What Would It Take for Colorado Republicans To Halt Their Plan To Hang A Trump Portrait At The Colorado Capitol?

(Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Colorado Republican leaders said today that a portrait of Trump will adorn a wall at the Colorado Capitol by late 2018 or early 2019.

But in light of recent crimes apparently involving Trump, would they halt the placement of the Trump portrait if the president were impeached, convicted of crimes, or if enough citizens objected to it?

The Colorado Times Recorder left a message with that question for Senate Republican spokesman Sean Paige, who distributed a news release about the Trump portrait.

Paige did not respond.

On Twitter, a famously sardonic account called “Missing Pundit,” tweeted

Congrats to Colorado Senate Republicans (who won’t see this, b/c they blocked me) for your portrait. In light of recent events, might I suggest you get started with the Pence portrait, which might be needed in the near future.

To be extra safe, you might commission a gallery along the line of succession. So get a move on the Orrin Hatch and Paul Ryan portraits. Although the latter one can wait until after the election, cuz you know.

The Mike Pompeo portrait might not be a bad idea either, but by the time we get there, we might have Secretary of State Gary Busey. #copolitics

State Senate President Kevin Grantham (R-Canon City) said last month he quickly raised $10,000 for the Trump picture in the wake of news coverage of a stunt involving the placement of a Putin portrait on the wall inside the Capitol where Trump’s picture would hang.

Now, Sarah Boardman, a Colorado Springs artist, will begin work on the portrait.

In a video linked on the GoFundMe fundraising page, used to raise money for the art, Grantham said, “I am excited to announce we’re going to take the reins on this and raise the $10,000 necessary to put up President Donald J. Trump’s portrait in the hall of portraits right here in the Capitol rotunda of the Colorado State Capitol.”

When he launched the fundraising effort, Grantham said one donor funded Colorado Capitol’s portrait of President Barack Obama.

But because Trump is a “populist,” the “everyday citizens of Colorado” should ” should “have a part of this.”

Here’s Grantham’s fundraising pitch for the project.

28 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DENependent says:

    If it must be put up it should be with an asterisk like all the records set by baseball players in the steroid era.

  2. JohnInDenver says:

    If they ask now, perhaps they can negotiate a deal — the artist can paint ALL of those who serve as President between 2017 and Inauguration Day 2021. Could one, two or even three paintings, depending on what happens to Trump and what gets found on Pence.

  3. allyncooper says:

    Is Richard Nixon's portrait there?  (Impeached by the House of Representatives and resigned before trial in the Senate. Then received a "full and unconditional pardon" to stay out of jail. Disbarred from practicing law. )

    Is Bill Clinton's portrait there?  (Impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted at Senate trial. Plea bargained to "testifying falsely" under oath, fined and law license revoked for five years. A number of women claim to have had affairs with him, with at least one accusing him of forcible rape. Paid off Paula Jones $850,000 in an out of court settlement of a sexual misconduct lawsuit.)

    And how about George W Bush? – War criminal
    And let’s not forget Lyndon B Johnson – War criminal

     

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Actually Nixon was never impeached. He resigned after the Judiciary Committee recommended impeachment but before the House could vote on it.

      • allyncooper says:

        I stand corrected. Three articles of impeachment were voted out of committee. My faulty memory from that time told me some kind of vote was taken by the committee of the whole after Nixon resigned,  but upon research I guess it didn't happen.

        • Conserv. Head Banger says:

          You left out Franklin Pierce – drunkard; and James Buchanan – weakling.

          • allyncooper says:

            Also Thomas Jefferson – slaveowner with a black mistress

            Andrew Jackson – slaveowner and genocidal Trail of Tears (4000 died on forced removal of the Cherokee west of the Mississippi)

            US Grant – drunkard

            FDR – adulterer and forced relocation of Japanese Americans to internment camps

            JFK – serial adulterer

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      As misguiided as Bush and LBJ were in their war policies, it is wrong to call them war criminals.

      • DavieDavie says:

        Bush authorized torture (waterboarding, and more) that is prohibited under the Geneva Conventions.  Though he was never indicted nor tried, thus not convicted, his actions were consistent with the charge of war crimes.

        If we ever joined the ICC, both Bush and Cheney would have justifiable concerns regarding their freedom.

        • VoyageurVoyageur says:

          Really, Davey?  Waterboarding is worse than burning people to death by Napalm?  Or a string of .50 calibers from a ma deuce?

          last time I looked, wars were pretty awful things.   But we had no SS squads march ing Jews to Babi Yar.   Yes, we had My Lai.  But my comrades in Vietnam know they were sent to die for a mistake, as John Kerry said.   But we were not war criminals.

          • DavieDavie says:

            The issue is not one of degree, but of definition.  Torture, whatever the technique, is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.

            Similarly, the definition by our courts of cruel and unusual punishment has evolved in the last couple of centuries.  That does not render today's definition any more or less valid than the criteria was 200 years ago in this nation.

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              I suspect if you stepped on a mine and blew your legs off, you would rather quickly reverse your position and conclude that the degree of your injuries far outweighed their definition.

              War is not a very kind thing.   As William Tecumseh Sherman said, War is cruelty, you cannot refine it.

              • DavieDavie says:

                You and I agree war is hell.  But, while I haven't researched it, as far as I understand, dropping a nuclear bomb on hundreds of thousands of innocents during war does not meet the definition of torture, which is the only point I am making.

                • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                  Well, the problem with all those laws of war is that war is pretty much the breakdown of law.

                  • allyncooper says:

                    And the problem with the laws of war is they pretty much became inoperative in WW2 with the Nazi and Japanese atrocities, the firebombing of Dresden, and the nuclear bombing of civilian populations. What was once war waged between enemy combatants with rules of engagement and conduct became total war.

                    "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"

                    • DavieDavie says:

                      And yet now we spend $700 billion a year for the capability to wage WWII on two fronts again, while bogged down in forever war in Afghanistan (and newly, Africa) cycling hundreds of thousands of troops through hell with no end game.

                      War has become thinkable once again, including tactical nukes and private, for profit armies.  At least the prospect of total war made it almost unthinkable, if that is any comfort.

  4. itlduso says:

    How will they feel about putting President Nancy Pelosi's portrait up?

    • DENependent says:

      I would put at least even money on Trump serving the rest of his term. Before he resigned Nixon was at around 24.8% approval. While the most recent news has not yet had time to potentially change the polls the president is still at 42% average approval according to 538.

      In order to get to 67 votes in the Senate he would have to lose at least 50% of Republicans. Right now he is at 87% support amount Republicans. (Gallup, Aug. 13-19)

      And even if Trump were removed there is the small matter of the Vice President who Republicans will not remove without some serious horse trading.

      Your repeated "President Pelosi" posts are no more sensible than the Republican shills dropping in to whine about "Clinton emails" to distract from actual issues and provable facts.

      • itlduso says:

        Just wait.  I'm not itlduso for nothin.  

        Mueller's findings will be astounding and incontrovertible.  Pence will also be implicated.  That leaves Pelosi (or Obama).

        Oh, and I would hate to distract from real issues like portraits in the Capitol if I didn’t think this was real.

        • allyncooper says:

          "Trump Derangement Syndrome"  to be entered into the DSM-6.

          • Conserv. Head Banger says:

            "Trump Derangement Syndrome" is a perfect description of the 30% of the electorate who believe in Trump no matter what he says or does. Truly, as he said during the campaign (paraphrased), he could walk down 5th Avenue in New York; shoot someone to death; and his base would still worship at his feet.

            Trump’s average approval rating of 42% includes Rasmussen at about 50%. Right leaning Rasmussen generally trends several percentage points higher for Republicans. Leaving out Rasmussen, Trump’s approval rating is under 40%. 

            • Republican 36 says:

              Rasmussen also skews the average in a different way. They test Trump's approval/disapproval rating everyday and therefore when Gallup or other pollsters test it once per week there are seven Rasmussen polls to one per week for the other pollsters. I've been watching this for over a year and I think Trump's true average approval rating is somewhere around 38%.

              • JohnInDenver says:

                Gallup has a daily poll, but it is reporting the weekly average publicly. To get the daily moving average, you need to subscribe.

                And Rasmussen is brought into all the averages I've seen as an equivalent of other firms, not counting them every day as a separate poll.

        • DENependent says:

          You sound like a certain Republican saying that Cynthia Coffman will come from behind to surprise everyone. The next Governor.

          What EVIDENCE do you have of Republicans turning against their Dear Leader?

        • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

          itlduso, you're dreaming, and it would be a nightmare for the rest of us. I'm convinced that besides being a rich, spoiled brat, part of The Yam's problem is his age. And you want to replace him with someone who is 78!? Not just no, but hell, no. That was one of the knocks against Reagan during his re-elect. There were buttons circulating that said "78 in 89". She's already there. I do not want an 80-year-old sitting in the Oval in 2021.

  5. Arvadonian1Arvadonian1 says:

    His picture needs to go up there along with all of the other Presidents.  This is a silly, petty battle.

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.