picked up by Republicans as well.  2008 was a bigger sample size, but as I said, a lot changes in politics in one year.  Especially when you’ve got Democrats governing like some horrible combination of Karl Marx and Hugo Chavez.

                  I’m going to be saying “be prepared” to you guys for the next year, but until you wake up on November 3rd wondering what hit you, you wont get it.

                  • Old Time Dem says:

                    You are a moron.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      but the funniest thing is that he believes a lot has changed about politics from 2008 to 2009, but nothing will change about politics from 2009 to 2010.

                      Of course there’s all the lying about the basic facts of each election, without which none of his arguments make any sense.

                      But there’s also this crazy idea that Americans really want to give Republicans another chance 3 years after 12 straight years of Republican rule of Congress.

                      OK Republicans, be honest: do you really think everyone in the country has forgotten, after only three years, what it’s like to have Republicans in charge of everything? Do you really think anyone believes Republicans have learned their lesson and are now concerned about solving problems, instead of just complaining about Democrats and making rich people richer?

                      Americans have short memories, but not THAT short.

                      In 1994 the Contract with America was based on Republican nostalgia for the early Reagan years. In 2008, what’s the slogan? “Hey, remember 2005? Those were good times, huh?”

                  • Gilpin Guy says:

                    exactly what it is supposed to be doing.

                    Unlike the last Republican administration which tried to ram their extremist agenda through before anyone had a chance to see what it would do, this administration is actually debating BIG issues and looking for workable solutions.  It is unfortunate that the Republicans care more about regaining power than actually working for solutions that help the majority (non-rich) of Americans but ignorant hubris has been the central tenet of the Republican Party for quite some time.

                    Why don’t you get back to us later today after the House votes on historic health care reform and tell us just how poorly this Congress is doing.  Republicans such as yourself know you are going to be in the wilderness a long time if these historic legislative actions are enacted and non-wealthy people are actually helped by government.  You have to be quaking in your brown stained pants to think that Congress could hold lengthy debates and vote on programs that help those who aren’t wealthy.  Your political party will be in deep doo-doo if this health care legislation passes and the economy recovers.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Unlike the last Republican administration which tried to ram their extremist agenda through before anyone had a chance to see what it would do, this administration is actually debating BIG issues and looking for workable solutions.

                      Who are they debating it with?

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      They’re debating it with themselves.

                      What happened to posting the bill online for 72 hours before they vote on it?

                    • sxp151 says:

                      the bill was posted 72 hours before the vote.

                      http://mediamatters.org/resear

                      Sorry.

                    • redstateblues says:

                      Stop ruining Matt Drudge’s precious story lines! They are carefully constructed without any facts or use of reality, and why you gotta be such a buzzkill posting the real story and junk?

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      Sorry.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      You’re lying if you claim there was.

                      If you want to read the amendments, read the amendments. The full text of them is also online, and they’re shorter.

                    • Laughing Boy says:

                      It’s cool.  We knew she would.

                      The vote was too close.  This shitty bill is dead in the Senate.

                      Are you coming for my celebratory dinner at Bastien’s?

                    • sxp151 says:

                      She promised to post the final version of the bill before floor amendments, and did that.

                      Remember how you promised to buy everyone dinner whether health care succeeds or fails? Hope you don’t renege on that pledge I just made up.

                  • ClubTwitty says:

                    In NJ and VA the GOP candidates ran as moderates–where the teabaggers intervene, they do the Dems work for them.  1872-2009: NY 23 in GOP hands; crazy wingnut teabaggers insert themselves in primary and had the seat over to Dems.

                    I hope you don’t understand.  I hope the GOP does not learn this lesson.

              • Ralphie says:

                Did I miss something besides Dems increasing their margin in the House by two more votes?

                • BoulderRepublican says:

                  …to the Republican side of 19-34 points.  Independents voted overwhelmingly for Republicans.  The only race where the Republican didn’t win is the one where she dropped out and endorsed the Democrat.  And her opponent ran on a platform of opposing a public option.  Granted, that lasted about 3 minutes after he got elected…

                  In case it matters to anyone, I think the plan Republicans released this week is almost as bad if not worse than HR 3962.  It was much of the same crap.  But it didn’t even include the ONLY good thing out of the Dems’ bill (banning the practice of dropping coverage for preexisting conditions) and, as Pols noted, includes provisions that completely ignore the concept of states’ rights.  

                  The only real reform we need is absolutely free–make it illegal to drop coverage for preexisting conditions, allow (force?) health insurers to compete across state lines, and remove the antitrust exemptions of insurance companies.

                • BlueCat says:

                  Fact: Obama still has majority approval in both states that declined to elect Dem Governors, one D being widely disliked, the other being a lousy weak candidate in a state that elects R govs very frequently.  

                  As far as the Obama agenda goes, both special congressional elections resulted in two more R seats going to Ds, increasing their majority where it really counts on issues; in the legislature. Not all that much for the GOP to gloat about.  

                  • BoulderRepublican says:

                    …one year ago by a margin of 34 points.  This year, the Democrat won by only 10.  It went Dem-2-Dem, it wasn’t flipped.  The other race, whatever you want to believe about it, was a complete anomaly and the circumstances will not repeat themselves next year.  Mostly because the GOP will have a primary, resulting in an actual Republican running on the Republican ticket.

                    Obama has personal approval, but as the elections showed, his agenda does not.  And both are falling every single day.  Also, I would agree that Chris Christie ran as a moderate, but McDonnell did not.  Creigh Deeds was not a weak candidate in VA, at least no more so than any other Democrat.  He won a hotly contested primary against a relatively popular former DNC Chairman.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      1. One year ago Ellen Tauscher was a long-serving incumbent. If you’re surprised that incumbents win with higher margins than non-incumbents, welcome to Earth.

                      2. “Whatever you want to believe about that” is a rather funny way of denying the basic facts of NY-23. I called you out yesterday on this; I quite generously assumed you were just uninformed about redistricting, but based on this comment you were clearly lying and continue to do so.

                      3. Creigh Deeds was an awful candidate, and many Democrats said so long before the election.

                      4. Terry McAuliffe was popular? So you really just make up every fact as you go along?

                      Learn how to make a point without lying. Your spinning on Tuesday’s race is getting desperate. Democrats won two more votes on Pelosi’s health care bill. Deal with it. Suck it up.  

                    • BlueCat says:

                      wrong about the CA seat flipping.  Right about NY and right that in CA a Dem won. Right that this is a better indication of what kind of legislation the public is looking for than the two Guv’s elections. Right that Obama has majority approval in both states that elected R guvs and that one was widely despised and the other a crappy candidate.  I stand corrected.

          • Gilpin Guy says:

            I see the count is 220-215 on the historic Health Care Reform legislation yesterday.

            Democrats needed 218 to pass and if NY23 was still Republican, the vote would have switched to 219 and the Republicans would have come down like a load of bricks to get the lone Republican to recant.

            The early results from Tuesday is that the extreme zealots in the Republican Party have effectively given Democrats the victory.

            Things could still go your way (do nothing and allow the CEO’s to plunder the nation) in the Senate but I wouldn’t bet against Obama and Biden getting this done.

            Go ahead BR and tell us again how important the governor races in Virginia and New Jersey were.  The early analysis I saw Tuesday is that the Republican turnout totals were about the same but the Democratic base was lower.  This victory will help energize the Democratic base so 2010 and booting Ritter might not be as in the bag as you assume.

            This is the first of many important legislative actions that are needed to clean up the disaster of the previous eight years.  Republican obstructionism is here to stay but just like when Republicans were in power it will ultimately be useless and counterproductive to them.  See NY23

    • MADCO says:

      Bob Livingston

      Henry Hyde

      Tom Tancredo

      and on and on and on

      I get that the R ideology (mythos) is partly built on toughness and hierarchy and order. But it’s also built on when the tough get going, the tough get going.

      I was asked for an elementary school project to name the veterans in my family- just off the top of my head, the list was so long I had to apologize to the teacher.  She was very kind- but TT has n idea what he’s talking about.

      I don’t love the VA medical- but i don’t want vouchers to go shop in the market;

  2. Littletonian says:

    …to attack Tancredo than taking a cheap shot at a medical deferment. I think Tom Tancredo is the worst Congressman that Colorado’s ever had, but Moulitsas stoops to his level when he tries to engage him this way.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      Tancredo is a total wuss. If he can’t handle a discussion with Markos then how could he ever fight for something that takes actual effort?

      • WesternSlopeThought says:

        Will these others follow?

        Lamar Alexander, Samuel Alito, Wayne Allard, George Allen, John Ashcroft, Gary Bauer, Bob Beauprez, William Bennett, Michael Bloomberg, Roy Blunt, L. Paul Bremer, George W. Bush, Saxby Chambliss, Dick Cheney, Norm Coleman, Pete Coors, Tom DeLay, Mike DeWine, Brian J. Donnelly, Steve Forbes, Bill Frist, Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Judd Gregg, Robert Hanssen, Dennis Hastert, Brit Hume, Alan Keyes, Joseph Lieberman, Rush Limbaugh, Trent Lott, Jim Marshall, Mitch McConnell, Ted Nugent, Bill O’Reilly, Bill Owens, George Pataki, Dan Quayle, Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, Ken Starr, John Stossel, Clarence Thomas and Paul Wolfowitz.  

    • Old Time Dem says:

      I think the point is that Tancredo is a lying chickenhawk.  He swaggers around, citing veterans he has allegedly talked to–but when faced with an actual veteran, he turns tail and runs.  Hey–isn’t that what he did BITD?

      • BlueCat says:

        his history of taking advantage of cheap illegal immigrant labor himself while making the demonization of illegal and legal immigrants the cornerstone of his whole political reason for being.  And of course there is the whole singing Dixie with white supremacists as their invited guest while claiming no responsibility for the hateful ideology of such supporters.  It’s not a cheap shot but merely pointing out one more fact that’s entirely of a piece with his slimy hypocrisy and lack of character, integrity or honor.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      didn’t need to engage in an ad-hominem attack against Tancredo to get his point across that he was a veteran and didn’t want a voucher for his medical care.  Tancredo who knows a thing or two about ad-hominem attacks used the correct tactic of avoidance so that he could marginalize Moulitsas’ points.  Moulitsas could have done a better job of pointing out that Tandcredo doesn’t speak for veterans.  It wasn’t a weak response but it wasn’t the best either.

      Here is another DailyKos link

      http://www.dailykos.com/storyo

  3. TheRINO says:

    The fact that the veteran’s administration is a single payer system is irrelevant.  We have promised our soldiers health care so we pick up the bill.  Applying the logic that since it works there therefore it can work nationally doesn’t make sense because SOMEONE has to pay for it.  We can’t decrease the premiums that we have to pay if in the end the present values of the premiums paid and the treatments don’t equal.  We have buy health insurance so health insurance companies can manage that risk.  What the single payer crowd wants is for higher income people to subsidize people with lower incomes for their medical treatment.  But health care costs are an infinite liability.  Where do we stop medical services?  That would be the question up to the government in the single payer system since it is unlikely that the goal is to keep every American alive as long as possible.  If that is the goal then we are talking about destroying are government with an infinite amount of entitlements.  What needs to be reformed is how insurance companies have been practicing.  They should not drop coverage.  Insurance should not be tied to employers making which insurance plan to pick our decision.  Insurance companies should be able to operate in any state.  The list can go on..

    • BoulderRepublican says:

      …preach on.

    • Steve Harvey says:

      is to provide a reasonable level of health care to all who need it, regardless of their financial condition, while simultaneously reducing the overall costs of that health care, and improving national health care outcomes. All of which, based on both comparative statistical studies and professional economic analyses (including that endorsed by the magazine named “The Economist”), single payer has proven superior at accomplishing.

      Of course, we’re not discussing single payer, since sanity is being held hostage in this country. So we’re talking about a compromise far closer to what those who prefer the status quo are insisting upon. Oh, but wait, that compromise is still “too radical,” so we must compromise the compromise, forever splitting the difference in the direction of the preferences of blind ideologues and ranting fanatics.

      • BoulderRepublican says:

        …there are plenty of real life examples of single payer failing miserably.  And as much as you’ll try to dispute it, I’ll point to Canada and the U.K. as exhibits A & B.

        • Pam Bennett says:

          I have not heard that the health care systems of Canada and the U.K. are failing.  I would be interested in reading some factual analysis of that.  (or could it be ACORN is destroying the U.K. and Canada at the same time it is destroying the U.S.?)

        • Steve Harvey says:

          is called anecdotal evidence, and the reason why, from a scientific point of view, it’s considered completely unreliable, is because it always, and effortlessly, supports whatever the proponent wants to support.

          If I wanted to prove that U.S. Health Care were a failure, I could point to examples of it having failed. If I wanted to prove that it’s a success, I could point to examples of it having succeeded. If I wanted to prove that objects don’t tend to fall when dropped, I would point to helium balloons. If I wanted to prove that people with blond hair tend to be left-handed, I would point to those people with blond hair who happen to be left-handed.

          Even beyond that, unspecified anecdotal evidence is the worst: “There are plenty of real life examples” being the best real life example. Not only are using a weak and convenient form of argumentation, but you can’t even be bothered to find an actual example!

          Now, as far as actual evidence goes, let’s look at a comparison between the Canadian system and the U.S. system: The Canadian system costs less per capita, covers everybody, and produces better health outcomes by every statistical measure. That’s what the data actually indicates.

          One thing for which it’s increasingly difficult to find anecdotal evidense in support of is the intelligence of people on the far right.

  4. Stagarite says:

    He had it coming.

  5. droll says:

    I can’t find a clip not edited to what some would consider the good part.  I’m curious because it sounds to me that Tanc had just said that single payer is a “threat to America.”  Then the host asked if the VA was also, that part is clear.

    Single payer, love it or hate it, it’s not evil.  I can think of an example of probably any kind of health care plan failing, but can’t think of a single health care reform package that literally destroyed a country.

    • Ralphie says:

      But sometimes I don’t remember what led up to “the good part” because one never knows it was “the good part” until it has passed.

      However, the whole interview is posted at MSNBC here:

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22

      I couldn’t embed it because of the dreaded Pols “Disallowed HTML Tag” error message.

      • droll says:

        The real best part wasn’t him storming off at all.  Health care reform is the biggest threat to our freedom and way of life?  Really?  I thought it was immigration, Tanc.

        Another question, if someone has a moment.  Did Tanc get a deferment to stay out of Vietnam?  Wanted to be sure I heard that right.  If he did and the other guy took a jab at that, that was a low blow.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          You had all these chicken-hawks get out of Vietnam using bogus excuses. I think it’s very fair to bring that up – again and again and again.

          I think Tancredo walked off not because it was unfair, but because it was spot on and he has no answer for it.

          • droll says:

            What bothers me is voting to send troops into a similar situation decades later.  Oh wait!  Hilary I Married Bill the Dodger Clinton did!  See how silly that is?  I still don’t see a illegitimate reason for slipping it in there.  If you want to see a conversation about various types of draft dodging, great, completely appropriate.

            Anyway, I don’t think that’s why he walked off at all.  I saw as he didn’t have an answer for why veteran’s care was a threat to America.

            • MADCO says:

              as he should.

              As should Tancredo, Norquist, El Rushbo, VP Cheney and on and on and on  

            • SSG_Dan says:

              …it started under some guy named Max Cleland, but the VHA really turned it around under this disabled vet named Jess Brown:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J

              Draft Dodger or not, he had the courage and ethics to fix a part of the government directly under his command to take care of veterans.

              Tranfreako dodged the draft, and then (like most of the Repubs elected) ducked and dodged taking care of vets.

              • droll says:

                That aside…

                I’m still not clear on Tanc’s “chickenhawk” status.  Are you suggesting either:

                a) The government didn’t check to see if the medical records existed,

                b) That Tanc’s doc. created the records,

                c) You knew Tanc. and he was fucking fine, or

                d) You think depression isn’t a reason to not go to war?

                I’m really asking.  Actually, I thought that you’d see all of this and clarify.

                • SSG_Dan says:

                  Chickenhawk” (also chicken hawk and chicken-hawk) is a political epithet used in the United States to criticize a politician, bureaucrat, or commentator who strongly supports a war or other military action, yet who actively avoided military service when of age.

                  The term is meant to indicate that the person in question is cowardly or hypocritical for personally avoiding combat in the past while advocating that others go to war in the present.

                  Generally, the implication is that “chickenhawks” lack the experience, judgment, or moral standing to make decisions about going to war.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C

                  If his mental illness was a specific reason for avoid mandatory military service, why wasn’t it brought up in his FIRST application for deferment? If it wasn’t critical to his current mental condition, why wait until all your other deferments are used up?

                  It’s even more an apt criticism of Rep T since he’s consistently advocated the use of force in all and every possible situation, and yet had one of the WORST records on Veterans’ issues – DAV ratings of 50 in 2003, and 0 in 2004 & 2005.

                  • droll says:

                    that problem, you’re basing it on his shit work as a Congressman?  Even the maybe good point about not coming up until the second application has to come with a choice from above.

                    I agree that he was a terrible, horrible, shit Congressman.  Hell, I even think he’s all that as a person.  I don’t understand why everyone feels they have a need, or right, to judge someone like that without any facts.

        • Ralphie says:

          Which as we all know is never the be-all and end-all but at least it has no flags:

          Fellow Republican State Treasurer Mike Coffman refused to share the stage with Congressman Tancredo at a pro-war rally for the Iraq war in 2003 because of Tancredo’s failure to serve in Vietnam. Mike Coffman is a former Marine who was deployed to the first Persian Gulf conflict more than a decade ago. After leaving a Colorado capitol stage in what he described as a personal protest Coffman said “I just didn’t feel (Tancredo) had the moral authority to send other young people off to war when he was not willing to go himself.” In 1970 after Tancredo’s student deferments ran out, he appealed his 1-A draft status, which would have put him at the top of the list for draft eligibility during the Vietnam War. Tancredo was then given a 1-Y status, which put him at the bottom of the list after he reported that he had been treated for mental illness as a teenager. Tancredo said he was diagnosed with depression when he was 16 or 17 and received medication for five years for panic attacks and bouts of anxiety and depression. Because of Tancredo’s draft record, Coffman said he specifically asked organizers of the rally whether Tancredo would be speaking.[76]

          I didn’t really feel it was a cheap shot.  Tancredo walked into it by arguing vet’s health care with a veteran.  I didn’t serve either, but if I tried to tell a veteran what was good for him or her, I would expect to be put in my place also.

  6. sufimarie says:

    say their health care is wonderful and they say it without any coercion from the liberal media or the illuminati therefore, they must be on drugs.  

  7. Majority Moderate says:

    Veterans, by and large (and yes, I am one), have increasingly praised the efforts made by the VA over the last 10 years or so to dramatically improve the health care service they provide.  And I disagree with Mr. Tancredo that they would rather have a voucher.  I think most of us just want a good provider that is sympathetic and understanding of the unique issues often surrounding veterans.

    But I do not agree that this is somewhat analogous to a single-payer system.  I liken it more to an employer (in this case the US government) who has established its own health care system to back up its previous promises of a health care benefit.  

    • MADCO says:

      Yeah- but the employer in your quibble is the US GOVERNMENT.

      Gov’t run healthcare works. Right here in the USA.

      VA hospitals are like the dread UK model.  TRICARE insurance is like the dread ….Canadien? mode (private providers, gov’t run insurance)

      • Gilpin Guy says:

        That’s just not right.

        If you are a Republican you want to have a voucher system so that when you get shot you can take your battlefield voucher to the  for-profit Blackwater subsidiary for first aid.  They don’t need no stinking military doctors trained and experienced in treating trauma.  The doc-in-a-box concept should result in spectacular profits for Blackwater and so what if Tancredo is insulting military doctors by calling them incompetent.  He should know what works on the battlefield having watched so many John Wayne movies.  Boo military doctors who engage in government run socialism.  You can’t trust a surgeon with your life particularly if they have been in the military a long time.  Sure they have seen a lot of trauma and dealt with sharpnel wounds before but they WORK FOR the government.  You can’t trust them to know what to do to save your live.  They are federal government employees.  Nuff said.

        • MADCO says:

          Not really- but still.

        • Steve Harvey says:

          the fact that the federal government had Tancredo on the payroll all those years doesn’t speak well of government competence.

          Of course, it was “the people” (as opposed to “the government”) who made the mistake, first, of hiring him, then, of not firing him…. Government stupidity is nothing more than a mirror in which those who are most obsessed by it have fallen into a love-hate relationship with their own reflection.

  8. Ellie says:

    I grew up fighting against the Tancredo’s of the world and they were called Southern Democrats.  Frankly I’m not sure why he was on the show to begin with.

  9. WesternSlopeThought says:

    defense of Chickenhawks today?  Sxp is right.  There is a big difference in opposing a war and not wanting to participate and those who support a war as long as it is other people putting their lives in danger.  Sort of like former Grand Junction Mayor, Gene Kinsey supporting war from the comfort of his computer.

    “George W. Bush didn’t have a draft deferment.” –Police Squad

  10. DavidThi808 says:

    Put aside if this was a relevant point of discussion. Put aside if Tancredo deserves the eptiah of chicken-hawk. Put all that aside.

    Markos brought up an undisputed fact of Tancredo’s background. Tancredo demanded an apology. And when he didn’t get it – he ran away.

    So any time someone is debating Tancredo, they can just bring up some part of his background he’s embarrassed about – and he’ll run away. Definitely a chickenshit.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.