Terror Grips Colorado Republicans

eiffel-111415As the world comes to terms with the horrific terrorist attacks on Paris, France this past Friday evening, responses from Colorado Republicans run the gamut from level-headed to…well, not so much. We’ll start with a rare moment of praise for Sen. Cory Gardner, whose statement in the immediate wake of the attacks showed commendable restraint:

“The people of Colorado and the United States stand firmly beside our oldest ally, France. We mourn those lost and pray for their families. And we are united with all Parisians as they unite against this senseless violence.”

Rep. Mike Coffman, unfortunately, couldn’t resist taking a potshot at the Obama administration on FOX News:

From Sen. Laura Woods, set to compete in Colorado’s hottest state senate race next year, more or less full-blown panic:

And don’t even get Jonathan Lockwood of leading local conservative group Advancing Colorado started:

Really, please don’t get him started:

It should be noted that the latter outburst from Lockwood is apparently in response to President Barack Obama arriving a few minutes late for a moment of silence in honor of victims at the G-20 conference in Turkey. To characterize Mr. Lockwood’s reaction to that minor infraction as over the top is a considerable understatement.

It’s not our intention to belittle any genuine shock felt over the terrorist attacks in Paris, which given the nature of events there is to a significant degree completely understandable. We understand that an attack of this magnitude will certainly be a factor in many debates about American policy, and the role of Colorado politicians in shaping that policy. The number of current stories this event affects that we’ve been talking about in this space range from the debate over the threat posed by ISIS to the transfer of detainees from the Guantanamo Bay prison to facilities in Colorado.

But there is some rhetoric that, we should all be able to agree, simply does not help anybody.

0 Shares

20 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. gumshoe says:

    Interesting comments, considering that — as Trump put it, 9/11 happened on W's watch. 

  2. Zappatero says:

    Michael Steele has a few questions for all the War First, Ask Questions Later Republicans. He's the former RNC Chairman, not a radical socialist like Bernie, and it seems the "former" is allowing him to speak a little bit of truth to power:

    "It really exposed the fissure between the Neocons, who want to expand defense spending and engage militarily, and the Pure Economic Rational Thought about "Where do you get the money from?"

    We know we can't tax the Koch Brothers to pay for a war that protects their economic interests (and even their line of business). Even most Dems have agreed with this policy the last decade or so, with negative effects on the economy and the tacit message that we really can't be so mean as to raise taxes on the richest people in the world.  

    "How do you pay for it?"

    Well, even though we have the largest military in the world x 10, and we still need to expand it and invade more because ISIS, but can't raise taxes to pay for the wars we are encouraged to join (or have already waged and lost), then we must pay for it with cuts to everything else……….which is slowly happening as Republicans continue to throttle the economy and government in countless ways.

    Bingo!

    "We just went through that. We just spent Trillions of dollars that were unaccounted for that caused a lot of problems and a lot of pain. Are you willing to repeat that?"

    Dems needs to figure out how to defend the Pure Economic Rational Thought and not be afraid of the names, or the arguments, to be used against them. 

    Michael Steele explained the problem for everyone, but especially Republicans.

    https://youtu.be/mL5XXcDN3n0?t=4m32s

  3. Diogenesdemar says:

    Paris is horrific.

    Seeings how there are at least twice as many gun deaths in every single week in America which don't catch the attention of Sen. Woods and that fucktard Lockwood, I honestly wonder, if Daesh did attack here, how would they know?

    As for Mr. Coffman (Rep. "No-brainer" in Moderatus parlance), I guess Khobar Towers is what the world looked like with Reagan-American leadership?

    God damn all three of these pathetic, manipulative fuckers to hell; I'm really tired of assholes this weekend!

  4. vanbarbee says:

    I'm sorry, are we supposed to care what some little twit teenager has to say? Kid needs a sandwhich, looks like his neck would break at a slight gust of wind…

    • Duke Cox says:

      These dimwits cannot see their reactions are exactly the sort of fear, anger, and dissention the terrorists intend to spawn. I am unable to summon just the right synonym for these people, but “vermin” springs to mind….
      very bad form

    • mamajama55 says:

      Lockwood is the voice of the Koch brothers and Heritage Foundation speaking to millenials. So when the Kochs want us to be afraid of imminent terrorist attack, and that "political correctness" will get us there faster, it needs to be taken into account.

  5. BlueCat says:

    You know I always wonder about that gun free zone complaint. I don't recall ever going through a metal detector or having my purse searched on my way into a movie theater so do we even know that nobody in the Aurora theater audience was armed?  If one or more were, what are the chances that they could have taken down the killer without shooting the innocent or at all? 

    We do know that Gabby Gifford's assailant and the would be attacker on that French train were taken down without guns or other weapons. So does it necessarily follow that open carry or concealed carry is particularly effective in preventing mass murder? I'd like to see some evidence of that. Not just anecdotal but stats showing that the there are fewer mass killings where more people have permits for concealed firearms or where open carry is allowed. Perhaps AC would be so kind as to provide us with those stats from a reliable surce.

    • Davie says:

      Given that Republicans have passed laws preventing the collection of data around gun violence (because what you don't know can't hurt the NRA), it's unlikely that AC will find anything to address your question.

      Besides, people with gun permits or open carriers would be more likely just interested in self-protection, not so much as a dispenser of vigilante justice.  Not sure I would want any wannabe Bruce Willis wielding a gun anywhere near me either.  If he managed to not accidentally shoot me instead, he'd likely draw fire from the assailant as well, putting everyone around him in danger.  Off-duty cops would know better the risks of trying to engage a shooter in a gun battle surrounded by innocents.

  6. JohnInDenver says:

    Everyone using the event for their own position. Notice there is no attempt to suggest "it is too soon to politicize this event." And if you are of a historical mindset, take a look at what Republicans said in response to terrorists / jihadis / [fill in your choice of descriptors of attackers here]:

    hostage takings in Russia, 2002 and 2004. Over 100 deaths in each.

    Bali bombings in 2002 and 2005. The first, bombing a nightclub with 200+ deaths, including Americans (and a young man who grew up in my church), the second with "only" 20 killed.

    Madrid train bombings, killing nearly 200. 

    London bombings 7/7/2005 killing over 50;

    Mumbai in 2008, killing 168,  

    Anyone blaming the US President then?

  7. gertie97 says:

    When these armchair patriots start enlisting (if too old, when their children/grandchildren start enlisting) then I might give them a little courtesy.

    Until then, fuck 'em.

     

  8. Early Worm says:

    It is not clear to me what the attackers in Paris were/are attempting to accomplish. Force the Fench government to disengage in Syria?  Entice them to become more engaged? Cause backlash against Muslims generally and/or refugees specifically?

    But what I do think we know is that they intended to provoke fear and terror. They want us to be afraid. They want that fear to cause a reaction based on irrational emotion and not on rational reasoned analysis. People like Coffman, Woods, and Lockwood are (unwittingly) doing the terrorist bidding. 

    • Davie says:

      Mike Littwin, as usual, has a really good column out today discussing this exact point.

      http://www.coloradoindependent.com/156201/littwin-whats-next-in-a-post-paris-world#comments

      Oh, and in the reader comments at the end of his article is a really good article explaining why *everyone* should call this terrorist organization "Daesh" their true name, and not by any other.

      The term “Daesh” is strategically a better choice because it is still accurate in that it spells out the acronym of the group’s full Arabic name, al-Dawla al-Islamiya fi al-Iraq wa al-Sham. Yet, at the same time, “Daesh” can also be understood as a play on words — and an insult. Depending on how it is conjugated in Arabic, it can mean anything from “to trample down and crush” to “a bigot who imposes his view on others.” Already, the group has reportedly threatened to cut out the tongues of anyone who uses the term.

      Why do they care so much? The same reason the United States should. Language matters.

      With some 30,000 to 50,000 fighters, Daesh is a relatively small group, and propaganda is central to its growth strategy. Whether hijacking popular Twitter hashtags or using little known distribution channels to post videos to YouTube, their leadership knows that the war of words online is just as key to increasing its power and influence as the actual gruesome acts they commit on the ground.

      By using the militants’ preferred names, the US government implicitly gives them legitimacy. But referring to the group as Daesh doesn’t just withhold validity. It also might help the United States craft better policy.

      https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/09/words-matter-isis-war-use-daesh/V85GYEuasEEJgrUun0dMUP/story.html

  9. TobiasFunke says:

    Steffan Tubbs was an absolute embarrassment over the weekend. The man is a professional journalist, who recently made a film about the horrors of war and the resulting PTSD, and what that does to soldiers, their families, and their communities…

    And on Friday night, he was on Facebook beating every drum he could find for more war. 

    We never, ever learn.

  10. Moderatus says:

    Unfortunately for you, Lockwood is right. Political correctness is blinding America to the threat we face from terrorism. Hickenlooper has proven it again by allowing terrorist "refugees" into our state.

    There will be blood, and it will be on your hands.

    • Davie says:

      And yet you wash your hands daily of the blood spilled on American streets due to senseless gun violence perpetrated by US citizens.  Way to go fuckface

      • MichaelBowman says:

        …or American epileptics, who are dying at the rate of one every 10 minutes; many who could be healed with access to CBD oil – yet we can't get Congress to act. There have been more deaths in that community since the Friday attack than were killed in Paris. In the last two days over 10,000 children have died from hunger and malnutrition.  No one takes your 'pro-life' bonafides seriously.  Terror comes in many forms.  

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.