Notable Links



Denver Internet Marketing by Parallel Path

Arvada Boutique Clothing Store Stella B's

Romanoff Goes Negative Against Bennet

by: Colorado Pols

Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 14:04:40 PM MDT


Democrat Andrew Romanoff has officially crossed over into negative campaigning with his newest TV ad. The ad bashes Sen. Michael Bennet for taking money from banking and oil interests while trying to make the point that he has been corrupted by big money influences.

Romanoff has said for months that he was going to keep his campaign about issues and wouldn't go negative against Bennet -- a position we always thought was silly to take, given that there's no way Romanoff was going to beat Bennet without going negative. But Romanoff does not have enough money for a significant TV buy; this ad may damage Bennet, but not enough so that Romanoff can ultimately overtake him in the primary.

The end result is that Romanoff looks more than a bit hypocritical in now going negative, but won't likely gain enough of a foothold for it to be worth the strategic change. Romanoff is basically just throwing rocks at a windowless building at this point.

Colorado Pols :: Romanoff Goes Negative Against Bennet
Tags: , , (All Tags)

Share this post:

Romanoff Goes Negative Against Bennet | 115 comments
"About face Andrew" strikes again . . .
So much for:

Not going negative;
Sticking to the issues;
Never primary another Democrat;
Believing he couldn't win a statewide race;
His belief in party unity.

I'm sure I've missed some . . .  

Discipline without purpose is tyranny.

i get it
negative=who you take money from
negative=how you voted
and any correlation between the two.
[ Parent ]
this ain't negative
this is

or this

or this

if bennet thinks this is negative, it really shows they are not prepared for a real attack from the republicans.

[ Parent ]
Actually
technically, Romanoff's ad is negative, the ones that you have embedded are attack ads.  
[ Parent ]
Why does it not surprise me these are quick on your computer, Wade?


Buck Stops Here.
[ Parent ]
The music change at the end of the attack
when Andrew enters the scene is nice.

"There are a lot of reasons not to elect me." Mitt Romney in a moment of clarity

"I'm Mitt Romney and yes, Wolf, that's also my first name," Willard Mitt Romney demonstrating 'policy flexibility.'  

comment of the day.

[ Parent ]
Government for the "rest of us"
Andy, does this mean your townhalls will have annual airing of grievances and feats of strength?  If so, you have my vote, Sir.

(Ten bonus points to whomever gets the reference)

GINGRICH: MOON PRESIDENT 2016!

"May Di-vorce Be With You" - Darth Newt

[ Parent ]
I tell my neighbors
That my Ham antenna is a Festivus Pole.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno
[ Parent ]
You have a Ham antenna and you live on the WS
you MUST know my family! My step dad is a huge Ham radio guy. we live(d) on little park road.  

GINGRICH: MOON PRESIDENT 2016!

"May Di-vorce Be With You" - Darth Newt
[ Parent ]
I might
But I'm not active in the Ham Radio club here, just Grand Mesa Contesters.

I have half a dozen or so Ham friends and another half dozen acquaintances.  Except for Field Day, it's something you pretty much do by yourself.

Give me a hint without outing yourself.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

[ Parent ]
hoo boy
I have no idea, I do know that my stepdad has the largest radio tower in Grand Junction. At least big enough that at&t pays us to bounce signals off of it.

(Pols will self destruct this message in 5 minutes)

GINGRICH: MOON PRESIDENT 2016!

"May Di-vorce Be With You" - Darth Newt

[ Parent ]
OK, I'll take from there
Thanks.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno
[ Parent ]
Woo-Hoo, Pass the Popcorn,
yet one more Romanoff-Sucks-No-Bennet-Blows-Harder-Yes-He-Does-No-He-Doesn't-cage-match forums.

Pushing these hourly now?  God, I hope so, I just can't get enough of this shit.

Don't believe everything you think.

Apparently, you really CAN'T get enough of it
since I see you replying in every single thread.  

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
You're right
Sorry, I'm headed towards BJ-dom.

Me and the dogs are going for a walk.  Signing off until August 12th.  

Don't believe everything you think.

[ Parent ]
Nah.
You're nowhere close to BJ-dom and these threads tend to get to us all. The walk sounds like a good idea. I might flat out join you in the break. ;)

"I wouldn't characterize caloric intake as "professional development." c rork
[ Parent ]
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I think this applies to most of the partisans in this battle.

"Thank you for putting your rank political motives on display." - ArapaGOP

[ Parent ]
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

I think this applies to most of the partisans in this battle.

"Thank you for putting your rank political motives on display." - ArapaGOP

[ Parent ]
Well it was a McInnis Marathon last week

[ Parent ]
Yeah, but that was fun

[ Parent ]
Not every week can be manna from heaven
The rain has to fall somewhere.

This ad could backfire because it strips away any pretense that he really is different from normal political operations.  It is like a one trick pony that suddenly comes up with a lame hoof.  The trick doesn't look so crisp then.

[ Parent ]
Hate to see this
But I have to admit, this ad is likely to get him more votes than the previous one.

This is something I loath about campaign advertising mentality in general: you can be positive and lose or negative and win.

Again: I hate seeing this happen.

Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.

Why is this such a surprise to everyone?
Andrew has been kicking out hyper-negative webads since the caucus. His staff and surrogates send out weekly nastygrams attacking Bennet's character to their email list. His online supporters have alternated  cult of personality-level blindness towards Andrew's special interest record with their mouth-frothing indignation at Bennet's prodigious fundraising...not to mention outright lying over Bennet's health care positions.

Going the scorched earth route is the only logical conclusion of a campaign that has made self pity its core motivation from the very beginning.

What else is left for this silly ass campaign except to blow their wad on negative TV, shaft its staff on pay, and go out "not with a bang but a whimper"?

[ Parent ]
All true . . .
AR is in the process of completely squandering all the positive work he did.  

Discipline without purpose is tyranny.
[ Parent ]
Automaticftp
It's called "shitting in your own nest."

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno
[ Parent ]
Never said surprised...only sad.


Retirement in action does not equal retirement of beliefs.
[ Parent ]
This pisses me off.


Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno
Which means instead of voting yes for Bennet
You're going to vote he'll yes?

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!
[ Parent ]
Did I say who I was going to vote for?
When I vote, I'll post my choice and my rationale on my blog.  You can read it there.

What I said was, "this pisses me off."

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

[ Parent ]
So Bennet's contributors and votes are negative?
OK guys, you criticize Romanoff saying he's going to have to take Bennet on but when he does you follow Craig Hughes' meme that Romanoff is going negative. What, by pointing out how Bennet voted and who he takes money from?  I've written before about how Bennet hides behind his spokesman who smears Romanoff at every chance while Bennet whines about "politics as usual."

So let me get this straight, a whisper campaign about Romanoff being single, calling him anti-immigrant, the godfather of Arizona's law, running a push-poll with lies about Romanoff, pimping an article Bennet's big brother's pal Dana Milbank wrote and then Hughes calling Romanoff deceptive, irresponsible and disingenuous - that's all taking the high road. But Romanoff having the spine to say what he has to say instead of hiding behind Trevor & Craig's skirts and pointing out things like facts, that's negative?

Just so I understand - personal attacks made by surrogates while whining, that's positive, stating the truth about votes and contributors, that's negative?  Good to know the talking points from Camp Bennet, the SEIU & ProgressNow are coming through clearly.

You don't think the Republicans will hit Bennet with 10 times as much on this kind of thing, his DPS debacles and his corporate raiding for Anschutz? Who knows what other personal stuff they've dug up with a whole lot more resources to dig into other personal stuff and more of his background. If somehow Bennet were to win the primary, the Republicans will destroy him. Better to get rid of him now so there is a candidate who can attract independents and doesn't have the personal & professional baggage Bennet does.

ANd still no Pro-Romanoff diary from you.
I know, you're busy, it's hard and blah blah blah.
[ Parent ]
A duck is a duck is a duck
It's a negative ad. It is what it is. You can't seriously dispute that this is a negative ad?

A negative ad is an ad that directly attacks your opponent. Whether or not an ad is factual doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is a "negative ad."

[ Parent ]
And...
We're not saying it's wrong to run "negative ads." We just think it was stupid for Romanoff to say that he wouldn't go negative when he was always going to have to do it.
[ Parent ]
there is nothing in this ad
that is not based on the voting record or his campaign contributors.
[ Parent ]
For crying out loud
The definition of a negative ad:

Negative campaigning, also known more colloquially as "mudslinging", is trying to win an advantage by referring to negative aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.

An ad doesn't have to be false to be negative. You could run a completely positive ad that was full of made-up information.  

[ Parent ]
For example...
Romanoff could run an ad that said, "9 out of 10 Colorado residents say that Andrew Romanoff is the greatest man who has ever walked the face of the earth." That would not be considered a "negative ad" even though there is no truth to that statement. Once you start to say that your opponent is bad, you have gone negative.
[ Parent ]
Wow
A whole subthread about semantics.

I don't care what you call it.  To me, a person who has been around this block before, it says everything it needs to about what Romanoff's internal polls are showing.

No need to run a scorched earth campaign if you're winning.

This ad has helped me make up my mind, provided that Bennet doesn't do a similarly negative ad before I vote.

Today, you're either going to get better or you're going to get worse, but you're never going to be the same.  Which one will it be?  --Joseph V. Paterno

[ Parent ]
I actually appreciate the definitions being discussed.
I had always wondered what the difference was between a negative & attack ad was. I think Romanoff should have used this money to stick to his promise of not going negative and instead explain what he would do for us as Senator. Not some abstract "I'm gonna take on Washington" bullshit that both are talking about. Is he going to introduce a public option amendment? Is he going to spearhead campaign finance reform legislation? Concrete promises the voters can hold him to if he gets elected.

Romanoff supporters who think this isn't a negative ad are fooling themselves. Positive ads talk about what you would do for your constituents. Negative are what your opponent isn't doing. Attack ads are attacking your opponent for something completely unrelated to the office you're running for. At least that's how I understand it from the sub-thread.

@Ralphie - I really hope Bennet is smart enough not to follow Romanoff's lead on this. It would really shake my confidence in him as a leader. I haven't voted yet and this is why. I tend to not vote until the last minute as you never know what could happen.

"But, when it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you've got to grow up and realize there's a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy" - Bill Maher

[ Parent ]
For Crying Out Loud
The definition of telling the truth ad:

Telling the truth in a campaigning, also known more colloquially as "telling the truth about Michael Bennet", is trying to win an advantage by referring to truthful aspects of an opponent or of a policy rather than emphasizing one's own positive attributes or preferred policies.

[ Parent ]
"Romanoff has said for months that he was going to keep his campaign about issues and wouldn't go negative against Bennet " ColPols
Well then Romanoff has been lying for months as well as going negative. Sorry Wade...negative, positive it doesn't matter.  Your boy will soon not have to worry about his campaign one way or the other. Get used to it. I'm sure most of us Dems will just be happy to have this bitchfest over so we can thoroughly enjoy making fun of the candidates the GOP will come up with.  

Got my ballot today and have heard nothing new on GOP finding way to dump McInnis and Maes. Norton or Buck suit me fine.  Looking forward to welcoming the 99% of Romanoff supporters who are sane and sensible over to the winning side. Hope that includes you, Wade.

[ Parent ]
thanks for mentioning me
another $5 in my account.
[ Parent ]
Why don't you donate some of your big dollars to Romanoff?
Strike that.  Send it to charity, lest you incur Romanoff's scorn!
[ Parent ]
How could he campaign on the issues without contrast ads?
The key part of the issues is calling out the differences between the candidates.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!
[ Parent ]
Colorado Pols is a duck is a duck is a duck
You support Bennet and have from the beginning. You have never given Romanoff one shred of decent publicity.  Even the one or two positive posts for Romanoff are quickly moved off the front page.

I find your management of this blog biased as do many others.

[ Parent ]
CoPols is is what it is.
Why does that bother you?

There are other blogs less favorable to Romanoff, others more favorable.  If that's what floats your boat- stick with one that's more favorable.

[ Parent ]
I had never noticed how much Romanoff resembles...
... Marc Holtzman, until now.
[ Parent ]
Hmm
Shame almost no one will see it with this small ad buy.  
On the other hand, it DOES
distract attention from AR's fundraising discussion . . .

Discipline without purpose is tyranny.
[ Parent ]
what fundraising
discussion?
[ Parent ]
Did you mean, "What fundraising?"
;)

Discipline without purpose is tyranny.
[ Parent ]
Thanks for noticing.

[ Parent ]
Also
the mud slinging really hurts who comes out on top of this race.  Look at Norton and Buck, it is a battle royal and they are both getting beaten up.  
What mudslinging?
It discusses Bennet's votes and funding sources. Those are facts. Mudslinging is based on lies and I don't think you can claim anything in the ad is a lie. It's biased, as they all are, but not mud.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!
[ Parent ]
Romanoff has been in the sewer since at least January
His people prior to that.

Getting Romanoff to tell the truth about his personal experience is pretty difficult, too.  

judge elected officials by their actions, not by their rhetoric

[ Parent ]
one trick pony indeed
never get tired of that song Ray?
[ Parent ]
I agree. It's negative but not mudslinging at all. n/t


"But, when it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you've got to grow up and realize there's a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy" - Bill Maher
[ Parent ]
Game Changer? No.
Career changer for Romanoff?  Yes.

This ad is not going to change the primary results.  Most Dems seeing this ad are going to say, "Andrew who? And why is he such a whiner?"

This just burns more bridges for Romanoff's political future in Colorado.  

ITLDUSO  
Honk hello when you see my license plate!

The New Ballots are Here! The New Ballots are Here!
I feel good about having just voted for Michael Bennet.  

My #1 reason for voting for Bennet?  Because he is a strong supporter of Barack Obama who may admire Obama even more than I.
(The other candidate?  Not so much.)

ITLDUSO  
Honk hello when you see my license plate!

[ Parent ]
Now will you go away and leave us alone?
n/t
[ Parent ]
Oh please Romanoff it going to be fine, don't feel sorry for him
it's Bennet that's going to lose.  
[ Parent ]
Did you bet?
It's not too late.

They are both much closer to my views on almost every issue than either R candidate - and I suspect yours - that we'll be on the same team soon enough. Right?

[ Parent ]
Hate to jump to the AR posse defense
But isn't it worth discussing the actual content of the ad? Does it not worry all of you many Dems that Bennet is so far deep into the pockets of some of the same organizations you've been associating to names like "Bush" and "Cheney" for the last 10 years?

We can all remember a time where "corporations were evil and were running the government". Does it not concern any of you, long term, that Bennet will return the favor? He's received $1.1 million in special interest money and is one of the top 10 recipients of campaign money from the oil and gas industry (see Fact Check video above).

I'm not arguing for you to switch your vote to Romanoff, I'm just curious if this none of this bothers you?

I'll take a crack here
Yes, it bothers me. That said, it goes far beyond Michael Bennet. It's a function of the system.

If I had any confidence that supporting Romanoff would make a material change, I would do it. I know all his partisans are going to chime in with "but he said X, and he's standing against Y".

I don't care. From my vantage point, I've yet to see a cogent rationale, beyond political expediency, for Romanoff's populist turn. Which is fine, and welcomed, but political expediency is hardly the rock on which you build a movement to change the system.

Ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

[ Parent ]
"build a movment to change the system"?
How do you do change the influence of big money in politics by taking big money from corporate interests and lobbyists?
[ Parent ]
Touche'
n/t
[ Parent ]
Touché? Huh?
You blew right past my point.

Romanoff's been the one pounding the drum on PAC donations, corporate interests & lobbyists. It's an integral part of his campaign.

That said, he had no problem taking those donations when he was up for election and re-election. Had he been appointed to the Senate, he would've taken the same donations that Bennet took, just as he would've likely voted the same way Bennet voted. What's more, should he win the primary, I suspect that he'll have no problem taking those donations going forward.

That's not a slam on Romanoff; it's a projection of how he would behave based on his past record. Would he make a great senator? Sure; I just don't think he'll be a particularly liberal or progressive one. Frankly, if he wins, I suspect he'd be a more eloquent version of Ken Salazar. Not that that's a bad thing, but let's don't imagine that he's the second coming of Ted Kennedy.

That's why I don't believe the system will be changed if Romanoff wins the primary.

Ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

[ Parent ]
You may be right.
But the message it will send to Washington is that if you screw the middleclass like Bennet has (with his votes on cram-down and the Brown/Kaufman amendment)and you overtly represent the interests of big banks and Wall Street like Bennet has you will be let go.  

But don't cry for Bennet he'll have a job in no time.  

[ Parent ]
Seriously? Send a message?
You're assuming that "Washington" is a monolithic entity, which it's not. Beyond that, if Bennet loses, the message that you're hoping will be sent won't be; no matter what you may think, Bennet isn't seen as a handmaiden of Wall Street in DC.  

Ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on
[ Parent ]
The election of Brown is Washington sent a message.
And MA will send another one in November. These are extraordinary times; many are out of work and view Bennet as an accomplice in getting us to this place.  Remember the derivative deal at DPS that is costing DPS millions while enriching the banks?
[ Parent ]
When the unicorns or faries show up- let us know.

[ Parent ]
Right, but not for the reasons you think
1. It was a special election;

2. More importantly, it was a special election to replace Ted Kennedy.

The fact that Scott Brown won as a Republican in Massachusetts, first of all, and Ted Kennedy's seat, to boot, was rightly seen as a politically significant event.

This one would have a different spin. If Bennet loses, it'll be seen, essentially, as a repudiation of President Obama by his party. Why? Because Obama has endorsed Bennet, and Bennet is seen as an Obama protegé.

Now, you can make the argument that Obama shouldn't have gotten involved in the primary to begin with, which is fine. Certainly, others have.

If you make that argument, though, then you forfeit the right to argue that Obama should get "tough" on other Senators, like Nelson or Lincoln or Landrieu, since one of the few tools that Obama has to force compliance is to participate in primaries.

Ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

[ Parent ]
Sure
For example- look around Colorado.

Significant oil & gas industry. And they donate to the Senator.
Shocking? not.

The rest is all supposed to make us think that he got a significant donation from donor X, then he voted yes, which is what donor X wanted.  So therefore he must be corrupt, bought and paid for by his donors.

As opposed to - he received a significant donation from numerous donors, then he voted, sometimes the way one or another donors wanted, sometimes exactly what one or another donor did not  want.  But consistent with his values.

The way you leap, or at least the way Campanoff would have us leap, is only consistent if we say Romanoff was corrupt before, but only now has potentially cleaned up.  See- once upon a time AR had a PAC of his own, received PAC donations, and voted (gasp!) sometimes the way those donors wanted him to.


[ Parent ]
That's it!
Have been thinking exactly that, MADCO, and am going to the new thread to ask Wade Norris just that question.

If anyone who takes PAC money is corrupt, then does that mean Romanoff was corrupt for all those years when he was doing just that?  But now he is corrupt no more?  Is Bill Ritter corrupt?  Pres. Barack Obama?  Rep. Markey?

I want to hear just one Romanoff supporter be honest and brave enough to say what they believe.  All the people I just named are corrupt, and so was Andrew Romanoff--for 10 long years.

"These are the values inspiring those brave workers in Poland ... They remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost." - Ronald Reagan

[ Parent ]
yeah- it's gonna fall on deaf ears

They're on a misson. They've got signs and everything.
[ Parent ]
It doesn't bother me at all...
I think this bullshit meme that "money corrupts" has never been proven. You're either a corrupt politician who takes money as part of that corruption or you're not. There are and have always been millionaires and even billionaires that I would hardly call corrupt, ie Bill Gates who have given millions to charity.

How can Romanoff supporters criticize Bennet as coming from money and being handed everything because of his family's money, then say the paltry amounts (by comparison) these various groups are donating make a damn bit of difference to him? When you've got millions, a few thousand isn't gonna buy you off.

So am I worried about corporations "buying off" a Senator? Only if those Senators have no backbone. Bennet has shown me he possess plenty of backbone since being appointed Senator.

"But, when it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you've got to grow up and realize there's a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy" - Bill Maher

[ Parent ]
Bennet has been a reliable Dem vote on final bills
And a reliable corporate vote on amendments. I don't see how that signifies backbone. I'm not saying it's bad - that combo is what the Democratic party needs. But it's not a sign of backbone.

Where all the cool kids will be on Saturday - Code War!
[ Parent ]
that's an over staement - and I think you know it.
Yes- we didn't get KB, or cramdown, nor the Sanders amendment on credit cards last May getting allth e attention now. And hundreds or even thousands of others.   In the rare cases where Bennet could have been the deciding vote, he's voted more pro-consumer than pro corp.
[ Parent ]
And all the hollaback girls cheer: Des-Per-AAAY-SHUN!!

Finally, AR recognizes that winning at all costs is what counts......well, that, and losing at great cost.  Even at the cost of the Dems keeping this Senate seat.  Thanks, Andrew, for showing us how it's done!
hollaback girls.....
mmmmm, hollaback girls......

There is no video, you can't prove anything.

[ Parent ]
"[blank] for the rest of us"
Am I the only one who, when AR says we need a "Senator for the rest of us," all I seem to hear in my mind is "Festivus for the rest of us?"  Not sure AR wants to mentally equate his 20-days-out campaign slogan with a fictitious cultish holiday from television...
haha - never occurred to me.
But you're right.
[ Parent ]
never occurred to you
HA!
[ Parent ]
You have me confused with someone else.
I believe what I was talking about was Festavus. A whole other thing.
[ Parent ]
lol no you aren't!
In fact i mentioned it above that I want to see feats of strenth and airing of grievances at Romanoff's next town hall.  

GINGRICH: MOON PRESIDENT 2016!

"May Di-vorce Be With You" - Darth Newt
[ Parent ]
PAC contributions
Senator Bennet takes PAC money.  Get over it already!  He has never pretended that he doesn't take PAC money.  Andrew Romanoff shut down his PAC and stopped taking PAC money so that he could run as the only person who does not take PAC money.  To put it bluntly, the difference between these two is that Romanoff is a hypocrit.
so, are born again Christians
hypocrites too? I mean they lived lives of debauchery in many cases before being saved. Does that make their conversion any less real?

Even if he had PACs before, can he not have come into the light and seen the truth, that big corporate money does rig our system to the detriment of all of us? Are all of you actually arguing in favor of the Citizens United decision then? Really?

[ Parent ]
Sure he can
But Romanoff's never provided anyone with a cogent accounting of why and how he came to that conclusion. That's the problem.

Failing that, all I can come up with is that he's doing it out of political expediency. Which again, that's fine as it goes, but it's hardly a bulwark. If he found it politically expedient to turn down donations he wasn't going to get, then he'll find it equally expedient to take those donations once they're on parade.

I suspect that the people screaming about this the loudest will be curiously silent when that happens. Either that, or they'll be screaming about betrayal.

Ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

[ Parent ]
Equating Citizen United and PAC money is a completely
misleading and disingenuous argument to make. Again I point out that there are many many different types of PACs out there. If you can think of the type of group, there's probably a PAC associated with it. Not to mention the personal PACs, like the one Romanoff himself had.

You threw out Citizens United to get a gut reaction instead of making a better argument. Somehow I doubt NARAL's PAC & Planned Parenthood Action Fund & Human Rights Campaign's PAC, etc. are a threat to our democracy. I doubt those PACs and many more are corrupting Senators. And I doubt they had much if anything to do with threat of Citizens United.

"But, when it comes to voting, when we only have two choices, you've got to grow up and realize there's a big difference between a disappointing friend and a deadly enemy" - Bill Maher

[ Parent ]
Pretty much all Christians are hypocrites
Just sayin'  

GINGRICH: MOON PRESIDENT 2016!

"May Di-vorce Be With You" - Darth Newt
[ Parent ]
Romanoff Goes Negative Against Bennet | 115 comments
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?






Advertise Here!
ads@coloradopols.com


Active Users
Currently 5 user(s) logged on.

Search




Advanced Search


Colorado Pols Network


Jeffco Pols
Summers, Kerr to Host Joint Town Hall on Saturday
Jeffco Pols
Joe Coors Announcing CD-7 Run Today
Jeffco Pols
Roybal Fined for Wiechman Loan
Jeffco Pols
  More >

Denver Pols
Poll: Who Will Win the HD-1 Primary?
Denver Pols
Hancock Rolls Out Economic Development Plan
Denver Pols
Michael Hancock Wades into ASSET Debate
Denver Pols
  More >













RSS 2.0



Pols Gets Mobile: ColoradoPols.com/mobile/

Colorado Pols is on Twitter: twitter.com/coloradopols

Email Pols


How to Write a Diary That Will Make the Front Page



Terms of Use/Privacy Policy



Pols Posting Policies



The Pols Penalty Box



Yard Signs!



The Pols "Mailbag"

Mailbag #1



Relevant Links

The Big Media Blog

Blog It Right

Blog For Growth

Blogometer

Business Word

Colorado Capitol Journal

Colorado Center on Law and Policy

Colorado Democratic Party

Colorado Ethics Watch

Colorado Independent

Colorado Labor Blog

Colorado Veterans for America

Colorado Legislature

Colorado Lib

Colorado Libertarian Blog

Colorado Media Matters

Colorado Progressive Coalition

Colorado Republican Party

Colorado Secretary of State

Colorado Senate Dems

Colorado Senate GOP

Colorado Young Democrats

Commentary Today

Coyote Gulch

CU Democrats

Curious Stranger

Daily Kos

Dan Willis-Rumors

Dem Notes

Democracy for Colorado

Denver Politics

East Boulder County Politics

Ed Stein Ink

Election Neutrality Now

eleXn

George in Denver

Great Education Colorado

Head First Colorado

The Hotline Political Network

Junction Daily Blog

Left in the West

Liberal and Loving It

Maintain Educational Standards in Colorado

Mount Virtus

MyDD

National Journal

On Call

Peak Dems

Political State Report

Progress Now

Prometheus

Project Vote Smart

Radio Free Denver

Senate Guru

Slapstick Politics

Steam Powered Opinions

Square State

Stygius

TalkLeft

The Thicket

The Bell Policy Center

The Hypothetical Wren

ThomasMC.com

Toilet Paper Online

TRACER Campaign Finance

View From a Height

Walter in Denver

Wash Park Prophet

Western Democrat


 
Colorado Pols is wholly owned by Colorado Pols, LLC
webmaster-at-coloradopols.com

Powered by: SoapBlox