Stapleton Says He’s Bringing Trump To Stump!

UPDATE: File this under “effusive praise.”


A Tweet from conservative radio host Stefan Tubbs that got our attention yesterday:

The decision to welcome President Donald Trump’s help on the campaign trail this fall is significant in a number of ways, many of which have nothing to do with any boost Walker Stapleton might receive from a Trump visit to Colorado. Setting aside whether Trump would be helpful for Stapleton’s own campaign, which is certainly debatable, other Colorado Republicans like Rep. Mike Coffman would face a perilous choice–to be seen on the same stage as Trump with all the baggage that comes with, or anger the Republican faithful whose support Coffman still requires to keep his seat by dissing the President.

As of this writing, we’d say Democrats should be helping Stapleton book the event! Preferably with a large space out front for the welcoming committee.


50 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. davebarnesdavebarnes says:

    Now is the time for Hickenlooper to call a special session of the legislature so we can pass a bill forbidding anyone requiring Secret Service protection from entering the state.

  2. DavieDavie says:

    Oh Boy!  We can help celebrate with a bunch of these (from full scale to miniatures depending on the venue):

  3. unnamed says:

    Stapleton wants to bring the Stink.  Anything having to do with the Dump is definitely effusive.

  4. itlduso says:

    Now where did I put that "Shame!" sign from the W years?

  5. unnamed says:

    Wondering when our resident MAGAt is going to come and offer his own effusive praise to Stink, the baby snatcher.  And an explanation from him on why baby-snatching is an example of MAGA.

  6. ZappateroZappatero says:

    Don't get complacent Dems. 

    And don't forget your strategery

    [O]nce Democrats start telling voters that they're better at delivering what the Republicans say they want, they've lost. The Republicans have already made it their issue, the Democrats have agreed the Republicans are correct but we're just arguing about the details, and voters who think that issue is important know who to vote for.

    And voters who disagree don't have any champions. It isn't true that if you give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Republican they'll vote for the Republican every time. Plenty just won't vote at all.

    Remember, everyone knew Trump would lose in 2016, too. 

    • dustpuppydustpuppy says:

      I told myself I wouldn't refight the 2016 primaries, but here we go.


      Bernie would have trumped the fuck out of Trump if Clinton would have stayed the fuck out of the primaries and not to stack everything in her favor from the beginning. It was definitely NOT her turn, and moreover, any Clintonbots here refighting 2016 elections are bots, not Democrats. They are Brock bots, and they need to be crushed.

      I could count many items including Clinton refusing to debate with Bernie more than 3 times. (wanted to add this)

      • Mike W. says:

        Sure, Bernie probably would've won. He seem to be the candidate who had more energetic followings in the states we absolutely needed to win: Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania (despite losing the last one's primary). People wanted change and Clinton represented complacency, and it was her complacency that aided in the election of Comrade Trump. And a President Sanders could've meant we got to keep at least one Supreme Court seat in Democratic hands, though we all know how soulless the current Majority leader is so who knows what "precedents" he’d pull out of his shell.

        But do you really think we'd be on track to win the House back with a President Sanders? And the prospect of us winning the Senate anytime in the next four years would've probably been moot, too. 

        Its in the past. We have an opportunity that only comes along once a decade. A Dem win in 2018 greatly impacts 2022's redistricting process, and could shape a lasting Dem majority throughout the next decade. A Dem win in 2020 assures it. We shouldn't waste energy on petty infighting, not when the reds hold so many of the cards, and not when it makes our resident trolls shimmy in their booster seats. 

      • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

        Lemme guess … you think Bill Bradley would have won the 2000 election, too. That Howard Dean would have won in 2004.

        Not gonna fight your faith in hypotheticals. But here in Colorado and in a few other states I am interested enough to follow (mainly because I lived in them at some point), liberals have a hard time winning state-wide races.

      • RepealAndReplace says:

        Dust Pup, shouldn't you be busy working on Bernie Sanders' 2020 campaign?

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        Dust puppy, you are dumber than eggplant souffle.  Hillary beat the crap out of bernie and would have won in November if not for jilliots like you.

      • kwtreemamajama55 says:

        I have zero interest in re-fighting 2016- we have more than enough life-and-death battles today and down the road. And normally,  I would stick up for people who are tag-teamed by V and Rr, but you decided to get ugly first, (with the "bots" insult), dp, so you're on your own, buddy .

        Jason's interview with  Weaver brought out some great points:

        *Bernie broke ground for considering policies that mainstream Dems would never advocate for: Medicare for All, free college tuition, $15 an hour minimum wage. HRC and others only started advocating for some version of these policies when they saw how much popular support Bernie had for them.

        *Bernie's campaign also called attention to the internal rot of much of the Democratic establishment; when Wasserman – Schultz rolled back the Obama rules, thus again allowing unlimited dark money contributions and unbalanced power for superdelegates, the grassroots activists rebelled, and are still pushing back today. Superdelegates still exist, lobbyists can still be supers, and they can still contribute dark $$, but only get to vote in the 2nd round….I guess that's progress?

        Most democratic candidates today have some version of universal health care, usually a "Medicare for All" medicare buy-in policy of some type.

        Most democratic candidates today have some version of a free or affordable college tuition plan – because this is what the business community wants. They can't fill their jobs with qualified people if only the elite 10% of the population can afford to get sufficiently educated.

        You won't find a democratic candidate today not in favor of raising the minimum wage – whether in their state or federally.

        Community health centers are standing strong, and still providing what little free health care exists for the working poor – and Bernie made sure that happened.

        Some Dems are now going even further than Bernie went – Kirsten Gillibrand is advocating for a limited Federal jobs plan.

        I don't feel like putting up links at the mo, enjoying my day off from teaching adult literacy this week. If y'all want to quibble over points, you know what to do.



        • RepealAndReplace says:

          comment deleted

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          It was the mainstream of the Democratic Party that crushed Trump 's  effort to repeal Obamacare and save what health care we have, not Bernie.

          as for minimum wage, Colorado a dopted a moderate plan raising to $12, not the Bernie $15 plan.

          However, Bernie was successful in his main goal, getting everybody off his lawn.

          Dust Puppy was a proud and vocal Jilliot and can share credit with Moddy for the excesses of the Trump regime.

  7. kwtreemamajama55 says:

    If one more person tells me not to get complacent, I’m definitely going to angryor…………invite them to make phone calls, donate $$; canvass for a candidate, or at least tell me what they themselves are already doing in those areas.

  8. dustpuppydustpuppy says:

    Can we get the FAA to deny all AF1 clearances to the state of Colorado. I'm concerned about NORAD being infected with morons. He can get off in Cheyenne and walk the rest of the way to Denver, or Uber it.


  9. JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

    So, yesterday the Stapleton campaign's move was to announce a Lite Gov., one who definitely, positively, was bi-partisan. Then later that same day (and in the news the next), he announces he wants Trump to campaign here.

    The nuances of putting these two things on the same day escape me.

  10. Gilpin Guy says:

    What an opportunity for Coffman to stand up and be counted.  Gardner too for that matter.  Make it a BIG BIG photo op for every Republican to pledge their fealty for all to see.  Do it Walker.

  11. ModeratusModeratus says:

    Remember when Udall wouldn't campaign with Obama?

  12. MADCO says:

    Coffman nervous?
    Why would she be? Is she running for something else?

    the other one doesn't appear nervous:
    – no pictures of him dodging debate challenges
    – no video of him saying /doing anything stupid or offensive
    – no challenge to his noble military experience getting him to chair the VA Hospital and keeping it on budget and on schedule
    – no public display of him failing to repeal and replace anything 
    – nothing about no DACA
    – nothing about no pathway to citizenship for immigrant vets
    – nothing, nothing nothing

    Ballots in 10 weeks – loads of DCCC time. CAn't wait for the commercials about how bad Trump is and Coffman is too. But I also miss watching Lucy hold that football for Chuck.

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.