CO Democrat Rep. Joe Salazar: Women are too emotional and stupid to use a gun

Colorodo's liberals want women to know they'd prefer projectile vomiting on rapists instead of projecting bullets out of the barrel of a loaded gun.
Colorado’s liberal academics and politicians want women to know they’d prefer projectile vomiting to ward off rapists instead of projecting bullets out of the barrel of a loaded gun. Mysteriously, UCCU’s rape advice page was taken down shortly after if it was mercilessly mocked online.

The gun control issue just won’t go away. When it isn’t Vice President Biden trying to make the case for gun control by telling all of us to buy shotguns, it’s a university broadcasting a new way to avoid being raped: menstruation.

February’s winner (and by ‘winner’ I mean ‘loser’) for his ability to continue the gun-control distraction (we are almost $17 trillion in debt) is Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar. In one fell swoop he manages to let women know that he thinks they’re all a bunch of emotional basket cases that can’t be trusted to carry a firearm, and that they’re too stupid to know when they’re being physically assaulted.

“There are some gender inequities on college campuses. This is true. … It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody,” (Colorado’s golden bow tie wearing Democrat, Joe Salazar).

Unlike the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Mr. Salazar does not openly support projectile vomiting and sudden urination as a deterrent to rape. He’s a big fan of whistles and “safe zones” (because as everyone knows, rapists abide by the same “safe zone” rules once used in elementary school during games of freeze tag).

Question: If Salazar’s last name was Akin and he had an “R” next to his name, what are the chances that his rape statements would be aired around the clock on MSNBC and CNN? Given that Marco Rubio taking a sip of water was replayed over 200 times on MSNBC alone, I’d say the chances are pretty good. But because Rep. Salazar has a “D” next to his name, those same “news” outlets will work overtime at ignoring the story. Sadly, the average American only thinks about media bias in terms of what is actually reported, without ever factoring into the equation what is left unsaid.

Luckily, with the invention of Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and blogs (like this one), it is a lot harder for partisan media hacks to ignore the stories that don’t conform to their particular word view.

In response to Mr. Salazar’s desire to create of safe-zone call-box utopia for whistle-carrying paranoid women, the hashtag #LiberalTips2AvoidRape began trending on Twitter. Oddly enough, the people making fun of politicians whose policies would endanger more women found themselves being attacked … by women.

Liberal Tips 2 Avoid Rape

Someone needs to tell Anna O’Hara that she needs to save that puke for the next time she’s approached by a rapist. Semi-automatic and automatic vomit (with three-round burst capability) is currently legal in all 50 states.

Luckily, the feed was also filled with sanity:

Liberal Tips to Avoid Rape reactions

Indeed. Women do deserve better. Men deserve better. The country deserves better. But we’re stuck with an electorate that spends most of its free time watching Harlem Shake videos on YouTube or kittens on Buzzfeed. Every four years voters memorize a few talking points given to them by whatever cable news channel host they like, and then they pretend they’re policy experts before voting for a stooge who has lived in Washington, DC his entire life.

Have fun with your safe-zone call boxes, my gun-control favoring friends. I’m not sure how long it takes to rape someone, but I’m hoping the campus security segway isn’t low on battery when you push the distress signal. When seconds count, the scooter patrol will be minutes away.

Romney’s chances in Colorado — our political FUBAR

Anyone who follows this blog knows that while I work in Washington, D.C., I’m generally not a fan of the overabundance of pompous, fake, know-it-all pundits who live there. Washington is just like Los Angeles, except the fakes in the nation’s capital want to play “director” with your life. They see you as a prop, and your tax dollars as the studio budget. Given my desire to stay as far away from cocktail parties and networking events as possible, I decided that when it came to figuring out what Mitt Romney’s chances were of winning Colorado, that it would be best to ask a really, really smart … Coloradan. Luckily, I happen to know one. (I’m keeping his identity anonymous since I’m not sure he would like his name out there.)

Here’s his analysis:

Colorado is a state made up of maddening political contradictions. You have uber liberal Boulder county up north, and uber conservative Colorado springs to the south. You have Colorado University (compared to Cal Berkley by many), and then you can find Focus on the Family. You also have the aforementioned home base of a powerful evangelical Christian organization with one of the lowest (by state) percentages of people who regularly attend church (11 percent). Then you have a massive influx of liberal Californians moving in, mixing with a massive influx of conservative Texans. You have a state screaming for gun laws in the wake of The Dark Knight killings and Columbine going up against a powerful NRA lobby with mountain hunters.

Then you have Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party polling at 4 percent, I believe the second highest behind new Hampshire in political polls by state. Basically, we are a perfect storm of political clusterf***.

Two of Romney’s biggest talking points get blunted here:

  • The economy is better than national average and we have thus far survived the economic downturn relatively well.
  • There are few Jewish people here, so only conservative Christians would consider relations with Israel a voting issue (remember 11 percent, and not all of them are conservative). Also, by far our biggest minority is of Mexican decent, and they are by and large not fans of Republican immigration stances.

I will say (though it’s hard to quantify) that the “excitement” for Obama is not at the fevered pitch it was in 2008, partly (just as we’ve seen nationally) because he’s been president and you don’t have that same euphoria of getting your guy in there, and partly because we didn’t host the DNC this time around.

To be fair, even though the economy is decent here, Coloradans recognize it can be better and that it is still nationally sluggish — there are no quick fixes. This being said, Obama is still very popular with the Democratic base, whereas Romney is liked, but not venerated by the Republican base.

It is a statistical tossup, and we really won’t know until Tuesday. If you forced me to bet, I’d say Obama wins by 2-4 percent. Sorry to have a wishy-washy conclusion, but that’s how I see it.

So there you have it. I really have nothing much to add. I devour news on a daily basis for work, and this is one of the most succinct, informative, non-wonkish breakdowns of Colorado’s political complexity that I’ve seen.

My only question would be for our Libertarian friends: Is there a particular reason why you don’t sink your resources into building a movement at a local and state level, first? Is it really helping anyone to put all your eggs into one basket every four years, self-righteously beating your chest about the “two party system” before disappearing into darkness shortly after the election is over? Good grief.

Anyway, thanks again to my eyes and ears on the ground in Colorado. Great job, my friend. Here’s to hoping that Independents break hard for Mitt.