CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 28, 2009 05:00 PM UTC
83 Comments
Loading ...
….Bennet just got a pretty sweet gift (from of all people) Senator John McCain:
McCain, Bennet on front line to turn vets into teachers
WASHINGTON – Sens. John McCain and Michael Bennet want to put more battlefield veterans in classrooms as teachers, teaming up as a seasoned senator with military expertise and a freshman lawmaker who was superintendent of Denver Public Schools.
But in co-sponsoring a bipartisan bill known as Troops to Teachers, McCain, R-Ariz., is also handing Bennet, D-Colo., a potential campaign plum, an unusual move given McCain’s role recruiting GOP front- runner Jane Norton to race against the vulnerable Democratic appointee.
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
My personal feelings aside, this is a GREAT issue to trumpet when on the campaign trail – I’m Sen Bennet, and I love teachers and the troops!
Working with Republicans on issues we can all agree on obviously indicates he can’t be trusted!!!!!!111!!
ANSCHUTZZZZ!!!
HE’S A CLOSET REPUBLICAN!!! THIS PROVES IT!!
is what it’ like to have closet Rs – where can we get some more?
No self-respecting politician today would dare work with someone from the opposing party. Party loyalty has to mean something, dammit!
This is an area where sane Republicans like John McCain can find common ground with Democrats. This is an elected official working across the aisle with someone on an issue that actually makes sense.
Polis, on the other hand, is publicly siding with Lamborn and Coffman on the core issue our government is focused on right now.
Bennet is being the anti-Lieberman.
With Bennet number 4 on the Wall Street love list, will the Boardroom Bandit take on the credit card companies?
denver & the west
Udall, Markey take on credit card companies
By Michael Riley
The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
Yes that’s it.
but I still look askance at anyone working with John McCain.
n/t
Mark Udall
Ted Kennedy
Gary Hart
We want a system where people from across the spectrum work together – and that means working with people that on other issues you violently disagree with.
McCain will dump on vets again.
Then Bennet won’t have to work with him.
I’ve found in many communities that I seek to organize that he has made heavy footprints before me.
He leads.
Or are you being paid by Bennet to say these things?
I know you didn’t write that amazing Lieberman joke for free. That’s gold.
I think it’s funny too. Bennet has to stay in line or else he’ll give Andrew Romanoff more of an opening. But if he’s elected he’ll follow Ritter, Salazar and yes Lieberman.
I’m just askin’, you know?
Do you ever remove the sand you have pounded up your ass?
And you’ve consistently proven that fact with your posts.
I don’t think you get the joke. And I must have missed Romanoff’s big announcement wherein he broke with Salazar & Ritter and decided to oppose them and all they stand for. When did Andrew do that exactly?
she doesn’t get.
But she and JO and the rest can keep complaining.
Clearly, they think all that complaining is how you get yourself a perfect candidate, one who thinks and acts just like you.
I’m working to get him elected for free.
and blogging.
I met with a African-American veteran for breakfast just yesterday and he was asking me what Sen Bennet was doing for veterans. It’s an example. Certainly the VA is a concern for that community.
Sen Bennet leads and has a large following in the community that pushes for immigration reform.
I’ve attended an HRC function in shich he pushes for civil rights.
The majority of the communities to which I have access I’ve found that his campaign beat me to the punch. I’m a volunteer organizer. My efforts reinforce I suppose.
He’s the best candidate.
1. Why is it important that the veteran was African-American? All communities are concerned with VA. Unless you were proving how cool you are, hanging with the brothers. I’m confused.
2. You didn’t bother to say what Bennet is doing. You met with a guy for breakfast, he asked questions… and then?
3. Leads in the community that pushes for immigration reform. Again, I don’t think there is a community who doesn’t think a change should be made. Whether it’s a crackdown or completely open, no one wants what we have now.
4. What’s shich?
5. Civil rights… Bennet pushes for those… good. I guess. While I do support civil rights, I find it difficult to say if he’s doing good work without knowing what he’s doing.
Start there, Romanoff will thank you. If you really think Bennet is the best candidate, maybe you should help him by not blogging. Thanks for posting talking points!
Enjoy being a humorless dick much?
That’s my bad, I should’ve kept my virtual mouth shut. You’re right, the post was beautifully written and made perfect sense.
Or maybe I missed the joke.
..from outer space!
Welcome back an’ all!
even if you are wrong an’ all
🙂
Wrong about what? Ray didn’t put any information other than, you know, he totally talks to people in communities where Bennet leads.
Hi, Jam Jam!
…I guess you’re right about that part.
Plus, all is well cuz you got my Gloria Gaynor reference!
1) Not all communities are concerned with the VA- unless you count underfunding it, crippling it and generally ignoring it.
2) To be gramatically correct- Ray did say Bennet is leading.
Lead – as in, influence others to do or think that which they otherwise would not have. It’s a verb and describes what the senator is doing.
Beyond that, Senator Bennet is sponsoring legislation to improve T2T (yay! Good timing for me and – I hope- many others)
3) If leadership is valuable (it is) then the inaction of the past 10+ years indicates there are plenty who don’t want to touch immigration reform. Sure, it polls as a hot button issue, but it doesn’t campaign well.
5) Where is AR on the issues? Civil rights, sure, but everything else too.
Whaaat? How cold you not know? Oh yeah- ’cause he hasn’t said.
Example: http://bennetforcolorado.com/i…
I was made an admininstator of a group of people that work for rights for over 12 million undocumented people lving and working in the USA. Most of the members are individuals that work in the field and they do not appreciate the Speakers special session in 2006.
That’s not criticism. It’s the truth.
1. See my reply to Ray below. There was NO reason to tell us that the vet is African American.
2. By your definition, Bush was a brilliant leader. He inspired a generation to participate in politics.
I’m glad you were able to cite one thing Bennet is doing and I’m glad you’ll benefit. Seriously, that’s not sarcastic. Seriously.
3. Health care reform was considered to have that distinction too. That means until now, we didn’t really want it?
5. I don’t know where Romanoff is, or frankly care. I think you’re right to be irritated that you don’t know.
1) maybe. Two communiteis in one reference… maybe not.
2) Yeah. Sort of like the wasps that keep colonizing my garage force me to remove them every summer. Except I wouldn’t call it leadership. Sort of like when you step in something that needs scraping off your shoe. Except I wouldn’t call it leadership.
3) yep.
We – the electorate- always wanted it. We don’t trust insurance companies. Partly because we don’t trust their product, partly because they’ve earned our distrust. But we;ve lacked the political leadership and political will to do anything since 1964.
I’m working on organizing in that community as well.The Bennet campaign is very happy with my efforts.
Your obvious effort to insult me won’t work.
I’ll keep advocating. It’s having an impact at dispelling the falsehoods put out by many of the Speaker’s supporters.
It is sad, however, that these blogs permit anonymity.
And I don’t care if Romanoff has a good record on immigration reform. You were talking about Bennet, were asked a direct question and didn’t answer it.
Don’t assume that because you aren’t a great blogger, people are against your cause. Learn to write, or don’t do it.
You still didn’t answer the question, only continued to talk about yourself.
PS – I did find the odd reference to a vet being African American a bit… racist. Saying that some of your best friends are black doesn’t help. I’d still like you to explain why you felt you needed to classify like that. Thanks.
as I pointed out yesterday, history is on Bennet’s side. Only one of 17 appointed senator who has sought election in their own right has lost a primary in the last 30 years. Bennet has the cash and is building the reputation and stature to not only win the nomination, but retain the seat next November.
What was the win-loss percentage of the 16 who won primaries?
n/t
“….Of those 21, 4 did not stand for election, 6 were defeated and 11 were elected when they chose to run. One, George Mitchell, was subsequently elected Senate Majority Leader. In short, 65% of appointed senators who chose to seek the office they were appointed to ultimately are elected.
By the way, only one of those appointed senators (Sheila Frahm, a Kansas Republican) who sought the office at election time was defeated in a primary. The others who were defeated lost in a general election match-up. ”
A: Further details would be cool if you got ’em. Or a source if you insist I look it up myself.
Which states?
When?
Why did the appointee lose in the general?
and etc
how these numbers support MB [or AR, for that matter]. A 65% win rate for appointed incumbents is nothing to crow about.
posting the numbers to highlight the primary results….which was the original question we were asked to speculate on in the diary. Incidently, that win rate is 94.2%…not 65%….I’d say that is worthy of a bit of crowing….
I did the math myself.
http://www.senate.gov/artandhi…
As I see it he has had one legislative failure and that is it. He voted against the cram-down and in favor of the banks. His history will sink him and rightfully so.
We are in a new era and the constituents of Colorado are fed up with politicians who vote in favor of their paymasters, corporations. Doesn’t that sound like Lieberman? Perhaps we should call him Michael Bummer in anticipation of a voting record that pleases corporations and leaves the rest of us in the poor house.
Because they all will do something you don’t like.
Because Andrew “DLC” Romanoff is the raving anti-corporate populist we’ve all been waiting for! At least until he goes on the record about anything other than how much he loves Colorado!
But it’s silly to say that he’s going to lose because of that one vote. That’s nonsense.
if Romanoff made it an issue.
If it’s not an issue in the campaign, Romanoff loses. There’s nothing else of substance to criticize Bennet on in a Democratic primary.
but even if Andrew “DLC” Romanoff becomes known as Andrew “Cramdown” Romanoff, this one vote doesn’t have those kind of legs. It only has that possibility if it’s emblematic of a candidate’s disdain for struggling mortgage-holders, and only hysterical conspiracy nuts can connect those dots.
The vote against cramdown was a vote against struggling mortgage-holders, in what was basically the last kind of relief they could expect from the federal government. As far as I know, Bennet hasn’t done anything to help mortgage-holders. So how is that a hysterical conspiracy?
Find a couple people who lost their homes and wouldn’t have if cramdown had passed. Put them in a commercial blaming Bennet, run it for a few weeks, and it hurts a lot.
Because there have to be other dots and there aren’t. I’m as angry about Bennet’s cramdown vote as anyone, but it’s isolated, it isn’t representative of a pattern.
… Unless you buy the absurd argument that every move Bennet makes only confirms he’s a corporatist wolf in progressive sheep’s clothing, in which case there’s nothing he can do, ever, to change your mind.
There are plenty of Senators that are good on some issues and bad on others. On the specific issue of struggling homeowners, Bennet’s bad.
It’s obviously much harder to claim that Bennet hates the poor just based on this vote, but it’s not at all hard to say he doesn’t care about people who can’t pay their mortgages.
I don’t believe Bennet is a bad guy or an enemy of progressives in the way that Senator Palpatine is. And he’s got some progressive credentials that make up for his crappy vote. But it’s hard to say how a single vote can affect your future career.
Hillary Clinton thought voting for the Iraq war resolution would be a good idea. Arguably it was the biggest single contributor to the “anybody-but-Clinton” mood that Barack Obama was able to take advantage of, and Obama hammered her on it repeatedly.
And I think even his most enthusiastic supporters know it. Not that it would likely make much difference if Romanoff did manage to win the nod. It’s not as if he’s an iota more progressive than Bennet. In fact there isn’t any particular evidence that he’s as progressive as Bennet. I can understand liking Romanoff best for subjective reasons and I’d support him if he became the nominee but all the Romanoff as champion of the progressive grassroots nonsense is just silly, not to mention boring.
Remember Howard Dean didn’t look very progressive at all based on his record, nor did Edwards (snicker), but they did run as progressives to try to win.
In Dean’s case, I think the conversion was genuine. In Edwards’ case, I snicker.
Hell, even Arlen Specter is now a liberal because of two primary challenges, so it’s possible Romanoff could turn out to be a progressive hero. That is, if he ever expresses an opinion on an issue.
to statewide election in Colorado — model your campaign on Howard Dean and John Edwards!
but my point to BlueCat was that a politician can become ideologically different from what his track record suggests, once he runs for higher office.
Presumably Romanoff wants to win the primary. The only way he can possibly do that is if he poses as the progressive alternative to Bennet. (Being the conservative alternative to Bennet gets him nowhere, and being the ideological equivalent of Bennet isn’t working and shows no promise.) It’s still possible for him to pull that off. And it doesn’t mean he’d win with that strategy, just that it’s the only strategy that gives him a fighting chance to win the primary. Of course beyond the primary it’s a different story.
Nobody should ever model a campaign on John Edwards. Why would you imagine I was saying that? Calling John Edwards a douchebag was how I learned to call Jared Polis a douchebag.
Not happening. He’s toast.
Be careful, sxp151, but the oppressed group you are targeting with your slurs is starting to stand up for themselves.
Claim the high ground and proudly identify yourselves. Are you one too?
😉
Because I think it showed who he represented, corporations. Has he changed? I think he has because of Andrew’s entry into the race. Andrew is motivated differently than Bennet. I see a corporatist in Bennet, I don’t see that in Andrew. I do think the political landscape is changing and there is an urgency to change our politicians. And yes that means kicking out incumbents.
Pfffft
I’m not him, don’t speak for him, and wasn’t in the room when he decided.
But, I was in the mortgage business and understand it. I have taught economics (101 and on up). I have dealt with banks on commercial real estate, start up companies and as clients.
The logic of his vote goes like this: mortgage investors price loans according to the market at the time, underwriting guidelines and a prediction of the loan performing.
Part of the “performing” calculation is the probability of default. It’s a complicated and difficult forecast. And here comes the cramdown bill.
It would have made that forecast much. much more pricey. Worse, it would have increased uncertainty. Markets dislike uncertainty- lenders more than anyone. Not exactly the same as “making a denominator zero”, but it would have increased the cost of doing business for mortgage lenders. And that would have negatively affected everyone.
So I understand voting against it. Even though at the time, I would have preferred a yes vote because I believed the forecasts that showed a long, lingering uncertainty anyway. At least I believed those forecasts more than the ones that showed if the cramdown passed, it would increase the number of defaults. (The argument being that some mortgage payors would think if the judge would eventually let them keep the house anyway, why not pay the other bills and let the mortgage lender wait. Maybe you could refi into better terms, – but if not the judge could give them to you anyway.)
Your insistence on simplifying it down to the Senator is a corporate shill, sounds more like you hate rich people, bankers and finance types in general. Honestly, I am glad he’s not just another lawyer. The Senate has plenty of those.
What negatively affected everyone including the banks is the lack of the cram-down legislation. It has come to pass that currently there is another wave of foreclosures called strategic foreclosures. This is fact. Middleclass people (the few left) are walking away from their homes because they owe more than they are worth. And those left paying their mortgages or who have paid off their mortgages own a home whose value is less than what they paid.
In using the logic you opine as his reasoning you prove my point – that he didn’t have a clue about economics and what the outcome would be. Of course I’m a saltwater economist which assumes that society does NOT act rationally most of the time. But to me it means being a realist and not relying on mathematical models that make sense to no one; not even those teaching them.
Sincerely I believe Bennet just did what the banks ordered him to do without any thought at all to the economic consequences of his decision to oppose the cram-down.
but not based on your reply.
Strategic foreclosures
version 1 – upside down owners walking away
How would they have been less upside down with cramdown?
I did not suggest my reasoning was the Senator’s. I specifically said that it was my own. But the economic reasoning is sound. Incentives matter, moral hazard is a risky incentive, risk and uncertainty increase price, and the secondary mortgage market (CDO, CMO, etc) was way bigger and more critical to the stability of the nation and our economic recovery.
But I would have preferred it pass.
You should believe whatever you want. It is America and all.
But you should also at least occasionally acknowledge that your dislike and distrust of Senator Bennet is based more on your perception that he is just another rich, soulless, banker than on anything he has ever said or done.
By the way- I’m not going to look it up, but I think it got something like low-mid 40’s when it came up for a vote. Thus providing Senator Bennet with plenty of political cover if he just voted aye.
Fewer foreclosures would have meant more stabilized home prices. The unwillingness of the banks to negotiate modifications has led to further deterioration of the housing market.
My distaste for Bennet is my knowledge of what he did with the cram-down and the history of Salazar’s voting record (the new restrictions on bankruptcies for the middleclass but not the wealthy) and Ritter who has not supported the unions or workers rights. It’s going to be dГ©jГ vu all over again if he is elected. Is that what you want?
Now Senator Bennet has to defend the voting record and legislative leadership of Salazar and Ritter? Yikes, it wa shard enough to just deal with your perception of him as a soulless banker type.
I’ll wait for AR to address that before I do. And politically I’d advise the Senator to do the same- not that he’s going to ask me.
Fewer foreclosures and fewer purchases.
Fewer foreclosures- good and stabilizing. But I’d have to see hard (neutral) data to conclude it would have been true. As bad as it’s been, most foreclosures are still the result of job loss and medical crisis. Not sure cramdown would have changed that much.
Fewer purchases – bad and destabilizing…or not stabilizing.
We should primary Salazar for what he did on BK changes. Whoops.
And based on your reasoning, AR should be primarying Ritter- lack of union and labor support and wrong appointment. Don’t leave that last one off your list. It all sounds like whining anyway, might as well go all in.
Cramdown would have impacted the secondary market- which was bigger than the mortgage market. (Since I got squeezed out I haven’t kept up so I don’t know where secondary is now)
You question my support for Andrew Romanoff but what do you base your support for Bennet on, his long and progressive legislative career? Oh, sorry he doesn’t have one. Just as Senator Burris is being judged for being appointed by former Governor Blagojevich like it or not so will Bennet. And the governor of New York did the same thing – that is appointed someone New Yorkers did not want and was not elected to the Senate. As a matter of fact there is a discussion going on about stopping this practice because it is unfair to the constituents. Why should Colorado be strapped with someone we didn’t elect? So what are your reasons for supporting Bennet? It’s not clear to me. Why all the love for Bennet and why all the hate for his opponent’s supporters? And why are you trying to cram Bennet down our throats?
Fewer foreclosures mean the higher the value of the homes in a given neighborhood. Many could not even refinance their home and take advantage of the lower interest rates because the value of their property had dropped by 30-50% some if not most of that drop being related to the number of foreclosures in their neighborhood.
I fail to see the relevance of your statement regarding primary and secondary markets. The secondary market would have been impacted more directly by the cram-down because they are the ones that are carrying most notes but so would the primary market be impacted as foreclosed homes for sale have continued to flood the market and with no one to buy them it has remained in a relatively stagnant position. Another reason the primary market was impacted is because cram-down may have been used if the owner of the note was the primary lender. I know this is rare these days but still I believe both markets would have been impacted either directly or indirectly.
“Why should Colorado be strapped with someone we didn’t elect? ”
Well, that’s what the rules say. But I agree- we shouldn’t. So let’s have an election.
BTW- You want to look at f**d up, voter disenfranchising vacancy filling rules- look no further than the Colorado legislature. And because of term limits, people are resigning all the time to take the next gig when they can.
So what are your reasons for supporting Bennet?
I don’t have any*. I just like the “appointment as coronation”
“Why all the love for Bennet and why all the hate for his opponent’s supporters? ”
I don’t hate AR supporters. At least not because they are AR supporters. Ok- that was me trying to be funny. I don’t really hate.
“And why are you trying to cram Bennet down our throats”
It’s called campaigning. I did it for the president a couple of years ago through a year ago. I did it for another Senator once upon a time. I’m sure I’ll do it for other candidates in the future.
Vote for Senator Bennet, don’t vote for him. Support AR in the primary or not. Either way- fine by me.
But don’t tell me that the logic behind your reasoning is something like AR should have been appointed in the first place .
Seriously- if AR had been appointed and then primaried by some popular well known D would you not be asking yourself – why? So your point is that Bennet is a newbie, he didn’t come up through the ranks. And you don’t think he’s progressive enough- though it’s hard to see how AR is more progressive on the issues.
I get that you dislike (so far) and don’t trust the Senator. (yet). I do.
But I got to know him- soon after the appointment was announced. And I like him.
*Kidding
Initially my personal political analysis was more helpful getting behind the Senator than any policy consideration.
I think 2010 will be a much more difficult Senate election cycle in CO for the Ds than was 2008. 08 we had large and motivated turnout. Caucuses set records all over the key locations- esp suburban Denver. (ArapCo, JeffCo,)
And in the general- Udall did really well in JeffCo & BoulderCo- which I would have expected for him. He barely carried Arapahoe 52 or 53% – where Obama won by 14%.
I think in 2008 the county R organizations were …complacent. CO R’s weren’t that excited about McCain, everyone had some GWB fatigue and in 2010 that isn’t going to be there. The R’s will be (are so far) more energized, and the turnout should be down. I’ve posted more before- but I’m not going to dissect the state anymore.
As for policy- the most important consideration to me last winter was the governor appoint someone who would be a strong supporter of President Obama’s agenda. Senator Bennet is and has been.
Beyond that, I would have said make it someone who is electable in Colorado, smart as hell, and who thinks like me on most if not all issues. Senator Bennet appears to be electable, is a smart guy and, so far, apparently thinks like me on most things.
Then add in 10 months of voting – and I’v disagreed with him on one significant vote. (You and I agree on cramdown- I would have preferred it passed and therefore that he voted for it even in a losing cause- the votes weren’t there.)
If the governor had appointed Senator Burris, I’d have been calling for a primary. Or if he had appointed someone who didn’t meet all of the above, same. I like Speaker Romanoff. And if he had been appointed my analysis would have asked the same questions. I have some questions about his electability- he’s never had to win a state wide race (much larger fundraising, it’s different campaigning in ElPaso & Grand Junction, not to mention the suburbs) so assuming he would have voted exactly has Senator Bennet has (not that voting is all there is to the job) I’m not sure how I would have reacted.
Secondary market was bigger- and therefore more unstable and destabilizing to the banking sector. (Bigger? How could it be bigger than the sum of all the outstanding mortgages…. because it’s the secondary market and it can be leveraged and was. Huge. We should start seeing academic and tell all memoirs next year that give us some idea how big it really was. But it was bigger)
You seriously think Lehman went under because some mortgages they serviced defaulted? Or Bear Stearns? Or AIG? or or or It’s because they were so heavily leveraged into the secondary market which magnified their loses. A $10 cash investment in $100 is wiped out by a 10% market drop. It was more complicated and more leveraged- but you get the idea.
Glad you responded the way you did but I still have one gripe. I have never said I supported Romanoff because he should have been appointed. I knew some elected Democrats that felt he should have been appointed but I have never said that is the reason I support Romanoff. I would have supported Joan Fitzgerald had she stepped up to the plate and I think Diana DeGette would also be a strong candidate and I would support her as well.
I don’t support Bennet because I don’t trust him. And I don’t trust him for two reasons; he was appointed by Ritter who I now despise because of what he has done to the union and our safety workers. I originally voted for Ritter as the lesser of two evils because I didn’t like his views on abortion rights. And here’s the one that should be no surprise he voted no on the cram-down legislation.
Now whether you realize it or not I believe by the time 2010 rolls around people will be so pissed at banks they will vote for anyone who comes out in favor of a massive overall of the banking and investment industry. This includes regulating them and putting some away for a long time and although I believe Colorado is a state that prides itself on its ignorance of the issues I believe Colorado voters will have had enough and they will want a new Senator. But it’s not Bennet even if he did vote yea on new Credit Card reform legislation it was a weak excuse for not voting for the cram-down.
But I hear you.
You do know that Colorado is not all that progressive, right? I mean, besides me and you, of course.
Sure, the 2010 voters will whine and bitch about not having good candidates, better candidates. Nothing new there.
And that’s why it’s our job to get out the vote and stay as progressive as we can. Get to know Bennet.
Come to a house party- ask him why he voted no on cram down. Ask him how he got appointed. Maybe you still won’t trust him, politicians have been known to stretch the truth and spin their answers. But I find him to be reasonable.
This Sunday (11.1), you can also meet Michael at the Adams County Democratic Party’s Chili Cook-off. The event starts at 3:00 at the Pipefitters’ Hall at 6350 Broadway in Denver.
AR will be there too.
But keeping Andrew a viable contender will keep Bennet voting like a progressive and for that I’m happy.
I think if Bennet gets the Senate seat we’ll be having the same conversation we are having around Ritter, Colorado Pols.
Romanoff’s anti-card check position sit with you Sharon? Does that make him a puppet of the “Corporatists”?
AR is just so…. awesome
is dreamy.
But I just couldn’t type it.
But I understand the concern about the privacy issues. I face this every day because I am a liberal and work in the business world, in finance no less. I use an alias because if my political views became public knowledge I might not have a job.
Andrew Romanoff has stated he supports the EFCA but doesn’t support taking away the right to vote in private.
I’m okay with his position. Bennet hasn’t even stated a position. What’s up with that?
you should look it up. It’s really hard*, but it’s worth it.
In short, he said the only responsible thing he could say: he’s supports labor being able to organize, he believes in strong labor, and re;EFCA he needs to see the final bill to comment
*http://bennetforcolorado.com/issues
How about a poll asking us who we favor for Dem. Senator instead of who we think will win? I’m kind of curious.
Andrew Romanoff has raised in the past seven days on Act Blue a total of $3288 from 18 new contributors. Senator Bennet has raised in the past seven days $18,070 from 28 new donors.
Last quarter Speaker Romanoff raised 70% of his money from ActBlue while Senator Bennet raised about 25%.
if we don’t talk about it maybe it’s not going to matter.
Seriously- I’m surprised AR found $3300 from 18 new contributors. Much better than I would have predicted given the economy, the state of the race, etc.
AR wasting money, wasting effort, dividing Dems.