Did CO Sen.Michael Bennet forget he has a primary?
45 Comments
by: wade norris
Last year Rachel Maddow attacked a group of Democratic Senators, including CO Sen. Michael Bennet, for their opposition to their own President’s agenda and called them “Conservadems”
Ms. Maddow:
(the coalition’s focus) “…is on reducing Federal Spending. (at a time when the Stimulus was being proposed to save the country from another Great Depression)
According to Roll Call the Conservadems are also trying to water down the President’s Climate Change Legislation”
When Michael Bennet was declared a Conservadem by Ms. Maddow, supporters of Michael Bennet declared Ms. Maddow’s attacks as ‘baseless and without merit’.
Question:Has Senator Bennet done anything in this past year of serving as Colorado’s Junior Senator to disprove that he is a “Conservadem”?
(P.S. Although I wrote this yesterday, it seems that today’s news – his campaign added Joe Trippi, Patrick Caddell, Celinda Lake and Liz Chadderdon – indicates that Andrew Romanoff has not forgotten the primary.)
One would think that a newly appointed Senator with a Primary contest on the horizon would try to make the safe, left to center votes on issues the democratic base would care about, in order to reduce opportunities to be attacked from his Primary Opponent – in this case, Andrew Romanoff.
So let’s look at Senator Bennet’s actions and votes this past year.
Let’s look at the attacks Ms. Maddow stated – on watering down Climate Change Legislation:
.
Michael Bennet has done the following:
First: Bennet joined up with 8 other senators, including 3 Republicans to pen a letter to Senator Boxer to include Natural Gas as a central part of Climate Legislation:
“Any Senate energy and climate bill should provide statutory guidance to harness this important resource and stimulate and support even more activity in this sector of our nation’s diverse energy portfolio,” states the letter from Sens. Michael Bennett (D-Colo.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), David Vitter (R-La.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).
Natural gas provides a fifth of U.S. electric power and also powers some vehicles, such as municipal buses. Its lower carbon emissions – along with new U.S. supplies available through increased shale gas development – are prompting calls to expand the fuel’s role in climate policy.”
Natural gas is often touted as ‘clean energy’ but, in fact, it is still a pollution emitting source of energy. Furthermore, the extraction of Natural Gas is a touchy subject in Colorado – where our Western Slope Citizens have been engaged in a knock down – drag out fight against gas companies who have drilled and are drilling in ways that contaminate their precious water supply.
The communities — the city of Grand Junction and the neighboring town of Palisade — began by making their concerns clear: drilling is important, but protecting the water supply is paramount.
“Our feeling all along was that you shouldn’t drill in our watershed. It’s the last resort,” said Tim Sarmo, the town manager for Palisade, who, together with the city of Grand Junction, fought the development. “Shouldn’t someone say these are areas of higher priority, greater vulnerability?”
Would you drink this?
This is the type of issue that motivates a concerned voter to come out to primary elections.
“We urge you to ensure that emission allowances allocated to the electricity sector – and thus, electricity consumers – be fully based on emissions as the appropriate and equitable way to provide transition assistance in a greenhouse gas-regulated economy.”
Translation:
Their demand is a basic violation of a core principle of environmental economics – that companies should pay based on their pollution…
The argument that the most “fair and effective,” “appropriate and equitable” way to help the constituents of their states is to increase subsidies to coal-powered utilities is frankly absurd.
What’s wrong with this picture? Well, for the other 13 Dems who wrote this, it is a step backwards away from changing how we power the country, and actually increases pollution. What’s more, this type of letter could have easily been written to propose increased subsidies for Wind Turbine development or Solar Power, which provides new jobs in a green energy sector at a time when new jobs are not easy to find.
The other problem for Senator Bennet? Most of the “Green” or “Enviro” voters are exclusively located in the Democratic party. They are also typically one issue voters, ‘how did you vote on Environmental issues?’
They will be showing up at the Primary to vote.
Next – let’s look at the ‘fiscal responsibility’ aspect of being labeled a ‘Conservadem’
In November Bennet signed a letter to call on support for a ‘Fiscal Responsibility Commission’
He then voted this past week along with 52 other Senators for the creation of that commission. What would be the downside of such a commission?
…it would create budget legislation, including deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare. As Conrad has written the proposal, the Senate could only have simple majority (upperdown) votes on this legislation–no filibusters. It would hand over a huge amount of Congressional authority to an unelected, unaccountable commission, all in the name of “fiscal responsibility.”
(from a press release from Michael Amodeo Press Secretary U.S. Senator Michael Bennet (CO))
When my oldest daughter Caroline was born in 1999, our Nation’s debt stood at about $5.6 trillion. Our country welcomed her with an unpaid bill totaling $20,000–the amount every American would have to pay up in order to balance the budget….
By Caroline’s 10th birthday last year, the national debt stood at about $11 trillion–double what it was when she was born. She owed about $36,000 at this point. I would have to say that is a lousy birthday present for any 10-year-old….
I urge support for the deficit commission proposal. We need 60 Senators to stand for fiscal responsibility. Let’s not allow this chance for bipartisan breakthrough to pass us by. Vote yes on Conrad-Gregg.
He later said he disagreed with the Stimulus package, which ended up keeping us out of a great depression, saved the banks and our auto sector. By the way, Gregg once voted to abolish the Commerce department.
But back to what Senator Bennet said: The deficit was recently at its lowest under Bill Clinton in 1999, when, along with Republicans, there were strict limits on spending and upon his leaving the White House, there was actually a budget surplus.
There are times when balancing the budget makes sense. That was one of those times, seeing as how unemployment was very low, the economy was booming and the middle class was thriving – even as the Republicans opposed his taxes on people earning over $200,000 per year.
But let’s look at now.
Why did our deficits go through the roof? Bush repealed the taxes on the Wealthiest Americans and started a war on two fronts and borrowed the money to do so.
Should we, now, when unemployment is at 10% or even higher, the foreclosures on housing is at an all time high, and we are just escaping a possible depression – is that the time to enact a commission that proposes cuts to Medicare and Social Security? I think we can wait for sunnier times to start cutting these programs. Is this the time to call for a “bipartisan breakthrough” when the Republicans have opposed every single measure President Obama has tried to do as President, and he himself in fact has been chastised for diluting his agenda by seeking out at least one Republican like Olympia Snowe, just so it could have a bipartisanship asterisk?
I don’t hold much hope out for Bipartisanship if that means we get nothing in return.
In fact, a speech about increased funding for these programs is what I would expect my democratic Senator to say, not cuts and bipartisanship.
The U.S. Senate rejected a measure that would let bankruptcy judges cut mortgage terms to help borrowers avoid foreclosure, a victory for banks and credit unions that said the legislation would increase loan costs.
The proposed “cram-down” amendment to a housing bill was defeated today in a 51-45 vote, with 12 Democrats among the 51 opponents.
“These bankers who brought us into this crisis are literally shunning and stiff-arming the people who are facing foreclosure,” said Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, sponsor of the legislation and the chamber’s second-ranking Democrat.
The defeat is a setback for President Barack Obama’s administration, which included cram-down in the anti-foreclosure plan aiming to help 9 million homeowners.
Finally, there is one area that Bennet has excelled in differentiating himself from even his Conservadem colleagues.
Bennet last week joined Republicans in warning of “unintended consequences” in the sweeping, 1,100-page bill developed by Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., which establishes a new federal super-regulator as well as a separate agency to protect consumers
The issue is likely to prove politically sticky for Bennet…
Bennet’s approach to the bill is informed by his own experience – he earned millions restructuring bankrupt companies for billionaire Phil An schutz – but critics also point to the fact that Wall Street firms are among his most significant political donors.
In less then six months, Colorado Democrat has received $401,000 from campaign donors linked to a combination of hedge funds, securities firms, insurance companies and real estate interests. Bennet’s take is bested only by four senators, including Harry Reid, the powerful Senate majority leader, and Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics.
Bennet, 44, sits on the Banking Committee as well, as the panel’s most junior member. But he is also a millionaire former businessman familiar with the world of high-wire finance – the kind of lawmaker donors may see as a potential ally as the committee rewrites the rules under which much of the financial sector will work.
But if those factors have combined to create a financial boon for Colorado’s junior senator, they also present him with a political challenge: How to benefit from Wall Street’s largess without appearing too cozy to his patrons.
This issue may be the toughest one for Bennet – even the President has turned his populist rhetoric against Wall Street, because of the anger felt by many voters – even Republicans, for the huge bonuses the Wall Street and Banking CEOs are receiving after being bailed out.
There are two questions here:
1)Is Michael Bennet a Conservadem?
Watering down climate legislation, check.
Fiscal responsibility at any costs, even to social programs, check.
I will say that these ‘centrist’ letters, speeches, and votes may position him quite well for a general election this fall, but I have another question.
2)Did Senator Bennet forget he has to compete in a Democratic Primary?
You just continue what apparebtly has been the Speaker’s philosophy from the start, which is to permit his supporters to lie and insinuate on Sen Bennet’s character. A very good example is the 400k question. Sen Bennet has raised nearly 5 million dollars. Speaker Romanoff to date might have 400k in hand after his burn rate.Bennet raised the 400k before the Speaker entered and he worked as an investment banker. It’s like attacking the Speaker for getting donatioons from people that he worked with in the state house. It’s ridiculous.
Further, trying to insinuate that the Speaker is in anyway closer to the President than Sen Bennet is beyond belief. The President made it clear that he endorsed Sen. Bennet the day the Speaker announced, and he will come campaign for him before the primary.The Speaker came very late to the Obama camp.He only endorsed the President after the President had secured the nomination.
Sen. Bennet reads the legilsation and analyzes the consequneces before taking a position. That’s rational good representation. Trying to paint the Speaker as more liberal by record doesnt fly. It’s delusional for left wing liberals to think that the Speaker is a super liberal. He is not.
I thought this type of campagining would come to an end, but it has not.
As I mentioned in my questioning of Sirota even being a Democrat, the left wing of our party is rolling towards creating a tidal wave of angry teabaggers becoming mainstream and they will make George w.Bush look liberal.Palin today suggested that the teabaggers merge with the Republicans.Add Limbaughs’ anti-Jewish rant about bankers, and this is starting to look at lot like 1932.
This isn’t going on in just Colorado.
If the left thinks that independents will turn towards a socialist agenda, then I suggest that they analyze history. The cold war drilled into the baby boomers that this will never happen.
I’m a moderate Democrat, just like Speaker Romanoff and Sen Bennet. I believe that compromise is the basic cornerstone of political action in a society divided by race, religioun and class distictions.
I’m not sure that progrssives believe that.
I’m not sure that many progressives are really Democrats.
This isn’t about Udall. The President of the US also backed this idea and said in his SOTU that he will create his own commission since this one did not pass. Again, not everyone agrees that the Commission is a bad idea. Kudos though in regurgitating every single issue you have had with Bennet and putting it all into one diary. It will make it much easier for you to copy and paste in the future, when you regurgitate it again.
The netroots don’t forget, either, so if Romanoff is counting on getting Dean-level money from there, he better revise his budget. Not to mention Trippi is a poison pill as far as they’re concerned. Strategically, I don’t think these are good hires for Romanoff.
Lots of good association with several organizations I respect. I can’t stand Trippi and have zero respect for the man. He burned the netroots in a big way and more than once. He just finally got caught, that’s all.
All these “bad votes” have been asked and answered for months. And MOTR is right about the commission — Bennet’s vote on the commission isn’t a problem for most Democrats.
and yes, I will attack the messnger when he has earned it by half-baked innuendo (/wink, wink/, Bennet did something with Republicans, horrors! he must be evil)
But for now-
Wade, why are you for Romanoff?
Would he have voted differently than Bennet on the votes you referenced above?
Does he advocate phasing out or otherwise limiting natural gas production?
Your economic analysis is facile- does Speaker Romanoff agree with your analysis?
Asking if I had made a choice in the primary and if I was going to the caucus. The guy did it very well – friendly, did not push hard, asked a couple of friendly questions to build rapport.
When I said I was a strong Bennet supporter, he then invited me to join a couple of upcoming rep meetings and if I could be a neighborhood leader for the caucus. (I declined because work is so busy.)
Anyways, this guy did it perfectly. Still no call from the Romanoff campaign. So yes Wade Bennet does know he has a primary.
I’m glad you raised the issue Wade because I think Bennet is hoping Romanoff will just go away. But Romanoff has more name recognition among Democrats who vote in the primary and his favorable ratings are more positive than Bennet’s. Bennet lacks name recognition and also faces a tough election where incumbents especially those who have voted in favor of the banks are not doing well. Another negative for Bennet is he was anointed by Ritter a DINO who openly went against labor on numerous occasions. Fair or not Bennet will pay the price for being associated with Ritter. Romanoff is a better candidate and will serve the people of Colorado whereas Bennet will serve the special interests who have given him the millions he brags about in campaign contributions. These millions in campaign contributions from special interests are going to be a negative for Bennet for sure.
DLC or not, at one Denver County central committee meeting, onstage, he strongly emphasized how electing democrats does make a difference and held up the expansion of health insurance in Colorado for children as an example.
But Romanoff isn’t the one being compared to Bayh and Lieberman on a daily basis on this site and others.
And I’m really glad that Romanoff said a nice thing at a meeting one time, but where the hell was he in 2009 when there was the actual push for health care reform? He was rallying support for a US Senate primary rather than being a leader on health care.
He can say all he wants, but at this point I have no idea how he would be different on health care from Michael Bennet other than the fact that Bennet was working his ass off last year, while AR is playing Monday morning QB.
I personally watched Michael Bennet work his ass off on health reform, and every one of the many, many, many, town halls, rallies, house meetings, etc. I went to, all I could think of was, “Whatever happened to Andrew Romanoff? After his last term at the State was over, he disappeared, leaving us to fight hundreds of tea-partiers by ourselves”. That pissed me off… a lot.
I’ve watched Bennet, since day one, and I’ve been to his office last August asking him to at least support the public option. We carried with us about 1000 petitions/signatures, and letters. But he didn’t come forth with that decision to support the public option until Andrew Romanoff got into the race (as a single payer proponent). Since that time – Bennet came forth with “I’m a full supporter of the Public Option” but where was he when the bill was on the floor. Did he suggest or promote an amendment. I dont’ think so. But he did begin to take thousands of dollars from all kinds of corporations who in turn will expect his support in bills that come before him.
All results from his 4th quarter of fundraising will be posted at http://www.opensecrets.org tomorrow. I think this will be fascinating to look at.
That is a BOLD FACED LIE SPREAD BY THE ROMANOFF CAMPAIGN!!!!!
I took photos of close to 100 events last year on health reform. I took notes. On June 27th and June 28th, he said publicly at two separate events, the first being the Arapahope Community Team and Arapahoe Young Dems Summer Picnic, that he supported the public option. I have 100 witnesses if you want some names.
I worked on health reform all year during 2009, planning rallies, going to rallies and getting people to make calls. I liked Michael Bennet from the start because he listened to citizens on this issue. Andrew Romanoff was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. By summer, I wondered who I would support if Andrew jumped in the race late, and for a few hours I actually had to think about it (I use to have a lot of respect for him from his days as Speaker). When I first heard this lie from Andrew’s supporters (that Michael Bennet didn’t support the public option until AR was rumored to be jumping in), I knew Michael Bennet was the guy for me.
I HATE LIES.
I still think Andrew Romanoff is a good person, did a lot for us in Colorao in 2000-2008, and has a bright future in another race at another time. I have no respect for the handful of his supporters who have difficulty separating fact from fiction. The longer this campaign goes on, I lose a little more respect for Andrew — although he has shown integrity, he tolerates surrogates who seem to have none.
I applaud your interest and commitment to this issue, Ann — I really do. I applaud your hard work and compassion for all those people who are underinsured or uninsured, and the 46,000 Americans who die every year because of it. I am not trying to attack you, or be disrespectful to you personally. On the contrary…. I admire what you are doing for the voiceless among us.
Could it be you were asking Senator Bennet to support Single Payer, NOT the public option in August? By August, Senator Bennet had done dozens of house meetings and town halls publicly singing the praises of the public option (check his website for photos and newspaper articles — it’s all in there). Senator Bennet never publicly supported Single Payer as a viable, realistic strategy to fix our broken health care system. Most Democrats in Congress, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and John Conyers perhaps, agreed it was too aggressive and would not work.. at this time.
Although most of us who have fought hard for this issue would LOVE to see Single Payer in this country because it works in many other countries, we knew it was an unrealistic first step. Maybe we should have done things differently — who knows?
Here on Bennet Pols.com there are about 10 rabid supporters of Bennet and they will say anything to make Bennet look good and Romanoff look bad. They don’t care what is good for our country all they care about is that corporate bought candidate wins the primary at any cost to the citizens of United States and the citizens of Colorado.
He has already showed his true colors when he voted no on the cram-down legislation and came out swinging against banking reform even before it was necessary. And what he said was he something like we wouldn’t want unintended consequences of banking regulations and it needs to be bi-partisan. All the while not a word about how these banks are taking us over another cliff. This is Bennet in true form. He will represent the banks and special interests in Washington not the people of Colorado and you have every right to be worried.
The truth is Bennet can’t get elected and if he wins the primary which he won’t the seat will go to a Republican.
..without this post-and-response, I would have concluded that you and Ann are the same person. But now you’ve conclusively disproved it through this clever interaction.
You’re so obsessed with me that you project my persona on other Romanoff supporters and Bennet detractors.
Get a grip. These are the tactics of the fanatical right wing. They opine that liberal judges are activist judges while our new far right Supreme Court has shown what activist judges look like.
Are you so far gone out of reality that you don’t see the majority of Democrats in this state don’t like Bennet or are indifferent to him. Are you so far gone that you don’t see the voters’ anger at the banks and other corporations that have driven us to the brink of a depression?
Bennet is a special interest kind of guy who will represent their interests not the citizens of Colorado and believe it or not many more Democrats who will vote in the primary will see this as well. Bennet.pols is not a representation of the most likely to vote Democrats in the primary. Bennet pols is a collection of rabid Bennet supporters who are very similar to the right in their undying loyalty of someone who will vote against their best interests and in favor of Wall Street or a bank.
To say Bennet represents them in some way is not only untrue, but part of a rapidly-growing lynch-mob mentality among Romanoff supporters. Find a convenient scapegoat for your rage, but one that is easy to pick on because he won’t fight back in the same crazy way, because taking on the REAL enemy is too overwhelming.
Sharon, you can take a sentence or two out of context and scare the children with it, but it’s a flat-out lie to claim Bennet isn’t as much an advocate of banking reform as any Democrat in the Senate.
Here’s a challenge: When banking reform comes out of the Senate this week, will you take another look at what Bennet says, what he supports, and how he votes? Or will you admit your mind is closed and the facts be damned?
His campaign advisors, yes. Romanoff, no. Saying he is less electable than Michael Bennet and jumped in the race too late is not trashing him. For the record, had he jumped in January of 2009, my blog posts would be very different, I suspect. Jumping in too late was the first of a series of poor decisions, IMHO. I just cringe; he deserves better.
January 30, 2010 01:25 AM UTC
45 Comments
that the Colorado Democratic Party is not equivalent to Square State’s readership?
but why defend bad votes when you can just attack the messenger?
I think your message, the question you pose, assumes facts not in evidence.
You just continue what apparebtly has been the Speaker’s philosophy from the start, which is to permit his supporters to lie and insinuate on Sen Bennet’s character. A very good example is the 400k question. Sen Bennet has raised nearly 5 million dollars. Speaker Romanoff to date might have 400k in hand after his burn rate.Bennet raised the 400k before the Speaker entered and he worked as an investment banker. It’s like attacking the Speaker for getting donatioons from people that he worked with in the state house. It’s ridiculous.
Further, trying to insinuate that the Speaker is in anyway closer to the President than Sen Bennet is beyond belief. The President made it clear that he endorsed Sen. Bennet the day the Speaker announced, and he will come campaign for him before the primary.The Speaker came very late to the Obama camp.He only endorsed the President after the President had secured the nomination.
Sen. Bennet reads the legilsation and analyzes the consequneces before taking a position. That’s rational good representation. Trying to paint the Speaker as more liberal by record doesnt fly. It’s delusional for left wing liberals to think that the Speaker is a super liberal. He is not.
I thought this type of campagining would come to an end, but it has not.
As I mentioned in my questioning of Sirota even being a Democrat, the left wing of our party is rolling towards creating a tidal wave of angry teabaggers becoming mainstream and they will make George w.Bush look liberal.Palin today suggested that the teabaggers merge with the Republicans.Add Limbaughs’ anti-Jewish rant about bankers, and this is starting to look at lot like 1932.
This isn’t going on in just Colorado.
If the left thinks that independents will turn towards a socialist agenda, then I suggest that they analyze history. The cold war drilled into the baby boomers that this will never happen.
delusional for MB supporters to insist that he is a progressive.
DLC Fellows – Class of 2009: Andrew Romanoff
Bennet–still in class.
I’m a moderate Democrat, just like Speaker Romanoff and Sen Bennet. I believe that compromise is the basic cornerstone of political action in a society divided by race, religioun and class distictions.
I’m not sure that progrssives believe that.
I’m not sure that many progressives are really Democrats.
with you regarding the creation of the Commission and if I am recalling correctly, Senator Mark Udall was a sponsor of that bill.
there would be a competing story about why he also voted for the commission and signed some of the same letters supporting coal and gas subsidies.
(not to mention his sudden embrace of nuclear power)
http://www.denverpost.com/news…
This isn’t about Udall. The President of the US also backed this idea and said in his SOTU that he will create his own commission since this one did not pass. Again, not everyone agrees that the Commission is a bad idea. Kudos though in regurgitating every single issue you have had with Bennet and putting it all into one diary. It will make it much easier for you to copy and paste in the future, when you regurgitate it again.
Oh, and by the way, I support nuclear energy.
when he chaired the state DLC? Or did he realize Colorado Democrats, and Colorado voters, aren’t a bunch of reactionary left-wing nutcases?
he is hoping the average voter suffers from short term memory loss. And lucky for him, most of them do. Unlucky for him, some of us don’t.
The netroots don’t forget, either, so if Romanoff is counting on getting Dean-level money from there, he better revise his budget. Not to mention Trippi is a poison pill as far as they’re concerned. Strategically, I don’t think these are good hires for Romanoff.
Lots of good association with several organizations I respect. I can’t stand Trippi and have zero respect for the man. He burned the netroots in a big way and more than once. He just finally got caught, that’s all.
you addressed on of the issues raised.
if you include the second one that you brought up in your comment. 🙂
All these “bad votes” have been asked and answered for months. And MOTR is right about the commission — Bennet’s vote on the commission isn’t a problem for most Democrats.
and yes, I will attack the messnger when he has earned it by half-baked innuendo (/wink, wink/, Bennet did something with Republicans, horrors! he must be evil)
But for now-
Wade, why are you for Romanoff?
Would he have voted differently than Bennet on the votes you referenced above?
Does he advocate phasing out or otherwise limiting natural gas production?
Your economic analysis is facile- does Speaker Romanoff agree with your analysis?
It’s clear you are against Bennet.
But why are you for Romanoff?
Asking if I had made a choice in the primary and if I was going to the caucus. The guy did it very well – friendly, did not push hard, asked a couple of friendly questions to build rapport.
When I said I was a strong Bennet supporter, he then invited me to join a couple of upcoming rep meetings and if I could be a neighborhood leader for the caucus. (I declined because work is so busy.)
Anyways, this guy did it perfectly. Still no call from the Romanoff campaign. So yes Wade Bennet does know he has a primary.
asking me if I was a supporter (I told him I am undecided, leaning Bennet) and asking if I was going to the caucus.
It would appear that Bennet campaign is indeed aware.
and I was an Obama delegate at the last caucus, so I figure my name is on there somewhere. (Last time around the Polis campaign called me.)
there were a LOT of caucus attendees, from what I understand they’re working their way through the lists.
I’m glad you raised the issue Wade because I think Bennet is hoping Romanoff will just go away. But Romanoff has more name recognition among Democrats who vote in the primary and his favorable ratings are more positive than Bennet’s. Bennet lacks name recognition and also faces a tough election where incumbents especially those who have voted in favor of the banks are not doing well. Another negative for Bennet is he was anointed by Ritter a DINO who openly went against labor on numerous occasions. Fair or not Bennet will pay the price for being associated with Ritter. Romanoff is a better candidate and will serve the people of Colorado whereas Bennet will serve the special interests who have given him the millions he brags about in campaign contributions. These millions in campaign contributions from special interests are going to be a negative for Bennet for sure.
Who just hired Pat Caddell? That AR?
Romanoff is lurching to the right at an alarming speed.
DLC or not, at one Denver County central committee meeting, onstage, he strongly emphasized how electing democrats does make a difference and held up the expansion of health insurance in Colorado for children as an example.
Yeah, he’s just another Bayh or Ford.
But Romanoff isn’t the one being compared to Bayh and Lieberman on a daily basis on this site and others.
And I’m really glad that Romanoff said a nice thing at a meeting one time, but where the hell was he in 2009 when there was the actual push for health care reform? He was rallying support for a US Senate primary rather than being a leader on health care.
He can say all he wants, but at this point I have no idea how he would be different on health care from Michael Bennet other than the fact that Bennet was working his ass off last year, while AR is playing Monday morning QB.
Romanoff would have joined Republicans to filibuster the bill. How’s that for a difference!?
I personally watched Michael Bennet work his ass off on health reform, and every one of the many, many, many, town halls, rallies, house meetings, etc. I went to, all I could think of was, “Whatever happened to Andrew Romanoff? After his last term at the State was over, he disappeared, leaving us to fight hundreds of tea-partiers by ourselves”. That pissed me off… a lot.
I’ve watched Bennet, since day one, and I’ve been to his office last August asking him to at least support the public option. We carried with us about 1000 petitions/signatures, and letters. But he didn’t come forth with that decision to support the public option until Andrew Romanoff got into the race (as a single payer proponent). Since that time – Bennet came forth with “I’m a full supporter of the Public Option” but where was he when the bill was on the floor. Did he suggest or promote an amendment. I dont’ think so. But he did begin to take thousands of dollars from all kinds of corporations who in turn will expect his support in bills that come before him.
All results from his 4th quarter of fundraising will be posted at http://www.opensecrets.org tomorrow. I think this will be fascinating to look at.
That’s simply not true, Ann, and repeating it doesn’t make it true.
That is a BOLD FACED LIE SPREAD BY THE ROMANOFF CAMPAIGN!!!!!
I took photos of close to 100 events last year on health reform. I took notes. On June 27th and June 28th, he said publicly at two separate events, the first being the Arapahope Community Team and Arapahoe Young Dems Summer Picnic, that he supported the public option. I have 100 witnesses if you want some names.
I worked on health reform all year during 2009, planning rallies, going to rallies and getting people to make calls. I liked Michael Bennet from the start because he listened to citizens on this issue. Andrew Romanoff was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. By summer, I wondered who I would support if Andrew jumped in the race late, and for a few hours I actually had to think about it (I use to have a lot of respect for him from his days as Speaker). When I first heard this lie from Andrew’s supporters (that Michael Bennet didn’t support the public option until AR was rumored to be jumping in), I knew Michael Bennet was the guy for me.
I HATE LIES.
I still think Andrew Romanoff is a good person, did a lot for us in Colorao in 2000-2008, and has a bright future in another race at another time. I have no respect for the handful of his supporters who have difficulty separating fact from fiction. The longer this campaign goes on, I lose a little more respect for Andrew — although he has shown integrity, he tolerates surrogates who seem to have none.
I applaud your interest and commitment to this issue, Ann — I really do. I applaud your hard work and compassion for all those people who are underinsured or uninsured, and the 46,000 Americans who die every year because of it. I am not trying to attack you, or be disrespectful to you personally. On the contrary…. I admire what you are doing for the voiceless among us.
Could it be you were asking Senator Bennet to support Single Payer, NOT the public option in August? By August, Senator Bennet had done dozens of house meetings and town halls publicly singing the praises of the public option (check his website for photos and newspaper articles — it’s all in there). Senator Bennet never publicly supported Single Payer as a viable, realistic strategy to fix our broken health care system. Most Democrats in Congress, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, Bernie Sanders, and John Conyers perhaps, agreed it was too aggressive and would not work.. at this time.
Although most of us who have fought hard for this issue would LOVE to see Single Payer in this country because it works in many other countries, we knew it was an unrealistic first step. Maybe we should have done things differently — who knows?
Could it be you were connected to Senator Udall’s office that day? He came out for it many weeks after Senator Bennet did.
You are wrong about when Bennet came out for the public option. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Opensecrets is ok FEC is better.
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-b…
Here on Bennet Pols.com there are about 10 rabid supporters of Bennet and they will say anything to make Bennet look good and Romanoff look bad. They don’t care what is good for our country all they care about is that corporate bought candidate wins the primary at any cost to the citizens of United States and the citizens of Colorado.
He has already showed his true colors when he voted no on the cram-down legislation and came out swinging against banking reform even before it was necessary. And what he said was he something like we wouldn’t want unintended consequences of banking regulations and it needs to be bi-partisan. All the while not a word about how these banks are taking us over another cliff. This is Bennet in true form. He will represent the banks and special interests in Washington not the people of Colorado and you have every right to be worried.
The truth is Bennet can’t get elected and if he wins the primary which he won’t the seat will go to a Republican.
..without this post-and-response, I would have concluded that you and Ann are the same person. But now you’ve conclusively disproved it through this clever interaction.
You’re so obsessed with me that you project my persona on other Romanoff supporters and Bennet detractors.
Get a grip. These are the tactics of the fanatical right wing. They opine that liberal judges are activist judges while our new far right Supreme Court has shown what activist judges look like.
Are you so far gone out of reality that you don’t see the majority of Democrats in this state don’t like Bennet or are indifferent to him. Are you so far gone that you don’t see the voters’ anger at the banks and other corporations that have driven us to the brink of a depression?
Bennet is a special interest kind of guy who will represent their interests not the citizens of Colorado and believe it or not many more Democrats who will vote in the primary will see this as well. Bennet.pols is not a representation of the most likely to vote Democrats in the primary. Bennet pols is a collection of rabid Bennet supporters who are very similar to the right in their undying loyalty of someone who will vote against their best interests and in favor of Wall Street or a bank.
To say Bennet represents them in some way is not only untrue, but part of a rapidly-growing lynch-mob mentality among Romanoff supporters. Find a convenient scapegoat for your rage, but one that is easy to pick on because he won’t fight back in the same crazy way, because taking on the REAL enemy is too overwhelming.
that lurks in the heart of all who disagree with your choice of candidate.
Sharon, you can take a sentence or two out of context and scare the children with it, but it’s a flat-out lie to claim Bennet isn’t as much an advocate of banking reform as any Democrat in the Senate.
Here’s a challenge: When banking reform comes out of the Senate this week, will you take another look at what Bennet says, what he supports, and how he votes? Or will you admit your mind is closed and the facts be damned?
His campaign advisors, yes. Romanoff, no. Saying he is less electable than Michael Bennet and jumped in the race too late is not trashing him. For the record, had he jumped in January of 2009, my blog posts would be very different, I suspect. Jumping in too late was the first of a series of poor decisions, IMHO. I just cringe; he deserves better.