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%
May 13, 2010 01:46 AM UTC
26 Comments
Perhaps Bennet voted the way he did because he thought it was the appropriate thing to do.
I notice this was written so that it would be easy to assume his vote against Diaper-boy Vitter’s amendment was the same as the vote TO AUDIT THE FED which passed 96-0. Yes, one of those 96 votes was Bennet’s.
What makes it likely it was a reasoned response to the situation at hand is laid out in an article here: http://moneywatch.bnet.com/eco…
Here’s a small quote to give you the gist: “What some people are forgetting, however, is that this is an intentional feature of the system. The Fed is supposed to do things that politicians cannot do themselves because of the voter outrage it would cause.”
To be frank, I find this attempt at conflation dishonest. If you can’t make an argument that stands or falls on its own merits, maybe you should have second thoughts about posting duplicitous nonsense.
Wade’s attempts at conflation are dishonest?! What’s next, Libertad posts a video bashing unions? This site is getting so predictable.
He voted for the watered down version. Yes it’s something, but when it came to a bill with teeth, he said no.
Wade (apparently quoting an official Romanoff press release) did not mention Bennet’s pro-audit vote AT ALL.
It seems fairly clear to me that whoever wrote the press release hoped people who read it would not (as I did), go, “Wait a minute, that’s not what I read in the news about this vote.”
There is a HUGE difference in posting that Bennet didn’t vote for a Fed audit because he was paid not to (an audit he DID vote for) and posting that his pro-audit vote was “something” but not strong enough an action to suit you personally.
The latter is a fair point for discussion and difference of opinion. The former is either ignorant or deliberately dishonest.
now you made me go back and re-read the press release. Thanks!
It is actually factually accurate. I guess you may want press releases to say things to paint the opposing candidate in a better light than many believe he deserves. I would think that they should stick to the facts, and this one does.
The votes mentioned are exactly as they occurred. There is nothing being conflated there. You can try to spin it any way you want, but those are the salient facts the press release addressed.
It is an entirely different argument to try to claim what your candidate DID vote for was almost as good as what was factually stated he voted AGAINST. But that is not Wade’s argument here at all.
The truth is, Bennet is a corporatist down to his bones. You may like that about him and find him “reasoned” in his votes. Many of us find him disingenuous and misleading as when he writes his wonderful letters supporting certain policies and then proceeds to vote AGAINST those very same things (ala the public option for one).
I’m pretty sure you know it’s possible to be “factually accurate” and still be creating a lie by implication and by leaving out other salient facts. But let me demonstrate, just in case.
Fact: The Bible says “hell” and “damn” within its text.
Implication: THEREFORE, the Bible condones swearing.
The press release boils a highly complex and long-term process down to this: “Twice, Sen. Bennet voted against a full audit of the Federal Reserve.”
This fact is as true as the fact that you can find curse words in the Bible. Knowing the context, in each case, would require consideration of the whole matter, not just the snippets of facts that have been isolated from reality.
That is why this statement that Wade made, “That’s the real rub – he HAD to vote these terrible votes because of who (sic) is really representing – Wall Street and the banks.” is not an honest conclusion.
If Wade admitted Bennet DID vote for an audit in the end, he couldn’t accuse Bennet of being crooked. So Wade left it out. He could not leave it in and still APPEAR to be drawing an honest conclusion.
Having to lie (even if ‘only’ by implication and omission) to make your case is a desperation ploy — choosing to lie because the truth won’t help your cause.
Doesn’t say much about the rightness of the cause, in my mind.
The Bible and swearing? Really? You know, I went to Catholic school for eight years and the nuns there told us that cursing isn’t a sin, it’s just vulgar. Not sure what your point is here.
The press release draws a distinction between actual votes cast by Bennet and how Andrew would have voted instead. It is neither misleading nor dishonest. It seems like one of the more straightforward press releases I have seen in a long time.
The “desperation ploy” is trying to mischaracterize something as simple as an honest press release to slander your opponent.
That those called to testify in a court of law are asked to swear they will tell, not just “the truth”, but also “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. It’s because there is a genuine difference between an arguably true snippet of fact which is a portion of the whole story, and the whole story. A difference that is sometimes huge.
Perhaps you, and Wade, and the writer of the press release honestly don’t understand this. Is that the case? If so, I’d be glad to keep trying to explain until you get it.
I can see it would be hard to stick to the truth if you can’t tell the difference between using only the facts that fit your argument to try to win, and making an honest case for your opinion.
it’s about being a full audit (as the release says). the version he voted for exempts a whole lot of people and things they can look at. essentially the administration signed off once they weren’t worried about anyone bothering their people.
As did 95 other Senators.
Which you did not hear about from Wade or whoever wrote the misleading press release.
They left out the facts they didn’t like so they could accuse Bennet of being corrupt.
Some pretty loud speaking actions there, IMHO.
what is it with you? You want this to be about something else and it isn’t. He voted against the stronger audit and Andrew would have voted for it. Simple enough now?
He voted against a different–you say stronger (haven’t looked into the matter)–audit that AR supported. Isn’t that the honest way to state it?
and you’re writing his press releases maybe. The point of opposition is to draw a contrast and say why should Andrew be supported over Michael.
Never thought it was “Let’s tell why we’re just the same so no one can see a reason to vote for me”
…is “being honest”, should a candidate’s staffers try to show how different he is by being DIShonest?
it wasn’t dishonest. You just don’t seem to want to admit that. It wasn’t even misleading. It was simply true.
thus vote to allow insurance companies to continue canceling insurance policies for little babies with pre-existing conditions.
That above statement is ‘true’ and yet it is also dishonest.
You may have invented or reviewed sufficient detail in your head, I remain unconvinced.
poor analogy. In fact, I believe it was only two weeks before the final vote Bennet was sending very important sounding letters to Reid about the public option and how they HAD to bring it back to the floor.
We have differing opinions on what ended up being proved.
If that version of the definition of honesty is okay for you, that’s your choice. Good luck with it.
It means they are not campaigning.
This is their campaign’s only way to get media coverage. Please note the number of attack diaries and increased posts by his campaign here.
After the assembly, there will be no way for Andrew to get adequate media coverage=things getting worse.
but it’s nice to come on and visit with all you kids from time to time.
Also, I thought it was only 6. You claimed previously that every Romanoff supporter on this site is actually just one of 6 Romanoff staffers. So is it an army or is it a few kids who never see the sun?
I’ve come to the conclusion that facts don’t matter with AR’s hardcore supporters.
His record of voting differs greatly from his current views.It wouldn’t be so bad on things like immigration if he simple told the truth, which is he did the expedient thing for a politician in 2006 and has changed his mind. He did that with PAC money and people seem to buy it.Instead he says his civil rights record is 2nd to none. Now that’s a bad joke. The truth might be that he feels that he can’t be a professional politician concerned about his political future and be frank about civl rights.
What his staff makes up about him and what AR puts out could be 2 different things.His hardcore supporters are very angry. Perhaps Ar is very angry, too. He can’t deny that he personally accused Michael of selling votes with no substantiation at the debate in Colorado Springs.Any benefit of the doubt as to his being in charge of the negative campaigning dissapeared with that missive.
Wades point is disingenous as it’s clear that the comments come from AR supporters.
If Bennet backers countered then we’d just get more anonymous hate filled tirades.
At least Wade posts under his own name. He also seems less genrally angry than other Romanoff backers. Probably most of Romanoff supporters back him because they like his personality and he makes them laugh.
Nevertheless,my experience has been that Michael Bennet has integrity and doesn’t lie.
How about, “No, I will not close Manual High School.” This whopper was told to community over and over and over again. Guess what happened.
I guess the draw of Bill Gates’ foundation money was more important.
😉