The only consistent message of the Romanoff campaign about why he would be better choice than Senator Bennet is that Senator Bennet accepts PAC money and Romanoff is not accepting PAC money this time, though he has in the past.
I and others have argue that this is a weak message. That is barely works on anyone except tea partiers, who are not likely Romanoff primary voters anyway. That campanoff will have to reverse the position if he is the nominee in order to be competitive in the general media wars.
And most importantly that it only matters if Romanoff can show that Senator Bennet’s votes have actually been corrupted by the donations. And so far he has been unable to do that.
I previously posted a lengthy post going through several Bennet votes comparing them to his PAC/corp donors. And it looks like those donations are not really affecting his votes.
(Not to mention that his percentage of PAC donors is the lowest of all the Colorado Congrssional delegation, not counting the self-funded Polis, and may even be a lower percentage of PAC donations than Romanoff raised while he was in the state house running from a safe seat.)
But in the recent debate at Colorado College in C-Springs Romanoff resorted to just making shit up (MSU).
As reported by the Colorado Statesman toward the end of the debate the candidates had a chance to directly address each other and ask questions.
Romanoff saved his most pointed attack for the debate’s last few minutes. During the final exchange of the night, Romanoff questioned whether a campaign contribution from a private, for-profit college had influenced Bennet’s actions on a Senate committee last month when, Romanoff charged, Bennet “did nothing” to protect students from being harmed by “predatory loans.”
Sounds kind of like AR thought he had a smoking gun.
But, not so much a smoking gun as made up baloney- which campanoff has had in abundance from the beginning.
The Statesman does a nice job summarizing the facts.
Romanoff tied Bennet’s “inaction” in the Senate to a vote taken in a House committee last October, when Rep. Maxine Waters, a California Democrat, proposed an amendment to financial reform legislation aimed at bringing loans made by schools like Westwood under the regulatory wing of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Waters explained at the time why she thought it necessary to close a loophole in the House legislation that would exempt so-called “gap loans” – offered by private, for-profit colleges like Westwood to cover expenses beyond whatever traditional educational loans students qualify for – from oversight by the new agency. The amendment failed on a 33-35 committee vote.
Next, according to the Romanoff campaign’s “Westwood bullet” release, the Bennet campaign “[r]eceived a contribution from Westwood College on 3/19/10 for $2,400,” followed by the Banking Committee’s consideration of its consumer protection bill three days later, where “Sen. Bennet had the opportunity to stop these predatory lending practices but did nothing.”
Sound like a damning sequence of events? Except that’s not exactly how it happened.
According to congressional records, rather than “[do] nothing,” Bennet voted to bring “gap loans” – and most other consumer loans, for that matter – under the authority of a newly created Consumer Financial Protection Board, charged with regulating any loan “offered or provided for use by consumers primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.” In other words, Bennet voted for the legislation Romanoff said he failed to introduce.
In addition, the Senate bill Bennet voted for in March was an entirely different bill than the one Waters unsuccessfully tried to amend in October. Where the House bill included extensive loopholes that allowed educational “gap loans” to escape rigorous oversight, the Senate bill didn’t. The Senate’s bill – in the headlines this week as Republicans eventually agreed to allow it to come up for debate after voting to filibuster it three days in a row – establishes more sweeping powers for its Consumer Financial Protection Board than the House does in its version, which would create a stand-alone agency.
Wow- so Bennet didn’t do what Romanoff said he did. I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that campanoff would just MSU.
But what’s that you say- Westwood did donate to Bennet and so something bad must have resulted.
But what about Westwood’s $2,400 campaign contribution?
….Bennet’s vote was the opposite of what Westwood would have wanted anyway.
bolding for emphasis is mine.
Wow- if Romanoff is even close to right about how potentially corrupting PAC/Corp donations can be, then he’s got to be just about ready to endorse Bennet and get out. It’s clear that Bennet can take the donations and still vote his conscience and vote for what’s good for Colorado and the country.
So, what we it appears the D’s have is a primary with candidates who have accepted PAC/corp donoations, with one candidate having decided to forgo the donations he wasn’t likely to get in this election anyway, who then claims that PAC/corp donations are bad and influence the votes and should be returned, though, of course, he didn’t return any of the PAC/Corp donations he’s ever received. Exactly which of Romanoff’s votes in the House were bought back when he was accepting PAC/corp donations?
More to the point- campanoff has yet to define a single vote or action of Senator Bennet’s that was bought. Instead they resort to MSU and implications and innuendo.
it’s the fabrication that the AR campaign indulges in but in this case, somebody fact checked them and now they’re busted and backtracking.
Actual fact (bold emphasis is mine):
Sorry MotR — you’re trying to tell me that Bennet’s finance staff didn’t know the PAC checks were coming? These contributions were at the end of the quarter — their finance staff was on the phone with these guys every day making sure that the checks were cut prior to the end of the month.
PACs don’t randomly send in contributions — they are solicited from PAC fundraisers — Bennet’s people knew they were getting the checks.
You seem to be suggesting that Michael Bennet’s vote was bought for $2400 – much like the contention that his vote was bought with $6300 in campaign donations from individuals who work for Goldman Sachs.
So in order to truly eliminate any hint of impropriety, maybe every vote every senator makes should directly conflict with their donors’ interests.
I guess I should start making campaign donations to Jane Norton.
If you haven’t been warned before now- consider this your warning.
but sometimes I just can’t help it.
He makes stuff up about Michael Bennet, and he makes stuff up about himself.
It’s been going on since he announced about Bennet.
He’s been making stuff up about himself for a longer period than that.
People don’t like it when I demosntrate it, though so i’vve backed off.
It must be that I get to acrimonious when angry. I’m not making that up.
you have been saying that for a long time. Even several fellow Bennet supporters have criticized you for unfair accusations.
Romanoff didn’t make up the claim in the debate — that point is reiterated throughout this thread.
If you have something substantive to add, I would welcome the conversation. Do you disagree with my analysis of Bennet’s stance on this legislation? If so, how?
I’m sad to see that you instead just continue to call Andrew a liar.
Some of us have criticized all of you (and I think membership in “you” here is pretty clear) for being all coked up and jittery on excessive quantities of powdered political antagonism. It’s just as discouraging as watching Tea Partiers go nuts on their own preferred blow.
Look I wasn’t making the argument about being bought, just pointing out that the Bennet camp spin that they didn’t have the check yet was really bad spin.
But if you want to go there, no — I don’t think Bennet is that cheap of a corporate shill. His campaign’s comment about all the other checks he cashed that same day made me take another look at his FEC filing. He also received contributions from the organization that lobbies for these schools and from the parent company that owns several of them — all in the same few days (Sorry I can’t direct link that — you can’t seem to do that to FEC queries so you’ll just have to look it up yourself if you don’t believe me). He’s a pricey corporate shill.
The fact of the matter is that the hard spin is coming out of Camp Romanoff.
No matter where the money is coming from, you can’t point to Bennet’s record and say that he did what Romanoff accused him of doing at the debate. He did the opposite.
confusing the issues with the facts. Facts confuse stryker, and we should do our best to avoid overtaxing him/her. 😉
to this conversation. I see that you also bring absolutely nothing to the discussion of what Bennet did and did not actually support with his position on the committee. Do you have a disagreement with any of the facts I bring up about the legislation or are you just joining in a dogpile of attacking people who talk about issues?
CoPols used to be a place where people talked about legislation and issues. Now it’s just a place where people attack each other and the issues are ignored.
So I ask again — which one of my facts are you disputing?
but that’s not the point. Bennet and Romanoff camps both want to make their candidate look good. That’s their job.
To the bigger point, yes — you can point to Bennet’s record and say exactly what the Romanoff camp said — it’s what I’ve been doing this entire thread.
Bennet claims that he supported regulating these non student loans to help students. In reality, the amendment that would do this was the Waters amendment in the house (which Perlmutter supported). Bennet did nothing to try to do something similar in the Senate. Therefore these loans remain exempt from regulations that help students.
What Bennet did do was say (later) that these should be even further divorced from other college loans, by placing them under a new, toothless agency that regulates business — not higher education — the same agency that regulates people like payday lenders. As such, these students lose any and all protections that they would have if they had traditional student loans.
RSB — you haven’t said that any points I bring up are wrong. You’ve just joined the chorus of Polsters that attack people instead of discuss issues.
If you really believe that Bennet did something opposite to what I just explained, please explain how. Just repeating that I’m wrong isn’t an argument.
Like can you demonstrate, or are you again just making shit up, posting things that are libel to be seen as pure crap.
Do you have any respect for your self or your candidate?
There are plenty of Polsters who have. That’s how finance staff works. PACs don’t just randomly send in money. I credit the Bennet finance staff with their ability to raise money. You raise PAC money by going out and asking for it. So yes — I am sure that the staff knew about the checks coming in.
You and MADCO both seem to like accusing me of making sh*t up, yet neither of you actually can disagree with the arguments. Personal attacks get you nowhere.
Read down if you like; you can see that despite explaining what Bennet did and did not support and how these loans work, MADCO just resorted to personal attacks when he knew he was wrong.
Bennet sides with companies who screwed over working class people. The money is just secondary in my mind.
That’s what I thought.
Definitely not the certitude with which you stated it, but I would have actually been more surpised if you had something to back it up–other than your declarative statements of misdeeds, spoken like you just know, just know, that’s the way it has to me…
(I understand how fund raising works.)
but personal attacks. You seem to agree with me (at least you don’t bother to disagree) that Bennet’s staff would have known the money was coming.
You do your candidate no favors. Come back with an actual disagreement if you like. Are you saying the Bennet finance staff in incompetent and that they don’t know what PAC checks they have solicited? Or that Westwood randomly chose Bennet as one of TWO candidates to give to?
The idea that Michael Bennet would change a vote for 2400 is ludicrous and indicative of the pettiness of the campaign. AR made this attack himself, as he does with the Goldman money. It’s ludicous.
I actually don’t make the claim that he voted a particular way for $2400 — MotR brought it up — not me. You may want to read the thread before jumping in.
Bennet did take money from Westwood, the parent company of several schools who run this scam, and their lobbying firm. It was more than $2400
The bigger point to me was Bennet not standing up for students, regardless of whether or not he took the corporate money. That point is clearly outlined throughout this conversation; I recommend you read it.
Here is my staement about it on FB.
Would a civil rihgts advocate have voted this way?
Would Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, Julian Bond. Justice Thurgood Marshall, Corky Gonzalez, Richard Castro, Jessie Jackson Sr., RFK, Federico Pena ,Morris Dees,
Dale Tooley, Mahatma Ghandi or Martin Luther King. Jr. ever pass discriminatory legislation and be so out of touch with the impacted group as to say it was a great day for the state? Would they ever had said that political expediancy required that they do so?
No, they would not. They would have said racial profiling was wrong, is wrong, and shall ever be the wrong. They would have said that this would not come to pass even if it meant loss of office, incarceration or death.
Ray — this is a conversation about Romanoff’s charge at Bennet about supporting practices akin to loan sharks and payday lenders. Throughout this thread. I have explained the legislation that Bennet insults (the good one) and then ignores, and the legislation that Bennet holds as a triumph (the bad one).
I believe we have discussed the special session quite a bit, along with Andrew’s stance on immigration. In fact, I refer you here
Andrew has changed his stance because of politcal expediancy.He can’t change his record. The immigration rights people fully back Bennet. We do know this.We know why.
I suppose that if he wins that’s good.
Nevertheless, I think the accusation against Michael Bennet is groundless and reflects more on Andrew’s character than Michael’s.
Andrew does the same with cramdown (an amendment to the bancruptcy bill–Michael voted against the amendment, he voted for the bill—-The bill failed by 6 votes.)
Andrew has never been under the microscope before. His true character has come out since September. It’s not the same Andrew Romanoff that sat as Speaker of the House.
You say you think this attack on Bennet doesn’t have legs? Show me. I point out below where Bennet even contradicts himself within a few lines (in the article that MADCO keeps using).
I explained the legislation and how Bennet came down on it. Bennet sides with corporate interests that are screwing over students.
You disagree? Walk me through your argument. No one else on here as been able to.
I stay away for a couple of weeks and he and his anonymous backers return to the same.Slander Bennet;slander me;slander John Wren; Calling Brandon Shafer a fascist.
You folks slander anyone that says the emperor wears no clothes.You make stuff up.
I’ve met MADCO maybe 5 or 6 times and we are casually acquainted. You state that I’m his best friend. That’s typical.
I feel sorry for Andrew Romanoff.The Bennet backers asked me to stop because I’ve been factually hurting Romanoff’s campaign. They think that if Andrew wins the primary that I’ve given ammunition to the Republicans.
The Republicans have everything I’ve talked about (other than a man willing to sign a deposition and printed quotes from non-anonymous Romanoff supporters). They will hit him with 527’s so hard that you’ll be howling.
Whoever you are, I feel sorry for you as well.You post slander with nothng but innuendo and speculation anonymously.
You don’t own your words.
I outlined an argument about legislation Ray. My words are my own. Do you have an argument about Bennet’s stance on this?
It appears that Bennet voted against the interests of the donating source.
Andrew has said the same thiing about his legilsative career in the state house.
Sen Bennet doesn’t sell his vote. No one has accused Andrew of ever selling his neither. I’m tired of fighting the smear campaign..
I spent yesterday particpating in keeping Edgar Niebla from being deported. He’s been here since age 7 (he’s 27 now) has passed course work to be a police officer, and even had a job offer. A department has applied for a foreign worker visa for him. ICE had him picked up Wednesday morning and had him set for deportation today. Communiity action lead to ICE granting him bail and a hearing date.
I doubt that Edgar would have been picked up if he wasn’t particiapting in rallies for immigration reform.
That’s the real world .
I’ll keep up the fight in the that world.
I don’t think that smearing Sen.Bennet on the blogs is going to work for you folks.
I could be wrong, but if I were your campaign staff I’d spend time trying to raise money to advertize to the 85% to 90% of the Dem voters that haven’t stepped up to the plate, or (if you are confident of victory as Andrew’s e-mails indicate) then plotting to find a way to fight the barrage of 527 attacks that will surely come in the fall. Mr. Buck has shown that the Republicans will be on the air constantly.
…but what the hell does he have to do with Bennet? Did he do anything for this fine young man, or are you trying to insinuate something that didn’t actually happen?
I did, and lot’s of other people like me that live real lives rather than fantasy smears.The Statesman article this week on page 1 clearly refutes Andrew, but by his open smear the world gets a glimpse into how the man has done business.
I’m may be many things in this life, but liar I am not.
Andrew crafted in 2006 what was, up until this last weekend, one of the harshest immigration laws in the country.
libel is something else entirely as well discussed in another thread.
It seems to me there is a point in a campaign where a candidate is going backwards when there are faced with a moral question. Am I justified in MSU or lying if it might help me win? Forget the internal moral issue, the problem is once it is obvious that it was a lie the negative momentum accellerates.
AR and Charlie Black’s sister in law seem to have gotten to that point.
and apparently the statesman is letting them. I was curious about this after the debate, so I dug into it a little. Romanoff was actually spot on.
Here’s the deal:
Water’s failed amendment in the house (which Bennet could have introduced in the senate but did not) would have regulated the colleges offering these predatory loans (that are not student loans). Specifically it would have stopped them from doing these predatory loans that fall outside the normal student loans, while maintaining a system of traditional student loans.
These schools (like Westwood) are EXEMPT from the consumer protection agency because they are not offering traditional student loans — essentially they are viewed as small businesses offering non-financial product loans.
So in other words, Bennet tries arguing that he regulated these types of loans, when in reality he was regulating another type of loans (the traditional student loan type).
I’m sad to see that the statesman didn’t dig into this enough and took the Bennet talking points at face value.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. As does your preferred candidate.
sorry MADCO — I know we’ve gone back and forth on this site about some admittingly less important issues than this, but on this issue I hope you check out the actual legislation — the statesman just took the Bennet talking points at face value — and Bennet is really wrong on this one.
Bennet’s token effort to move these loans under the CFPB removes them from regulations that affect other colleges — it puts them under a so far toothless agency that is intended to regulate small businesses — not institutions of higher education. In other words, the law will treat Westwood (and other) colleges like they treat payday loan companies — and we see how little is being done to regulate them.
Bolding is mine.
StrkyerK2 – I’m thinking you are at least one talking points memo behind the campaign. Though it does stryke me as interesting that yours and campanoff’s are the same.
You got the facts wrong – no problem, it happens.
WHen you can cite some independent, researched thingy …oh, source, I look forward to hearing about it.
If you continue to MSU – I suggest you get a t-shirt. If you ask, I’m sure they can add 2010.
You bold an editorial comment in the middle of a news story…that the Romanoff campaign changed their tune — which from what I saw just isn’t true. I saw the video of Andrew’s question to Bennet and the press release the campaign sent later. They were certainly not backing down.
My facts aren’t wrong, and all you’re doing is continually copying and pasting large parts of the story.
If the original house version was so bad, then maybe Bennet should have encouraged Perlmutter not to support it. Perlmutter strongly supported it and voted to pass it out of committee.
As far as sources, you can even look at the article you keep quoting. It states that Bennet didn’t want to support the house version (which they claim isn’t good) but then wants to put these private unsecured loans under an agency that doesn’t deal with institutions of higher eduction. Bennet’s statements don’t even seem to match each other, which is either because Bennet can’t keep his talking points straight or because the Statesman got something wrong.
(bold emphasis is mine)
Notice the contradiction right there?
Look it works like this: a few of these colleges hook students on loans akin to the type you pull from a bank, rather than traditional student loans. By doing so, those students don’t have the protections that other students do. Currently they aren’t regulated at all, and if they are put under the Consumer Financial Protection Board, they end up regulated the same way as pay day lenders — not the same way as other loans from college institutions.
You haven’t stated once where you think I’m wrong; you just continue to say I’m a liar. So I toss it back to you — I’ve explained the issue — if you think I’m wrong please explain how. I’ll save you the trouble though — Bennet and his people misrepresented the entire situation, the statesman took their word for it, and you repeated it.
But then I realized you think you’re being serious. ANd while that’s kinda funny too, it’s not helpful for us to continue talking past each other.
If you’ve got a source- cite it please.
bold an editorial comment in the middle of a news stor
Yes- because the point isn’t that either you or I need to get the campaign to comment since the debate- they did comment since the debate. In a direct quote form the camapaign to the Statemsmen for this article.
Yes- I copy and pasted large chunks of the article that I posted about. That’s how it works sometimes.
You want me to get some new facts? I mean, I’ll look for other sources- or I guess I could just MSU. ( …which from what I saw just isn’t true. I saw the video of Andrew’s question to Bennet and the press release the campaign sent later.)
From what you saw? Are you serious? Were you there when Mr Luning asked for a comment? ANd got it from Teicher? Perhaps you are Teicher in which case, apologies – you should have just said so. Otherwise, I don’t see how “what you saw” is relevant to the point.
See there was a debate- you were there and saw some stuff. Or there was video and you saw th evideo.
the campaign put out an email and made the claim again.
Then, after that, the reporter from the Statesman did some fact checking, and called the campaign for a comment. At which time the campaign modified the comment. Or at least that’s how I read Mr Luning.
So from what I see you are just being obstinate and prefer to remember what you remember, and think what you think, no matter what the fact checking reveals. GLWT.
BTW- there would be other t-shirt options.
The errors make it hard to read your nonsense. Then again since Ray Springfield is one of your closest friends, I guess I shouldn’t expect any better.
I do cite — in fact I cite two points in the article that you keep using that have a huge discrepancy — both of which are apparently Bennet’s view. You just chose to ignore it.
The quote from Romanoff’s spokesman doesn’t change the original claim at all. In fact, it reiterates it. If these loans are not regulated as other loans to students are, we don’t know the ramifications.
You still have yet to argue with any of my points and simply continue to call me a liar. Please call Trevor or Casey and get new talking points on this from the Bennet campaign — at least they know how to spin and lie.
Haven’t had a drink in a long time.
There are precisely two minor typos.
I know Ray – almost everyone does – but we’ve never gone bowling.
I’ll find another source to corroborate Mr Luning. Hell- maybe the Statesman will do another piece.
The quote is quite different – and I think Mr Luning’s characterization is just about right. YMMV
I don’t know trevor or Casey.
I’d ask the campaign for talking points if I thought it would help. Meanwhile- I haven’t called you a liar.
to actually disagree with any of my statements, including where I show – in the article that you keep using — that Bennet has a huge discrepancy in his statements. I know your normal tactic is just to make personal attacks when you can’t win arguments, but it’s pretty easy to see through — you see that you’re wrong and can’t say anything to make it look otherwise.
Oh — and on the note of your claim about not calling me a liar, check your post a few up the thread:
So please — do try and find something…anything…to collaborate your claims as you said you will. I look forward to your attempt.
Sorry, but Bennet AGAIN sided with companies who screw over working class people. That’s the guy you keep saying should stay in office.
And I already said I would find another source. Keep your pants on. dh
Like run back to the Bennet campaign and work together to try and save Bennet’s sorry ass for yet again siding with people who screw over those who need help.
Good catch on the word though 😉
I do know MADCO. He’s right about just everyone does because I don’t hide.
I take a back seat and what happens? The same smear and dissemble approved by AR.
Why are Bennet campaign regional directors going around telling people that Andrew is a racist and hates Mexicans? You and I both know that isn’t true.
Give me a frickin’ break. How does a kid that works for the SPLC end up being a racist?
If your candidate can’t handle the tough questions…nay, if YOU can’t handle the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.
I don’t recall hearing or seeing anything from the campaign that calls Andrew racist or even hints that he has any negative feelings toward Mexicans.
A regional director said it to my face. Of course this won’t be an official campaign statement.
What’s your name?
It appears that you are afraid to reveal that information because you’d have to back up your wild accusations. I think it’s just more of your fantasy world.
People in the Bennet camp probably have pointed out that Andrew crafted a very discriminatory law in 2006. He did. That’s a far cry from saying that he hates Mexicans.
I think that he’s lived such a life of priviledge that he hasn’t, or doesn’t understand poverty. I think that if he spent the time to get to know the communiity then he would adjust his proposals. He could turn in to a real civil rights activist if he chose to do so.
The english teacher in Central America doesn’t understand poverty? Oh please. Most of the people who live in the US don’t understand poverty, but the few of us who have actually looked beyond our own border know what it is really like.
Or were you referring to his Mother being a social worker? Becuase Social Work is widely known to only deal with wealthy people and bring in the big checks.
That statement is just plain crazy Ray.
Do you even read it? Their coverage of this primary has been some of the best around. Certainly better than the Post’s, and definitely more objective than anything you could read in a blog.
Show me where the Statesman was in error in their reporting.
I also read through legislation, watched the debate, and read the Romanoff camp’s statement.
I am usually in total agreement about The Statesman — I think they are a great paper that normally does their homework. That’s why this story was such a disappointment — they took the Bennet campaign’s spin and printed it as reporting.
As far as showing where they are wrong, I’ve been doing that throughout my posts here. I’ll reiterate the short of it: Bennet’s campaign claims that Bennet is regulating these types of loans, when in reality it would have been the house version that did so (Waters). So, the version that Bennet passed out of committee actually EXEMPTS these types of loans from regulation that affects standard student loans.
As far as the timing on the money, I addressed that RE: MotR’s comment. The check was cut and mailed before the vote. Unless you want to say that Bennet’s fundraisers are complete morons (which I don’t believe and I’m sure you don’t either), they knew the contribution was made
Or something that might be considered critical. Or at least not glowing. And thus it was a disappointment, and thus it was wrong. Stryker2, you ought to change that to Stryker1–you only hit one note over and over and over and over again.
I asked you this above, but do you actually have anything to add to this conversation? I haven’t been critical of the Statesman in the past, and they have run articles critical of Romanoff (i.e. fundraising). I am critical of this because it’s piss poor journalism.
I spent quite a bit of time in this thread pointing out errors in their report and misleading claims from the Bennet campaign. Anything to add to any of that?
Is worthless. It doesn’t matter-you made up your mind long ago, closed it, and who knows where the key is?
I prefer pointing out the gross flights of fancy, rank conflation, and other such in your prose.
Certainly they are easier to find than a salient point.
what I was thinking but too tired to enverbiate last night.
You can’t actually argue with the facts above, so you resort to random attacks on me.
Bennet didn’t support legislation that would have helped students, and later claimed that he supported legislation that helped students.
You’re damn right that my mind was made up a long time ago — Michael Bennet needs the boot — maybe he can go back to being a corporate raider for Phil Anschutz.
But don’t play the innocent card here — you have a dog in this race too — but your dog is all bark and no bite.
If you do, then you might check to see if they have a license.
I really do. You come on here day after day and attack Andrew claiming he’s lying about things. Your fellow Bennet supporters have told you that your tactics are unprofessional at best and downright insulting the rest of the time.
Bennet said he supported legislation that would help students. He did not. Please — if you have a disagreement with that, chime in. These baseless attacks are unbecoming.
I cited one . SInce then you have reacted with innuendo and opinion.
You are certainly entitled to your own opinion.
But, of course, you are not entitled to your own facts.
What I’ve described as you MSU is really your opinion. It’s hard to call someone’s opinion a “lie” per se, so I don’t see how you misinterpret that to me calling you a liar. You may be- but I haven’t said it.
1) Waters proposes an amendment that would do what you apparently think would be the only acceptable solution- give a new CFPA oversight of loans made by schools like Westwood. ANd the amendment fails.
from the Statesman article already cited
2) Bennet gets a donation from Westwood’s PAC and you claim from related parties (though you cite no source). And Bennet supports legislation that helps student borrowers in a bill that has even stronger protections than the one Waters failed to amend months ago. And the bill is opposed by lenders even more aggressively than the one Waters failed to amend.
And Romanoff and you claim the opposite and claim it was because of the donations.
from the Statesman article already cited
3) You have since backed off the cause and effect claim. (see above) And the Romanoff campaign restated their attack claim, modifying their claim that Bennet did nothing to Bennet didn’t do enough. (A statement that many interested Coloradoans have made about Romanoff and the 2006 special session eliciting howls of protest from you and conductrix and other campanoffers.)
from the Statesman article already cited
4) You reinterpret the facts as stated by the Statesman article in an attempt to support your own opinion.
You are entitled to have any opinion you want. You are not entitled to have whatever facts you want.
Bennet supported legislation regulating lending activity that protects students and consumers. Did he ressurect the failed Waters amendment? No. If that’s your point- you win. Because you are correct – he didn’t do that.
What he did was bring the gap loans under oversight by the CFPB, which is even better. And you and Teicher ignore this because it doesn’t fit your predetermined narrative. I can’t tell if it’s because you don’t understand what happened or because you are just MSU. Neither makes you correct.
Disclosure rules won’t be the same as those required for federally guaranteed student loans, to be sure, but the Waters amendment wouldn’t have accomplished that either.
5) Oh, but wait- there’s more that indicates the regulatory approach Bennet supported is more protective for students and more stringent than the failed effort by Waters.
from the Statesman article already cited
Stryker2K spent all that typing whining that despite having read the article cited, no one would address his opinions.
I thought several posters did- I did it point by point here. And nothing.
Not one reply.
Not one extraneous deflection.
Not one attempt to support those opinions with anything other than the already posted …opinion.
No factual reference.
No contradiction of the originally cited article with some new or other source.
There was some guy, really good looking, charismatic, smart, ran for President in 2008, I think he was from Illinois. He didn’t accept PAC money either, what ever happened to him? I wonder if anyone ever thought of a way around that or if he just disappeared off the map because the lack of PAC money just so obviously killed his campaign? I wonder… Can anybody help me out with his name? I just can’t remember!
campanoff, just like Obma, doesn’t need PAC money because there will be more than enough small individual donors to break fundraising records. Well, if not break records – definitely more than enough to be competitive. prove it.
or nobody will ever vote for him again.
The rally at the sunken garfens had per DPD 10,000 people.
It’s beyond me.If we accept your position as correct, then he has shown that he is willing to throw people under the bus for politcal expediance.
So much for trying to be reconciliative.
His questioning of Sen Bennet’s integrity in the debate is not only proven wrong by the Stateman, but disgusting.
Keep up the anonymous attacking. It certainly adds to his resume as a civil rights advocate.
He was born in 1966. So he spent 3 months at the SPLC when he was 21.
It would be interesting to see what year he spent in Nicaragua. The city or town would be interesting, too.
On May 1, 1985 Reagan issued an executive order that imposed a full economic embargo on Nicaragua, which remained in force until March 1990.
In 1982, legislation was enacted in the U.S. to prohibit further direct aid to the Contras. Reagan’s officials attempted to illegally supply them out of the proceeds of arms sales to Iran and third party donations, triggering the Iran-Contra Affair of 1986-87. Mutual exhaustion, Sandinista fears of Contra unity and military success, and mediation by other regional governments led to the Sapoa ceasefire between the Sandinistas and the Contras on March 23, 1988. Subsequent agreements were designed to reintegrate the Contras and their supporters into Nicaraguan society preparatory in preparation for general elections.
(It’s possible that it was during this period.)
In a stunning landslide defeat, where ABC news had been predicting a 16 point Sandinista victory, the FSLN lost to the National Opposition Union by 14 points in elections on February 25, 1990. At the beginning of Violeta Chamorro’s nearly 7 years in office the Sandinistas still largely controlled the army, labor unions, and courts. Her government achieved major progress toward consolidating democratic institutions, advancing national reconciliation, stabilizing the economy, privatizing state-owned enterprises, and reducing human rights violations. In February 1995, Sandinista Popular Army Cmdr. Gen. Humberto Ortega was replaced, in accordance with a new military code enacted in 1994 by Gen. JoaquГn Cuadra, who espoused a policy of greater professionalism in the renamed Army of Nicaragua. A new police organization law, passed by the National Assembly and signed into law in August 1996, further codified both civilian control of the police and the professionalization of that law enforcement agency.
So it would be interesting to see what year Romanoff did work in Nicaragua. If we add 3 more years to the that would mean he was 24 when he would have been permitted by the US government to do business there as an individual. Perhaps he was working with Project Cure as early as 1988.
I’m not saying that he didn’t. At some point he went to Harvard, and showed up here in about 1994.
Daniel Ortega returned to power in recent years.
I suppose the state department would have these records.
A Dr formed it. That may explain why ROmanoff moved to Colorado. It may also explain why he chose a masters in interantional relations over a law degree as a young man. It still leaves a gap. He wouldn’t have been teaching English with Project Cure as they primarily deliver medical supplies.
It would still be interesting to see what year he was teeaching English in Nicaragua.