CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
July 15, 2008 04:51 AM UTC
92 Comments
How he handled the run up to the Iraq war was superb. He did the right thing on both his vote against the blank check bill and his proposal of a responsible alternative.
Yes Schaffer can score some cheap points on this. But Udall did the right thing when it really mattered.
one after another in the debate, compounded by him making reference to Boulder in every other sentence, were designed solely to annoy Udall’s supporters because Schaffer has nothing appealing to offer for himself.
Of course we knew that Schaffer’s history is rife with lies and innuendo (Democrats “incinerate” religious zealots, etc.), but he seemed to be pushing the new “moderate” Bob 2.0 image for the last year. That’s officially over. He’s now flip-flopped to being the ultra-partisan hack job we knew and hated. Welcome back, Bob. We look forward to kicking your ass in November.
He doesn’t lie ALL the time. Only when his lips are moving.
when he is writing he lies.
Now granted, his lips probably move when he is reading, but I doubt they move when he writes.
it sounded like Schaffer was by far more knowledgeable about every issue they discussed. About halfway through, I was wondering why would Udall even agree to debate him? He should let the dirty 527s and 501c4 organizations, backed by George Soros money, win it for him. It just didn;t seem like Udall could win it one on one against Schaffer. Congressman Udall does seem like a nice guy, but I just can’t see how Boulder ideology translates well to the rest of the state, and Schaffer was far, far stronger on the critical issues.
The middle of what?
Schaffer was far stronger at smirking and pugnacious jabs. it’s easy for Schaffer to fire up his supporters if he doesn’t worry about, oh, telling the truth, and just keeps pushing the buttons that worked 10 years ago.
Schaffer doesn’t seem like a nice guy, he seems like a smart-ass thug who can’t conduct a debate without making things up. Over the last decade, Schaffer hasn’t been right about a single thing. In fact, he has exhibited alarming lapses in judgment and a pattern of lying to evade responsibility. It’s sad he’s the best the state GOP could come up with.
on what? All Bob did was talk down to voters yesterday. He’s not only a smug ass, he’s a wealthy right-wing ideologue who’s more extreme than Dick Cheney and that was very clear from yesterday’s performance.
Schaffer arrogance got the better of him yesterday. He even named dropped his good friend Tom DeLay during the debate.
Thanks Bob!
when you can’t resist inserting “backed by George Soros money” into your comment. If you want to come across as an impartial observer, you’ll need to exercise more self-control and avoid the nasty partisanship.
dissecting the inner workings of the state Republican Party don’t exactly place her in “the middle” of anything but a GOP feud, either.
I attended the debate.
Schaffer tried to take credit for the Clinton years prosperity, while blaming the Bush budget deficits on the Democrats. He failed to explain how his trickle down economics has failed to generate anywhere near enough tax revenue to balance the budget. He rejected any health care reform.
He snidely made reference to the fact that his friend and indicted neocon comrade (Tom Delay) is no longer in Washington.
He rightly acknowledged that the weak dollar has caused the oil price explosion, but failed to note that this has happened as a direct consequence of Bush administration policies.
It is clear in my mind that reason he voted to go war was to make money. He clearly does not care for human life. Neither forced abortions in the Marianas Island factories, nor innocent Iraqi dead, nor dead American soldiers will stop his greed for money or power. I was saddened that his work to procur illegal oil contracts in Kurdistan did not receive mention.
Schaffer praised Democratic Governor Bill Ritter and tried to take credit for Democratic President Bill Clinton’s accomplishments… as Ed Sealover put in the Rocky article, it was a Twilight Zone moment since we all know Schaffer does not support Ritter, never supported Bill Clinton, and is not a moderate by any means
Udall said he never called for the moratorium on drilling.. He voted for it.. His name was on the bill..
Even after a day you right-wingers revise history… Schaffer claimed to have joined Ritter’s plan before Rep. Udall, and he told him not to cloud his record. So, let’s do something that Bob Schaffer didn’t do. Let’s review the FACTS.
From the March 19, 2008 Denver Post
Bob Schaffer just makes stuff up…
Udall said “I did not call for a moratorium on drilling.” I am not a right winger far from it..but Udall is fair game, with the constant attacks on Schaffer but yet not a bad word about Udall.
That’s a fact. The bill says:
The bill, had it passed the Senate, would have forced the oil companies to use directional drilling, a demonstrably viable technology that the BLM refused to consider. There was no moratorium on drilling, only a restriction on where the drills could be placed.
Forgot to include a link:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…
The purpose of Udall and Salazar’s bill was to get the BLM to actually listen to the hundreds and hundreds of citizen comments on their drilling plan, including a quite viable alternate approach using directional drilling, before issuing the final rules for leasing. The BLM (Read: the Bush/Cheney secret energy cabal) chose to ignore reality and go full-bore with its irresponsible plan to sell all the leases at once. That’s why Ritter came up with his compromise plan, which Udall supported after the Senate refused to make the BLM consider alternatives to the plan written by the oil and gas industry.
That’s a far cry from a moratorium. Try again.
After all the parsing and innuendo it is nice to read a blogger who has access to those shiny tubes and knows how to look up information. Excellent research. You should consider joining the Obama debunking squad.
In 1996 Udall voted to keep the moratorium on drilling H.R. 4761
Udall didn’t take office until January 1997. Try again.
You might be talking about a bill from 2006, which had no mention of the Roan Plateau. Try again.
Actually you are right. But I was talking about drilling in general. I never mentioned the roan plateau. And all Bob said was that Udall called for a moratorium on drilling.
i have missed debating with you
Even a 2000 mile space hasn’t deterred me.
I am glad.. I only appreciate your liberal views..
Your ID is new but your comment above makes it sound like you’ve been here before. If so, what was your old screen name? (I want to say you’re Foghorn… there seems to be some similarity in the tone of your posts and his…)
Been here before but I can honestly say that I don’t remember my old id! But I am sure it wasn’t foghorn..
whoever you were… 🙂
I appreciate it
I don’t miss Foghorn one bit. There was no debating with him, it was his ideo”logical” promulgated talking points or nothing. Facts, history, and experience meant nothing.
I truly hope you are one of the “good righties” that we have sprinkled through here. I even have a good email friendship with one of them, who will remain nameles.
I guess it’s not like life, Ari, where you only get one chance. If everyone thinks you are a total moron after a month or so, just change your username !
Don’t recall any for Foghorn!
And, yes, I’ve noticed the absence of Newsie.
Newsman’s been active. He had a lull a week or two ago, but has been back regularly since.
Mentally, that is.
Right after I posted the above I checked who is online and there he was.
Not a newsie
And I am not an “it” either
because it was in reference to the friendship, not the person.
And that’s the reason why I only bet small stakes. 🙂
The planning process wasn’t initiated until the end of 2000. Thumper doesn’t know of what he speaks. Udall’s bill, as noted by Thilly, was NOT a moratorium, it was a bill requiring NSO stipulations. Since 2000, directional drilling has become the norm in the Piceance Basin, and the reach has increased by about 60%, with Williams now claiming a reach of over 1/2 mile. This would put well-over 80% of the natural gas under the Roan in reach of this technology, further proving that B.O.B(S) is either a liar, or wrong, or both. Further Bob might pick up his (failed) predecessor’s moniker too, as he wants to have it both ways. It’s the BLM plan that (falsely) claims to only disturb 1% of the Roan’s public lands at one time, not Ritter’s. Thus which does B.O.B support? He can’t support both–unless he wants to have it Both Ways.
(The BLM plan would only require that interim reclamation is started before the drill rigs can move elsewhere, not that the lands are restored, or even fully reclaimed. Buried in the details of the EIS, and somehow missing from the BLM PR Team’s talking points, is the statement that restoration to productive habitat would take twenty years, some lost habitat, as well as backcountry and wilderness-quality lands would be forever altered, according to BLM’s fine print).
Udall (on the Roan Plateau): “I was glad Congressman Schaffer joined us in wanting in a phased fashion a leasing of the Roan Plateau… I’ve never called for a moratorium (on drilling). I’ve called for a smart phased development of the Roan Plateau.
Schaffer (on the Roan Plateau): “That moratorium actually has a bill number on it and your name on it.”
Truth: Can both individuals be right? Can it come down to how you define “moratorium?”
The Roan Plateau contains one of the largest untapped natural gas reserves in the country. It could heat 4 million homes for 20 years if fully developed. It’s also one of the favorite locations for hunters, anglers and other Coloradans who appreciate its beauty. It’s located west of Rifle.
Udall and Rep. John Salazar (D-Colorado) were able to cut the funding for the Bureau of Land Management’s efforts to sell leases on top of the Roan. Udall said on the floor of the House of Representatives that his goal was to ensure “directional” drilling, not to infringe on the actual plateau. He said on August 4, 2007: “Neither Rep. Salazar nor I am against energy development. But we are for balance. There is an energy boom in Colorado, with the administration pushing BLM to lease as much and as fast as possible, although thousands of acres already under lease remain undeveloped. As we develop the energy we need, we should remember that places like the Roan Plateau are important not just for their riches of oil and natural gas but also for riches in the form of streams, trees and other plants, and the fish and wildlife populations that depend on them for habitat. We need to assure that the energy “boom” does not mean a “bust” for those values – for from that bust there may be no recovery.” (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov)
At the time, this is how individuals interested in protecting the Roan reacted to Udall and Salazar’s ideas. “If enacted, this effort will give area governments and communities the chance to fully consider how best to protect Roan Plateau,” said Bruce Christensen, mayor of the nearby city of Glenwood Springs. “This is what our city has been asking for all along: full consideration of a plan to really protect the critical lands of the Roan Plateau.”
He was successful for a period of time in delaying the development of the Roan Plateau. Newspapers like The Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News called it a “moratorium.”
Udall says he just wanted to “do it right,” and not to rush into anything. Schaffer said it amounted to a delay policy to stop drilling altogether.
As it stands now, both candidates support Gov. Bill Ritter’s (D-Colorado) plan to phase in the drilling permits and to do so responsibly. Yet, the BLM has decided against that approach and is putting the leases up for sale without waiting. Udall was mentioned on the original press release from Sen. Ken Salazar’s (D-Colorado) office supporting the governor’s plans in January of 2008. (Source: http://salazar.senate.gov/news… Schaffer officially goes on record supporting the plan more than a month later. (Source: http://www.denverpost.com/head…
for validating exactly what I said.
I take issue, owever, with the 4 million homes/20 years example. That’s not relevant in several ways:
* Companies are already drilling as fast as they can and there is no way all the gas will be extracted in 20 years
* Most of the gas comes out of the ground in Colorado and is piped directly out of Colorado
* The largest consumers of gas are electrical generation and industry, not home heating
The Udall/Salazar amendment never passed. It was blocked. They were NOT successful in “cut[ting] the funding for the Bureau of Land Management’s efforts to sell leases on top of the Roan.”
Nor did Glenwood Springs support a moratorium on leasing; rather their position was opposition to drilling on top of the Plateau (i.e. they were always OK with protecting it via requiring directional drilling).
The Udall/Salazar amendment was not a moratorium, it required directional drilling. The Rocky can call it what they want, but it is wrong to characterize it as a moratorium.
most want to cut the number of pads associated roads, make sure the rights of surface users are respected and that locals are not left holding the bag when the gas runs out.
That’s not enough for the O&G industry. Give us what we want, give it to us now, give it to us cheap and after the party let us walk away and leave the clean up to others.
by oil and gas companies. What the public has consistently and overwhelmingly supported is to keep the remaining unleased public lands as they are–a haven for wildlife, hunters, and backcountry recreation. BLM’s own figures indicate that requiring directional drilling would allow upwards of 80% of the natural gas to be developed with current technologies. Since 2000, the reach of directional drilling in the Piceance has increased over 60%. That means the remainder of the 15% or so that is not currently available via extended reach technologies likely would be in a matter of just a few years.
A moratorium can refer to a suspension of an ongoing or planned activity. Udall was opposed to drilling on top of the Plateau, the plan was for BLM to sell leases on top of the Roan (a planned activity). Udall wanted directional drilling, and was trying to stop the BLM’s plan. Therefore he was calling for a suspension of a planned activity.
The comments about Glenwood Springs were from a direct quote from the Mayor of Glenwood Springs, 9 news simply quoted him. Whether his quote was a misrepresentation of what the city supported or did not support is a question you should ask him.
His quote doesn’t suggest that they are trying to halt the development of any of the resource under the Plateau. Rather he seems to be saying that the Udall/Salazar amendment would allow communites the chance to see the ROan managed in a manner consistent with what the vast majority of the public, most of the towns and cities around the Plateau, and several of the BLM’s own ‘cooperating agencies’ have consistently suported–keeping the public lands on top free of the drill rigs and disturbance that would follow from the BLM’s plan.
You are stretching the way B.O.Bob used the term ‘moritorium’ to fit your own interpretation.
To the extent it would have changed the BLM’s plan, you might be correct–still that is NOT what Schaffer was implying nor how most people would interpret a ‘moratorium.’
In the debate, Schaffer put it out as Udall trying to ‘delay’ development of the resource. But Schaffer supported Ritter’s plan, which also would have ‘suspended’ the BLM’s plan, and thus–according to your sweeping definition–Schaffer also supported a ‘moratorium.’
Does Schaffer want it both ways?
Is a moratorium delaying development or is it ‘suspending’ a plan? If it’s the former, Schaffer is wrong [about what Udall proposed].
If it’s the latter, then both Udall and Schaffer are on record supporting a ‘moratorium.’
Moratorium-
A suspension of an ongoing or planned activity
http://education.yahoo.com/ref…
Oh and I never said what his quote said. I was just replying to you saying that is not what Glenwood Springs wanted.
by your definition. That is what you are saying, as the Ritter plan would have indeed resulted in a “suspension of an ongoing or planned activity.”
The Rocky Mountain News ignored its own reporting, and instead posted only a he said/she said response from a campaign spokesperson?
But wait…just look at the by line. Ed Sealover worked for the Colorado Springs Gazette this time last month. We can now see which way the Rocky is trending if they are using the most conservative paper in the Rocky Mountain West as their farm team for political reporters.
I’ve follwed Ed Sealover as he has written numerous articles for the Gazette. I’ve always found him to be one-sided, not-so-secretly trying to promote a Republican agenda in this state.
I would expect the Gazette to hire trash like this, but not RMN. This guy is the local equivalent of Fox News.
They are Fox News West. The Post is a bit more balanced but the best reporting right now is in The Onion.
on the resolution to go to war in Iraq. He attempted to set up a situation where people would imply in their own minds that Udall voted for the war resolution that passed knowing full well Udall voted against it. He selectively quoted from one resolution but didn’t identify the fact it was from the one that didn’t pass and failed to quote the language in Udall’s which contained significant language that hopefully would have held Bush back from rushing into war. Looking back, Udall was obviously on top of the issue in 2002.
Why did Schaffer lie? Because he is unethical and without morals, contrary to his never ending statements that he is part of the religious right. Schaffer literally just makes things up and then tries to sell them as the truth. He is now engaged in a campaign where the media and in this day and age, the blogs, will analyze everything he says and hold up to the light of day.
All Schaffer did yesterday was destroy his own credibility. Our men and women are fighting and dieing in Iraq and Schaffer wants us to elect him as our United States Senator and his primary qualification is he will lie to us. This Republican is voting for Mark Udall.
Bob Schaffer clearly won the debate. Hands down.
The only thinkg Mark Udall knows for sure is his next tee time.
Mark Udall does not golf.
Bob Schaffer is a liar, hands down.
Have a good day.
http://www.golfdigest.com/rank…
I see that Udall is a 1.8 handicap. Those numbers make him a strong vice-presidential contender (surpassing Dan Quayle who to my knowledge was the best VP golfer, but who holds about a 7). On second thought, Udall probably doesn’t want to be compared to Quayle. P-o-t-a-t-o-e?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Even the guy who calls every Republican a sock puppet figured this one out. I know a rich kid who loves to golf does not fit the carefully crafted Udall image.
Udall and Shafroth have the same “Can’t we all get along” message. That is a great message for group therapy but we expect more from our leaders than hand holding and group hugs.
And Mark Udall is a great golfer.
Yes from all the posts here it sounds like Schaffer knew more, got more specific, went in to more details, and made his position clear.
And it sounds like Udall spoke in generalities so you didn’t get much from him.
So in that respect, Schaffer owned the debate. However…
Schaffer took that control to paint himself into a corner. The problem is he is clearly selling something the majority does not want. So he took that advantage and used it to hurt himself.
So in the final measure that matters, who will get more votes from this, Udall won.
Why do you insult poor Mark Udall? Mark not only golfs but was ranked the best golfer in all of Congress.
I didn’t think Udall was a golfer, and frankly don’t know too much about his personal life. He didn’t strike me as a golfer – who’d have known ?
So, I now freely admit that Mark Udall is a golfer.
Can you now reciprocate and admit that Bob Schaffer is a liar ?
You can tell by the shrill screams in this blog that Udall got worked. Bob, you can count it: 1-0.
Who said “Udall got worked?”
I think all people are saying is Bob is deceptive.
I was at the debate. Udall did just fine, and Bob stepped in it several times. They are both obviously rusty at debating, and both have a lot of room to grow. Udall has a clear grasp on the issues and what’s actually important to people, while Bob Schaffer can only talk about tax cuts for corporations and rich people.
I’ve got news for Bob: People don’t want tax cuts for big oil, and being an ass about pushing them isn’t going to convince anybody.
or barrels, or gallons. One or the other. And he can taunt “people of Boulder” with the best of ’em.
It’s pretty funny to see how awkward Republicans are with the Internet when they have such trouble with their metaphors. Try something that references reading instead of hearing and your postings might show the kind subtlety that progressives take for granted.
Everything is a game to Republicans with instant score cards and win/lose analysis and a Republican wins every time no exceptions. I’ve observed this winners phobia in Republicans for quite a while and it is always amusing how desperate they are to define themselves as “winners”. Next time you fill your car up tell yourself what a winner you are because of Dick Cheney’s 2001 Energy Task. Winning and leading are two separate talents and it has become obvious over the last eight years that Republicans are superb at the former and miserables failures at the latter. We haven’t been this divided and weak since Herbert Hoover thanks to the chimp in charge and his winning supporters.
Your post is so hypocritical, that if hypocrisy was an energy source it could power this state for the rest of ALL OF OUR LIVES!!!!!
You are a partisan, don’t try to hide it, and yes, you are divisive and care about winning or you wouldn’t have cared about my post.
I’m not even going to comment on your horrible historical analogy (yes, I have a History Degree with a specialty in that time period), which is so bad, it sounds like you got it from Wikipedia. AND NO, we are not in the beginning of a Great Depression, like you PROGRESSIVES WANT IT TO BE!!!!!! YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BE HURTING SO YOU CAN WIN!
complaining about the middle class getting squeezed. Listen to Bob–tax breaks to the wealthy trickle down
During the 2004 Vice Presidential debate, Cheney chided former Senator Edwards with the line that he had never met him until the night of their debate. It was meant to insinuate that Edwards had never been in chamber any time Cheney had. It wasn’t true. Within a week or so dozens of photos surfaced showing Edwards and Cheney together in the Senate chamber. But Cheney won the “instant gratification” that comes with a preposterous statement that the victim of it is too stunned by it to react to it. Wadhams used that strategy yesterday. Schaffer “confusing” Udall’s legislation with the now infamous HJR 114 scored major “oooos and aaaaahhhs points” at the debate yesterday. Whether the repubs will be able to use the sound bite replete with the cheers, jeers and catcalls in future ads depends on how effective the Democrats are in pounding home the fact that Udall voted against giving bush ultimate decision making authority re: invading Iraq. This is potentially a catastrophy for Schaffer. But it falls on the Udall people to ram it back down Schaffer’s throat.
was entirely from their side of the room and clearly orchestrated.
The guy gets political theater, I’ll give him that. How much that plays I don’t know.
Somehow I don’t think having your advance look like it was produced by the makers of the affirmative action bake sale and the goldfish marriage ceremonies will play very well.
Great post, Gilpin Guy. Colocitizen, if you have a degree that emphasizes the ’30’s, does anything from that period that occured in, say, Germany or Italy come to mind? Does the term “gilded age” resonate? Does “run on the banks” jog your memory? “Rampant Unemployment”? “2 front war”? 1,000,000 marks for a loaf of bread? Complete demonetization of unions? Abolishment of Habeas Corpus? Didn’t think so.
Yeah rampant unemployment that is at 5%… yeah, I don’t think it costs a million dollars for a loaf of bread and we just expanded Habeas Corpus to non-citizens… Germany and Italy. I’ll give you two but you are 2 for 7, take a seat, thanks for playing…
You must support George W. Bush, he uses that analogy (WWII is analogous to the War on Terror)? You are a W. supporter aren’t you? I still love your “RAMPANT UNEMPLOYMENT” line, because again, it is at about 5% which is considered healthy for an economy. Second Favorite (this is great too): did you know a loaf of bread costs less then five dollars? you are AWESOME, lol, HAHAHAHAHAHA
Don’t let the facts get in your way anytime soon now… Who is Germany and Italy in this equation (I think you actually meant Japan, because Italy was more or less a minor player–especially in the war–or are one of those progressives–yes, progressives–who loved Mussolini at the time)?
This will be good, please post as soon as possible, because I’m hoping this jogged your memory.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Our method of determing unemployment is a joke. It counts PhD’s driving cabs as employed and part time workers who want full time as employed. People who have just given up aren’t even in the picture.
Our real rate is double the official.
Oh yeah, how do you like those June inflation figures? In one month, 1.8%. That’s what, 22% a year? Hello, Chile!
Unemployment rate has been severely adjusted since the “bad old days”, thanks in part to the Clinton Administration, and in part to a change in which of the BLS statistics are commonly reported.
If you remember unemployment numbers in the double digits, you’re remembering the BLS’s “broadest” index, which includes “discouraged” workers. It is currently reported at 9.8% (May 2008). However, Clinton removed workers in the “discouraged” category if they were there for more than a year. The Shadow Government Statistics site says the current U-6 “broadest” rate using the old standard is currently just under 14%.
OH – and inflation during the Carter years was in the 11% range, including the gas crisis. If the new rate holds through the rest of the year we’ll have set a modern inflation record for the country.
The least you could do is try plagiarising somebody with some sense of history. Yeah, your side got slapped by SCOTUS on Habeas, but they tried to ditch it. Paint it as pretty as you want, but the reds have wrecked the economy and you know it. Where did you get that “History degree”..Walmart? Try reading up on U.S. and world history before you quote some rightwing quack. Seen where the dollar’s at? Ever notice how ginning up war with Iran just drives the price of fuel higher and higher? And yet U.S. trade with the Iranians is at an all time high. By the way, Fascism is the “welding” of corporations and government. Get a clue. Then come see me.
Thanks still-president Bush!
Goldberg was not the first to reference that, but anyway, no it was not Wal-Mart (and definetly not: Walmart). But anyway, yeah I’ve seen where the dollars at and we both know the reason you gave was not the only reason for the dollar, but you are a quaint lib, so simplistic explanations are best. Yeah, I actually agree with u we should not be trading medicine or even food with the Iranians, but it seems like you agree with me ;).
ANSWER THE QUESTION:
DO YOU SUPPORT THE GEORGE W. BUSH ANALOGY THAT THE WAR ON TERROR IS WORLD WAR II? Hey, it was yours bro
ps don’t smack down freedom of speech, just because it doesn’t fall in line with your beliefs (i.e. Goldberg–I didn’t call any of your BS references names).
First off, WWII truly was a battle for the future of civilization where either side could win it. The war on terror is a small action where the eventual winner is not in doubt.
Second, the way to handle it is different. WWII had to be decided by force of arms and strength of each side’s economy. It was basically a brute force slug-fest. However, the war on terror is much more a cultural fight. We don’t win by killing people, we win by giving dead end cultures a future.
George Bush’s analogy is just one more sign that he’s clueless.
ColoCitizen pointed out that it was not the 30’s and this is not WWII. It was rocco and gilpin guy who said it was.
I believe IndyMac was taken over by the Feds on Friday as it became evident they were insolvent. We don’t have to go back to the Depression for this – just the S&L crisis.
Yeah, let’s keep them in charge!
At least now that the horse is out of the barn but still (for now) in the pasture they’re looking to correct their colossal mistake in over-emphasizing SUVs while neglecting efficiency advances.
You and Mr. Goldberg are spot on. Why complain about the plummeting dollar, failing banks, and widespread layoffs? Everything is A-OK. Just ask Phil Gramm, we’re just a bunch of whiners!
I was talking to 3 people (in Boulder so all 3 are liberals) and when a 4th person asked how the debate went – all three said that Schaffer pounded Udall.
What was interesting was all 3 thought Schaffer did better – yet all 3 will vote for Udall. So outside of our little group here, it may be that Schaffer is viewed as the winner in the debate.
What was also interesting was that none of the 3 remembered either’s stand on any issue (understandable in Udall’s case as he doesn’t state his) but instead just remember that Schaffer controlled the debate.
It may be that Schaffer/Wadhams won this.
Gone for a week and missed this? Colocitizen, the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the Second world War. There is no correlation between the entire world joining in a coordinated effort, led by the United States to defeat the Fascists, Nazis, and the Empire of Japan, and the neocons of the current administration feeding on the post 9/11 panic, accusing Iraq of everything from complicity in the attack to outright carrying it out,(then blaming the NYT for reporting what cheney told the NYT) fabricating intelligence about nonexistant “wmd”, strong arming or firing everybody that disagreed with them, calling dissenters traitors (while they outed covert agents themselves) and ginning up hysteria, all to accomplish a goal set by PNAC in the ’90’s. This “ANSWER THE QUESTION” crap that hannity, billo and “gunny bob” taught you no longer startles anybody. It just makes you look like what you are…….a right wing extremist. BTW, ever hear of Brewster Jennings? Here’s one…..Ever read The Betrayal of America, by Bugliosi? (doubt that, as the U. of Walmart probably doesn’t sell that one.) Hubris? Yep, these are the “patriots” you and sean hannity shill for. At least hannity gets paid to spout that nonsense….what’s your angle? And just a footnote to the “Italy was a minor player” garbage. If you lived in Ethiopia, Greece, Spain, or the Balkans during the ’30’s and ’40’s, Italy probably would have seemed more that a “minor player” to you. Educate yourself, hotshot….The problem is the guy in your mirror.
This thread’s a week old, so you probably won’t see it, but thanks to Dave for answering for me. Couldn’t have done it better myself. Now, is there a war on terror? Of course there is. Was the loss of 4,000 kids in Iraq connected? Sadly, no. Can we win it? Yes, but not if it continues in the form of a non related for profit enterprise that drains the treasury, while fomenting more unrest-for-profit. The repubs had their heyday, the money was made. Now let’s bring in adults like Udall and Obama and clean this mess up. And God Bless the 4,000, the 45,000 plus maimed, and the kids still going. They’re the heroes, not the perps, pimps, and cheerleaders who never served, that sold (and bought) this disaster.