From the Marilyn Musgrave/John Salazar alliance that resoundingly stripped the Army of funding to expand its Pinon Canyon training site yesterday (making fellow Colorado Rep. Doug Lamborn look like a squeaking, toothless jerk in the process), to Tom Tancredo’s long sought anti-“sanctuary city” amendment that somehow got through a Democrat-controlled House, it’s been an unusual but productive week for Colorado’s congressional delegation.
The Rocky Mountain News reports on the remarkable Musgrave/Salazar Pinon Canyon tag team:
Prodded by two members of Colorado’s congressional delegation, Republican Marilyn Musgrave and Democrat John Salazar, the House passed an amendment to a military spending bill that would deprive the Army of money to plan for the [Pinon Canyon] project. The Army wants to add 418,000 acres of ranch and grasslands to the existing 238,000 acre maneuver site, which is used by Fort Carson.
The amendment passed overwhelmingly, 383-34. The bill itself passed later Friday by a wide margin as well…
The floor debate on the amendment included a spirited exchange between Musgrave and another Republican, Rep. Doug Lamborn, who represents the Colorado Springs area.
For those of you keeping score, that was Musgrave 383, Lamborn 34. Squeak squeak. A major victory for the “New Musgrave” and Rep. Salazar, and further proof that Doug Lamborn should have been content with his war on Mt. Democrat instead of trying to play in the big leagues. Even in the unlikely event you agree with him on the Pinon Canyon issue, he came off like a buffoon and widened the margin of defeat just by taking the floor.
And then there’s Tancredo, who is never, ever going to let you forget about his big win yesterday, even though it’s much less likely to survive the legislative process than the Pinon Canyon amendment. Again, the Rocky Mountain News:
The U.S. House of Representatives [Friday] morning voted to withhold federal emergency services funding for “sanctuary cities” that protect illegal immigrants.
Anti-illegal immigration champion Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., sponsored the measure, which he says would apply to cities such as Denver and Boulder. He was elated by its passage, which stunned critics and supporters alike…
The House passed the amendment, 234 to 189, with 50 Democrats voting in favor.
Tancredo and his staffers hooted and cheered from his office across the street from the Capitol immediately after the vote.
Tancredo has introduced similar amendments at least seven other times since 2004, but each has failed — often by wide margins.
It’s a very interesting development, and Tancredo should certainly chalk it up as a win for his agenda (not to mention weeks of fodder for his presidential campaign), but we hope he remembers to use licensed footage in the commercial about it.
However you feel about the issues involved, this was the kind of week that makes it hard for partisan bomb-throwers to get their thing on. Musgrave holding hands with John Salazar, Tancredo passing his hard line anti-immigrant agenda with Democrats’ help. Enjoy, spin doctors.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: JohnNorthofDenver
IN: Boebert Damns Her Would-Be Successor With Faint Praise
BY: Meiner49er
IN: Boebert Damns Her Would-Be Successor With Faint Praise
BY: ParkHill
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: Genghis
IN: Threats From The Right, Relief From Clerks After Tina Peters Goes To Jail
BY: ParkHill
IN: Monday Open Thread
BY: spaceman2021
IN: I’m Gabe Evans, and This is the Worst Ad You’ve Seen in Years
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Threats From The Right, Relief From Clerks After Tina Peters Goes To Jail
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Threats From The Right, Relief From Clerks After Tina Peters Goes To Jail
BY: davebarnes
IN: Monday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Where I’ve been but I wasn’t even aware that Denver WAS a “sanctuary city”. I kind of thought it was like most every other American city where local law enforcement doesn’t feel they have the time or resources to do the Feds job, especially when, on the occasions when they try, the Feds just ignore them.
but never any case that Denver or Boulder were such places. Unless I do I’m chalking it up as more right wing smear talk.
Denver hasn’t yet passed any laws forbidding cooperation with federal authorities enforcing immigration laws, and I don’t think there are any offical policies to prevent said cooperation. There does seem to be an unofficial policy that leans that way that has been around since the early days of the Webb administration, more of an attitude than actual law.
It can see Webb doing something like that.
truly a tribute to his hard work as ranking minority, waiting-listed member of the Armed Services Committe.
OQD, Lamborn was able to hold 38 of his colleagues with him in his Dog & Cockfighting Caucus http://www.coloradop…. Looks like a few of them have been picked off and he’s going even further downhill now. Give him a few more months, maybe he’ll still be able to persuade Louisiana’s Representative Jefferson to vote with him–if Jefferson lasts that long.
I don’t really know what else to say, except “good for you Rep. Musgrave,” which feels very unnatural and I hope not to make a habit of it.
As for Tancredo, if he wants to forcibly migrate 12 million people, let him round them up with the Army, build camps, and deal with the inevitable humanitarian crisis that would result if he ever got his way. I’m personally going to call all 50 Dems who voted for this stupid bill and tell them where they can cram their opportunistic horseshit.
Enforce the labor laws, through a few contractors and CEO’s into jail, and there will be a traffic jam at the international bridge in El Paso. No workee, no stayee.
Those 50 Dems you disdain were listening to their constituents, for once, instead of their corporate K Street masters.
What’s with these long posts they are hard on the eye. A lot of times I only skim the page to see if there are any stories I like and when you blather on and on so that the top story goes below the fold I generally just go to another site and don’t look at what else is next.
Sometimes blog posts get a little long, though I’m surprised you complained about this one — it’s two stories in one. You want to gripe about long posts, talk to Kay Sieverding. On second thought, don’t. You’ll get a really long answer.
On another level, does anyone else find this “I hate long posts” comment to be a symbol of exactly what’s wrong with America today? Nothing personal, my six year old has a short attention span too.
Maybe I’m wrong….
I concur entirely. An argument takes the length it takes to present it competently; to do less is to do the argument a disservice, and to do more does the reader one.
In practice, you write bloated, prepotentious nonsense, with just a sprinkle of substance now and then. Have you ever considered doing a content analysis of your choice of words, quantifying your use of words that sound weighty but have simpler synonyms that are more easily digested and provoke less disgust? You’re the modern equivalent of Trimalchio in Petronius’ “The Satyricon.” (I’m certain you’ve read it…, or at least will pretend that you have).
I can see why you think that. But I generally try to arue concise points for a couple of reasons – one, the brevity factor others have spoken to, and two, it can be tactical too – sometimes you can give only part of your argument, and someone will answer that part, which then allows you to answer with the rest of your argument. This is one way in which you can say all you want but break it up into bite size pieces. You tend to give us the entire meal at once, but we like separate courses.
I have always worked very hard to write concisely. Doing so not only keeps it shorter, but generally makes the argument clearer as there is no mass of words for it to get lost in.
Yes people have a shorter attention span now, but a lot of that is due to getting so much more information – we don’t have spare time. So if you want it read, not a word more than is needed.
– dave
…WAY too much scrolling up and down on the front page to see if there are some new posts on a thread.
Pols, can you cut the front page stuff? Usually a few paragraphs would be asufficient tease to open the page. Heck, a lot of us read everything anyway, whatever the topic!
We’ll try to remember it, and break these posts below the fold accordingly.
JeffcoBlue, please remember that one size doesn’t fit all, otherwise there would be no need to publish anything other than the Reader’s Digest. That would be tragic.