Update: Welcome, Michelle Malkin readers. Perhaps you’ll agree that Colorado can do much better than our current Democrat governor.
Any article (this one happens to be from 9News) that starts with the following line spells bad news:
Gov. Bill Ritter supports the idea of bringing terror suspects to Colorado to be housed at the federal Supermax prison in Florence.
Go ahead, read the rest of the article. Governor Bill Ritter clearly has a long way to go making a compelling case to the people of Colorado. So why do it? Theories abound:
Is this just another bad Bill Ritter idea? Maybe Ritter owes something to Barack Obama? Maybe the new President has promised truckloads of magical money tree federal cash to spare Ritter’s hide from unpopular state budget cuts? Or maybe Colorado just has a Democratic Party stooge for a chief executive?
Because no one else seems to be persuaded:
Ritter’s acceptance stands in stark contrast to the reactions of leaders in several other states.
Fellow Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas warned the Obama administration not to send prisoners to Fort Leavenworth in her state.
A congressman from California is drafting legislation to prevent suspected terrorists from being held at Camp Pendleton in San Diego.
Even some fellow Colorado Democrats have their eyebrows raised in skepticism:
Rep. Buffie McFadyen (D- Pueblo West) said she opposes bringing military detainees to a civilian prison.
“I’m not worried that someone would break out of Supermax,” said McFadyen. “It just doesn’t seem right that we would burden the Bureau of Prisons with the Department of Defense and the military’s problem.”
Come to think of it, I have a new thesis that might explain this development: Maybe Republican Party operatives, have contracted with Bill Ritter and his staff to help write up campaign talking points for 2010. Because it’s very difficult to see how bringing America’s terrorist enemies in to Colorado to mingle with convicted felons can be a recipe for any kind of success.
WHAT? Your idiot Democrat Governor offers to take terrorists and somehow at the end of the article you manage to blame Republicans? You elected an idiot, live with it. You liberals can’t even get out of your own way. Libtards never follow an argument to its logical conclusion, you make a singular asinine statement and then follow up with it must be the Republicans. Write one more article (your resignation) and then quit. How long did you go to Journalism school to write this kind of tripe?
Tracy, you may wish to read the post more carefully. It’s called tongue-in-cheek. The post is mocking Ritter, not the Republicans. Please look around the site just a bit and try to figure out where I’m coming from first. I’d be glad to retract and delete your comment if you’d like.
Ain’t it inturstin’, tho, how so miny so-called “conservatives” support th’ liberalized immigration policies that have allowed so many of “America’s terrorist enemies” to arrive ‘ live here unmolested. ‘N this cuz these “conservatives” fear bein’ called a “nativist” by the likes of Hugh Hewitt.
The old conservatives – th’ *real* conservatives – vociferously opposed liberalized immigration laws, ‘n fir that, as well as fir principled stands ohn other issurs, they earned they current place ohn th’ margins of th’ public square. There they suffered th’ potshots, whenever they opened they mouths, not ohnly from th’ left but from th’ new “right.”
But at least they kin say to y’all, “We told you so.”
At least th’ boys comin’ from Gitmo’ll be locked up, Ben. They shud be th’ least-a yir worries tharfore. Yir real worries are them radicalized folk of th’ American Umma who roam about freely, ‘n all cuz y’all have been so thoroughly infected by th’ spirit of political correctness-att ye’ll never be caught soundin’ like an Old Right “nativist.”
You mean like the work of journalist Todd Bensman I’ve highlighted (though not nearly as much as Joshua)?
http://web.me.com/tbensman1/Bensman/Home_Page.html
I’m tawkin’ ’bout LEGAL Muslim immigration, Ben. Bensman’s emphasis apparhs t’ be ILLEGAL Muslim immigration. Am I right or wrohng?
If I’m wrohng, ‘l, that still dohn’t gainsay my main point, which is-att th’ “center-right” in general (as opposed t’ Joshua ‘n you in particular) will do anythin’ to avoid bein’ purceived as “nativists.” Plus, y’all have pretty much swallered Ben Wattenberg’s “Universal Nation” nonsense t’ begin with. The PC virus has done its work well in yir ranks.
Well, att’s jus’ PROFOUND, Peoples Press Collective. Thanks fir sharin’.
A selection of the current prisoners in Florence, courtesy Andrew Sullivan and Wikipedia.
Zacarias Moussaoui, Conspirator in the September 11, 2001 attacks
Omar Abdel-Rahman, “The Blind Sheik”; involved in 1993 WTC bombing
Richard Colvin Reid, Islamic terrorist, nicknamed the “Shoe Bomber”
Wadih el-Hage, Conspirator in the 1998 US embassy bombings
Mahmud Abouhalima, Islamic Mujahideen leader, 1993 WTC bombing
Jose Padilla, Convicted of aiding terrorists
Mohammed A. Salameh, 1993 WTC bombing
Quick, lets all hide in our basements!
Ritter says he may have spoken too soon:
http://www.coloradosenatenews.com/content/view/909/26/
No he didn’t. He said we should be open to the possibility of putting detainees at SuperMax and it would certainly be able to handle more international terrorists, but that there may be better places to put them, as military detainees, such as a military prison. The excerpt at the provided link was in reference to what you do about prisoners such as the Uighers who we are holding without good reason, who by all rights SHOULD be released, but can’t be returned to their home countries for various political or human rights reasons.
The worst part of this selective excerpting is that it made me go listen to Mike Rosen. I feel dirty, but at least I didn’t get any bad investment advice from him.
Fair enough, Matt. But the cheap shot doesn’t become you well.
What cheap shot? The one where Mike Rosen – who loves to lecture folks on fiscal responsibility – not only entered into an investment scheme that was clearly too good to be true and whose details he was ignorant of, but also became a paid recruiter – albeit an ignorant one – into the Madoff ponzi scheme? That one? I’m not sure what’s cheap about it. He gets a few points for good behavior after the fact in coming clean with his listeners, but just a few. I wonder how much of his listeners money he lost?
Mike Rosen “loves to lecture folks on fiscal responsibility”? How would you know if listening to him makes you feel “dirty”? You get your kicks feeling “dirty”, Matt?
For allegedly being a tolerant liberal, you consistently demonstrate a very judgmental attitude here.
Meanwhile, you might not want to rush to judgment:
http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/04/liberals-show-their-true-colors-in-rosen
We’ve wandered off the main topic of this post. I’m willing to concede I made an error uncritically linking to an excerpted clip of Ritter’s interview.
Are you willing to acknowledge your cheap shot, rather than reflexively pointing the finger of blame back? It will help your credibility in the long run.
I’ll acknowledge that I’ve apparently hurt your feelings in pointing out that Mike Rosen lost his listeners a lot of money. You’re very protective of him. It’s sweet.
Interestingly, Ross only mentions Madoff. He doesn’t talk about Tom Petters, who is mentioned in the RMN article. Who is Tom Petters? He ran an entirely separate ponzi scheme, which Agile also lost money in. What are the chances? What percentage of Agile’s investments were directed to legit destinations?
Rosen says he’s likely lost a good chunk of a 7 figure investment. I wonder how much his losses will be offset if we take into account the amount of money he was paid by Agile to pimp their fraud portfolio to his listeners – most of which, I’d guess, don’t have 7 figures to lose.
My feelings are unhurt, Matt. You’re trying to be too cute. I just like to demonstrate how easy it is to give you more rope on which to hang your credibility – how you pretend to be a nonpartisan standing coolly above the fray, when your modus operandi is to dive deeply into the partisan mud with the best of them – blindly using ideology as a blunt object of brute force.
Thanks for helping me add another marker. Rather than owning up, you just had to dive deeper into the pit of ignorance. You still could confess and own up, or let it go and move on. Or even now, you could be giving in to the impulse to write something else cute and clever. I admit it’s kind of fun for me to watch, but the better angels of my nature hopes for a more constructive dialogue.
“dive deeply into the partisan mud with the best of them – blindly using ideology as a blunt object of brute force.”
I fail to see what Mike Rosen’s failings have to do with my “ideology”. My beliefs didn’t make Mike Rosen take money to pimp investments he didn’t know anything about – his beliefs did.
Perhaps Rosen can pay back his listener’s losses from his Agile paycheck.