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%
October 02, 2009 11:30 AM UTC
70 Comments
Would AR support the Senators from Colorado on this?
I mean, if the primary is going to be good for the nominee, at some point I would expect the challenger to differentiate himself from the incumbent.
If they agree on the big things- then doesn’t the challenge come off looking whiney and petulant. Yes, my opponent is a good Senator, but,… but ….I really, really, wanted that job!
And what WAS the last time AR endorsed the challenger in a Dem primary?
It convinced me.
Who could read those slides? No one any farther away from them than where Bennet stood. Doesn’t the Senate need a PowerPoint slide projector?
And really folks, talking calmly about health care facts has gotten us almost nowhere. The fact ARE stunning – the status quo IS unsustainable – people ARE dying every day in this country due to lack of access to appropriate health care. But that’s not what gets people’s attention. Their OWN health care disasters gets their attention, and talk from the heart not the head gets their attention.
Where’s the passion? He looked as if he was two cups of coffee short.
No one needed to be able to read the slides (I’m sure all members were provided with printouts so that they have the details, if they want them.)
Bennet pointed out the trends that were important, this is what a person trying to bring home a message ought to do.
I’ve seen Bennet give a very similar argument in person, sans visual aids, and he was able to convey the severity of the problem and the benefits of reaching a solution quite well. Without fake passion, fear mongering, or threats. Almost … well … senatorial!
Even better, he was skilled at addressing every single question that was posed to him, especially the few that he had no answer for. In these situations he acknowledged his unfamiliarity and then asked that person to speak to him afterwards. Bennet then asked that person for assistance in gaining the information he needed to be able to form a position.
Overall a very impressive man. I was passionate about AR last winter. This summer I made my first $ contribution to Bennet.
A 3-minute speech listing off facts that we’ve been hearing for months is not that impressive. I haven’t decided between Ar and Bennet yet, but this does nothing to sway my support. He’s simply repeating talking points that many of his fellow Senators have already stated.
I think I agree with The Realist. Democrats have the task of selling this to the American people. They must show passion for it. Bennet’s monotone professorial presentation doesn’t exactly scream, “We Need Reform NOW!”
There is a reason why Obama was elected and a guy like John Kerry did not. A little ‘gravitas’ goes a long way. Sadly, that is what makes an effective politician. And from what I’ve seen, Romanoff has much more of it than Bennet.
at least he is being very clear and open on his views concerning healthcare reform. What’s Romanoff’s position? Does anyone really know? Is it more “progressive”? It’s not as if he has an established history of anything far from centrist stands so, if we have to guess, the logical guess would be… probably not.
How Romanoff came to be the alleged darling of the grassroots progressives is a mystery. As a grassroots progressive myself I’m wondering why, if it is based only on the fact that Bennet was appointed where Romanoff should have been, then what’s all the blather about small “d” democracy about?
I see Bennet as much stronger on this than Udall while Romanoff seems not to want to say much at all. Besides waaahhh!
This whole attack on Romanoff as simply being discontent about not getting appointed is a little ridiculous. Romanoff has long been considered a prospect for a state-wide office. There was much anger within the progressive community over Bennet’s appointment. It was purely political back-room dealing, all while Ritter was claiming to want the ‘People’s’ input. From the day Bennet was appointed, Romanoff was being pressured by MANY folks to challenge in a primary. The political environment amongst the rank and file democrats was ripe for Romanoff to make that challenge. We will just have to wait and see if his calculation was correct.
Cut him ANY slack? The man who preached party loyalty now deserves slack for an unforgivable breach of party loyalty? Come again?
And you might ask AR what has changed to make him think that he can win a statewide election now. When I, and others, asked him in the past why he didn’t run for a statewide office, his answer distilled to two main parts: First, he didn’t think he could win a statewide election (a remarkably honest and straightforward statement, for which I give him enormous credit); and, second, he did not want to run against a Democratic incumbent.
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
You got here before I could.
New home How I love you.
see more Lolcats and funny pictures
I’d say this video is evidence that Bennet has gravitas. I don’t know what you meant, cunninjo, by using ‘gravitas’ in quotes, but the above is what most of us agree that gravitas means.
We’ve seen lots of “passion” over the last couple of months. Most of it seems to be based on misinformation, fear, and large amounts of money changing hands. Clearly many people have not been hearing factual arguments – maybe readers of ColoradoPols have, but that still leaves out most people.
Ritter has been a total disappointment to me and the Democrats. He has screwed labor at every turn. And supporters of Bennet who argue that Romanoff only entered the race because his feelings were hurt are counterproductive and undemocratic. Bennet made his bed when he showed through his no vote on the cram-down legislation that special interests with lots of money are in that bed with him.
We will only have ourselves to blame if Bennet wins the primary for he will represent us in the Ritter and Salazar way. That is voting to appease the old Colorado Republican base which is how I view Bennet’s voting record. This kind of voting is no longer necessary or wanted by the majority of constituents in Colorado. Andrew Romanoff offers Colorado progressives and Democrats a more progressive agenda and if you are a progressive in this state and you don’t see that I’m not sure I trust your judgment.
Prove it. Prove that Romanoff
Show me where he stands on issues that count. Single payer isn’t in any bill coming out of any committee in the House or Senate. The public option is. So let’s start talking about what is actually happening in Congress versus the fantasy world you see to be residing in.
Start showing me where Romanoff is more progressive than Bennet (like on the Employee Free Choice Act? Hahahahahaha. Wow, if that’s your definition of progressive, I’m thrilled not to meet your definition.)
I want to see issue by issue, side by side, that shows me Romanoff’s left leaning credentials which would be quite the departure from his track record in the State House for 8 years, now wouldn’t it?
But where is the effort to actually address costs? He’s been focusing on “cost is the key issue” for months but aside from “let’s copy Grand Junction,” which would bring some savings, nothing specific.
The hard step is not seeing that cost is a giant problem, the hard step is addressing that giant problem. How about a proposal to do that?
actually made it into Baucus’ bill. The Coloradoan had an item last month. So the effort has actually been made, and it looks very likely that it will be part of any final package.
http://www.coloradoan.com/arti…
I think that answers your question.
Why didn’t he mention it in his speech???
Plus, we do need more. But this is a good step.
I promised Speaker Romoanoff that i wouldn’t attack him, so I won’t. I’ll spend my time making a case for Sen. Bennet.
It’s amazing how fast people that claimed to support the President attack him for endorsing Sen.Bennet. If the Speaker had the President’s endrosement then we would certainly be hearing it.
The more I get to know the man, the more I truly like him.
they had another youtube channel from the non-campaign side…in which he’s sporting a Carhart.
http://www.youtube.com/user/Se…
Then there’s the campaign channel.
http://www.youtube.com/bennetf…
When you think about it, there’s actually quite a bit of content out there now.
I gave a talk yesterday morning to Denver County Republicans that used much of the same data that Sen. Bennet used. I focused on costs, the increase in costs to business as compared with the inflation rate, and also the percentage of GDP that the US devotes to health care.
I used the costs for a different argument than Sen. Bennet.
My argument for the Republican crowd was that the failure of the bills before Congress to address costs in a serious way was a legitimate reason to oppose those bills. In particular, a national insurance mandate will cause costs to increase. (As well, I questioned whether such a mandate was even possible.)
I also argued that, consistent with their ideology, Republicans ought to support state-level health care reform.
Tom Russell
One is that all this potential additonal care will cost us more. Can it? Sure. Should it? Not at all. As you are well aware of, every other country spends a fraction of what we do per person or per capita share of GDP. If we emulated any of them, our savings would pay for lots of coverage for everyone and put a few nickels back into the treasury.
Second, state solutions is no solution. People move around, some states will have terrible plans, others will do better. Look at the Medicaid mess; mandated coverage and probably 50 different packages.
OTOH, look at Medicare. Go anywhere, same coverages. Look at the VA. If you are in the system in one hospital, you are in it with all of them.
This is one area of modern life we need universality, not provincialism.
Parsing:
I agree completely with the point about GDP–that’s why I emphasize the measure. We spend too much as a portion of our GDP, which is an opportunity cost problem. That is, money that we waste on inefficient health care spending we could spend on something else.
We could have a much more efficient payment mechanism that pushes aside the overhead costs and profit of private insurance. We could also devote some serious effort to the 5 or so conditions/diseases that consume most of our health care dollars.
As for provincialism, I disagree. First, a national solution that really addresses the central problem of costs seems, at present, to be out of reach. (Right now, the proposals will increase costs.) Colorado’s a relatively little state for which we could craft an efficient state plan. Canada started with one province and we could, too. Other states could say–do we want to follow MA, CO, or do something different. I don’t think we would ever end up with 50 different state plans, and if we did, so what? That would still be far fewer plans than we have now. With time, the beauty of federalism would give us a national plan.
For structural and purely political reasons–there are 6 insurance lobbyists for every member of Congress–I have never been hopeful that a good national plan can be crafted right now. OTOH, I do not believe that the legislators of Colorado have the imagination to envision state government facilitating a solution. I know that the government does not.
I’m in the Bay Area this weekend. San Francisco crafted its own City plan. I believe that pPeople–including employers–are generally happy with it. Don’t fall prey to rhetoric that a smaller solution is a bad idea.
Cheers,
Tom Russell
Regardless of your age, you certainly are a Republican of the old style. One looking for solutions to fix an acknowledged problem instead of lining up behind the rhetoric.
States, counties, and municipalities have increasingly been stepping up to the plate, taking roles that a generation ago would have been the federal government’s. It’s true Canada’s HC system is run by the provinces, and there are “flavors”, but the general standards are set in Ottawa. I could certainly live with something like that. In fact, I’m more likely to live – literally – with anything that is better than what we have now.
Keep up the good work and we can all find solutions. This really isn’t rocket science since we have about three dozen nations that we can examine, pick and choose what works and what doesn’t.
Parsing:
Actually, I’m a Democrat of the old style. I believe in labor, civil rights, and the power of the state to make a better life for people.
But, Ryan Call and others will find it amusing that you called me a Republican of the old style.
Cheers,
Tom Russell
He didn’t really warm up for a couple of minutes. But around 2:45 the fire in his belly starts to flare up when he describes the status quo as “absurd”. His basic, old-fashioned liberal sense of fairness shows through when he starts talking about income inequality.
It was that speech where I went from finding Bennet to be an acceptable Senator who was best positioned to win to one I really like. We’ll see how he performs on the HELP committee, but I’m expecting good things.
So does corporate America if these hokey new anti-EFCA ads targeting him are any indication.
I agree that the cost issue is of prime importance here. $ 17 billion in Medicare is a start, but the fact is Medicare operates on an overhead margin of about 4%, while private insurers’ overhead is over 20%.
Let’s get real folks. Cost containment should have been the primary goal of health care reform (dare I say even a higher objective than universal coverage), but with the insurance industry spending over a million dollars a day to ensure the public option never sees the light of day, its all just smoke and mirrors.
The proposal to do that was by introducing real competition via the public option, and using the market (what a Republican idea! ) to control costs.
The administrative costs for private insurers are 31%. Of that 31% one can assume 27% at a minimum goes to denying claims (31% – 4%) if we assume that they are as efficient as the government which is what the Republicans and corporatist Democrats would have us believe. Add to that a minimum profit private insurers’ make of 15%. Take away the 4% to administer any program and you have a whopping 42% going to non-patient care.
In my opinion this is why a single payer IS the most cost effective. The second best option is a robust public option. This is the surest way to get insurance companies to shape up or ship out and to stop denying legitimate claims. All of the other proposals will either worsen the situation or maintain the status quo.
I’ve worked in both private industry (most of my career) and for the government as an Auditor for the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (auditing healthcare costs) and I can honestly say that private companies most always make the wrong choices for our country. What they do is maximize the profits of their stockholders and maximize the income of their CEOs to the detriment of workers and with negative externalities to the citizens of the United States. Capitalism as practiced in the US is not only overrated it is taking our country down faster than most realize.
Private companies are not stupid. If 31% goes to denying claims, then if they did not deny claims the associate medical costs would be greater than 31%. So eliminating that may be a public good, but it’s not a savings.
My argument is the administrative costs are around 4% and that private companies according to all the pedagogy are more efficient so the savings here I say is 27%.
Your point is well taken though that if they didn’t deny all the claims our costs would be higher but lets not forget that health insurance pays for the most profitable treatments not the ones that work. This is because special interests such as big PhRMA and the AMA force insurance companies through lobbying efforts and control of the FDA and the NIH to pay for treatments that are the most PROFITABLE not the most EFFECTIVE for the patient.
A case in point is proteomics. I was in the original study for Ovacheck in 2002 as I’m high risk for ovarian and breast cancer. Proteomics is the study of protein patterns in the blood and Ovacheck was one of the first tests they developed using proteomics. In the initial studies it was 100% accurate in detecting ovarian cancer even in the earliest stages. And, it’s non-invasive only requiring a drop of blood. Not only can proteomics be used to detect ovarian cancer but it can be used to detect almost any disease and even toxins in the blood. So what would happen if this test was approved? Well detecting cancers early would eliminate the need for most chemotherapies and screening with expensive cancer causing radiological equipment would be virtually eliminated. So why did the FDA decide to regulate this particular screening test as a medical device when they so readily approve toxic prescription drugs and harmful vaccinations on an expedited basis? My research shows that five doctors at the NIH and the FDA were helping Correlogic to develop Ovacheck when they realized how powerful this test was going to be. These five doctors then started to work with the competitors of Correlogic and there is Congressional testimony on some of the players. I believe but haven’t been able to confirm that these same doctors are rushing to use proteomics to benefit pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies to develop expensive treatments for cancer tumors called targeted treatments for tumor traits. Here is the link if you are interested in reading some of the Congressional Testimony. http://www.correlogic.com/news…
In conclusion I agree that if you deny a certain percentage of claims and those claims become undeniable by law it means that your cost will go up by that same percentage but you are ignoring that part of healthcare reform that will be to look at these costly expensive treatments that don’t work. And by denying those claims we will more than offset the costs by actually treating people with more effective and smarter treatments.
Won’t the public option be even more easily forced by the same agencies? Because at that point it’s all in the federal government. I think you make a good point about the problem. I’m not sure the public option fixes it.
First I wanted to add an additional comment to my first response. Making healthcare affordable to all Americans is a moral obligation and it’s a false choice to say that we will not save money if we don’t allow insurance companies to arbitrarily deny claims. This is equivalent to saying you should get rid of safety wear and safety measures because it costs money.
Let me give you an example for my second point using manufacturing and the widget. In the first scenario two steps do not add value to the product and if you could take them out you would save money.
1. Make a part for a widget.
2. Move the part to storage.
3. Retrieve the part from storage to the assembly line.
4. Assemble widget.
If you could remove steps in this process that cost you money but doesn’t add value to the end product then you can say you have saved money in the manufacturing of the product so now you would have.
1. Make part for widget.
2. Assemble widget.
The third point I wish to make is regarding the public option. You said you didn’t see how this was going to save money and I say it will. I create budgets all the time and it is unbelievable how budgets motivate the behavior of the responsible parties. They jump through hoops to make it work so if you had a robust public option the health insurance companies would have to figure out how to save money without denying claims. They would do this by focusing on more effective treatments and they would lobby to ensure that expensive, profitable ineffective treatments were eliminated.
So in my humble opinion I do believe that the public option is going to drive the cost of health insurance down. It is going to force insurance companies to get more creative in controlling costs and the big elephant in the room are these profitable treatments that are ineffective.
Having government even more involved will never lower costs….see Medicare and Medicaid as proof in point. So we have a huge deficit and the solution is to give more coverage? This simply makes no sense.
hate to have any facts ruin your day, but CBO, Heritage, Cato, AMA and others have complained that Medicare/Medicaid do too much to hold down costs. The Bush administration’s bone to them all was the prescription drug plan, which continued to prohibit importing cheaper prescriptions from Canada, negotiating group rates for states and other potentially large aggregations and generally did really well for big pharms.
The complaint about Medicare and Medicaid (and Tricare and CHAMP-VA) are that they “underpay” for services. Which is hard to defend philosophically because very few providers are required or forced by law to accept these patients.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.c…
Lord knows that’s been doing a great job keeping overall costs down…and keeping people out of bankruptcy.
If emergency rooms do walk-in lobotomies, and if so, I hope Rep. Broun’s excellent taxpayer paid health insurance pays for them.
Please show me how Medicare costs more than comparable insurance, with comparable coverage for a comparable group of patients. I’ll bet you can’t.
And it looks like your solution is no subsidized coverage for anyone, right? Bye bye Medicare? Good luck with that.
By the way, how is it that other developed countries get better results at half the cost? (Oh, and for the sake of argument, you can exclude Canada and Britain and focus instead on German, Switzerland, and Japan).
They don’t expect to be. They do make comfortable livings. See T.R. Reid’s book.
Michael Bennet is a Barack Obama Democrat.
Andrew Romanoff is a Blue Dog Democrat.
I have never heard Andrew Romanoff articulate an issue as clearly.competently and assuccinctly as Michael Bennet has done with health care.
I support Michael Bennet, but I don’t think your statement on Romanoff is fair at all.
Romanoff is quite articulate and I’ve heard him give well reasoned arguments several times in the past on a variety of issues. He is in no way a “blue dog” democrat.
In terms of issues, Romanoff and Bennet are both sides of the same coin as far as I can tell. The differences between them are more style than substance.
Wow. So you’re saying Bennet’s dull lecture in this video has turned your head full-circle in favor of his campaign. Maybe some film footage of political types falling asleep as he lectures them on why they should care about the non-rich will make you donate your house to his campaign coffers. Unbelievable brain rot. If this is all it takes for you to go bananas over Bennet, C-Span must have you foaming at the mouth.
I give you credit for your excellent method of conducting civilzed discourse.
I accept your compliment, Ray Springfield.
Too Long Did Not Read 😛
Your signature quote is one of my all time favorite quotes. . .
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
Mostly unintelligible- but somehow, clear that you don’t care.
How does being a dull, uninspired speaker equate with being an unstoppable political powerhouse? He has enough money to bribe half the legislature, true; but being boring enough to lull a crack fiend into a narcoleptic stupor doesn’t make him the Terminator. If you’re a sycophant for Bennet, just come out and say so.
is a “sycophant” as well. I love how I try to be transparent by adding my note, and instead get attacked for it.
..as if we didn’t already know, “just come out and say so”
Nice presentation. I can see why he made $250M for Phil Anshutz and millions for himself cutting the jobs of thousands of low wage workers at the companies he “consolidated” for Anschutz. It is always fun to watch a privileged millionaire talk about the problems of working families “all across “insert state here”.
At least he did not wear a bolo tie as the cognitive dissonance between his Kennedy/Kerry New England accent and the tie would have put many in a tailspin. The aforementioned “bare-ass chaps” might have been a nice touch.
On a lighter note the Obama loss at the IOC may be a bigger issue for Bennet. Obama may have to start looking and acting like the president rather than shilling for big commercial ventures like the Olympics and getting involved in local politics.
Whether Romanoff can capitalize on any of this remains to be seen.
and guilt (or is it glory?) by association.
Bennet can hang out in what ever boardroom he wants. It is the fact that he fed the Republican machine that is the issue.
Boardroom Bandit — Lawyer Lobbyist?
You read it here first.
somewhere else first.
But I still am unable to see how it hurts him in the general.
Could it hurt in the primary? Maybe.
Am wondering why no one has focused on the fact that Bennett helped raise a huge amount of money for the guy that was the backer of Amendment 2 and other things horrible for the Dems. Does integrity to your principles not account for anything?
Is this dog really supposed to hunt?
As you always say Twas, do the research. The Anschutz gang is in the top twenty Bennet supporters.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pol…
Amendment 2, Colorado Republican Party, George Bush. While most Democrats were out pounding the pavement fighting these folks and issues, Bennet was lining the pockets of their major benefactor to the tune of $250M.
The hunt is on.
It looks like someone who works for Anschutz maxed out to Bennet, but so what? Dude used to work there too. If you were “doing the research,” you would have looked up Phil’s 2010 donations. But I guess I’ll do it for you (I’ll even be generous and do every Anschutz from CO):
http://www.opensecrets.org/ind…
And since the Norton campaign has listed the Anschutz’s as financial backers, I’ll ask again: is this dog really supposed to hunt?
Checking out your point, Norton is just one of hundreds of Republicans and Republican cause that Anschutz has supported. 290 records in fact for a total of $999,239 from
1990 -2004:
http://www.opensecrets.org/ind…
Thanks for the link to this treasure trove Twas.
You can get out of the tree when the dogs get tired.
Who is your favorite Anschutz beneficiary?
Covering the bases for political contact is a normal method of maintaining access in our political system.
So are you suggesting that Mr Kenney’s engineering the Bennet coronation is covering the Democratic base to balance the over $1M in contributions by Anschutz and Company to Republicans?
Had not thought of it that way.
So the Boardroom Bandit is really Senator Anschutz.
I’m suggesting that the President for 8 years was George W. Bush.
You are quick to jump to far reaching conclusions.
Nevethels,, it is quite common for corporte America to spend on both sides of issues, not just on politicians.
Bennet worked for Anschutz from 1996 -2002.
Bennet website is now more vague on the Anschutz years:
Post DPS bio more detailed:
So check out these Anschutz contributions during the Bennet/Anschutz years:
ANSCHUTZ CORP
DENVER,CO 80202 4/18/96 $250,000 RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION
DENVER,CO 80202 10/22/98 $100,000 RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION
DENVER,CO 80202 5/26/99 $100,000 RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte (R)
ANSCHUTZ CORP
DENVER,CO 80202 4/15/96 $50,000 NRSC/Non-Federal
ANSCHUTZ CORPORATION
DENVER,CO 80202 6/10/98 $50,000 RNC/Repub National State Elections Cmte
Are you saying that Mary Cheney isn’t a lesbian because she was a senior executive at Coors?
Romanoff is a smart guy who can speak intelligently on many topics.
Michael Bennet just blows him away. No way that Andrew Romanoff gives a speech or writes with the knowledge and depth of Bennet.
Andrew Romanoff is taking itme from his campaign to lend support to Cheri Jahn who was the most conservative Democrat and a solid ally of the insurance and pharmaceutical industries during her eight years in the House. Cheri is opposed by a more liberal Democrat in the primary.
Why is Andrew lending support to Cheri unless he agrees with her on the issues?
There will be a lot of contributors on Andrew’s list with special interest connections just as there are on Bennet’s.
Bennet worked for Anschutz and made a lot of money for him. That is well known. Has he done anything in the Senate to benefit Anschutz? No he has not.
It is not that Bennet is doing anything in the Senate to help Anschutz(although who knows what a good researcher could find), it is that Bennet made $250M for Anschutz which Anschutz invested in Republican causes to the detriment of Democrats.
Clearly Bennet vote against Durbin’s cram down bill was a boon to many of Bennet’s supporters from the finance sector at the cost of Bennet’s “Colorado working families” who are being eaten alive by the finance industy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
Securities and Investment and Misc. Finance are the number 3 and 4 industries that support Bennet.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pol…
If we all refused to work for Republicans, then none of us would be working.
Some would call that class warfare, others would simply observe that Republicans control most of this country’s money. Some might observe that controlling the country’s wealth might be some peoples’ reason for being Republicans.
Whatever.
Make sure that you, personally, aren’t making a nickel of trickle-down from Republicans before you start throwing stones at other people who might have gotten trickle-down from Republicans.
It is not the trickle down that matters in this case, it was the flow up to Anschutz.
While Dems were out fighting folks like Bill Owens, Bennet was filling Anschutz coffers while Aschutz was contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars to Owens’ campaign.
I don’t think so. It’s bi-partisan.
I believe that all people have good and bad within them. I also believe that most people think tht their own actions or causes are beneficial to America.
I don’t agree with everyone. That’s eveyone’s right as an American.
of course
http://voices.washingtonpost.c…