Sirota Bludgeons Rosen

Some of our readers have their quibbles with columnist and AM760 temp radio host David Sirota, but if you tune into the debate presently underway between Sirota and local conservative commentator grande Mike Rosen, you’ll hear something like the historic 1960 Kennedy v. Nixon demolition unfolding. Most entertaining.


35 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Gecko says:

    What show are you listening to?

    Rosen is giving facts and Sirota is spewing liberal guesses and talking points.

    Rosen is wiping the floor with that flaming liberal.

    No contest.

    • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

      Apparently Republican friends let their Republican friend Senators become Democrats.

    • Libertad says:

      I’m anticipating that Rosen had Sirota teabagging [literally] himself.

      • Libertad says:

        The heads of Jay Marvin and his dedicated listeners, listening in on 760, must have imploded like communism. Rosen led Sirota around like a DPS High School Drop-out.

        Sirota was really caught sleeping in the weeds on Def$s, then he went on to oppose Obama’s decisions.

        David, Def$s can only be compared compared via GDP. Its like capital allocation in a business … therefore I understand why you don’t get it.

    • jmclane says:

      Hopefully, these guys can host more of these events in the future. If they do, then it might be worth considering a moderator — because even though they both showed  restraint at times, it started to become harder and harder to understand Mike as his mouth got bloodier and bloodier. Wow! If there had been a moderator, this match might have been called somewhere between the first and second commercial breaks.

      David repeatedly made statements about the past that at least appeared to be based upon facts —  and he’d voiced cautious optimism about the future. I have to applaud his repeated attempts to keep Mike’s mood civil throughout the program.

      Mike apparently doesn’t have a historical leg to stand on, so he’d talked about the future as if it were already recorded history. I’m not sure what his motivation is for painting such a negative picture of the future, other than to bash Obama. His pessimism aside, it was actually comical to hear him take out his frustration on one of his callers.  

  2. rocco says:

    Rosen’s getting his ass kicked as we speak.

    Telling Sirota he doesn’t understand and calling him a demagogue doesn’t work. Sirota’s younger, quicker, and sharper. He’s schooled up, has the facts to back his points, and doesn’t fall for Rosen’s baiting.

    Without “mr. hold button”, Rosen’s a shell.  Callers can’t get a point across because of Rosen’s gimmicks. Without the ability to shut off Sirota via the hold button, Rosen’s been splayed, cut open and exposed as a shill.

    Sirota’s WAAAAAAY left of center, but in this, good on him. Rosen’s got any amount of humiliation coming. He’s disengenuous and nasty, and it’s nice to see him put in his place, albeit for one day.  

    • Gecko says:

      we, like everyone here, can agree to disagree.

      IMHO Sirota is losing and trying to talk over Mike. Mike uses facts and facts only. Always has, always will.

      Sirota uses partial twisted facts.

      Rosen is cleaning his clock. Simple.

      • MADCO says:

        I’m sure he pleased his base of fans.

        LIkewise SIrota.

        But here’s a factual error.

        Rosen said defense spending was decreasing in the Obama budget, Sirota pointed out that the defense budget goes up 4%.

        Eventually Rosen acknowledged that defense spending is increasing in the Obama budget, but that it’s decreasing as a percent of GDP.

        The GDP numbers are just out for 1Q 09- and GDP is shrinking, as it did in 4Q in 08. It is mathematically impossible for defense spending to be increasing, in an era of decreasing GDP, and defense spending as a % of GDP is decreasing.    

        GDP is smaller and contracting, defense spending is increasing. Defense spending as a % of GDP cannot be decreasing.

        • The realistThe realist says:

          I have some doubts that he would.

          • MADCO says:

            Look, perhaps he misspoke and meant to say something else.

            But 2plus 2 equals 4.

            If GDP last year was 100. ANd defense spending was 3. ANd next year defense spending goes to 3.1 but GDP stays 100 – defense is a bigger percentage of GDP.

            Current Fed and WH economic advisor (Romer) estimates are for GDP to be minus 2% (annualized) in the 2Q and then get to zero and end the year with a small negative.  If GDP declines- and defense spending increases- defense spending MUST be a bigger percentage.

        • Doppleganger says:

          on this defense spending argument.

          Rosen’s argument was ludicrous on its face.

          Defense spending is judged by its percentage of GDP?  That’s asinine.

          Defense spending should be judged like all other spending: do we have need, does it crowd out other spending priorities, is it administered efficiently and without parochial interest and how is its cost allocated to the tax base.

          By his reasoning defense spending shouldn’t be driven by needs, but rather an artificial and arbitrary % of GDP.

          What is FDR had capped military spending at 6% during WWII?  The beer and cars would be good, but that’s about it.

          By Rosen’s argument government spending radically and continuously declined under Clinton.  Is Rosen prepare to admit that?

          What an idiot.

          • Libertad says:

            Defense spending is judged by its percentage of GDP?  That’s asinine.

            Actually we look at this spending category more from a GDP standpoint because of the capacity, national production and international factors.

        • Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:


      • ClubTwitty says:

        Once I challenged him on a couple in an email, and he basically said, ‘facts don’t matter to me because I am a columnist not a reporter.’

        • The realistThe realist says:

          He was ranting on about the dangers of the liberal media, and how it influenced the voting public.  I disagreed – I told him that I had subscribed to the Colorado Springs Gazette for years [at that time] and had never changed my liberal/progressive views as a result of reading an extremely conservative newspaper.  Rosen’s answer?  In effect he said that was because I was different from most voters — and he didn’t know me from Adam.

  3. rocco says:

    And thanks for being civil.

  4. redstateblues says:

    a Rosen v. Sirota debate is a lot like a Spongebob v. Patrick debate–try to guess which is which!

  5. PeromyscusPeromyscus says:

    Sirota totally dominated Rosen; the latter showed that he’s basically a bluster-er, albeit more civil than Rush or Hannity.  To anything Sirota said – and I do mean anything – Rosen would reply “you clearly don’t understand”.  His stock comment.  At one point Sirota pointed out that McCain did exactly this through out his campaign, and was criticized for it (and, of course, lost).  Rosen’s voice got louder and louder, and Sirota kept his calm admirably.

    I tuned in hoping to hear a real airing of the issues between two thoughtful opponents, becaues I have a reasonable conservative friend who likes Rosen.  I was disappointed; Rosen is a typical party-line Republican, just a more genteel version.

    • Arvadonian says:

      he is a pompus, arrogant ass.  Listen to his radio show sometime (if you can stand it).  He talks down to his audience (although, in fairness, they put up with it, so they deserve it), he has an insatiable fetish for his “hold button” if anyone dare disagree with him.

      I can’t stand even listening to the man and no longer take the Post since they began carrying his blatherings….  

  6. vuzh says:

    Whomever dominated, it was GOOD radio.  I’d like to see more of its kind.  

    I did, however, agree with Sirota’s points, and almost none of Rosen’s.  

    My favorite line was Sirota’s comparing Rosen to McCain’s talking down to Obama… the “you don’t understand” sentiment.  

    … I was pretty taken aback that Rosen kept saying that the repeal of Glass Steagall was a great idea!?!

    • Sir RobinSir Robin says:

      I agree with your comment. It was great radio, and exposed Rosens for the CHARLATAN he is. Anyone who thinks otherwise wasn’t listening IMHO. Rosen is a blustering idiot. Sirota was fact oriented, and progressive…bless him!

      What does Rosen have to offer his country? What does he do for the less fortunate in his community (ahem). Who is he a cheerleader for? Rosen hides behind well conceived, clever, but easily seen through historical, easily rebutted mis-statements.

      When facts are introduced, I sense a fast spinning ferris wheel of defensive maneuvers. Airbag.

  7. dwyer says:

    I remember the Nixon-Kennedy debates and this was no Nixon-Kennedy debate.  This is what Rosen and Gary Tesslor used to do back in the olden days….when there was still a Fairness Doctrine.  Radio as it should be.

    I thought it was a great beginning…..Who else???

    boyles and Soliz maridad…whoever is on drive time 760 out of LA…

    but that is going to be about it….because we don’t have anymore local progressive hosts….

    what about rounds…..the dems could auction off the right to go up against rosen/boyles/gunnybob/caldera/and that jerk out of pueblo…  Let the games begin…let’s have a whole lot more….

  8. Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

    but I have always thought Rosen a money driven personality.

    Rosen bordered on anger many times. This is a sign of losing in that medium

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.