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
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
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
70%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 12, 2010 05:41 AM UTC
49 Comments
Ain’t we lucky you joined us this week (again, I’m sure) just to add absolutely nothing to the conversation.
Clarify how your comment is relevant here
Blow me. Clarify that.
1-I joined this week.
– True I did join this week
2-“again, i’m sure” statement
– If this implies I have ever done this before that is FALSE.
I will say this AGAIN – all I am doing is pointing out statements that have been made regarding Sen. Michael Bennet that are wrong. I have backed them up. If you have information to the contrary let me see it. Attack me all you want. I frankly do not care. There are plenty of people on both sides who what to engage in an intelligent discussion and I welcome them.
You have a choice – join the discussion or PLEASE go somewhere else. You are making Democrats look like Republicans.
If you don’t like the responses your diary is eliciting because of your overtly apparent agenda, then take your own advice and leave.
Classic, Middle. ROTFLMAO.
And she lets them. Let her stay and make a fool of herself.
After all a front page editor of Colorado Pols who makes statements like:
It really does show just how nonsensical this blog is and weakens its message for their anointed one Bennet.
You just identified one of our bloggers by gender. Didn’t this past week’s events on POLS teach you anything? If you can’t keep from outing people, you don’t belong here.
I don’t have a clue what MOTR is but awhile back she identified herself as a woman in one of her posts but I could care less what she is because whatever it is it’s rude and crude.
Nearly everyone here knows I’m a female. Just ignore her, peacemonger. She isn’t worth our time.
as are honesty, humility, and open-mindedness. Let me point out, with a simple syllogism, why your fact-checking seems to be a vehicle for promoting a particular bias rather than objectivity.
Premises:
1) “Facts” don’t tell stories, organizations of facts do. I’ve repeated an old statistician’s joke a few times on this site: “If you torture your data long enough, it will tell you whatever you want to hear.” This is true in more casual contexts as well: If you select your facts to support a pre-determined position, you will almost always be able to succeed in finding facts that can be made to appear to support that pre-determined position.
2) Glancing over your previous posts, you appear to have an agenda, one which dominates where you look for factual errors.
Conclusion:
3) You apparently are looking for only those “factual errors” that dispute the position you are promoting, and only those “facts” which support it. That makes you an unreliable source of information, due to compromised credibility.
Mr. Harvey you are right. I did not include the true statements. That was my bad. Thank you for pointing out my error.
Here are the statements from the article that are true:
– voted for equal pay for women under the Lilly Ledbetter Act,
– voted to appoint Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor,
– expanded health benefits for children under S-Chip,
– co-sponsored the DREAM Act to give children of immigrants a path to legal citizenship and a brighter future,
– voted for the Matthew Shepard hate crime bill,
– said on national television he would be willing to lose his job to get health reform
– pushed for increased lending to America’s small businesses,
– denounced the Supreme Court decision to give increased personhood rights to corporations,
– fought to stop last-ditch efforts to jack up credit card rates,
– promoted the potential of Colorado’s natural gas reserves during climate change negotiations,
– voted for the President’s plan to save and stimulate the U.S. economy,
– has called for the repeal of federal anti-trust legislation for the health insurance industry,
– introduced Pay-As-You-Go legislation to get a handle on the budget deficit,
– pushed to improve delivery of clean drinking water for Colorado communities,
and more.
it’s the appearance of an agenda.
Will you be fact checking claims about other candidates or just Senator Bennet?
What about other claims made not about candidates but about issues relevant to the candidates?
Will you be acknowledging factual errors that you yourself make? (see Troops to Teachers above)
It feels like your agenda is to discredit statements made about Senator Bennet. Admittedly, “it feels like” is hard to quantify or measure. And it’s not like there are a lot of posts and diaries to go by. But since it feels like that so far, are you affiliated with the Romanoff campaign?
I wanted to include those observations in my reply, but felt that MTIU’s step in the right direction had to be acknowledged instead.
As I said above, facts don’t tell stories, organizations of facts do. Just “completing” the list doesn’t address that shortcoming.
It’s never acceptable, I think, for someone with an agenda to pose as an impartial “fact checker” (or impartial whatever). State your position and defend it. Subterfuge, when discovered, merits disgust.
Leave fact checking to people whose only agenda is keeping everyone honest, and who have succeeded in demonstrating that that’s their only agenda.
The first time you tried to run with this theme (Feb 9th) you clearly had an alternative motive besides “fact checking.” I appreciate CO Pols deleting those posts, but I do not understand their reasoning for allowing you to continue to post.
Especially since you clearly have not learned your lesson. If you learned anything, it’s to be more subtle in your attempts to out a contributor to CO Pols.
Because of that way in which you introduced yourself to us, I will never be able to believe that you are sincere in your professed motives.
On Feb 9th, you came across as a bitter, nasty, sniveling little a-hole. And because you have continued to behave in the same manner, I’ve gained confidence that my first impressions were accurate.
CO Pols, please ban MTIU and any sockpuppets that pop up in this diary. Thank you.
Bennet is a “Troops to Teachers” sponsor. I found this in about 60 seconds:
http://www.govtrack.us/congres…
That’s a link documenting that Bennet is one of 7 cosponsors of “S. 1932: Post 9/11 Troops to Teachers Enhancement Act”, which is summarized as follows: “A bill to amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to allow members of the Armed Forces who served on active duty on or after September 11, 2001, to be eligible to participate in the Troops-to-Teachers Program, and for other purposes.”
Seriously, how can you purport to do a “fact check,” and pretentiously capitalize the word “FACTS,” when you clearly didn’t even do a dadgum Google search to see if the fact of Bennet’s co-cponsorship is true (it is) before falsely saying it’s false?
this is what it links to: http://www.govtrack.us/congres…
http://www.govtrack.us is a dynamic site – linking to a url there will not always go to the same place.
Instead, it’s necessary to refence the name of the legislation that was voted upon, and then when you get to govtrack.us if the actual vote you want to see doesn’t come up, enter the information to get the vote record.
We are all helped by that one.
If I was factchecking your article there would be no issue
You should admit your “fact checking” was weak and resulted in a factually wrong conclusion about the factual statement made.
I mean since we’re getting all facty.
How much PAC/corp donations did Andrew Romanoff take as State rep, Speaker and leadership of CODA?
Has he given any of it back?
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
It’s not the first time I’ve seen it referenced in connection to Speaker Romanoff, including his past willingness and ability to raise money. But I can’t find a definition or description anywhere.
Colorado Democracy Alliance. It organizes and coordinates funding to mostly Democratic campaigns and political infrastructure activities. Grew out of the Gill-Stryker-Polis-Bridges funding that helped Democrats take over the statehouse in 2004.
It helped direct funds to Colorado Media Matters before that folded, and directs funds to Progress Now, Colorado Ethics Watch and The Colorado Independent.
CODA got some attention in 2008 when memos CODA says were stolen from its offices, and then altered, showed up on Face the State. (The “educate the idiots” memos.)
Jessica Fender did a roundup on the organization before the 2008 election: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
I found this too –
http://www.denverpost.com/head…
But we’ll never know how much money they raised nor from what sources, right?
Oct 28 2009
http://www.denverpost.com/usne…
Your fact-checking is appreciated, and readers who combine what you’ve checked with the other 90% of the article that is completely accurate, thank-you. There will be many articles in the weeks to come featuring supporters of both candidates, Bennet and Romanoff, and we look forward to you fact-checking BOTH sides.
Please start with the video put out by Romanoff accusing Bennet of being a Senator who can be bought — a slanderous untruth so unforgiving it will forever mar how many people think of Mr. Romanoff’s integrity. There is absolutely no truth to the accusation, whatsoever. The fact that Senator Bennet refuses to attack Mr. Romanoff in retalitation speaks volumes of the integrity of Senator Bennet.
It speaks as much about Bennet campaign strategy. If the Bennet campaign thought it would help, or felt it necessary, to attack Romanoff, there’s no doubt it would.
#1 The link doesn’t fully support the statement. That can be fixed. The statement is still true.
#2 The link doesn’t fully support the statement. We’ll fact check your fact check and see if there were other banks. Since the statement was taken from a Senate website, there are probably other banks, as well.
#3 You are technically correct. Senator Bennet was appointed to the HELP committee to fill the vacancy left by Senator Edward Kennedy, who spent his adult life fighting for health care reform. Senator Bennet could have voted either way in the historic vote, and confidently cast the vote everyone was waiting for –from the person who had just filled “Kennedy’s” HELP seat. The article should have said, “historic vote” not “final vote”.
looking at the article again, it said “final historic vote”. You are both right. Nonetheless, I emailed her to let her know of your comments.
Sorry, MTIU, it’s official: you’re a joke.
1) You peddled falsehood and called it a “fact-check”: In what you call a “fact-check” you flat-out falsely asserted that Senator Bennet did not co-sponsor a bill he clearly has co-sponsored.
2) Lazily, you failed to do a one-minute googling before asserting a (false) fact: A roughly one-minute googling turned up Bennet’s co-sponsorship, so I have no idea how you can claim you actually did a “fact-check.”
3) You lamely, inexplicably defended yourself rather than own up to your failure: You somehow refuse to admit your collossal screw-up, lamely saying the piece you “fact-checked” had a link that didn’t show the co-sponsorship. So you’re basically admitting you didn’t fact-check, but instead followed one web link in the piece, and declared a fact false without the minimal independent research that would have disclosed the truth.
4) Your pretentious ode to “facts” is now hilarious given your falsity: you wrote, “it is a disservice to the general public when wrong information is presented … I am sick and tired of politicians, their supporters and the media skewing … My hope is that this will start a CIVILIZED discussion about the issues … let’s talk about it with FACTS.” It’s the worst kind of hack who is exactly what he denounces.
I’m not sure whether I hope you’ll disappear from pols (as you would if you have any self-respect) or whether I hope you’ll post another “fact-check” peddling another lame mix of (a) lazy falsehoods and (b) pretentious odes to factual accuracy.
Is not how I would describe it.
If it was even mildly amusing, I’d encourage more of the same. Comedy is good.
Maybe MTIU’s fact checking will improve and get more facty. Maybe not.
BICora, I’d guess:
(1) That MTIU won’t go away, as he would if he had any self-respect — but people this lame tend to be hard to shame with their failings.
(2) That MTIU will try a bit harder next time to get his “fact-checking” right, but will still fail, because if you’re as bad as his past post was, you clearly have no idea what you’re doing, no idea what websites to use to check this or that fact etc.
I’d also guess that we’ll see others from team Romanoff “contributing.” Trippi is not known for letting it go.
until he gets publicly busted for it as he has several times now.
The Romanoff team takes pride in not reading the monkey cages here on Pols. No clue if it’s true, but I imagine it might have something to do with who their New Media guy is.
Because let’s face it–they read here. I’ve heard that from enough people on AR’s campaign to know that is a fact. Remember our front page election a couple months ago? 🙂
They also hate Pols but I think some of that comes specifically from the leftover, bitter crowd that watched Square State die while Pols grew and thrived. They would love nothing more than to see this blog implode. I’ve never understood the utter hatred some of them had for this place but I do credit them for driving people like me away from their blog with it.
If AR’s team were smart, they would not only read here but they would rein in their more ardent supporters that are turning people off left and right to their campaign.
I meant “new” media, as in blogs and so forth.
I’m sure that some of the people who work on that campaign read Pols, but I think the policy was instituted post-Triguardian.
Your point is dead on the mark though. You’d think they would want more Bob Ewegens and fewer Sharon Hansons, but que sera.
And they’d be crazy not to. We’re better than the Post. Wayy better than other Co-focused blogs.
As for finding more reasonable voices to post and getting some semblance of message control – more on this later, but it feels like we’re seeing that over the past few weeks.
I can’t prove that- but how many new users did we get who immediately jumped in pushing back for AR in the the past 10 days? MTIU was the most obvious, but he’s not alone.
And not for nothing, if I was going to predict what they’d want, I’d want more of the self-identified “undecided, leaning, waiting” crowd. Not the Veegers’a dn
They’d be fools not to. But AR himself says he doesn’t read Pols (I think that was first noted by Michael Roberts). I don’t doubt that.
or the same New Media guy as before?
AR campaign got a new press secretary a few weeks ago, but the New Media guy didn’t change.
Meet the new New Media guy
Same as the old New Media guy
?
Then something about fooled man getting fooled twice by the old fool. Something like that in Texas? He he he he.
Insert air guitar here.