President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 24, 2007 03:59 AM UTC

State of the Union Thunderdome!

  • 137 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Get ready to rumble.

Tweet
Share

Comments

137 thoughts on “State of the Union Thunderdome!”

  1. to GW, you have no recollection of the eloquence of Clinton, Reagan, Kennedy, Eisenhower, FDR.  Even though he is my age, he is the epitome of the slacker mentaility and abilities.

    Even with a prepared script, he’s horrible. If he were part of a high school debating team, he’d never make it to state finals.  Unless, of course, his family bought his way.

    I will catch Mike Malloy on NovaM radio via internet and laugh as he shreds the chimp’s big moment.

    2. LOL!!!!!

      Didn’t he get kicked off of Airhead America for being TOO crazy?!  How is that even possible?

      I think he’s one of these guys who is so far left they are actually right.  I’m sure you and the Pat Buchanan crowd will be hanging with the nutter tonight.  Enjoy!

  2. Love the picture.

    Democrats, defeatists, and cutters and runners: Bring it on!  You are appeasers.  Americans are not.  President Bush and our heroic troops will git’r’done without your help.  Believe the polls.  Believe your Boulder neighbors.  Believe what you want.

    Americans support you President Bush–as long as you want victory as much as we do.

      1. What does that mean?  President Bush said that if he were polled on if he approved of the way the war was going he would answer “no.”

        If you think the average American is the nutter out on 5th Avenue running around with feathers on his head banging pots and pans then you’ve spent far too many hours on Pearl Street.  To understand polls I guess you really have to be good on reading the tea leaves–most Americans don’t oppose the war as much as they oppose how it’s being fought.  President Bush is offering a plan to better stability and security in Iraq.  If it works and in 60 days security is increased you’ll see his numbers dramatically rise.

        That should be something we all hope for.

        1. That hasn’t happened in 4 years.  You think that he’s going to magically make it happen in the next 2 months?  Once again, Bush states goals but doesn’t address how to reach them.  Victory in Iraq:  What is victory and how do you achieve it?

          Do you even understand why your party got thrown out of Congress?  You did not gain a single congressional seat, senate seat, Governor’s mansion or legislative body in the 2006 elections.  Your defeat was so uniform.  Do you ever step back to ask why?  A CBS poll has Bush’s approval at 28%.  Do you ask yourself why?  People are fucking sick of all your lies and distortion.  People are sick of “stay the course”.  They actually want to discuss changin it.  Does Bush talk about changing things when his plan doesn’t work?  No.  The same old bullshit all the time from him.  Even many Republicans are sick of it. 

          1. This is why the GOP will win it all back.  Note the seamless segue from “Victory in Iraq is impossible” to “You’re all losers, we’re smarter” without expressing either a coutner-definition of victory, a counter-strategy to attain it, or remorse at the implied assurance of defeat.

            1. What’s with the 1870 date?  The Democratic Party is the oldest political party in the world, going back to about 1800.

              Do you mean political defeats like Roosevelt, JFK, and Clinton?

              Or military defeats like the World Wars?

              As to your questions, there is no reason to redefine, or having a “counter strategy.”  We leave, as fast as possible.  Like we did in Viet Nam.  Nixon spent four years talking to the North Viet Namese will my peers died at 200 a week so that by the time of the next election he could say, “I have a plan.”  I will never forgive him for that political chicanery.

              How many German lives would have been saved if Hitler had, by fall 1945, said “You win.”  But no, he “stayed the course”, didn’t he? 

              Santyana was SO right.

              2. It’s about the stunning ability of the Democratic Party to lose a war that’s already been won, from the Civil War through Versailles and Vietnam and on to today. 

                But since you bring up Santayana, pulling out of Vietnam did wonders for all those boat people – not to mention Cambodians.  Then there’s  the reinvigorated Soviet imperialism that resulted, bringing enlightenment and peace from Afghanistan to Central America, and communist imperialism in general that resulted in places like Tibet. 

                The Soviets left Afghanistan as fast as possible.  That brought a power vacuum, which brought about the Taliban, which brought about a staging base for the previously-limited al Qaeda, which, well, you know the rest of the story there.

                Leaving Iraq, even while maintaining the “paper-spare” of an “over-the-horizon” force, would do much the same thing, only worse.  It’ll expand the power sphere of nuclear Iran to an outlying territory that’ll remain free of “legal control” just enough that the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism will have plausible deniability of the terror camps springing up next door. 

                Not good things. 

                No, victory, not submission, is the only option.  End of Story.

                1. Weren’t the Dems pretty well sidelined in national politics in this country from 1860 to the end of the century?  How could they have snatched defeat fromt he jaws of victory? Versaille????  Viet Nam?  Wasn’t Nixon a Republican?

                  As to the assorted ramifications of the power vacuums you mention, that’s quite a stretch that Dems are responsible for so many other people’s fates.  And as much as I think of myself as a world citizen, I tend to cherish my fellow Americans lives over others, just like my family.  So were should have continued to sacrifice a thousand lives a month so that there would be no boat people?  To support a corrupt government?  I don’t get it.

                  And here’s a linguistic hint:  “Victory” is a result, not a method, not an “option.”  What’s the method that we get to “victory” and what would it look like?

                2. …that’s one way to read history.

                  One might also consider that Vietnam wasn’t really about the Soviets at first, but rather about French colonialism; had we not gone in, those boat people would in all likelihood not have been refugees for supporting our side during the war.  Or one might consider that, having pulled out of Vietnam, we can now actually talk to a semi-sane country – and that our withdraw put us in a financial situation where, with the help of Afghanistan etc., we were able to put the Soviets into bankruptcy and end the Cold War.

                  All things have many consequences beyond the obvious.  Where would we be now if we had stayed?  Vietnam had been going on for too long already, and like our situation now in Iraq, we were not committed to a strategy that ended in complete victory.  We could have nuked the place, perhaps; but fighting the VC in the jungles was a perpetually losing maneuver.  Colin Powell saw this clearly – and was ignored by this President as though the Powell Doctrine had never existed.

              3. He was dead.

                Look, don’t go there. You might as well say:

                “How many lives would have been saved if Churchill had, by fall 1940, said “You win.”  But no, he “stayed the course”, didn’t he?”

                McCain actually has it right on this one: If we’re going to stay in this thing, we have to stay in ALL THE WAY, the way Bush’s dad did in the early 1990s, with a HALF A MILLION troops instead of a pathetic 21,500 increase which will do nothing except get more soldiers killed.

                We have a President who recently seriously said, in response to a TV interview question as to why he wasn’t asking for more sacrifice from Americans in the fight against terror, that people were “sacrificing” by watching uncomfortable stuff on their TVs!!! We are fighting a trillion dollar war while at the same time preserving tax cuts. Sheer insanity.

                We either do what McCain has recommended, or we give up as in Vietnam. Either course is fraught with peril, but at least has a strategy. What we have now is the true coward’s approach.

                2. McCain was proposing 30,000 troops until recently.  Then Bush came along and pretty much followed McCain’s suggestion – now McCain’s pushing for a real war?

                  Not that I disagree with your assessment, I just wanted to point out McCain’s moving goalposts.

            2. But of course, this is from the same crowd that said “Mission Accomplished” back in May of 2003.  Except, that turned out not to be true.  You talked about winning the peace.  How?  You guys are saying that Bush will win this for us, like you have been saying for 4 years, but beyond sending an additional 20,000 troops, Bush has made a plan. 

              As for “Victory In Iraq is impossible”, I didn’t say that.  What I said is, how do you hope to achieve it?  What’s Bush’s  plan? 

              You display the same hubris that cost you power in 2006.  You thump your chests and act all macho.  You speak rhetoric that has no substance and is not grounded in reality and you were never afraid to call the other side losers in the past and then claim that you were smarter.  God it must hurt to have the tables turned on you.

              1. The plan is the plan, and it’s *working.*  4 provinces (Muthanna, Dhi Qar, Najaf, and Kirkuk) are under Iraqi control, 2 more are well-into the process (Maysan and Diyala), and 3 are under effective control of the Kurds – that’s 9 of 18 provinces that are under Iraqi local control.  Add that to the  fact that 80% of the violence is within a 30nm ring of Baghdad, and the plan is well on the way to winning. 

                The surge is about applying the lessons learned by LTG Petraeus in Mosul by beefing up presence in Baghdad and applying the oil-spot strategy. 

                Personally, I’m not a fan of treating Sadr with the kid gloves and staying out of Sadr City to start, but I don’t think it’s a deal-breaker, particularly with the Iraqi government starting to actually put him on notice.

                1. What does that have to do with my last paragraph?  It’s all true.  You lost because you were and still are arrogant.  You paid for your arrogance in the last election and if you continue down this path, you will continue to pay dearly for your arrogance.

                  1. Because rhetoric like that “You losers lost so there!  It hurts, man, and now YOU’RE gonna get it, from now until eternity!  O’Doyle Rules!” stuff makes you sound like an idiot.

                    1. You are talking about yourself.  You did it in 2002 and 2004.  So, it is easy to see that in others.  “O’Doyle Rules!” was you after those elections.  I’ve seen it.  So, I guess it’s easy to see it in others.  Your assertion that “The GOP will take it all back” falls into that category as well.  Just another instance of the pot calling the kettle black.  See you later O’Doyle.

                    3. So, where was I name-calling?  I was just stating things as I see them.  I think that saying that their hubris and arrogance cost them an election and will cost them in the future is not name-calling.

                      What do you consider name-calling?  Didn’t your side call the Dems “losers” after ’02 and ’04?  I don’t remember saying that to them.  Or what about “If you disagree with President Bush in a time of war, then you are a traitor to America and you hate freedom”?  What do you call that?  I never knew that speaking the truth especially when I never applied an adjective to them specifically was name-calling.  I have seen your side use that rhetoric far more than mine.  So I suggest you look in a mirror.

            3. It’s the same sappy emotionalism that (dis?)graced the hippies and they’re trying to send that sorry movement into overtime.  The problem is that the fans have left the stadium.  They’re checked out.  The old Left agenda has wearied voters with its stagering nihilism.

              The only reason the Democrats won was because voters saw a lame Republican Party and decided to vote for the other team because, hey, it can’t be much lamer than that, right?

              Wrong.  The Democrats are MUCH lamer.  Most people are starting to realize that.  And if the GOP gets some guts soon the adults will take back the reigns from Gramma Pelosi and the kiddies.

              1. Back when Mark Maron had the early morning slot on Air America, he had a weekly segment with a guy from Planet Bush.  You remind me of him, except you’re more impervious to the facts.  (The guy in the skit would always start with talking points from right-wing radio, which Mark Maron would patiently debunk, and the guy would wind up crying and admitting his errors – and then he’d just pop back up as if the facts had been wiped clean from his mind…)

            1. Just the other day I was having this conversation with some friends.  People seldom make decisions based on facts or non-personal experience.  They make decisions with their emotions.

              Just look at our 2004 elections.  Facts said, “Don’t give GW another chance, he’s mucked things up horribly as it is.”  But no, the good citizens were too upset about gays moving in down the street, or crazed A-rabs hijacking the kid’s school bus.

                2. You are obviously from Boulder.  Only Boulderites engage in that kind of fancy-pants pot-talk that makes no sense to normal people.

  3. “First, we must balance the Federal Budget”
    “Yaaaaaaay!”
    “We can do so without raising taxes.”
    “…. *crickets* … umm…Yay?!”

    “When not even CSPAN is watching” was a good line.

      1. OMG. What will it take? If he was fighting 911, truly, competently and honestly….I believe we’d have Osama Bin Laden, and there would be no more Al Quaida. GW is creating more Jihadists!

        1. But 9/11 was the last attack on the US from the jihadists – an attack that plans found just this past week in *Iraq* were an attempt to copy, fittingly enough.

          Thematically, 9/11 was supposed to be the one thing everyone in that room, even Speaker Blinky, agreed on.  Unfortunately, that’s not even the case anymore.  They’d rather sit on their hands in the face of an exhortation to join together and, you know, WIN than admit that defeat would indeed mean a lot more 9/11s. 

          You see, Iraq DOES have something to do with 9/11 NOW.  The Soviets and the US left Afghanistan a failed state – and we know what that brought.  Leaving Iraq a failed state would bring the same.

      1. Quit.  Walk away.  And if it means year-long remotes and bases that are nothing but sacrificial speedbumps before the first waves of the other side (who can decide to attack whenever they feel like it), and decades of nuclear posturing and threats and reality, so be it.  Strategic Genius.

      2. Tell the President to swallow take off the codpiece, swallow his ego, and actually pretend to be diplomatic once in a while.  Tell the US contractors their time is up, and hand the projects over to the Iraqi people, which will vastly decrease the unemployment rate in Iraq (and increase the cashflow).  Tell the Iraqi government that it’s up to them to restore order, that we’re pulling back over the horizon, but that we’ll be back in a heartbeat if we catch them aiding in a genocide: we put them into power, and we can take them out.  At the same time tell Iran that we have no interest in the region except that they stay on their side of the border and don’t provide any aid in oppressing the Sunni or Kurdish populations.

        And finally, we finalize the transfer of $13billion in oil subsidies into the development of alternative fuels produced here in the U.S..

          1. Here it is, straight from the Army War College.

            Send in 400,000 troops to pacify the country.

            Oh, wait – we don’t *have* 400,000 troops available to deploy into Iraq…  Scratch that; besides, our equipment is stretched so far beyond its normal maintenance lifespan, we couldn’t do it with our current resources anyway.

            Willing to meet me halfway and call for a massive, no-one excluded draft and a large tax increase?

              1. Nukes were supposed to be this powerful inexpensive way to replace large standing armies. But they were found to be much too blunt of an instrument.

                We can’t use them – if you think the world hates us now, just imagine after we use a nuke. And we may be the strongest country on earth, but we’re not stronger than all the others together.

                No one except an utter moron would suggest using a nuke in Iraq. And besides, what would you nuke?

                1. The only war where the US *didn’t* give up on reconstruction dooming the abandoned underclass to decades of oppression was the war we ended by dropping our entire nuclear arsenal on the enemy.  Coincidence?  I think not.

                  1. We decided to not give up on reconstruction because we dropped a nuke on them? Now that’s an interesting argument I have not heard before.

                    Let’s go back to that time. First, no one who decided to drop the bomb understood how powerful it was. It was one of the things you couldn’t comprehend until it occured. That is no longer the case.

                    Second, Russia had lost 100,000 troops dead just taking Berlin. The U.S. lost 90,000 dead & injured taking Okinawa. The estimate for the main islands of Japan was at least 100,000 U.S. dead.

                    In Iraq we can leave (not my first choice) and have 0 more dead. It’s a much different equation. It’s hard to make the argument that we nuked half the country so we could bring democracy and freedom to the other half.

                    Some people might not get it. SOme might even be upset…

                  2. So you’re saying we felt so terribly sorry for the people of Japan after dropping the bomb on them, that we kept to the Marshall Plan despite the natural inclination of our society?  I’m missing the link here…

                    PS – You can’t reconstruct a country that’s glowing in the dark.  It’s also hard to extract oil from it, if you’re more inclined that way.

                2. Even with tactical nuclear weapons, troops on the field get decimated with radioactive material and fallout…..using a nuke can only be done by cowards in armchairs.

                3. ….did not one of our GOP presidential candidates (whose name escapes me) advocate using a nuke on Mecca under certain circumstances?  What was the guy’s name again???

              2. We can git-r-dun without nukes or 400,000 troops.  David Patreus–the man who wrote the book–believes that 20,000 will do it.  You don’t want to smother the nascent democracy–you want to fortify the tough areas with the help of Iraqi forces.

                And nukes are not an option.  They’re just not.  It would go against American interests.  We want a democratic nation of free peoples in the middle east–not a bunch of glowing lumps of goo.  The Middle East has to be approached carefully though forcefully.  You break that balance and it all falls apart.

                1. Is that unless he makes nice noises for the President, he won’t remain in his command for nearly as long as the past several Iraqi commanders have done.  Co-incidentally, all of them are now on record saying that 20,000 isn’t going to cut it.

                  We’ve *had* our troop levels at 150,000 before; it didn’t work then, and unless something drastically different is happening on the ground, it’s not going to be different now.  Suggesting that it will be, all other things being the same, is the definition of insanity.

                2. Speaking of equipment, about how long after the “surge” troops get to Iraq will they be getting the armor that Democrats have been complaining about our troops not having for three years?

                  We don’t have the equipment for these troops to go (back) to Iraq; they’re getting down-armored HMMMVs and no armor inserts for their vests – again.  What is this?  Three years ago, it was “we go to war with the army we have, not the army we want.”  We’ve had three years now – isn’t it just possible we could have had the army we want by now – or at least the equipment they need?

          2. Humans try to think instead, and make appropriate decisions.  When those humans are responsible for other humans, they may even make decisions that involve swallowing pride or admitting to realities they have previously denied.

            Most of them, at least.

  9. Webb: “bring the war in Iraq to a proper conclusion.”  And do it like Ike did in Korea. 

    As the Guinness fellows would say: “Brilliant!”

    We all know that since then, the peninsula’s been nothing but rainbows and meadows where deer and children laugh and play together.

      1. The Korean war restored the boundaries between communist and free established after WWII. South Korean is free, democratic, peaceful and rich. It was the first so-called Asian miracle…the ROK army fought well with the UN forces. We have US troops stationed there, a commitment to protect South Korea and the 38th Parallel border is heavily mined to prevent another invasion from the North.

        The North is a mess. But, we never invaded the North, we never pledged to “liberate” the North.  We might have been successful in repelling the Communists off the pennisula if that old and bombastic MacArthur had not gotten carried away with his own publicity and disregarded intelligence that he had an army of Chineses across the Yalu…..his army was trapped and devastated.  So you gd fools, better think twice about Iraq and make gd sure you have plan to get our army out of a sand trap……..

        Helicopters are being shot down; the roads out are mined and our guys are being specifically targeted in neighborhoods.  Nice.

  10. “FOX News’s Brian Wilson just informed us that the major color tonight among the lady’s outfits this SOTU is purple (“I’m seeing a lot of purple”). He then stated that Nancy Pelosi will be wearing a “sea foam green” outfit. Brit Hume then chimed in to say that Pelosi had intended to wear a different jacket (he asked her about this earlier today), but then spilled chocolate on it, hence the sea-foam green jacket. No news on the fellas’ outfits.” 

    Reminds me of the substance we get from the righties on this site…….little depth, less breadth.

      1. If you are indeed female, don’t you care?  After all, isn’t fashion an important part of the political process?  Surely you’ve studied history and remember the impact of Martha Washington’s SOTU stocking color on the Whiskey Rebellion, no?

        Next thing you know, you’ll be telling us that this is all part of the dumbing down of the American voter.

        1. “Small minds talk about people, average minds events, and great minds discuss ideas.”

          Discussing fashion and colors moves the conversation to the lowest mental stage, abdicating events and ideas. Compare this trend to the meaningless to when eighth grade or less educated farmers traveled for a day to hear Lincoln and Douglas debate.  They knew more about our history and constitution than 80% of our well educated Americans today.

          Obviously, POLsters are in the other 20%!

          1. Gail Collins wrote a book on American political discourse in history (Scorpion Tongues) that pretty well demonstrated that most of us have always been focused on the small stuff — Andy Jackson’s Kentucky, not-patrician roots, made for extensive gossip about his vulgar habits and dress.  It went all the way back to the founding.

        2. but let’s leave the comments on ladies’ clothes to Joan and Melissa, not Brit Hume. Like he’d know what “sea foam green” looked like anyway.

          Did anyone mention Obama’s designer or whether Webb’s suit matched his eyes?  Methinks not! 

          1. James Webb wore a delightful dark suit with a Virginia sky-blue button-up shirt.  The red tie was tastefully worn.  Of course, for an ex-Republican turned Democrat-opportunist, red is a dandy color.

  11. The Fairview girls varsity basketball team just beat Mullen, the top ranked team in the state. 42-40 at Mullen with lousy refs calling the game Mullen’s way.

    Awesome job (yes my daughter is on the team)!!!

      1. She’s an incredible athlete. And a soccer scholarship would be even easier for her. But my wife and I talked to her about the trade-offs, where they own you and the team is your life outside of classes.

        She decided to have a normal life at school. And I think that will be better for her. She will probably play on a club team. I did suggest MIT which just one it’s first b-ball (men’s) game in 22 years but she didn’t go for that :).

        thanks – dave

        1. Yes, Jessie had to give up many hours of her life, study in a cramped 15 passenger van on icy roads.  If you can pay her way and/or with general scholarships, do it.

  12. Webb’s speach was good, and was great at times. But that ending – wow – that was beyone perfect. If the Democrats do end up taking control over the next 2 years (Congress has ended up running things a few times in our past), that will be viewed as the phrase that set it all in motion.

    Bush was his normal inarticulate self. His way of speaking seems to be that of someone who doesn’t think about things a lot. He’s not comfortable with the ideas he is presenting.

    As usual, I agree with a lot of what he said. But I know that when it comes to actually doing it he will either be incompetent or will do the opposite.

    And Webb’s reply (I’m sure he had help) was brilliant. Agree with the president where he could. Then concentrate on those two key points and hammer him so eloquently.

    And I think Webb was an even better counterpoint because he also is a plain spoken regular guy like Bush. But unlike Bush he can speak intelligently. And that makes the contrast even more glaring.

    It really made Bush look like a doofus. A doofus pleading for 6 more months to try and have some kind of success in Iraq.

  13. My stunning ability to slide the argument in to one-word-wide spaces on my first day here aside, what about the non-Iraq stuff?  What about the healthcare insurance subsidy?  It’s certainly an interesting idea.  What about the “civilian reserve corps?”  Sounds a little too New Deal-ish to me.

    Also, I’d like to go on record saying that the release of the speeches to the media well before the speeches annoys the crap out of me.  What’s the point of standing there saying stuff everyone knows you’re going to say anyway?  Annoying.

    1. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the on-air talking heads actually got to be genuinely surprised by a speech once in a while.  You know – they actually had to react naturally?  Nah – bad idea, forget it.

      I have rarely been unhappy with what the President *says* during his State of the Union speeches – aside from dragging 9/11 in relentlessly, or some of his “reforms”.  It’s more what he does afterwords that blows chunks.

      Re: the healthcare bit, I got to see a preview this morning of some of the points of his plan…  I’m underwhelmed, but at least we’re talking about the issue.  On the one hand, I think the tax breaks express a good idea – to get employers thinking about just what they’re getting for their money.  On the other hand, this is not the 1950’s, and corporations are not falling over themselves to give their employees the best health care plan available; given the choice of a reduced tax break or reduced healthcare, I predict many corporations will choose the latter. 🙁  What I’d like to see, barring a single-payer system: (1) unified paperwork for all health plans, (2) repeal of the ban on lawsuits against healthcare insurers, (3) a cap on profit margins for insurers (ideally, I’d love to see healthcare go back to non-profit only…), and (4) a tax on corporations that do not provide employer-paid healthcare and pay their workers so little that they remain eligible for Medicaid; couple those with expanded coverage for children, and we’d be well on our way.

      Re: alternative energy and global warming, we’ll see if the President really means anything he said…  He’s said “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” for 6 years running, and we still haven’t seen any action.

      As I stated above, his “reforms” have been beaten to death. The facts on tort reform are in, and we’ve learned that torts – even valid torts – cause a minimal burden on the insurance system and on businesses in general.  The facts on Social Security vouchers are also in: every time the President speaks about them in public, his approval rating drops; touching Social Security remains the Third Rail of politics.

    2. I was wondering why I hadn’t noticed you before.  I’ve thoroughly enjoyed your historical perspectives and your take on the war.  OK, you’re a little scary with the nuke dropping stuff but it’s entertaining as hell watching the responses.  I hope you stick around a while.  What are you doing after?  Can I buy you a cup of coffee?:)

      Ditto on the release of speeches prior to the speech.  It promotes laziness from the press and the counter point. 

      1. Long-time lurker, first time poster. 

        Yeah, the nuke bit was mostly tongue-in-cheek.  But it’s interesting to consider the lengths to which we used to go (and note the casualty numbers then as compared to now), compared to the pathos of our foreign policy today. 

        I’m not in Colorado much these days, but it’s good to keep up on the once and future home state.  Hence the mostly-lurking on Colorado-specific issues.  But I think I know a little bit about the Iraq thing, since I’m gearing up to head over for a fourth trip.  Good times. 

        Cup o’ coffee would be nice, though some good Colorado beer would do the trick, too.  See ya around.

              1. Pave Lows.  Bigger than Hawks – more like flying Winnebagos.  Suffice to say it’s not as bad there as you’d think from the news.  It’s pretty funny – everytime we go back, everyone always notices how much more lights there are.  And everytime you come home, it sounds like you got out just in time because the world’s ending again there.

        2. I think that would be a great reason to have a Pols get together.

          Although you’ve made my head spin a few times, it’s obvious that you are intelligent and a man concerned about our nation.  I can respect that.

          Here’s a big Pols send off, may you return in good health!

  14. ABC interviewed both of them afterwards tonight and I have to say Hillary sounded much better!  I’m still undecided but I have to say she sounded much more confident and like she had better control of the issues.  Obama sounded OK, but I was dissapointed with all his hype I thought he would have had a stronger response.

    1. Wow, Hillary really did well.  Obama did well, but not as good as she did.  Poor McCain really looked tired and his eyes twitched.  He should retire to one of those old folks homes in Arizona.

  15. My gut reaction to watching the President this evening was, he’s got the emotional maturity of a three-year-old.  He came in looking all sour, like he really didn’t want to stand in front of a Democratic majority.  When he said stuff he thought people wouldn’t like, he wore his insecurity plainly on his face; when the reaction was against him – “Madame Speaker… (huge applause)” – he was pouty; and when he was genuinely applauded, he smiled like their approval meant the world to him.  Pavlov’s dogs didn’t react in as predictable a manner as the President did tonight, and that disturbs me.

    1. I saw no pouting, no sourness, no insecurity.  He seemed relaxed and I liked his interactions with Nancy Pelosi, who seemed warm and gracious with the Pres.

      GW is a Rorschach test.

      1. There is zero chance McCain is the nominee.  You’re right about Romney. He’ll be on the ticket.  But he’ll be the party head while McCain may be your veep.  I personally think that it’ll be Romney/Giuliani or Romney/Pawlenty.  But there’s simply no way McCain can get the nomination.

        1. You’re talking about nominating the man who thought he could be governor of not only Massachusetts, but also New York?  One after the other?  (Until he realized Elliot Spitzer was going to wipe the walls with him if he tried…)

          Well, you’re wrong on just about everything else, so maybe you’ll get this one right on a lark…

    2. and less whiney than the Dems usually sound after a State of the Union address, but his parting shot made him sound petty and arrogant.  Could have done without the pandering to the lefty lefts.

    1. If you’re not going to raise taxes, and you’re already trying to drown the government in the bathtub, it’s the only way.  (Aside from your suggestion, which would never ever be considered by a Republican President or Congress…)

  18.   I was amazed but to his credit, Shrub did go into some detail about energy conservation when he talked about mandating fuel efficiency standards.  Dick Cheney did not look amused. Nor, I suspect, were the member of the board of directors of Exxon.

  19. What happened to sending human-animal hybrids to Mars?  Now THATS a domestic agenda I can get behind! 

    I find it endlessly fascinating that I occupy the same apparent universe as people who are capable as writing as James Dobson has Doglike Qualities, above (sorry all dogs of the world, that is truly unfair to four-leggeds everywhere…).

    Bush has done so much damage to our nation, our reputation, our ability to lead in the world.  Its treasonous.

    1. all talk the talk but not walk the walk.  They can be found sending humans into immoral and inneffective combat, while refusing to go to Mars themselves.  🙂

  21. Did you see the comments from DeGette, Udall, Perlmutter, K. Salazar, and Allard?  As might be expected, the Dems gave low marks, C minus to B minus.  Allard?  A!

    Come on, Wayne!  Couldn’t you have even pretended to be objective?  You know, A- or B+?  You are both gone in two years, no need to suck up.

    Need more knee pads?

    1. Okay, he’s not a nazi* but virtually no legislator has been so loyal to the party line than Allard.

      * For those who don’t know, Himmler was often referred to by Hitler as “Der treue Heinrich.” “Treue” (pronounced “troy-eh”) is German for loyal.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

62 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!