President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 05, 2010 07:08 PM UTC
45 Comments
Duh. Not to you, ColPols. Just a general duh.
If he really thinks that Anschutz “pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted…” it indicates to me that he is really, truly completely clueless on matters of finance.
For all of you who think Andrew would be better on banking reform, it’s the blind leading the blind. As a long-time finance/capital markets professional, that ignorance scares the wits out of me.
If we want true, effective financial reform, why would you vote out one of the few US Senators who actually understands WTF they’re dealing with?
FDR tapped Joe Kennedy to head the SEC because he knew every trick the stock traders would pull. So having someone in who really understands the system is a good thing.
But the other key part is it has to be someone who’s willing to do what’s best for the country rather than what’s best for their peers. And that’s a hard thing for people to do, both because they have to see through the system they used to believe in and they have to handle peers disliking them.
I’ll agree Bennet meets the first half. I don’t think he meets the second half. And that may be because he’s too nice of a guy, which speaks well of him personally, but not of him as a Senator.
Anyways, very good point.
You managed to make it all the way through that post without your current favorite buzz phrase.
I’m guessing I’m over-using something, but nothing comes to mind. (BTW, I view you as my personal ombudsperson here as you immediately call me on anything I have wrong. Not always happy about it, but I am appreciative.)
He will.
We can all get together and “encourage” him in his “evolution.”
Shame on you for being to naive to get conned into that groupthink that Bennet cares more about bankers.
You keep on this shrill thing about “insufficient” financial reform guarantees that we’ll have another bubble. Guess what? There will be many other economic bubbles with or without financial reform. While I understand and can relate to the sentiment that the banks should be reined in from taking unreasonable risks, the reality is that suffocating the banks is the wrong answer.
The cramdown might have helped a few homeowners in the short term, but it would have hurt us all in the long term. Banks originate mortgage loans with the intent to sell or securitize them. If they sell them to some other entity, that entity will most likely securitize them. The cramdown would throw in a whole new layer of uncertainly and, most likely, force ratings downgrades of MBS. What do you think happens to the price of the security after a downgrade? Who do you think holds those MBS? Teachers Pension Funds, among others. So the cramdown might help a few struggling homeowners, but it would hose all current MBS holders. Is that what you want??
Banks originate residential conforming mortgages at razor thin margins, hence the narrow interest rate spread over treasuries. Limiting the banks’ ability to sell/securitze these loans will, out of necessity increase interest rates on all loans.
Is this starting to make sense? There is not a one to one correlation that what is good for banks is bad for consumers, nor vice versa. This argument is getting tiresome.
I want more, not fewer, US Senators who understand, or at least have the capacity to understand the moving parts here. Andrew Romanoff is clearly not one of them.
Good to see someone with some financial services knowledge participating in the discussion. Send me an email sometime, I think we have a lot in common:
1commonsense101@gmail.com
Cramdown (the least important of his votes) – The core issue was we faced the tragedy of the commons. The financial system as a whole would be better off if fewer people lost their homes, but each bank operating day to day was worried about their balance sheet.
In addition, because the loans were sliced, you needed approval from the institutions holding each slice. But the institution holding the bottom 10% was worse off if the mortgage was discounted because they then had to list that loan’s value as 0 on their books.
Finally cramdown would not have stolen value from those securities, it would have just had the holders face the true value of the paper sooner.
I won’t go in to each vote, just list one of the biggest – bringing back Glass-Steagall. Those regulations kept us safe from a financial meltdown for 70 years. Within 10 years of being removed we had one. Reinstituting that should have been a no-brainer – we already knew exactly what the regulations should be and that they worked.
Bennet may care more about us than the banks, but he votes for the banks. Just as he may care more for the environment, but voted to leave big oil its tax breaks that could have gone to green energy initiatives.
The expectation that any one senator, freshman senator at that, could have single-handedly gotten it passed is ludicrous.
Everyone just states it like “the sun rises in the east.” But the fact of the matter is many were proposing reinstating it. It was something that could be placed on the table.
If you guys want to claim Senator Bennet could make a difference in Washington – then this would have been a very good place to do so. Instead you are making excuses for why he can’t make a difference there. If he can’t make a difference, then we should replace him with someone who can.
If he did,. he’d have showed up already.
Michael Perino is dead.
Stiglitz is not a Colorado resident.
Neither is Elliot Spitzer and he has other political challenges.
What would be great is if we had a state legislator who had already done this kind of financial reform at the state level since most of the best financial legislation and regulation of the past 20 years in the US happened at the state level (after FIRREA). But we don’t.
The next best thing would be a finance guy who understands the complexity and would be willing to seek a balanced approach of regulation and reform without tipping over the boat. Oohh – we do have this.
Bennet has greater potential to accomplish this than any other Senate candidate in Colorado this year.
watch the 3 TV spots. Channel 4 does not use the word “false” at any point in their analysis, and all three use the word “true” far more often. The only real problem 4 seemed to have was the use of the word “loot” which they said is “misleading.”
On a related note, it’s interesting that you choose to link to the “TheRealRomanoff” youtube channel instead of the individual news sites. That youtube channel is the same one the Bennet campaign is spamming out. I’m sure the Bennet campaign sent it all to you in a neat little package, but you could at least look like you found all this yourselves.
That if the TV channels did their truth test to this diary, they would say it was false?
🙂
This statement is fiction/untrue/lie/whatever they want to call it
The entire ad is based around two points: 1) the “pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted a billion dollars” line, and 2) that a lot of people are out of work because of it. The first point is factually incorrect, and indisputably so. The second point doesn’t mesh with the fact that there are now more people employed with Regal than there were before.
It doesn’t matter if other parts of the ad are factual, because the main components are not (and one is called “FICTIONAL” by one of the reports). If you took out the “pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted a billion dollars” line, and if you removed the part about the job losses, then this ad is probably completely factual. It would also then be totally pointless to be running it on TV.
As we said in the post, there are other votes and issues that you could use to attack Bennet, and there’s nothing wrong with negative ads as long as they aren’t intentionally false. If you want to say that Romanoff should be allowed to run false ads, then that’s an argument for another time. But you cannot possibly argue that these ads are factually correct. Too many independent sources have already clearly proven otherwise.
This statement is completely inaccurate:
But to show you, again, that we are willing to listen to arguments, we’ve changed the wording.
Thank you for somewhat correcting your statement, which was a lot more than semantics.
A more accurate diary would say that all 3 criticize the use of the word “looting” and they have a mixed opinion of whether or not Bennet’s actions were ultimately good or bad for workers and shareholders. That would be fair.
It’s pretty obvious that the point of calling an ad “untrue” is in regards to the heart of the ad. It’s completely disingenuous to pretend that it matters if parts of the ad are true. Yes, Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff are real names, and they are both used in the ad. Not relevant.
“misleading”=false.
“no truth to it”=false.
“fiction”=false.
This is really quite ridiculous.
Stryker’s got to get his quota in, and the talking points attacking Joe Garcia haven’t been issued yet.
if you notice I was the first person to post about the Lt. Governor pick. I stated I thought it was a good one.
I take the second part of that back, you made a smart comment about Garcia debating Tancredo. So never mind.
I could come up with a pretty tenuous defense for “pushed into bankruptcy” but “looted” is total bullshit. Wring in the literal sense and wrong in the impression regardless of the definition of the word.
All three business entities were in BK or heading into BK before AI & Bennet did anything.
As creditors they honored their obligations- it was the debtors who failed. But that failure was not due to any actions from AI or Bennet.
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
As we wrote before, this isn’t about defending Bennet. This is about our long-held belief that intentionally false negative ads are terrible and should have no place in any campaign. Over the years we’ve ripped numerous campaigns over intentionally false ads, and we will continue to do so — no matter the candidate or political Party.
You can run a negative campaign without resorting to lies. You don’t have to go that route.
Political campaigns that use intentionally false ads should be called out and tarred and feathered. Seen way to much of it this primary election.
And Romanoff was one of the sponsors.
So much for THAT law.
much less enforced. But it’s out there!
From the fiscal note:
The penalty for a Class 1 misdemeanor for “knowingly” making false statements is a fine between $500-5,000 and 6-18 months incarceration. “Recklessly” making false statements is a Class 2 misdemeanor with a fine of $250-1,000 and 3-13 months incarceration.
Romanoff co-sponsored the bill. Link
Has anyone ever been prosecuted?
Just curious- please don’t waste time looking it up.
“Let’s shift the conversation back to the fact that I don’t receive PAC money, how about it fella’s” says AR.
What does it take to get an investigation going?
and really bad strategery. Bennet as a corporate raider. Chrissake.
If Romanoff loses this primary it will be traced back to this ad that killed his momentum.
How ironic that it got titled “GREED”.
And the list got longer this week when Romjue flip-flopped on taking DSCC/PAC money when he said the percentage of PAC money the DSCC raises isn’t all that high.
OH WAIT! It’s higher than Bennet! Holy crap!
to firing Pat Caddell, after hiring him in the first place, of course.