U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 05, 2009 10:36 PM UTC

Who Is Lying - Obama or Bennet?

  • 53 Comments
  • by: davidsirota

(We’re not so naïve as to buy the premise, but a couple of very good points – promoted by Colorado Pols)

In the aftermath of the U.S. Senate defeat of “cramdown” legislation (ie. the bill that would have allowed bankruptcy judges renegotiate the terms of mortages so as to prevent foreclosures), I’m still wondering why almost nobody has bothered to ask cramdown opponents in the Senate why they support cramdown for rich people but not for The Rest of Us. But now, after a stunning yet little-noticed nugget in the Denver Post, I’m wondering why nobody has asked this same question of President Obama.

The president has said – and continues to say – he supports cramdown, but as Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet’s (D) office told the Denver Post, the Obama administration signaled it wanted the Senate to stop the cramdown bill. Indeed, in editorial writer Chuck Plunkett’s oversimplified editorial* against the cramdown bill, we get this:

Bennet’s clear-eyed rejection of the provision will help the little guy far more. That this is true is (perhaps) underscored by the fact that no less a champion of the little guy than President Barack Obama apparently let this provision meet its death.

I say this because I considered Bennet’s vote the first significant break with the Obama administration. But when I talked with his office to seek an interview, Bennet spokeswoman Deirdre Murphy told me Bennet believes that Obama no longer supported the cram-down language. Though the president supported a cram-down approach on the campaign trail, many news outlets have pointed out he did not lobby for it once debate grew heated.

On the substance of cramdown, I completely disagree with Plunkett – his claim that "the current economic climate is incentive enough for banks to refinance loans that would help keep borrowers solvent" sounds great, and I wish it were true, but it flies in the face of new data that show "the nation’s largest mortgage companies are stepping up foreclosures" (evidently, Plunkett couldn’t be bothered to spend five minutes on Google actually checking to see whether his speculation had any grounding in fact). And his insistence on repeating banking industry talking points that claim "cram down" would "force executives to raise [interest] rates to balance the books" is belied by the fact that interest rates have continued to fall as "cram down" has been available for the wealthy and for business in dealing with their vacation homes and investment properties, respectively.

But then, one newspaper editorial writer’s fact-free screed isn’t all that interesting – what’s newsy about Plunkett’s piece the fairly major allegation within it: Yes, according to the piece, we have a U.S. Senator’s office insisting that the President of the United States indicated to key senate swing votes that he was AOK with them voting down a bill he was telling the public he supported. That’s pretty big news, especially since the senator making the allegation is a guy who could face a Democratic primary, and therefore will use this rationale as his defense to Democratic voters.

The question now is whether Bennet’s allegation is true and the president has been lying to the public, or whether Bennet has made up a lie in order to justify his vote for banking industry interests over his constituents interests? Put another way, someone’s pants are on fire in this controversy: Either President Obama is lying by telling the public he supports cramdown but is then quietly telling senators he opposes it. Or, Michael Bennet is lying by telling the public he voted against cramdown because Obama wanted him to when, in fact, Obama didn’t want him to.  

So, who do you think is lying – Bennet or Obama? I posed this question to Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent on the morning drive-time show on KKZN AM760 that I’m guest hosting. You can listen to the interview here – he suggests both are fudging the truth in their own ways. But I’m curious what you think…

* Not surprisingly, Plunkett doesn’t bother to ask – or even ponder – the same question that every other journalist refuses to ask: Namely, why they think it is an outrage to allow cramdown for regular people, but perfectly OK to allow it for the super rich.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I guess it’s possible Bennet genuinely “believed” Obama didn’t support cramdown, when Obama actually did. That would mean neither Obama or Bennet is lying, but instead that Bennet is an idiot and voted based on his belief that all of Obama’s cramdown rhetoric countered – and worse, that Bennet voted this way without checking with the White House first. I left this as an afterthought, though, because it stretches the limits of possibility – Bennet is a lot of things, but he’s just not that stupid.

ADDENDUM: It seems very strange that organized labor is threatening a Democratic primary against Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania for his refusal to back the Employee Free Choice Act, but not publicly threatening a primary against Bennet, who is refusing to take a position on EFCA and who is far more beatable in a primary than Specter (though I do think Specter is eminently beatable). Now, I know there are partisan shills out there who claim that Bennet has some super secret Pony plan to use his silence on EFCA for progressive ends, but that conspiracy theorizing is just shameless politician worshiping, if you ask me. As we’ve learned over and over again, there are never Super Secret Pony plans – and in this case, if he’s doing anything on EFCA, it’s trying to play business off labor to maximize campaign contributions. I point this out in this post because this is yet another issue in which Bennet is voting against basic economic fairness, and it strikes me as strange that labor is relatively silent.

Tweet
Share

Comments

53 thoughts on “Who Is Lying – Obama or Bennet?”

        1. I’d say both and when Bennet isn’t lying he is avoiding.

          – 50% DPS drop-out rate

          – No position on most major issues (EFCA)

          But he worked for Anschutz Companies.

          1. first he says its because he dosen’t like the way the legislation is written then his office is saying the White House wanted to kill it.

            That’s already two different stories.  I know who I believe.  My two cents Libertad.

        1. Except the pomposity part, which you have earned more richly than anyone I know.

          But you’re at least as upset with the guy you helped elect for selling homeowners down the river as you are at Bennet, aren’t you? Surely there’s a “Tester is a douchebag” missive on the way?

          And for the record, while I’m not very happy about it, it was clear to just about everyone some time ago that Obama was not actively pushing for this component of the bill. It would not surpise me at all to learn he had given swing senators a wink+nod. If it makes you feel better to turn this into a pissing match between the closest thing to allies you’ve got in order to gratify your swollen ego and sell more books, go for it. The rest of us see it for what it is.

          1. This is exactly what he does at Open Left. Lameass non-responses to any criticism. No fucking game at all. Nice chatting with your insufferable drive-by stridency.

            1. he does the same thing at Daily Kos and picked up a couple of troll ratings for being an utter and completely pompous ass. In other words, he was his usually thin skinned, charming self.  

            1. I guess if you called Tester a “douchebag” you’d have a substantially higher chance at getting twisted like a pretzel for it.

              But you moved here two elections after Colorado turned blue to do what again? Purify our blueness by pointing out all the conservadem “douchebags” among us? That, and our independent progressive new media sucks is pretty much your whole contribution to the local debate from what I see.

              Thanks for the attention, but I’d say you’re still needed in Montana: where you at least know the people you piss on.

      1. of the financial industry. They drop Lehman 3 weeks before the election (when he was behind by 4 points) and ensure his election, and now he is socializing their losses. The financial industry keeps the ridiculous amount of money they made in the great derivative scam, the American taxpayer eats the losses and recapitalizes the banks so that they can lend the taxpayer’s money back to the taxpayer to be paid back with interest. Nice.

        Bernanke comes out today and says the recession will be over as long as we keep the financial system from having any more problems. Pretty blatant.

        If Bennet is willing to stand up to this and try to do something about it, then he deserves a closer look in 2010. If he isn’t, then get rid of him. Pretty easy.  

    3. said on the Ed Show on MSNBC yesterday. Paraphrasing and can’t provide link to transcript yet but it should be available soon.  

      He said that he voted against it because it was poorly written and had no limit on how far back it would go.  In other words, he said, it could be used to benefit a homeowner who bought ten years ago and was upside down due to reasons having nothing to do with more recent mortgage hi jinks.  Said he would consider a better written version with clearer parameters.  Imagine Tester might cite similar reasons

      2. Tester did say something vaguely similar to this. Said the bill as written basically had too many loopholes. I saw his comment on Huffington Post but can’t find the link. Tester has been so solid and I’ve been genuinely pleased with his votes so this one surprised me and actually has me wondering if this bill couldn’t have been written a bit better, particularly since 12 Democrats voted against it. Then again, I really like Durbin and I know he supported it.

        Anyway, thanks much for your reply, Blue. Appreciate it.  

  3. Did you call Bennet’s office and ask about these deep mysteries, or is it easier to parse Plunkett’s story, which doesn’t bother to ask the question every journalist refuses to ask?

    1. I guess it’s possible Sirota didn’t “want” to find out the answer to his question by just picking up the phone, but, while it stretches the limits of credibility, Sirota is a lot of things, but he’s just not that stupid.

    2. ..excusing the senator’s vote on this.  Of course, I always demand that the signatures on such notes be authenticated.

      Also, in addition to asking Bennet’s office, has anyone talked to the White House?  (I hear those people have press conferences and such.)  Are those peeps all annoyed at senators such as Bennet?

    3. Don’t be silly. He absolutely called. How do I know that? Because in his same diary crossposted at Daily Kos, he told someone there that if they wanted to know why Tester voted the way he did, they should get off their dead ass, pick up the phone and ask him.

      David wouldn’t tell a person to do one thing but not take his own advice and do the same, now would he? Would he? Hehehee.  

  4. First of all, David is right to be bringing this up. It was a bad vote, and Bennet should be giving a better explanation of his voting record here.

    The thing is, he’s been freaking out about nearly everything Bennet has done ever since word came of his nomination.

    Unfortunately, when you cry “aristocrat” and “douchebag” as many times as he did, anyone who would have been willing to listen is long gone.

    That’s David Sirota though: The Boy Who Cried Douchebag.

    1. You’re exactly right. It was a bad vote. I’m actually pretty pissed off at Bennet about it, though he’s far from the only one. They had a chance to pierce a serious long-term speculative bubble with this bill by forcing valuations into some kind of last-ditch reality, and they blew it.

      But every time I see Sirota bloviating about Bennet, or Obama himself–he’s much more shrilly critical of Obama on Open Left than other outlets, to the point of being hypocritical–I have a compelling urge to scream into a pillow. Whatever the problem is, however much we agree about the problem, he’s not helping.

      1. Get David Sirota to complain about it.

        I also agree that Bennet’s vote on this sucked the big one. In addition, cram-down would have benefited the banks although they were too stupid to see it. The fewer houses on the market, the higher the prices for the homes that were foreclosed on.

        So we can all agree

        1. Sirota is a dick
        2. Bennet cast a crappy vote
        3. The banks are stupid (but get a handout anyways)

      2. Because worshiping politicians and never calling them out is what we’re supposed to do in a democracy. Makes perfect sense, really. Let’s just all join hands and be starfuckers.

        1. It’s really great to know that if I don’t match your level of Madame DeFarge outrage swear word for swear word, never mind that we agree the vote was a mistake, that I’m a “starfucker!” Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound when you reach immediately for your “Obamabot” straw man at the first sign of criticism? It is so goddamned pathetic to watch. And fuck you too.

          David, your problem is not that you are wrong on the issues, or are insincere, or any of that. Your problem is that you are a belligerent self-serving asshole who never quite learned how to deal civilly with other people to get what you want. It’s all about “uprisings” for you because you don’t know any other way to relate to your world. Over time that has led you to be both an occasionally very effective demagogue for causes I happen to subscribe to, and an insufferable narcissist who can longer distinguish between friends and enemies.

          1. The way I see it, I’m doing the best I can, and – for the most part – I’ve made a lot of lifelong friends and allies in my work. I am constantly inspired by the people I work with and for.

            That said, I’m also constantly depressed that there remain a very small group of extremely bitter, angry and likely jealous people who spend much of their time obsessively attacking people like me with the same tired criticism of “self-promotion” or “narcissism” or “self-serving asshole” or insert whatever other cliched epithet that comes to mind. It’s ultimately a product of starfuckerism – these same people who make these criticisms worship people they perceive to be famous or powerful (politicians, media figures, etc.). Starfuckerism says we worship celebrity, while attacking anyone else who aspires to push an agenda.

            Most of the commenters on this site – though not all, and though certainly not the majority of regular readers – are classic starfuckers. They worship elected Democratic officials as gods, and get angry at anyone for questioning them. That’s par for the course – and if doing something differently raises the hackles of a small minority who comment, then that’s fine by me. It won’t stop me from doing the work I’m committed to doing.

            So as I said – if you don’t like what I’m doing, or it makes you think I’m a “dick,” then yes – go fuck yourself.

            1. …is a starfucker. Got it.

              You might want to step back and listen a bit. There are a number of people here, JeffcoBlue and myself amoung them, who think this was a really bad vote on Bennet’s part. So we agree with you on that.

              But the way you present this, instead of it being a discussion about the vote, it becomes a discussion about your presentation. If your goal is to exert pressure on Bennet, your approach is serving you poorly.

              1. You are actually the worst offender – you spend most of your time kissing the ass of politicians, bragging about your sit down lunches with them. It’s really hilarious/sad. So the fact that you have problems with me says I’m doing something right. If I had you as a fan, I’d be fucked.

                1. at such dizzying altitude up there on your highest of the high horses, you must be suffering from oxygen deprivation and malnutrition due to a steady diet of nothing but smug self-righteousness.  I too, by the by, object to the Bennet vote. I also object to silly jerks. Except, of course, when I’m being one, which has been known to happen.  

                2. David is a bit of a knee-padder.

                  But it doesn’t override your initial ad hominem (and other fallacies).

                  That said, I’m also constantly depressed that there remain a very small group of extremely bitter, angry and likely jealous people who spend much of their time obsessively attacking people like me with the same tired criticism of “self-promotion” or “narcissism” or “self-serving asshole” or insert whatever other cliched epithet that comes to mind.

                  (a) Don’t be depressed! It’s just a fuckin’ blog.

                  (b) Not liking you does not mean one is bitter, angry, and/or jealous…and the group that does buy into your schtick is actually smaller. It is quite possible that you just are a genuinely unlikable guy.

                  (c) And nobody’s attacking “people like you.” It’s all you. You are one of a kind, baby!

                  You commonly whine that people attack you b/c of the “message” (not to mention that you affix pop psychology pejoratives on your opponents as furiously as anyone nailing you as a narcissist). In fact, it is people ideologically akin to you who dislike you the most. (How many genuine conservatives waste their time on you?)

                  Granted, your “message” is typically histrionic, hyperbolic, and ridden with strawmen fallacies and inept uses of sarcasm, but I think the people that push back just find your polemic style really obnoxious.

                  But shit, if it sells books, you might as well tell folks to go fuck themselves….

                  David, however, does have a point: At this point, having you go after someone bolsters their credibility.  

                3. I enjoy interviewing the various politicians (which I guess can come off as bragging) but I also think it brings a valuable picture of them. I will also be the first to agree that it in no way is a complete picture – no single approach can be a complete picture.

                  But I also tear into them when I feel it’s appropiate. I am still amazed at the number of Republicans who agree to be interviewed by me after the things I have said about them. And Mark Udall has declined to be interviewed by me because I was rough on him on some issues.

                  Even on this “breaking story” you published here – I posted here on Pols 6 days ago about Bennet’s vote on this issue and that I thought it was a crappy vote.

          1. reads Square State? I mean, hell, he posted it at Daily Kos and he got creamed there, too and if they don’t line up in agreement with you at a progressive blog, then maybe, just maybe, you’re just an abrasive, unlikeable asshole.

                1. Is why I stopped responding to him here. I see no need to hit somebody you’ve already made cry, and either way I’m not going to feed that psychologically volatile brew any further combustibles.

                  Honestly, I never enjoy it when people pick up their marbles in a huff and go home. Lame for everybody.

  6. And his analysis is just about always weak.

    Recall, his endorsement of McCain? I suported Clinton, she got beat, so now I support McCain.

    Bennet got this one wrong.

    And if Obama singled to let it go- he was wrong too.

  7. and even an occasional Sir Ota column or two, and who thinks that Bennet’s (and Tester’s) vote on this sucks, I have to say–David–you are just digging in deeper here.  As someone who loves to dish it out, you definitely cannot take it.  

    You have the thinnest skin of anyone in your position I have seen.  It makes you look utterly ridiculous and, as everyone is pointing out, self-absorbed.  

    1. Don’t you know he’s doing the good work of the people?

      Who cares if most of the comments on this site before he started telling us to go fuck ourselves were in agreement with some of the points he was making?

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

43 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!