Romanoff Destroys His Own Message, Image With Latest Ad

All campaigns (at least those that are really trying to win) eventually go negative in their advertising and messaging. Both candidates for the Republican nomination for U.S. Senate have long since crossed into negative territory. On the Democratic side, Andrew Romanoff first crossed that threshold about 10 days ago, which in response prompted the first negative ad from Sen. Michael Bennet.

The definition of a negative ad is focusing on a perceived weakness of your opponent, as opposed to pointing out your positive aspects, and we’ve never had a problem with that. But Romanoff’s newest negative ad targeted at Bennet, which was ripped today by the major Denver newspaper, is different.

The ad, called “Greed” (embedded after the jump), says that while working for Phil Anschutz, Bennet “pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted a billion dollars.”

You read that right — Romanoff’s ad essentially says that Bennet intentionally bankrupted companies in order to steal money from them. That’s way beyond a negative ad because it’s factually wrong. And intentionally running inaccurate ads to smear your opponent — well, that’s a crap move that’s no better than Jane Norton using 9/11 imagery as a scare tactic. Nobody can say otherwise — not with a straight face, anyway.

Obviously, Romanoff is pulling out all of the stops in an effort to upset Bennet, but in doing so he has flushed down the toilet the primary message of his entire campaign: That he is a “different” politician who wants to be a Senator “for the rest of us.”

So long, “Regular Guy Andrew Who Won’t Go Negative.”

Hello, “Same Old Politician Who Will Say Anything In Order to Win.” Maybe it will get him a Primary victory, and maybe it won’t (we still think Bennet will ultimately win). But if it does…is it really worth the cost? Intentionally spreading egregious lies about someone in your own Party, just to win?  

268 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. …and any sense of decency, it seems.  Apparently, selling your house can buy a bunch of lies.  My doe-eyed sensibilities have long since been injured; now, I’m a bit ill.

    • wade norris says:

      http://www.allbusiness.com/com


      Jun. 12–Denver telecom mogul Philip Anschutz stands to reap $372 million from a one-time dividend that Regal Entertainment Group, the country’s largest movie theater chain, will pay shareholders.

      Anschutz controls 73.7 million shares in Regal’s two classes of stock, giving him ownership of more than half the company.

      This was done against the wishes of another Teacher’s Retirement Fund – who sued Regal – because they were invested in Regal –

      which is strikingly similar to the kind of investment scheme that Denver Public Schools was stuck with under Bennet’s leadership at DPS.

      “Louisiana Teachers Retirement System sues Regal”

      http://www.allbusiness.com/leg



      The real question is whether Michael Bennet learned about fancy investments with Teacher’s pension money from Anschutz or if Anschutz learned it from Michael Bennet.

      • Ralphie says:

        The retirement fund got the dividends too.

        • wade norris says:

          cites an Editorial from a Right winger on Denver post – but ignores the article and expose Denver post did on the subject

          http://www.denverpost.com/elec

          and that Article does state that 2,400 jobs were lost due to the bankruptcies.

          • wade norris says:

            In 2001, Regal Cinemas closed 30% of its theaters, shuttering 128 theaters. With 30-50 full or part-time employees at the average theater, these closures eliminated an estimated 4,000 – 6,400 jobs…

            Bennet made more than $11.4 million during the years after the Regal Cinema deals.

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/

            • really please stop with capitalism is bad.

              Capitalism with anti-trust law ensures political freedom. Have you taken any political theory ever?

              • wade norris says:

                you’re citing anti-trust laws? Bennet voted against the bill to Break up the Big Banks that were too big to fail, allowing these banks to continue controlling how home mortgages are valued.

                How are you citing anti-trust when your candidate voted against anti-trust?

                Bennet’s people are losing their message.

                • Monpoloistic capitalsim goes boom bust. Pres. Teddy Roosevelt developed ant-trust law to force capitalism to compete.

                  FDR forced Glass Steagall.He also inacted the SEC powers in ’33 and ’34. Monetary policy was created to soften the swings.

                  WJC eliminated Glass Steagall

                  Neverthless you should read some history and some economic theory.

                  You might also read the bills and the amendments on the hill.

                  An example of this is the Sanders amendment which would have gutted the naural gas industry in Colorado and deepened unemploymnet here.

                  I don’t even falut GWB for bailing out the banks. People need to be able to cash heir paychecks. Small businesses need to get credit.

                  The GWB economic plan of don’t tax and don’t spend, however went a long way  to causing this crisis. The deregulation accelerated on his watch. Trade agreements which outsource manufacuring jobs offshore and NAFTA which drives farm labor North were started by CLinton and increased bu GWB. AR’s response to this was to auhor a very harsh immigration law which favors corporations over people.

                  Democratic complicity should not be overlooked.

                  Financing the Iraq war, which AR openly supported, furthered the crisis.

                  After 9-11, it never made any sense to me why GWB sent a hand full of divisions to Afganistan, and the better part of the US Army to Iraq.

                   

                  • GWB didn’t tax and spent. Additionally He sold trillions of dollars in T-Bills to China which weakened Naional security.

                    The DLC complicity in the economic crisis cannot be overlooked.

                    We all know who built his career in Colorado being a conservative Democrat man of the year.  

                  • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

                    An example of this is the Sanders amendment which would have gutted the naural gas industry in Colorado and deepened unemploymnet here.

                    I have seen this claimed on more than one occasion, but I have not seen anyone explain how this amendment would do what you claim.

                    Would you care to back it up with an explanation?

                    • Duke Coxdukeco1 says:

                      Let me put it this way.

                      If you ever hope to have a shred of credibility in my eyes (not that you would, but who knows?), you will answer the question, give us an explanation.

                      You shoot your mouth (fingers?) off quite a bit, particularly when it comes to AR. How about some backup?

                      If you are right, I am certainly willing to be convinced. But your indifference to responding to my challenge is bad form.

                      Ali made a similar, incorrect statement about the impact of the O&G industry in Colorado. At least he had the courtesy to respond and admit that he couldn’t defend his statement. I respect that immensely.

                      So, please explain to me how you justify your statement above.  

      • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

        That is also true, and also NOT THE POINT. The Romanoff ad says Bennet stole from companies. Do you really not see the problem with this, Wade? You’re more idealistic than this – surely you see the difference?

        • Steve Harvey says:

          The more invested one becomes in a particular belief, the more any evidence, whether it supports or refutes the belief, is transmutated into a subjectively perceived reinforcement of that belief.

          And this is one of the distinguishing characteristics of the two camps in this primary, at least among those posting here: Most Bennet supporters were former Romanoff supporters in some other context, whose former opinion of Andrew has been challenged by this campaign. Most Romanoff supporters, conversely, have never had any fundamentally different view of either of the candidates than the one they have now.

          One (and only one) indicator of the relative credibility of conflicting views is to compare the degree to which each represents an entrenched ideological or personal conviction, and the degree to which each represents a changing response to new evidence.

        • wade norris says:


          The Romanoff ad says Bennet stole from companies.

          it says it pushed the companies into bankruptcy, and people lost their jobs.

          both of those statements are true.

          you can call it ‘reorganization’

          but it still put people out of work and paid Anschutz hundreds of millions and Bennet 11 million from the extraordinary one time dividend of $5.05 per share – of which Anschutz owned a majority.

          End result, Bennet makes bank for boss, himself, average people lose jobs.

          • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

            This is not a difference of opinion. The ad VERY CLEARLY says Bennet looted – which means to steal – money from these companies. There’s no ambiguity here. None.

          • The ad calls it “looting.”  As the Post wrote:

            The ad accuses Bennet of “looting” a billion dollars from companies that he and his former employer Phil Anschutz “pushed … into bankruptcy.”

            Yes, looting. As in to rob, to plunder.

            During his time in the private sector, Bennet helped restructure a complex financial problem that actually saved thousands of jobs for cinema workers. But instead Romanoff has chosen to twist what most people would consider a success story into a callous plot by Bennet to reap millions on the backs of ruined lives.

            Also, the “one time dividend.”  Regal has paid its shareholder an annual dividend that totals more than $19 since the restructuring.  Also, current ratings say that Regal is a very strong company and suggest investors buy or hold.

            So, REAL end result…

            The ad lied about looting

            The ad lied about job loss

            The ad lied about the company

            You lied about all of the above

            You lied about the dividend

            And you have shown that you are blinded by sick loyalty.  

            • wade norris says:

              that your echo chamber here is not able to tamp down the real information on other blogs.

              Its like when I cited Daily Kos’ Senior Policy advisor – Joan McCarter – for an assessment of the letter Bennet signed for a financial commission that would have the authority to cut social security without filibuster – and MADCO said it meant nothing because she is

              just ‘some poster on Kos’

              Well, Now, respected columnist David Sirota has also written an article on Kos that gives credence to the ad –

              A Moody’s VP said, “It’s pretty mind-boggling to me that this company, recently out of bankruptcy, will pay out $1.6 billion.” The Louisiana teachers pension fund went farther. “…(T)he real explanation for draining the Company of its cash is that the Board is looting Regal and its subsidiaries to pay the individual Board members hundreds of millions of dollars in dividends, which have no legitimate business purpose and provide absolutely no benefit to the company.”

              Bennet made more than $11.4 million during the years after the Regal Cinema deals. In 2001, Regal Cinemas closed 30% of its theaters, shuttering 128 theaters. With 30-50 full or part-time employees at the average theater, these closures eliminated an estimated 4,000 – 6,400 jobs…In the end, Bennet profited mightily from the same flavors of financial manipulations that destabilized Wall Street and led to the crash of 2008, and the loss of millions of jobs and billions in lost productivity.

              http://www.dailykos.com/story/

              Pols is not able to keep the message contained – and the outside blogosphere is paying attention.

            • wade norris says:

              that your echo chamber here is not able to tamp down the real information on other blogs.

              Its like when I cited Daily Kos’ Senior Policy advisor – Joan McCarter – for an assessment of the letter Bennet signed for a financial commission that would have the authority to cut social security without filibuster – and MADCO said it meant nothing because she is

              just ‘some poster on Kos’

              Well, Now, respected columnist David Sirota has also written an article on Kos that gives credence to the ad –

              A Moody’s VP said, “It’s pretty mind-boggling to me that this company, recently out of bankruptcy, will pay out $1.6 billion.” The Louisiana teachers pension fund went farther. “…(T)he real explanation for draining the Company of its cash is that the Board is looting Regal and its subsidiaries to pay the individual Board members hundreds of millions of dollars in dividends, which have no legitimate business purpose and provide absolutely no benefit to the company.”

              Bennet made more than $11.4 million during the years after the Regal Cinema deals. In 2001, Regal Cinemas closed 30% of its theaters, shuttering 128 theaters. With 30-50 full or part-time employees at the average theater, these closures eliminated an estimated 4,000 – 6,400 jobs…In the end, Bennet profited mightily from the same flavors of financial manipulations that destabilized Wall Street and led to the crash of 2008, and the loss of millions of jobs and billions in lost productivity.

              http://www.dailykos.com/story/

              Pols is not able to keep the message contained – and the outside blogosphere is paying attention.

              • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                Good one, Wade. No one can claim you’ve lost your impish sense of humor!

              • denverco says:

                Sirota has been as much a Romanoff shill as you are.  

                • wade norris says:

                  I love when people see writers here disrespecting a progressive talk show host and columnist and bestseller –

                  it reveals the lack of objectivity on Bennet.

                  • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

                    But I also had the same reaction RedGreen had. Sirota’s way out on the left and he goes for max entertainment value. Your phrase was a reach – big time.

                    • wade norris says:

                       that’s your opinion – so does the Denver Post’s Michael Booth sound reasonable enough?

                    • Sirota has said on his show that he idolizes Chomsky.

                      the Beetles ” Revolution”

                      If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao then you aren’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      All your posts seem to indicate as much. You attack stalwart liberals without cause. Noam Chomsky is one of the best things to ever happen to liberalism in America.

                      Next thing you’ll tell me you don’t like Lakoff either…

                    • I’m a realist and believe that moderate bills are the only ones that can beat the fillibuster. I believe in doing something rather than nothing.

                      AR knows this, too. It’s why I respected the majority of his work as Speaker.

                      I don’t like politicians that deny their own record.A good example of this is he never backed single pay in his career until he ran for Senate.

                      It’s no coincidence that the Colorado DC delegation unanimously backs Bennet.

                      It’s no coincidence that the vast  majority of African-American leaders back Bennet.

                      AR also bears false witness upon others.

                      This disturbs me the most.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      someone on another thread said you were handing our pro-Romanoff literature at the 2009 Jefferson-Jackson dinner. Is that true?

                    • I was told that he was not running and one came from a source that I respect above all others. Andrew didn’t tell that source the truth.

                      I was told in no uncertain terms to stop.

                      So I did. I then received confirmation from lobbyists that I trust that they were getting the same “no interest in the Senate race.”

                      I stayed active and began to get know Michael Bennet. He has not lied to me.

                      Then it became clear that Romanoff wanted to be Lt. Gov.He told me himself that this was true that spring and summer at Rosha Shana.

                      He changed in late August.

                      I respected Romaonff’s record in the state house as I am a moderate Democrat. The only legisaltion that did disturb me was his immigration position. I’ve lived with undocumented workers for years. I still felt that Andrew had a good heart. Immigration is a wedge issue that splits both parties.

                      I became convinced in January that the negativity in the campagin came directly from Andrew Romanoff.  

                      It’s been born out that he bears false witness. This disturbs me greatly.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      all the things you are attempting to castrate Andrew for in this primary race are things you knew fully well when you were passing out literature for him at the JJ dinner.

                      Do you not see the inconsistency and hypocrisy there? You fully supported him knowing all the things that you know now, but only turned because he challenged Michael for the nomination. I’d say it calls into question every bad thing (and there have been so many) that you’ve ever said or written about Andrew.

                    • wade norris says:

                      you are the one accusing Andrew of lying about being a school teacher in Central America and even saying he was the guest of the ‘contras and Daniel Ortega’

                      give it a rest.

      • MADCO says:

        Now you got to repeat it on Huffpo, Kos, FDL and every other place you can find. You see, that thing about repeating lies often enough that people will believe it, is you really have to repeat it over and over and over and over.

        You know how- you;ve been doing it awhile now.

        DPS invested Regal?

        No LA Teachers Pension refinanced their debt with swaps?

        DPS declared a special dividend?

        whatthehellareyoutalkingabout?

        Goobey says what?

        • wade norris says:

          i mean I know Ray Springfield’s conspiracies can confuse you.

          LA Teachers invested in Regal –

          DPS under Bennet invested with JP Morgan

          Both were gambles as Teacher’s Retirements funds were used as leverage for gambles –

          the first was a success gamble, making millions,

          the second that Bennet did on his own with DPS’ money was not a success and is losing millions.

          • Steve Harvey says:

            or simply an unclear lens through which to view the world.

            Almost all moves, whether in the private or public sector, result in some distribution of gains and losses. Few are either win-win or lose-lose for the entire population, in perpetuity (though many are one or the other of those for the parties most directly involved). To point to losses, even if accurate, does not prove malfeasance, incompetence, or immorality. A complete analysis would be required, which tallies up all gains and losses, and considers how equitably they’ve been borne (including how they’re distributed among haves and have-nots). Consideration must also be given to the fact that distributions of gains and losses are temporal as well as demographic. Some deals, or policies, work out well, some fail, and you move on from there. Finally, context must be taken into account: Was a person acting in the context of the public or private sphere? To whom was their fiduciary responsibility? All of these considerations are relevant.

            I’ll be perfectly honest: I have no idea what such a comprehensive analysis would reveal. I’m pretty sure that very few who are claiming to know actually do. But, in all of the attempts to imply otherwise, I have yet to see anything that provides any real evidence that such an analysis would prove what you claim it would.

            • wade norris says:

              one question

              Do you think the Derivative swap enacted by Bennet as the Superintendent of DPS made money or lost money?

              • Steve Harvey says:

                feel free to call me “steve.” I have no animosity toward you, and hope that we can keep that mutual.

                In answer to your question: I don’t know. I’ve seen both claims, but have not looked at it closely enough to know the answer. My tentative conclusion from what I’ve seen is that it lost less than would have been lost had the swap not occurred, but I would not argue that position, and don’t depend on it for maintaining the positions that are relevant to me.

                One reason I haven’t examined whether it made money or lost money more closely is that I don’t consider it particularly relevant. Some investments make money, and some lose money. There is really no choice but to invest an enterprise’s capital funds somewhere, so it is inevitable that some losses will occur. Once it became apparent that this was an ordinary and defensible choice of investments, in a context of general and widespread losses on investments, the answer to the question you posed became irrelevant to the question of my support of Senator Bennet as a candidate for the senate.

                • wade norris says:

                  have been major ongoing stories –

                  JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs – the default of Greece, municipalities around the country

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03


                  Another aspect to these swaps’ designs made them especially ill-suited for municipal issuers. Almost all tax-exempt debt is structured so that after 10 years, it can be called or retired by the city, school district or highway authority that floated it. But by locking in the swap for 30 years, the municipality or school district is essentially giving up the option to call its debt and issue lower-cost bonds, without penalty, if interest rates have declined.

                  and Steve, yes it is true that some investments lose money and some make money – but the person who made this investment – into a derivative swap with JP Morgan, is Michael Bennet- and the losses are not just numbers on a piece of paper –

                  it is a loss of real people’s retirements.

                  It was a gamble, and one that should not have been taken, and certainly not rewarded with a Senate appointment.

                  But I guess Ritter wanted to go with who knew the people with money, not any of the fine candidates who had served the party and the state, like Perlmutter, DeGette, Romanoff, etc.

                  No one has sufficiently explained why Ritter picked an unknown for a Senate seat.

                  • Steve Harvey says:

                    Ritter has, to my satisfaction (he gave a rather in-depth account of the process he went through).

                    Your recourse to the “real people” rhetoric doesn’t impress me. Real people are affected by all decisions. And, as I already said, almost no decisions don’t involve leaving some real people worse off than they were. Furthermore, you’ve done nothing to prove your assertion that those you’ve identified actually were left worse off than they were. Your emotional appeal to draw an irrational and unsubstantiated conclusion pushes me further away from you rather than draws me closer to you.

                    Finally, I’m not going to rely on either your or my financial expertise to inform my answer to the question of who is the best qualified candidate for the U.S. senate, because neither of us have financial expertise that is up to the task. Therefore, I rely on judgments that are within my range of expertise, including tentative judgments about the defensibility of particular investments. Your quote from the NY Times does not shift the balance of those tentative judgments in any meaningful way.

                  • Steve Harvey says:

                    that the significance of derivatives system-wide (definitely pernicious) tells us almost nothing about the value of one type of derivative investment in one instance. That’s called “a levels-of-analysis error.”

                  • ColoDem Di says:

                    Haven’t you wondered why this so-called derivatives scandal hasn’t gotten any traction?  I’ll tell you why.  Fixed for float swaps are interest rate hedging 101.  There’s nothing complicated about them.  

                    You set a target interest rate.  If rates are higher than the target rate the counterparty pays you.  If they go below that level, you pay the counterparty.  Nothing fishy about it.  It’s an interest rate hedge.  DPS has interest rate exposure over a 30 year span.  Not hedging it would have been unthinkable.

                    Every time you talk about anything finance or banking related, your total ignorance of the topic comes shining through.  (DavidT falls into this category too.)  

                    If banking reform is so important to you, wouldn’t you rather have a representative with first hand experience that has a fucking clue about the topic than one who just spent a few hours reading about it?

                    You’re a moron.

              • glasscup says:

                Are Guerin Green, Andrea Merida, Christopher Scott and now…apparently…you.

                Great company you’re in Wade.  

          • MADCO says:

            Sen. Maj. Counsel Cliff Calley: Not while I’m the majority counsel it’s not; this is bush league. This is why good people hate us, this, right here, this thing… And if you proceed with this line of questioning, I will resign this committee and wait in the tall grass for you Congressman, because you are killing the party.

            Lie, lie again, half-truth, meaningless analysis, lie, half truth, quote, lie and spin.   your formula for posting.

            STFU

            or out someone

          • AR posted on his WIkipedia bio that he taught English in Nicaragua. He wrote it. His staff puts it out.

            You mind answering what year?

            Yes you do. AR either made it up, or he was most likely in the country illegally at the time. The ban on doing business there wasn’t lifted until 1990. It started in 1982.

            We know he was in Boston in 1992.

            That leaves 1991 as he only year available.

            If he’d answer the question then we could cross check with the State Dept.

            I haven’t heard an answer.

            Similarly his campaign continues to put out how  he WORKED for the SPLC. I’ve verified with them that his only association was a 3 month internship from Oct ’87 to Dec ’87 when he was 21 years old.Debbie Fischer was agreeing with Vincent Rousseau that he practiced law for them.  This disturbs anyone associated with that fine organization. People associated with it include Julian Bond, and up until her death Rosa Parks.Morris Dees and Julian Bond would not appreciate the resume puffing.

            The only conspiracy that I see is AR claiming to be progressive when his record speaks to a very conservative Democrat.

            Apparently it has worked. You believe he’s a progressive. So that either makes you gullible, or you practice believing what you want to hear, and disregard the rest.

            • …you are obsessed with trivia.

            • Steve Harvey says:

              There are only two questions to answer: 1) Who would be a better senator? and 2) Who has a better chance of winning in the general election? Those on both sides throwing everything they can at the other camp are distracting whoever may still be on the fence from confronting these two questions head-on. And that distraction is to Andrew’s, not Michael’s, advantage.

              Furthermore, saying that you worked for an organization with whom you had an internship is, I think, within the bounds of literal truth. That others referred to Andrew as a lawyer is, or at least may be, outside of his control. What Bond and Dees would think is for them to say, and no one else.

              When Bennet supporters play this game that has been mastered by Romanoff supporters here, they blur the distinction between the two candidates and the two camps of supporters. That, too, is to Andrew’s rather than Michael’s advantage.

            • jpsandscl says:

              1. Even if there was a ban on doing business, teaching is not considered a business. It is usually associated with charity or missionary type work and any commercial bans would not apply.

              2. An internship is work. It is unpaid work, or minimally paid. But how much you are paid shouldn’t matter, should it Ray? And if he had a three month internship, then I think it qualifies as a factual statement that he worked for SPLC.

              • MADCO says:

                Which charity or mission was AR teaching for?

                Name that and we’ll get the month and year.

                Alternatively – provide the month and year he arrived and the month and year he departed and State can confirm it.

                Why s it so hard?

                What’s to hide?

                • jpsandscl says:

                  Why should he respond to your baseless accusations? If he did that for every crack-pot such as yourself, he would have no time for anything else. Do you have anything to substantiate your baseless accusations? If not, STFU!

                  (I like talking like you MADCO, you’ve taught me a lot on pols…)

                  • MADCO says:

                    Accusation:

                    You are a fool.

                    Question:

                    Why do you say foolish things?

                    Do you see the difference?

                    I believe AR was in Nicauragua.

                    I’ve asked others about it- when?

                    I make no accusation about his service there.

                    I cared for two minor, even trivial reasons before, but because no one will answer with a straight answer (the last person who attempted also told me that AR was a civil rights lawyer. (I have the email but because I think it’s froma poster here on pols, and I zero willingness to out anyone, I can’t post it.  Unless he/she denies it- then I will post it.)  which is not a straight answer. SO now I also care because no one will answer.  It’s still minor.

                    I cared before because the Iran Contra hearing was the first thing that hooked me on CSPAN. And as a result I learned more about US-Nicaragua history than the average student with my kind of majors. And I was a huge Roberto Clemente fan – and because he died in that plane crash in Nicaragua, I’ve always been curious aobut people who have traveled there.

                    Like I said- trivia.

                     

      • Apparently, ignoring facts is embraced by all of the Romanoff hatchet men (and women).  The judge threw out the lawsuit.

        A Delaware judge soon threw out the lawsuit, saying there was no legal justification for stopping Regal’s actions. He also noted Regal’s other shareholders benefited from the special dividends just as the wealthy managers did.

  2. Ralphie says:

    It started running yesterday morning.  Saw it again today.

    • Splitting Hairs says:

      I think Bennett’s “response” was a pretty big “swing and a miss”. The political equivalent of “I know what you are, but what am I?”

      Maybe he should go back to reminding us how he flunked 2nd grade?

  3. BlueCat says:

    The message here is as blatantly false as in the Sherrod travesty.  Bennet’s expertise rescued a failing chain which now employs more people than it did at the time it was about to go under. Yes money was made.  Bennet was in the private sector doing his job and because he did it so well a chain’s worth of ordinary Americans have work.  Does anyone think failing chains are ever rescued on a charity basis?  Who would be better off now had the chain gone under?

    It has always seemed that while Bennet supporters simply preferred Bennet, the bitterness of the Romanoff camp was so intense it seemed doubtful whether they could ever support Bennet while Bennet supporters would almost all be able to rally around AR if he emerged the primary winner. Most of us had wanted him to be appointed in the first place.

    How things change! At this stage of the despicable Romanoff campaign, if that happens, I will still hold my nose and vote for AR, someone I strongly believed in at the time the appointment decision was being made, because I know that he will vote, in the end, exactly as Bennet would, both of them being from the same part of the political spectrum, center left (mildly).  I couldn’t possibly support either of the possible Republican candidates or contribute to a Senate take over from the wacko right.  But I can no longer see myself being willing to lift a finger, make a call, knock on a door or contribute a penny to the campaign of someone who has allowed disappointment and petulant rage to turn him into such a nasty principle free little pol. It is more important to me than ever to see Bennet win this primary.  I  simply would no longer be able to attend a Romanoff event and force myself to shake the creep’s hand. Go Bennet, PLEASE WIN!

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      The Regal restructuring rescued THREE failing chains of movie theaters employing tens of thousands of people.

      • BlueCat says:

        make that 3 chains full of jobs that we have because of Bennet’s expertise.  You know the really sad part? So many of us who used to be big AR fans were fans because of his charm, his great guy appeal, his ability to work across the aisle because he could disagree without sacrificing good humor and respect for his opponents and keep the possibility of well  intentioned compromise, compromise to get good theings done, alive. This is not that Romanoff and the tarnish from this disgusting campaign  cannot easily be be polished away, if ever.  

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          The general election will be every bit as nasty. Bennet/Romanoff will have to get in the gutter to compete against Ken Buck. We bloggers will be down there too. And when we win, I don’t think we’ll have any concerns about our candidate.

          • glasscup says:

            Smearing a good man.

            Losing every shred of credibility he has as a person.

            That’s what Andrews done. And you are RIGHT THERE WITH HIM NOW, David. You should be ashamed of yourself.

            There is a huge difference between semantic distinctions about policy (the lie you’re accusing bennet of), and disgusting character assasination, the lie you admitted Andrew performed.

            This speaks to Andrew’s character: he doesn’t have any. He’s just a politician willing to say ANYTHING.  

            • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

              But when Clinton lied about Lewinsky, while it made me think less of him as a person, I did not want to see him resign. My point, which I also made below, is I don’t think this single question is the most important one we face in selecting a Senator.

              And I think anyone who is unemployed and unable to find a job will agree with me. They don’t care who’s lying, who’s being fair, who’s the more upstanding and pleasant. All they care about is which one will fix the economy so they can find a job.

              Somehow, I don’t think this lie is indicative of which will do better addressing the problems the country faces.

          • BlueCat says:

            makes you feel better about your sorry excuse for a man candidate, Dave, go for it.

        • ss says:

          I had great respect for AR, when I worked with him a few years ago. I don’t know Bennet at all and mostly get my colorado news from this site. The more I read from AR’s supposed “supporters” the more I think Bennet would do a better job in the fall, and hopefully in Washington.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          McCain was a decent person who went nuts trying to win the presidential campaign.

          Romanoff is a decent person who is going nuts trying to win a senate campaign.

          They would have both done better if they had run as who they are instead of trying to make their opponent look worse.

          Sad really.  I thought Romanoff was capable of better campaign management.

    • NeonNurseNeonNurse says:

      is “I wouldn’t cross the street to spit on him if he was on fire.” (You may substitute another bodily fluid if you like.)

      Yeah. I’ll vote for Romanoff over the R if that’s what it comes to.  

      BTW, when he tries to look concerned in his ads he looks like a rabbit.

  4. Unfortunately, negative ads work and two back to back negative attacks have surely taken their toll on Bennet’s lead.  

    However, this ad goes too far and shows Romanoff for what he is, a politician willing to say anything.  Not only is he smearing the good record smart and honorable man, he has all be screwed himself in the general if his attacks are successful.

    Not only has Romanoff spend every penny he has on attack ads (which says a lot about him). He has turned the business community against him — like it or not — a powerful force in the general.

    • wade norris says:

      that Teachers who worked under him will not vote for him.

      BARBARA: I was actually on the committee of teachers that participated in interviewing Michael Bennet, and at that time during his interviews he was committed to staying as superintendent in Denver Public Schools for five years… I kind of feel like he used the superintendent’s job to create a name for himself as a stepping stone to move on into politics, and that’s exactly what happened. So, that’s how I perceive Michael Bennet.

      NORRIS: Let’s ask a hypothetical question, if Andrew Romanoff loses to Bennet, to Michael Bennet in the primary, what do you think of that? What have you heard?

      MELISSA: I have heard that some, I’ve heard from many people that they will not vote in that race.

      BARBARA: Or that they’ll vote Republican, lifelong Democrats, who said they will… teachers in Denver, have said they will not vote for Michael Bennet, they will vote for a Republican before they will vote for Michael Bennet.

      (note: I do not advocate voting

      Republican – this just reflects another individual’s opinion about Michael Bennet)

      • Steve Harvey says:

        I attended a house party for Michael last week that was very well-attended, almost entirely by DPS administrators and teachers. Using anecdotal evidence to argue what is essentially a statistical or general position is disingenuous and meaningless. Some teachers who worked under him support him, some oppose him, as would be the case regardless of his merits or defects.

        • Rainidog says:

          support Andrew and some don’t.  And some sectors of Labor support Andrew and some don’t. Although I doubt that any union members would be stupid enough to say they’d vote for the Republican if their preferred Dem didn’t win the primary!

          You have called it, Steve.  In my estimation  at least 90% of Wade’s pronouncements are disingenuous, and these days, about 50% are downright dishonest.  

      • who said they didn’t know how many many is. But many said that many is really big. And many said that many means not many at all. Frankly, either way, I don’t know how many to believe and how many not to believe.

        Sheesh!

      • butterfly says:

        I didn’t watch the entire video but if you noted the most important part in your “quote” then there is nothing of substance in that video that would justify not voting for Bennet. Just childish behavior there.  Circumstances change.  If someone wanted to stay in public service (which is what superintendent of schools is) and an opportunity came up for a job that they would enjoy more, I bet the teachers in the video would have done the same thing.  Maybe their whining and childish behavior is a reason to leave DPS.

        This honestly doesn’t sound or look like the AR that I used to know, a little.  I think that he has to be getting some bad advice from someone on his staff who is/are badgering him to run negative ads, even when they are not truthful.  

        Has anyone actually checked out the details around AR selling his house?  With the market the way it is, it seems a little strange that he could sell his house with apparent ease and with an agreement that he could stay in the house until after the election.  If he loses the election, will the house suddenly be unsold?  Just seems somewhat fishy to me.

      • BlueCat says:

        You can also find plenty of teachers who are for him.  This “proves” absolutely nothing, just like AR’s despicable ads prove nothing except how low he’ll go. And you know what?  Those teachers who fight every reform tooth and nail,  who seem to be concerned with their collective privileges to the exclusion of what’s best for our students (definitely not saying that is true of most teachers) have not exactly endeared teacher’s unions to the public in general.

  5. Whiskey Lima JulietWhiskey Lima Juliet says:

    Not a bad thing actually, everyone who runs for office has that ego.  The bad thing is everyone who knows Andrew now feels different about him.  He is losing all of his accomplishments of being an outstanding guy on a race he has long since lost.  He should have ran for Governor.  He may not have been the Senator, but at least he would have still been respected and young.  Anything can happen at that point.

    Look, as much I would like to believe that money doesn’t matter.  Michael’s war chest is just too big for Andrew to battle it.  There is no one he can will this.  And selling his house just makes him look really desperate to me, even if he was going to sell it anyway to move on to greener grass. An extra $325K compared to over $2.6 million on hand.  If Michael wanted to make Andrew’s life a living hell with ads, he could easily do so.

    • The realistThe realist says:

      and my respect for him just increases, the more I hear him speak.

      We have the best US Senate money can buy – and look at what a failure it is as an institution.  As long as we continue to elect/appoint people in the same way – i.e. that it takes millions to become a Senator – we will not get a different result.  The Senate is nonfunctional – it is truly frightening to me that that body would be worthless to us in a national emergency.  

      • butterfly says:

        You dear sir/ma’am, have fallen for the GOP propaganda!

        Talk to the Republicans AND/OR elect more Democrats if you want even more successes.

        Only electing more Dem Senators will get a really functional Senate at this point when the Republicans even vote NO on bills that they helped write and that is very much along the lines of bills that they have always voted for in the past.

        At this point in our history, the GOP is out only for the GOP (and their multinational cohorts).  They are absolutely NOT for Country First.

        They are willing to stall the economy, maybe even to the point of it not being able to recover and going into a Depression just to try to make it look like the Dems aren’t getting anything done in the Senate so everyone should vote for them… Vote for Republicans so that they can immediately go back to the Bush policies that got us into this mess, none of the good policies that have gotten thru the Senate will get funded, including health care, and impeachment hearings will begin the first week of 2011!  Just ask Darrell Issa or Michele Bachmann!

        Actually the Senate is not completely nonfunctional.  The last 1.5 years has been the most productive since FDR.  It doesn’t seem that way since everything is a very hard uphill battle, but that is the truth.

        http://www.tnr.com/print/artic

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/

        http://www.blackamericaweb.com

        http://www.npr.org/templates/s

        Some of the comments on this one are worth reading.

        http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme

        http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/

        Harry Reid may take a lot of flak but he has worked really hard to make all of this happen, especially with the current pack of GOPers to contend with.  A few better Dems would also make his life easier.  I am surprised that he isn’t so exhausted that would rather sit on the porch in Searchlight, Nevada and watch the sunset.

        So… think about what propaganda the GOP is putting out and how that is affecting you.  Then, think of ways that that propaganda can be blunted so that more people see through it!

        Your country may depend on it!

        • butterfly says:

          I believe that the immigration issue, brought to extreme intensity by the Gov. of AZ & the GOP (this includes the GOP political party and their boss FoxNews)outrage over immigration is for the express purpose of 1) ginning up the base and 2) giving President Obama one more very difficult issue to deal with.  

          There is no way that immigration reform will pass in this period of anger and hate, so they think that that fact will make President Obama look bad.  Nevermind that GWB was not able to get immigration reform passed during a time with a much more reasonable congress… don’t think of that, look over here, look over there!  It is all a setup, and turning out to be a very expensive setup for AZ.

          Here are some thoughts from E.J. Dionne on propaganda & related topics (you might find this and last Monday’s columns interesting http://voices.washingtonpost.c

          The outpouring from progressives reflects the depth of their frustration over the long-term success of the right-wing in pushing not only its arguments but also its false claims into the mainstream media. There are two issues here. One has to do with the mainstream media’s willingness to accept conservative frames on ongoing controversies. The other has to do with the right’s ability to push entirely untrue allegations into the mainstream discussion, on the infinitely elastic theory that “if people are talking about it, we have to cover it.”

          The article is quite long and covers commenters questions/comments well.

        • The realistThe realist says:

          I’m not a Republican, never have been, never will be.

          And unless I move to a different state (I’ve lived in Colorado since 1965, so not likely), I can’t do much to elect additional Dems to the US Senate – Colorado has two.

          • butterfly says:

            I meant it for you because of this comment you made:

            The Senate is nonfunctional – it is truly frightening to me that that body would be worthless to us in a national emergency.  

            That is where I think that the GOP propaganda has influenced you.

            I agree that the GOP works for the GOP and not for America.  Maybe we need more Anthony Wieners to throw fits at them.  It is interesting to note that King, after asking his colleagues to vote No, voted Yes on the bill.  I would like to see more telling of the GOP what is what in the Senate.  

            And you could actually help elect more Dem Senators.  You can do this by doing calls to other states from OfA or getting involved in MoveOn or Democracy for America or ActBlue or many other organizations.  You would just need to make sure that you are aware of the issues and candidates in that state.

            • The realistThe realist says:

              I’m not at all influenced by the Repubs or by Republican-lite Bennet supporters.  I’m influenced by the reality of a nonfunctional Senate.  The Dem majority there has allowed the Party of NO to stop them in their tracks on a number of key issues, including improving disclosure during campaigns, and climate change legislation.  

              Public opinion of the job Congress is doing is in the low 20-percent range, and in some cases below 20-percent:   http://www.realclearpolitics.c

              The Dems have the majority but are not viewed by the electorate as doing a very good job running the federal government.  We can’t expect different results if we keep doing things the same way.

              I’m not particularlly interested in working for candidates in another state.  I’m working for Dem candidates here in Colorado – always have (including during the several times I ran for office myself).

              • Steve Harvey says:

                that anyone has ever accused me of being “Republican Lite.” The first time was when I was a sociology grad student who started to look at microeconomic modelling, instead of adhering to the neo-Marxist ideology that prevailed among grad students in the department.

                It’s a complex and subtle world, and we are imperfect beings muddling along. None of us has all the answers. None of us has the silver bullet that solves all social problems. It’s an ongoing challenge, which benefits from a bit of humility as well as from a commitment to doing the best we can.

                That I’ve come to different conclusions than you have, that I favor a different candidate based on my own careful consideration, does not make me inferior, or less committed to the advancement of human welfare. I may be wrong in my conclusions; I may be right. But I am guided by one principle and one principle only: To the best of may ability, how can I make my own marginal contribution to increasing the robustness, sustainability, and fairness of our social systems, always placing a far higher priority on improving the welfare of those who are most in need than on those who are least in need, while recognizing that we live in a non-zero-sum world, and that the most effective answers are not always the most intuitively obvious ones.

                We don’t have to villify each other. We don’t have to pretend that any one of us has figured it all out, and all those who don’t agree must be either malicious or ignorant. Certainly, malice and ignorance exist, and sometimes they are plain to see. But supporting Bennet in this primary is evidence of neither.

                • The realistThe realist says:

                  that anyone has ever accused me of being “Republican Lite.”

                  If you take another look, you’ll see not only that I was responding to butterfly not you, but also, I did not say every Bennet supporter was Republican-lite.  Funny isn’t it, on this site Romanoff has been accused of being the conservative of the two (DLC = bad), but in reality Bennet has been more Republican in his votes than Romanoff ever was.  

                   

                  • Steve Harvey says:

                    I read “Republican-lite Bennet supporters” as an adjective modifying all members of the group encompassed by the noun, and, as one such member, interpreted it as an adjective applying to me as well. Since it can also be interpeted as an adjective qualifying the noun, and therefore describing some subset of its members, we’ll call it a draw. 🙂

                    I don’t know who’s more liberal or conservative between the two, and I don’t care. All I care about is who is most likely to help advance the best policies in service to the values I already identified.

                    (Does this mean that I don’t get to count your comment any more as one of the times I’ve been accused of being “Republican Lite”?)

              • butterfly says:

                You say:

                The Dems have the majority but are not viewed by the electorate as doing a very good job running the federal government.  We can’t expect different results if we keep doing things the same way.

                “The Dems have the majority but are not viewed by the electorate as doing a very good job”.  Actually the Dems are doing one heck of a job!  It is the GOP propaganda machine that has so many of the electorate viewing them as not doing a very good job.  And tragically, this will not improve one iota when even the Dems fall for the propaganda.

                This reminds me of an entry on ThinkProgress a couple months ago.  The author referred to the Dems as “the minority”.  I emailed them and commented on the entry that it was no wonder the Dems didn’t always act like they were in the majority when even ThinkProgress called them the minority.

                ThinkProgress can also be a victim of GOP propaganda!  ThinkProgress would probably deny this also but that is the best propaganda, when it registers in the sub-conscious, where it is difficult to bring it out into a logical discussion.  

                http://www.politifact.com/trut

                Roosevelt and the Progressives, nicknamed the Bull Moose Party

                Both confirmed that in 1912, when the former Republican president was running as a Progressive Party candidate for what would have been his third term (after a four-year break), the party advocated national health insurance in its platform .

                I know that the HCR bill could be a lot better, and it will be better with time UNLESS the Repubs regain control of either house.  But health care on the agenda since 1912??  I consider that progress in 2010, finally!  That is just one example but a BIG example.

                Please, review this article and try to make it fit with your saying “The Dems have the majority but are not viewed by the electorate as doing a very good job”.  

                http://www.washingtonpost.com/

                And the WashPost article is from Jan 29, 2010… lots has happened since then!

                I wish that we had a much more persuasive PR machine to beat back the GOP propaganda!

                The whole GOP agenda from Nov. 4, 2008 was to present the Dems as not being able to get things done.  That has stuck, even though it is very much not true.  When they said that they wanted Obama to fail, they meant it and if it was not actually true, they would find ways to make people think it was true.  

                WE need to broadcast the successes from the rooftops every day, not retreat.

    • To say that everyone who knows him now feels differently.

      I do feel differently about him in the sense that every day, every minute I want him to be a US Senator more than I did before.  

      • AristotleAristotle says:

        Can you imagine voting for anyone else who put out an ad like this?

        • And he has been doing far worse than anything the Romanoff campaign has put out.  

          • AristotleAristotle says:

            Bennet hasn’t sunk to the level of this ad, although I’m open to arguments that he has. And I specifically mean within the scope of this primary campaign.

            • Push polling that’s saying that Romanoff is the equivalent of George Bush?

              Or what about sending his attack dog to a Romanoff press conference?

              Or what about his supporters claiming that Romanoff is a racist, when he was the only one who denounced the Arizona laws?

              Or what about him allowing Romanoff to take the blame for the WH screw up when he was the one asked for Romanoff to be taken out of the way in the first place. That was pretty low.

              Or even when his staffers (who aren’t even from Colorado in the first place) mock elderly people and insult not only Andrew, but his supporters as well at public events.

              That’s just to start.  

          • Rainidog says:

            Do you have anything but your own emotion to back up your claim?

          • Gilpin Guy says:

            is that Romanoff has stopped talking about the Democratic agenda and Democratic solutions.

            It is all about saying the other guy is worse than my guy instead of this is how we see moving the progressive agenda forward.  

            Oz commits this fallacy with this post and it is truly a sad commentary on the Romanoff supporters that in the final days of this primary this is all they talk about.

            Romanoff had the microphone and could have talked about protecting our environment from future BP accidents.  He could have used his campaign to discuss various ways to get the economy moving again.  I’m sure that his supporters will say that he did but his ads say that he is just another Republican hoping to win with the politics of personal destruction.

            • He talks about those things all the time, at meet and greets, at press conferences, on his website, his facebook page. Just because you stick your head in the sand anytime he talks because logic may set in, that doesn’t mean that he isn’t saying it.

              I defend him from attacks, and now all of a sudden that is all I talk about? Let’s talk, let’s talk about his strong background in being able to work with people across the aisle, let’s talk about the numerous people who have never voted for a Democrat before, but would vote for him. Let’s talk about his grassroots support and the fact that he won the state assembly by 21 points. Or what about any of these… http://www.andrewromanoff.com/

              • parsingreality says:

                Since I can’t vote in the primary I don’t have much dog in this fight.  Just some opinion. I’ve read many hundreds of posts of all levels of support and of criticism.  I’ve tried to read most of them objectively.

                The complaints of the Bennet supporters are valid: All “you” do is tell us AR is such a great guy (no one thinks otherwise, really).  

                And here it is done again.  

                So, what, really, are the differences?  

    • BlueCat says:

      If some really consider his camapign to be that of an honorable person, many of us don’t. I guess we’ll see on August 10th whether he’s done more damage to Bennet or to himself. Bennet supporters need to give it their all and may the best man, Bennet by light years, win.  

  6. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    However, I also think it’ll be effective. It speaks to one of the big things people are upset about.

    I wish Romanoff hadn’t done this. But this seems to be what is done now if the race is close. I think Norton/Buck has descended to this level too.

    Sad but true that people respond better to negative advertising.

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      That’s a remarkable passive construction there, David. You make it sound like it’s a fact of nature of an act of God. It isn’t.

      I’ll ask again, does anyone believe Romanoff’s campaign wouldn’t have been entirely different if he’d hired a different chief strategist, instead of Joe Trippi?  

      • Ralphie says:

        When you start from way behind, the great equalizer is slime.

        I think Andrew would have had to run a scorched earth campaign no matter who was at the helm.

        • BlueCat says:

          Scorched earth is all he ever had since he never had real policy differences and they are both the kind of centrist Dems who can win statewide.   That’s  why he never should have asked us to fire the incumbent for him in the first place. The sorry state of his campaign was all too predictable from the sorry, whiney start.  It was, from the beginning, a campaign conceived in a tantrum. I’m optimistic it will not stand.

  7. Charlie3637 says:

    I called Romanoff’s campaign office yesterday after viewing the ad and told them Romanoff had crossed a line, in my opinion.  AR has promoted himself as a politician we can respect and trust.  This ad speaks loudly to how badly AR wants the nomination.  If being a US Senator is so important to Mr. Romanoff that he is willing to denigrate the character of a decent man, then he does not deserve to be a U.S. Senator. We can debate policy differences between the two candidates, but to blatantly lie in an inflammatory attack ad is the worst of politics, and clearly all too common.  It is also an insult to all of us who vote and want to believe that somehow democrats are a better breed.

    • Ralphie says:

      But there really are none.

      • I gently demur. Although the candidates themselves seem pretty close in their  policy positions, policy decisions in Washington will be quite different, depending on which one we send into the fray. As the referenced Post article amply demonstrates, one of these candidates has an astonishing, if not admirable, knowledge of and ability in the world of rapacious greed capitalism. I want someone in the Senate who understands it, since I don’t. Now, if Bennet has a banker friendly streak in his background, it’s our job to help him temper it. Neither Benner nor all banks are as evil as Romanoff folks make them out to be. I’m optimistic. Bennet is no longer employeed by Anschutz; he’s employeed by us. I think he gets it. And I want someone in Washington who knows what he’s doing on our behalf.

        Not only that, but the way Romanoff has run his campaign…a pretty big difference. And the real prize is Washington, not just the November ballot.

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          I think you make a very good point about the differences that do and don’t exist. I’m less hopeful that Bennet has learned to not be so deferential to the banks, but you could be right.

          And if Bennet wins and takes away as the main lesson of how close Romanoff comes that he does need to put the people ahead of the banks, then this primary will have been so worth it.

          • Good point. Let’s see how close Romanoff comes. I hope it’s really, really close; then I think that’s a lesson Bennet will take away. I’m afraid some Romanoff supporters, if not Romanoff, will take away a different lesson were Romanoff to win, something like: We don’t need to take no damn meds. See? We did it without ’em. (That’s not gratuitous; I really fear for them for the sake of the Colo. Dem party.)

            Yeah, primaries are worth it, contrary to what I originally thought. At the least, they get some of us to sit up and take notice; some of us learn; then we alert friends that aren’t junkies; then, maybe, they spread the interest further. At the most, primaries can be, as are a lot of this cycle’s Colo. races, immensely entertaining.

            Now, if only Colorado could move its primaries up a bit. Anybody know how to do that? Aug 10 doesn’t leave much time to raise more money, patch up differences, cool off, get tough, etc., for the really big, mean, nasty fight ahead. Colorado ain’t blue yet.

            • MADCO says:

              One way is to eliminate the dual system.

              No caucus in a primary year- just the primary.

              No primary in a caucus year- just the conventions

              I’d like to see it in the 3rd week of April.

        • jpsandscl says:

          on BennetPols. And you appear to underestimate Andrew’s grasp of the financial issues bessetting this country.

          In fact, how large an industry is banking to Colorado? I mean I understand it is necessary for all industries, but I think the two banking centers are NY and SF. Why is Bennet on that committee in the first place? How does this directly benefit Colorado? Will he be trying to bring big banking or exchange business to Colorado? Do all Colorado Senators ask for that seat on that committee?

          Aren’t there committees more relevant to Colorado’s economic well-being than banking? I’m thinking maybe appropriations, or armed services, or even veterans affairs. Those are much more applicable to Colorado’s economy than banking.

  8. WendyNorris says:

    Just dropped into my inbox this morning. I’m still convinced this election will be decided over kitchen table issues rather than character assassination ads. Nice pivot by the Bennet camp.

    Bennet for Colorado

    Dear Wendy —

    My husband, Senator Ted Kennedy, made health care the cause of his life.

    Teddy’s lifelong fight to make health care affordable and accessible for every American took a giant leap forward this year thanks to strong advocates like Michael Bennet — who was critical to passing comprehensive health care reform.

    Now, as the critical votes begin to determine how these new laws are implemented and what future improvements are made, Teddy would be delighted to know that Michael Bennet has taken his place on the Senate Committee that will lead the way.

    We need Senators like Michael fighting for us, and to make sure in the coming years we build upon and improve what we’ve already started.

    If you agree — and want to see more progress — join me in supporting Michael by contributing $5 today.

    Ted was often called the “lion” of the Senate, because when something was the right thing to do, he never gave up. He built a reputation of being able to put politics aside and bring his colleagues together to work on the big issues, like education.

    Michael has quickly become a leader on education in the Senate, using his experience in schools to bring a sense of urgency and clarity to the effort to improve our schools. He knows to change the odds of academic success for our kids, we need to do a better job of supporting our teachers. That’s why he’s sponsoring a new bipartisan bill to ensure every student has access to a safe and effective learning environment.

    I’m so proud of the work Teddy accomplished in his career — and am always encouraged when I see new Senators stepping up, and taking on the work he left behind.

    Help Michael continue this critical work — make a contribution now of $5 to support his campaign.

    I wish I could say that my husband’s fight to make quality health care and a strong education accessible for all Americans was over, but I know it’s not.

    The fight goes on — and for that, I’m glad to have Senator Michael Bennet fighting for all of us.

    Sincerely,

    Vicki Kennedy

    Join us on Facebook Join us on Twitter

    Click here to unsubscribe

    Click here to manage your profile

    Bennet for Colorado

    P.O. Box 3078, Denver, CO 80201

    Paid for by Bennet for Colorado

  9. StrykerK2 says:

    You attack Romanoff with your normal vigor, but don’t actually explain why you think anything in the ad is untrue.  

    Also, since apparently it’s now ok to link to that paper again if you use a URL minimizer, I couldn’t help but notice that you don’t include the article yesterday that talks about Bennet’s years as a corporate raider for Anschutz.

    So…the same paper runs a long investigative story that supports the facts of the ad, and an editorial from the board that doesn’t.

    I’m shocked…shocked I tell you about which you chose to include.

    • Ralphie says:

      From the diary:

      That’s way beyond a negative ad because it’s factually wrong.

      I’d call that factually disputing the ad.

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      read that article you link to. It doesn’t support “the facts” of Romanoff’s ad at all. It’s a rather meticulous take-down of Romanoff’s ad. But you have never seemed to score high on reading comprehension.

      • StrykerK2 says:

        It has a lot of really good facts.  Like this:

        A Moody’s rating analyst in 2004 downgraded Regal’s debts because of the huge payouts to shareholders, saying, “It’s pretty mind-boggling to me that this company, recently out of bankruptcy, will pay out $1.6 billion.”

        Those “huge payouts” would be to Anschutz and Bennet.

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          Sometimes a raid is good, sometimes not. But what occurred here is Anschutz risked a couple of hundred million to acquire and restructure 3 companies. If his attempt failed, he would be out that money. If it worked, he makes a profit.

          Without that profit, raiders would not step in. And in this case, that could have easily led to really awful bankruptcies for all three companies that would have put a lot more people out of work.

          The workings of the market are not always pretty even when the results are good.

        • BlueCat says:

          like showing only the portion of the Sherrod speech where she talks about having a problem helping whites. But there is no point arguing with you and besides, you think I’m really dumb.  So I’ll just say, Aug.10 will tell us who the majority of Dem primary voters trust more. Until then, not much point in continuing to engage with you and I’m sure you’ll be happy not to engage with a dummy like me. Bu-bye.

        • Mind-boggling, as in amazing, Stryker. My mind, too, was boggled, upon reading the article carefully, at Bennet’s amazing success using his knowledge and skills while working for (that means, receiving a paycheck from) a rapacious greed capitalist. The guy’s got what it takes. I’ve received a paycheck or two from assholes. Doesn’t mean I’m one. Well, that all by itself doesn’t mean I’m one.

          • Steve Harvey says:

            (because one of the things that I think increases the credibility of a position is the ability to aknoweldge that not all things in the universe necessarily conspire to prove that it is the one irrefutable truth), and admit that the choice to make money by serving the interests of a “greedy, rapacious capitalist” could be relevent, if one comes to the conclusion that the person doing so was willing to serve their own interests at the expense of the public interest. I’m not saying that that argument is very convincing in this case, but I do think that it’s an argument someone can legitimately make.

            • I believe we all serve our own interests. I’ve seen nothing in these arguments, which center on the theater deals, that prove Bennet, in serving Anschutz in a paid position and serving his own payday gain, did so at the expense of the public interest. In fact, as the analysis in the Post pretty well lays out, there was quite general gain: devidends, increased employment, successful business, etc. The one serious and painful public interest expense was the initial layoffs. I won’t be so cheap as to suppose they were all rehired in the subsequent upsizing, but I will assume that they had an opportunity to re-apply. There was no permanent, generally destructive downsizing.

              Also, that said, that was then and this is now. And, although the past could be relevent, especially in the matter of integrity, upon which private gain vs. public interest has bearing, I can’t presume as to why Bennet helped put those deals together other than his boss said to and probably promised him a percentage based bonus. This carried some risk, although, I know, in that realm, what’s a little risk among plutocrats? But still, I can’t impune Bennet’s integrity or his honesty over this deal. I don’t, in the end, think Bennet acted against the public interest.

              But, to stay specific and avoid too many presumptions, Bennet went on, in a career move that can only be described as drastic, to actually serve the public interest, in two consecutive public sector jobs, with some private gain, of course. So, even if, which I do not believe, he once acted against the public interest, now, in Washington, he is progressing from what some here characterize as knee-jerk banksterism toward some quite progressive positions in the public interest, which should be seen as redemption, I would think. So, frankly, I don’t think the Regal Theater rapacious greed capitalism deal or Romanoff’s new ad about it have relevence here, at all. But yes, could. But don’t. But could.

              Sorry, the devil sent a worthy advocate, but I’m unable to yield the specifics. Unable, not unwilling. And PS: I don’t think that anything in the universe conspires to prove that it is the one irrefutable truth. Or that it is not. Jus’ sayin’.

              •  I don’t think the Regal Theater rapacious greed capitalism deal or Romanoff’s new ad about it have relevence to Bennet’s bid, at all. Of course they have relevence to the thread. I apologize for the misrepresentation.

                • Steve Harvey says:

                  Just imagine a world in which people who were staunchly pro-life or pro-choice made a sincere and legitimate effort at some point to argue the opposite position to the best of their ability. Or if atheists and religious fundamentalists each did the same. Anyone who holds a position which has an equally strongly held contrary point of view. Our conversations and debates would be different, more nuanced, more engaged and dynamic and productive.

                  I used to tell my students “if you can’t argue the opposite of what you believe as well as anyone you know of or are able to know of can, then your opinion is a bit arbitrary.” And it’s a cornerstone of legal writing; any lawyer who writes a brief that fails to clearly and completely explore the arguments that are against his client’s interests, has basically committed malpractice.

                  I wish that this were an integral part of our education system, that we were all taught the importance of counterargumentation in the same way that we are taught the importance of other aspects of logical thought. I think we’d be much better off for it.

                  • ClubTwitty says:

                    There is only one right and sound argument for any given issue, usually my own.

                    I kid, just playing the Devil’s Advocate…

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Well played, old sport! (or something like that)

                      But you did trigger another thought: It’s a bit Taoist, or Hegelian, this whole thesis, antithesis, synthesis thing. So, yeah, every “thesis” (including this one) generates its own antithesis, which leads to a new synthesis, which becomes a new theses…, and so on. The road to nirvana!

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      I believe the Taoist idea would be that the synthesis predates the thesis/antithesis (The unnamed begat the singularity which begat the duality which begat the ‘ten thousand things’) or something like that…

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      the taijitu (yin and yang symbol) shows the seed of the opposite inside the culmination of each pole, so that part (the thesis giving birth to the antithesis) still works…, I think.

                      Now don’t you wish I had sent you to the right palapa in Mazatlan? Just think of all the fun we would have had…. 🙂

              • Steve Harvey says:

                The point of Devil’s Advocate isn’t that I’m arguing a position I actually hold, but rather that I’m acknowledging that a legitimate counterargument to the position I hold exists. In order for the exercise to work, you have to try to argue as if you believed the opposite of what you believe, and do so to the best of your ability. Admittedly, this was my exercise and not yours, so I shouldn’t have expected anyone else to play along.

                What you did is what people usually do: You jumped right to insisting that the counterargument doesn’t prove what I agree it doesn’t prove, before acknowledging its range of legitimacy. Assuming we were on the same team, pursuing the same goal, that defeats the point of making the counterargument in the first place.

                Unfortunately, people tend to argue their positions without acknowledging the counterarguments at all, which pushes us more in the direction of shouting matches between strongly held but insufficiently examined opinions, and away from a discussion in search of the more subtle truths that transcend those opinions.

          • Steve Harvey says:

            (because one of the things that I think increases the credibility of a position is the ability to aknoweldge that not all things in the universe necessarily conspire to prove that it is the one irrefutable truth), and admit that the choice to make money by serving the interests of a “greedy, rapacious capitalist” could be relevent, if one comes to the conclusion that the person doing so was willing to serve their own interests at the expense of the public interest. I’m not saying that that argument is very convincing in this case, but I do think that it’s an argument someone can legitimately make.

    • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

      The entire point of this post is about the facts of this ad. Bennet did not loot or steal from companies. Are you really saying otherwise? Are you seriously going to argue that Bennet stole from companies?

      Using lies to smear your opponent is wrong. Period. No matter the campaign or political party. It’s wrong.

      • StrykerK2 says:

        Did Bennet do bad things to people there?  Sure sounds like it:

        A Moody’s rating analyst in 2004 downgraded Regal’s debts because of the huge payouts to shareholders, saying, “It’s pretty mind-boggling to me that this company, recently out of bankruptcy, will pay out $1.6 billion.”

        So Bennet profited.  What about everyone else?

        Lenders and pension funds bled hundreds of millions of dollars in bankruptcy, Anschutz and his boards paid themselves hundreds of millions in dividends, and Bennet made $11.8 million in two years after steps that critics at the time called “outrageous” and that Bennet defended as reward for a risky venture.

        so…yeah.  Sounds like Wall Street Greed won again.

        • RedGreenRedGreen says:

          what the word “looted” means?

        • AristotleAristotle says:

          It may come in the form of taking unfair advantage of others, and if you want to say THAT about Bennet, that’s an argument that stands. But it’s not stealing. That’s hard left hyperbole, and hard left politics is a loser in Colorado.

          AR is catering to the Dem equivalent of the teabaggers. Even if it helps him win the primary, it will haunt him in November and we’ll have a GOP Senator for sure. It will be the fault of AR and of you, and I won’t let you forget it if it comes to pass.

          • Can’t let that “hard left” and “Dem equivalent of the teabaggers” bit pass. I’m way hard left of Romanoff and I’m not being catered to at all. The tone that campaign has set has nothing to do with left or right. In fact it doesn’t address real policy ideology at all.

            As for hard left politics being a loser, yes, it usually is at the ballot box. But it (and hard right) often succeed, in the long run, in redefining the center. Besides, we like to feel smug in our self-righteousness. Now, continue….

        • botw says:

          You don’t think “loot” means rob or steal, Stryker?

          Have you looked it up in, say, Merriam-Webster?

          • StrykerK2 says:

            “wrongfully emptied or stripped anything of value.”

            This was wrong.

            can it also mean “steal?” sure.  But the word has a number of definitions.

          • jpsandscl says:

            as it is more germane to this discussion.

            http://www.time.com/time/magaz

            The whole argument about “looting” and what it means in this context is absurd. One can legally “loot” a company by doing exactly what Bennet and Anschutz did. Take enormous sums of money from the companies coffers and pay themselves very handsome rewards for their bold “risk taking”.

            The real issue is whether we think this kind of behavior is morally acceptable or not. And there are always costs for these actions. Downgrading a companies bond rating costs the company real money in higher interest rates, whether they ever file for bankruptcy in the future or not.

            I work for a company whose owners have done the exact same thing. We employees haven’t seen a raise (not one of us) for three years, but the majority owners cleared billions into their bank accounts by structuring a recapitalization bond issue to pay themselves for their “risk” taking.

            Works well for them, not so much for everyone else. And we still have this debt which will mature in a few years. When does Regal’s debt mature? I wonder how they’ll do then.

            • The realistThe realist says:

              with Bennet’s assistance, is really a core issue in this country.  We used to think it was a Republican point of view, that the wealthy shoud amass greater fortunes, and the rest of us should wait for something to trickle down.  So, is Bennet really a Republican, or have we gotten so out of whack in the US that far more than Republicans are “worshipping” successful greed?

              Anschutz’s huge wealth benefits him, but not the rest of us.  I do not worship or admire people who conduct their business lives in this way.  I do not admire the hundreds of millions of dollars Anschutz made through his financial dealings with the Regal theaters, and I do not admire the $11-plus million that Bennet made on the deal.  I don’t need to debate with anyone what you call it, or whether it was legal or moral – I find it disgusting, and it’s at the core of what’s wrong in this country.

              • The realistThe realist says:

                I found this column by Bob Herbert.  This is a must-read for those who are even mildly interested in what’s happening with corporations, and what’s happening with our struggling workforce:

                http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07

                • jpsandscl says:

                  I think he hits the nail right on the head. One variation on that theme though, and it comes though if you read between the lines, is that profits are up and productivity is way up because there are many salaried workers like myself who have to work an ungodly number of uncompensated overtime hours to keep up with the demands of our jobs. Our employers are fully ready to threaten us with termination if we don’t like it because there are thousands waiting to take those jobs because they have none now.

                  The last time we were in this mess, we had a warrior President who completely understood the dynamic between the fat-cats who controlled everything and the worker who needed their job to simply survive. As he said of the corporatists of his day, he welcomed their scorn and derision. He wore it like a badge of honor.

                  Would that Obama took a page out of FDR’s playbook in this day and age and fought for workers rights and justice with the same vigor!

  10. Splitting Hairs says:

    Too few DEM Primary Voters will actually understand what Anschutz did with Regal, or rather, what he directed Bennett to do for him. In the “business is bad” mentality being fostered by POTUS and Congress, this commercial is close enough to the truth to be perfectly damning. It could seal the deal for a Romanoff victory.

    • The realistThe realist says:

      It looks so much like another example of how the wealthy get wealthier, while the middle class disappears, and the struggles of the poor increase.  Many of us have had substantial reductions in our income due to job loss in the past year or two, and when we finally find another job it pays two-thirds or half of what we made, even as recently as a year ago.  

      In the madness of political dialogue as we approach the Primary, it’s clearly very difficult for people to sort out their misplaced admiration for the wealthy and their understanding that moneyed interests are ruining our federal government.  We worship big money in politics, then wonder why the US Senate is a failure.  We admire the financial shenanigans of the wealthy, then wonder why we’re in a near-Depression.

      People will determine their votes based on what their OWN situation is – if they’ve suffered as a result of the financial games the wealthy have played, they’re going to vote for change.

  11. botw says:

    Romanoff sold is house — literally — so he could run a sickening ad accusing a sitting Senator of stealing.

    This is the last gasp of a campaign that is beneath him, his surrogates, his supporters, and Colorado Democrats.

  12. wbhyde says:

    to see what Shaun Boyd on Ch 4 says about this one.

  13. Michael Bennet has run a lethargic but expensive campaign.  His inexperienced but well paid team changes message almost daily.

    Romanoff with far less money has run the more effective campaign and is now in a very strong position to pull off the upset.  

    Michael Bennet and his team have been whining not winning for weeks.

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      Romanoff has been in total control of what the election is about for the last week or so. When you’re reacting, you’re losing. Bennet has enough of a lead they can still win, but I’ll agree that team Bennet is doing a piss-poor job outside of fund-raising.

  14. ClubTwitty says:

    Ingredients:

    1 cup dry bulgur wheat

    1 1/2 cups boiling water

    1 to 1 1/2 tsp. salt

    1/4 cup fresh lemon juice

    1/4 cup olive oil

    2 med. cloves garlic, crushed

    black pepper to taste

    4 scallions, finely minced (whites & greens)

    1 packed cup minced parsley

    10 to 15 fresh mint leaves, minced

    2 med. tomatoes

    , diced

    OPTIONAL:

    1/2 cup cooked chick peas

    1 medium bell pepper, diced

    1 small cucumber, seeded and minced

    Directions:

    Combine bulgur & boiling water in a medium large bowl. Cover and let stand until bulgur is tender (20-30 mins). Add salt, lemon juice, olive oil, garlic & black pepper & mix thoroughly. Cover tightly & refrigerate until about 30 minutes before serving.

    About 30 minutes before serving, stir in remaining ingredients (including any optionals) and mix well. Serve cold w/ warm wedges of toasted pita bread.  

  15. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    Does it matter? I would vote for David Vitter if it meant reducing unemployment, bringing financial regulation back to 1990 levels, improving K-12 schools, and addressing healthcare costs (don’t freak out about the Vitter example – he’s against all those changes).

    The thing is, I don’t care if a candidate lies, cheats on his wife, or kicks puppies. This country is in a world of hurt right now and we need to fix it.

    Should we talk about the lie in this ad? Yes. But is which candidate lies less egregiously be a key decision-maker? I don’t think so. At this point in time I’ll take a Bill Clinton over a Jimmy Carter.

    • BlueCat says:

      … gee since Dave doesn’t mention either Bennet or Romanoff, I guess a ringing endorsement of the guy he naturally assumes most of us now see as the one with the with the least personal integrity.  Think I’ll take a pass on  your choice, thanks a lot Dave.

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        Are you claiming that Bennet has never lied to us? If so he would be unique among elected officials.

        I also want to see personal integrity in our elected officials. I think it’s important and is a good indicator. But I don’t think this single lie means Romanoff is awful and Bennet is an angel. By all means call Romanoff out for the lie, but don’t claim this single event defines the difference in the two of them.

        • ss says:

          There is lying and there is this. It is like me putting up an advertisement that says AR beat puppies when he was a kid, and some more last year. Pretty sure he didn’t but I guess in your world I can say it in an advertisement.

        • BlueCat says:

          but the cherry on top of a very nasty scorched earth primary campaign in which, by far, the most negative attacks and the least attention to the positives of one’s record of accomplishment is coming from one side, Romanoff’s.  

          I find it interesting that after months of defending your choice of Romanoff on the basis of his superior fastidiousness where taking money is concerned, you now are pretty much falling back on the “all politicians are dirty and he’s no worse than most” defense. But clearly we won’t convince each  other.  

          You are voting for Romanoff and I’ve already voted for Bennet, contributed to him, done a little door to door and  some phone banking for him.  August 10 will tale the tale of who has won the confidence and good opinion of more Dem primary voters. Until then, Dave, at least on this subject.

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

            The campaigns have discussed where the other stands, but have done so fairly up to this point. It has not been a scorched earth campaign up to this point, that is a story that the Bennet campaign has been trying to sell, but that’s not what has happened.

            Yes Romanoff has been negative about some of Bennet’s votes and statements. That is what a challenger must do in a campaign. And it is totally legitimate to call out the actions of the incumbent.

            So this is not “the cherry on top”, this is a single word (looted) where many of us (not all) consider it a lie. And that’s it, that one word.

            I think the Bennet campaign is trying to make a lot more out of this than is warranted. As well they should, it’s a campaign. But that doesn’t mean we have to accept their framing.

            • Steve Harvey says:

              that the debate was less over who is more evil, and more over who is more qualified and who has a better chance of winning in the general election. To the extent that anything done in this campaign has been clearly relevant to answering those two questions, fine, draw us a map. Otherwise, let it go.

            • Steve Harvey says:

              that was directed at everybody, not at you.

            • BlueCat says:

              that

              The campaigns have discussed where the other stands, but have done so fairly up to this point. It has not been a scorched earth campaign up to this point, that is a story that the Bennet campaign has been trying to sell, but that’s not what has happened

              There is a widespread belief among Bennet supporters that Romanoff has run the much, much nastier campaign for want of anything else to pin his hopes on.   Don’t bother, Dave.  Of course I know that you disagree.

              What I didn’t know was that you take ColPols and what you allege ColPols has said as your authority. I thought that’s what we Bennet supporters are supposed to be doing with ColPols unfair Bennet bias etc.

              Enough already.  The 10th draws near.  That will settle it. This is getting really tedious, don’t you think?

  16. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    I just got this email (I assume to everyone on their list):

    Dear David

    Ballots for the primary are out in most parts of the state already, and early voting begins on Monday, August 2 for voters who didn’t receive a mail-in ballot.

    The foundation of this campaign from day one has been the tireless work of volunteers and supporters like you. Now it’s time for us to finish the work we started so many months ago: We need to turn out the vote for Michael.

    I’m excited to invite you to a special volunteer conference call with David Plouffe — President Obama’s 2008 campaign manager — this Sunday, August 1, at 7:00 MT.

    Click to RSVP for the call now:

    BennetForColorado.com/*****

    Thank you,

    Adam

    Adam Dunstone

    Campaign Coordinator

    Bennet for Colorado

    My guess is they’re seeing the race getting very close and are calling in more favors.

    • If the Bennet campaign were truly confident, it would be telling people they needn’t bother to vote because this one’s in the bag and all the volunteers can go home.  Instead, they are showing their crazed desperation by continuing to organize volunteers.  Poor suckers.

    • wade norris says:

      at the State Capitol, no less,

      if you are not really concerned about your chances –

      Bennet had one today – and the ratio of Romanoff supporters to Bennet supporters was 2 to 1 – much like the State Assembly.

      the real question  – what happens to all that money Bennet has when he loses the Primary?

      • MADCO says:

        Bennet banks it for the next race.

        Bennet has a killer end of campaign party.

        Bennet gives it back to donors.

        Why are you so worried about the money?

        If AR wins, he will have demonstrated that he doesn’t need it.

  17. donscottknox says:

    When poster Colorado Pols uses the word we (example here) …

    we still think Bennet will ultimately win

    … does it mean that Colorado Pols is more than one person?

    Just curious.

  18. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    I think the discussion on this diary has been one of the best ever here on Pols. Good times!

  19. Gilpin Guy says:

    is that Romanoff as the challenger had a duty to the party to not split it and in my opinion he has failed miserably at keeping that promise.  How can Romanoff supporters who have been told for the last six months that Bennet is a bad person turn around in 60 days and vote for him.  Instead of going into a tough general in an off year election united and talking about Democratic solutions against the No Solutions party my feeling the Romanoff supporters will slink away blaming Bennet and his money for a Romanoff defeat.  Romanoff had an obligation to toe line and talk about the issues and chose the Republican approach.  He has done a terrible thing to my party and he did for his ego.  What a jerk.

    • parsingreality says:

      Like, what’s the choice?

      Not voting for the office?  Who’s THAT going to hurt? The disgruntled when the Republican wins.

      But I understand your take.  There are probably more than a few AR supporters that won’t vote for Bennett since they apparently want a Republican Senator.  

      Let’s hope said supporters don’t number past a couple of thousand.  Don’t forget, at this time in the process it’s the hard cores paying attention, not average Dems.  

  20. Murph says:

    He was a good legislator and speaker.

    But no more.  

    It’s not just this ad.  He threw a little hissy fit when the Governor didn’t appoint him to the Senate.  Promised not to go negative, then bashed Bennet in a misleading and hypocritical campaign finance ad.  Now, in his latest ad, outright LIES in a desparate attempt to close the gap.  

    I’m done with you, Andrew.  Not just in this primary, but always.

    • Steve Harvey says:

      I hope you reconsider. Andrew is still a very talented and charismatic leader, who wants to make a career contributing to the agenda we all share. No matter how harshly you judge him for this campaign, the quest for progress doesn’t benefit from too quickly ostracizing those who are too imperfect. We are all fallible, all imperfect. But we fare better when we exercise more rather than less tolerance, more rather than less patience, more rather than less inclusiveness, and try to ensure that everyone of us, despite our foibles, is best able to contribute their talents and energy to the cause of advancing our shared welfare.

      Look at all Bill Clinton contributed, despite his very real personal defects. Are Andrew’s current foilbles in service to his ambitions really so much more horrible?

      People screw up all the time, in ways far worse than this. I wouldn’t want for Colorado and the Democratic Party to lose his talent and energy; we’d just be cutting off our nose to spite our face. Less anger, and more focus, would serve us well.

      • ThillyWabbit says:

        After campaigning on a gay rights agenda.

        That’s what he contributed to me. What did he contribute to you?

        • Steve Harvey says:

          more committed to reason than to ideology; the beginning of a still growing popular association of the Democratic Party as the fiscally and economically more literate and responsible party; a momentary and partial withdrawal from the horrors of the Moral Majority (the very robust and danderous theocratic movment in this country) and all that they stood for. I’m sorry he didn’t give you what you wanted, but I think he did what he was able to do, when he was able to do it, and did so with considerably above average political deftness.

          • ThillyWabbit says:

            Didn’t find it particularly reasonable.

            Those of us who worked the past 20 years to undo the damage that Bill Clinton did when he threw us under the bus don’t call it “deftness.”

            • Steve Harvey says:

              Neither your nor my opinion of Bill Clinton had any relevance to the point I was making, or to any discussion anyone else was having. I used Clinton, who is generally held in high esteem by most Democrats, as an example. You don’t hold him high esteem. Fine.

        • parsingreality says:

          …..but to believe that Clinton did not impact you, directly or indirectly, in some positive ways is impossible.

          I happen to believe that DADT was an appropriate step towards gay civil rights.  It certainly was better than AT (Ask, Tell.)

          It would be great if in some morally perfect world civil rights would spring forth full blown with the first effort.  LBJ was a pragmatist and at first blush, a racist back in 1948.  But he knew he wouldn’t get elected or reelected if he pulled out all of the stops right away.  So he took the baby steps and less than twenty years later is signing the two landmark civil rights bills of this country.

          “Keep your eye on the prize.”  

          • ThillyWabbit says:

            impacted me positively, indirectly, in some ways. That doesn’t mean I hold him up to be some great man despite a few “foibles.”

            Witch hunts and dischargees went up under DADT. Ergo it is most certainly not “better than AT.”

            There were people who genuinely thought the Treaty of Versailles was a giant step forward for Europe, as it capped the war to end all wars.

  21. Finally Romanoff connects the dots on Banker Bennet and the Denver ruling class hits the ceiling.  Toast editorial, Vince Carroll.. blah, blah, blah.

    Bennet made hundreds of millions for Anschultz and millions himself manipulating the bankruptcy code.  Along the way thousands of low paid workers and bond holders lost their jobs and savings.

    When it comes time to spread some of the bankruptcy love to homeowners, Bennet votes against cram down.

    Now it’s Banker Bennet taking over a million $’s in corporate and Wall Street money as voters make a decision on who will best represent their interests in DC.

    Game over.

    • MADCO says:

      You know that now you have to repat them over and over and over for anyone to believe them, right?  Could you at least start a new diary?

      • ThillyWabbit says:

        And ol S&B is still on beginner beginner blog school. Just comments until the training pants come off.

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        I don’t agree with some of it, but it’s a mix of reasonable interpretation and clear facts. Your interpretation is different from the post (mine too). But I don’t see any clear falsehoods in it.

        I also think it’s a way of presenting Bennet’s background that will resonate with a lot of voters. And if he wins the primary, this will get repeated a lot in the general (from the Republican side which will be bizarre).

        Anyways, if there was a clear lie in it, please point it out.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          I think that Silver & Blue also forgot to mention that Bennet eats baby brains raw and sucks the marrow out of the bones with a straw.

          And Bennet is in cahoots with Al-Queda to brainwash Americans into believing that 9/11 never happened.

          And Bennet gets corn holed by Wall Street bankers every day and enjoys it.

          Who could vote for such a terrible person when you have White Knight Romanoff a “new” kind of politician to vote for.

          Not

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

            MADCO said that silverandblue’s post was lies. I’m just asking, what in it was a lie? This diary is about Romanoff unfairly characterizing Bennet’s words. So shouldn’t we hold the comments to the same standard?

            Anyways the question remains, what in silverandblue’s comment was a lie?

        • MADCO says:

          to say Bennet did anything by  “manipulating the bankruptcy code.”  He managed the AI investment in three entities through their BK filing and emergence.

          It’s like saying you maipulate the software market in order to be profitable.  You created a product for sale and you sell it.  Neither Anshutz Inc nor Bennet altered the Bk code.  It was a pretty standard BK.

          It’s a lie to say that “along the way thousands of low paid workers and bond holders lost their jobs and savings.”

          Hundreds of workers lost their jobs – the only way you get to thousands is by counting the locations that were closed before they were ever opened.  It would be like you counting as lost all the workers you haven’t yet hired.

          The Bond holders took over the company. It was the equity (stockholders) who lost and that wasn’t Bennet/AI – that was the former management who drove it into BK by expanding too fast and taking on too much debt.

          It’s a lie to call Bennet a banker.  He wasn’t and isn’t.

          It’s like wise a lie to say anything is over.

          And realizing it’s’ “just a figure of speech” it offends me to call the election a “game.”

          • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

            I’ll give you “manipulating the bankruptcy code” although I have heard the term manipulating used when discussing business law. It is at a minimum slanted.

            On the thousands vs hundreds, I was not aware it was not thousands. So yes, a clear lie.

            On the losses to bondholders (and they did lose some), I didn’t read that as Bennet caused it, just that he profited and they lost, which is true. That’s what happens in the markets, there are winners and losers.

            And the term “Banker Bennet” I take as her attribution of Bennet’s votes. You can disagree, but I think that falls squarely in the area of opinion.

            So I’ll agree 1½ lies. And thank you for clarifying.

            • MADCO says:

              The bondholders got all the assets in the BK, at which point they either stuck around or took buyouts they were happy with.  Can’t call that a loss unless it was an actual loss- and no one knows who got what and Anshutz doesn’t publish those kinds of details.

              There was no “manipulation” of the BK code nor the court. Negotiation. Mediation. Corporation. Sure.  Manipulation of the code says that the code itself was changed- by Bennet/AI. That’s not true- ie, a lie.

              The employment numbers are a harder number to clarify and even quantify.  Sure, we can all agree to count FTE (there are a lot of part time employees in the theater biz)

              But how do you count a theater that was in “soft open” with 6 FTE that was closed?  What if it was sold to another operator?

              It’s a hard thing to measure- and the 2400 that gets thrown around is almost surely not FTE, but it definitely miscounts workers who were going to lose their job anyway by misattributing it to Regal/AI .  And it miscounts by counting people at theaters thatnever should have been built, that weren’t really open yet and were closed.

              I agree it’s an easy smear- just look at how many AR supporters here are nuts about it.   Though that is perhaps unfair- Wade seems to think that because once, somewhere, someone got defrauded in swap transaction,  all interest rate hedging should be outlawed.  Since most reasonably informed observers would characterize that as unnecessary and based on ignorance, perhaps the AR supporters going nuts here are not a fair representation.  

          • Pre-packaged bankruptcies?  Like the one’s available to homeowners?

            It was thousands of jobs lost.  Look at the SEC filings for Regal http://phx.corporate-ir.net/ph…  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.