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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 16, 2010 04:37 AM UTC

(Updated to reflect CPR change) Breaking: Romanoff Would Have Killed Wall Street Reform

  • 112 Comments
  • by: catpuzzle

Update 2: Looks like the reporter misunderstood Romanoff’s effort to have it both ways by trashing the bill and attacking Bennet, without actually saying he would have voted for it. Glad Andrew now has decided to support the bill though. If he had said he supported it earlier, which he was trying to avoid saying, this all would have been moot.

we mistakenly reported that his democratic challenger Andrew Romanoff would have voted against the bill. Romanoff clarified his position today

Update: The Huffington Post has posted the radio report, and it says (and I heard)…

“Senator Bennet’s democratic primary challenger says the bill doesn’t do enough to fix Wall Street and he would have voted against it.”

Huffington Post writes…

Challenger Andrew Romanoff says he would have voted against the financial reform bill passed by the Senate this week because it doesn’t go far enough. Were Romanoff, the former Speaker of the Colorado State House, representing Colorado in the Senate, his ‘No’ vote would have made him one of just two Democrats to oppose the legislation, and would have prevented the bill’s passage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

ORIGINAL POST:

Wall Street reform finally crossed the finish line today, but if Andrew Romanoff were in the Senate, it would have died by one vote.

I was listening to Colorado Public Radio on the way home today. They reported (and I heard VERY clearly) that Romanoff said he would have voted against Wall Street reform. That means it never would have passed since it got only 60 votes. Michael Bennet and Mark Udall voted for it.

I think it’s pretty ironic, since in Romanoff’s new television ad he refers to Wall Street as a “rigged casino.”  But Romanoff obviously doesn’t want to fix the problem or even take steps forward to address the problems that led to our financial crisis.

According to the New York Times, this bill will help end the same reckless behavior that got us into this mess. Republicans held up the legislation for weeks, as they are now holding up extending unemployment benefits, etc, but in the end Mitch McConnell, Jim DeMint, and the rest of the other Republicans lost. And Romanoff would have been their ally.

The bill expands federal banking and securities regulation from its focus on banks and public markets, subjecting a wider range of financial companies to government oversight, and imposing regulation for the first time on “black markets” like the enormous trade in credit derivatives.

It creates a council of federal regulators, led by the Treasury secretary, to coordinate the detection of risks to the financial system, and it provides new powers to constrain and even dismantle troubled companies.

It also creates a powerful new regulator, appointed by the president, to protect consumers of financial products, which will be housed in the Federal Reserve. The first visible result may come in about two years, the deadline for the consumer regulator to create a simplified disclosure form for mortgage loans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07…

It may not be perfect, but it’s clear that it contains a lot of good stuff protecting consumers, regulating banks, etc.

We have passed two key pieces of reform this year: Health Care Reform and Wall Street reform. Romanoff has also said he would have killed Health Care Reform. Again, neither bill was perfect, but change is slow and I think both moved us miles up the road.

Tweet
Share

Comments

112 thoughts on “(Updated to reflect CPR change) Breaking: Romanoff Would Have Killed Wall Street Reform”

  1. So, he bashes Wall Street in his ad and then says he wouldn’t have done anything to fix the problem.

    Just another reason not to vote for Romanoff.  

    1. I have gone from feeling sorry for him to disliking him. As I have said before the way he chosen to run his campaign not only ensures he will loose this race but I honestly believe has ended his political future in Colorado. It is a shame. It is his fault.

  2. Our victories were created by staying together and taking over as a team. Since Barack Obama was elected, there are cracks and divisions in our party everywhere. The far left and the dreameers are always complaining about Obama, or about how we haven’t done everything fast enough, yet they are so busy whining, they are not helping. I am sick of it!

    It is exactly what the Republicans want — seeing us destroy each other.

    No, the bill probably isn’t 100% perfect, just like the health care bill wasn’t 100% perfect. But like health care reform, it is a GREAT start.  These Dems who cross their arms, dig the heels into the ground like spoiled children and say, “It’s my way or no way at all” are going to cost us elections if we don’t call them on it.

    Lead, follow, or get out of the way, obstructionist Dems.

    2. From a trusted source in the newspaper industry: “The CPR reporter did say AR would have voted against the bill because it wasn’t tough enough. But it appears the reporter made a wrong assumption, based on AR’s comments in an earlier interview about how disappointed he was in the Senate version of the bill. AR would have voted for the final version… No question. Still thinks it didn’t go far enough, but so do a lot of Dems who voted for it.”

      As much as I support Michael Bennet, I want to give Andrew a fair shake here, too. I’m looking forward to hearing Andrew’s explanation.

      Still, the above rant still applies. Since the 2008 election, I can’t believe all the “progressives” who have been trashing Obama for not working fast enough. Do they forget George Bush and all the atrocities he perpetrated against this country and all over the world? Recovering from the Bush years and criticising Obama is like having your house on fire and blaming the fire department for not having a clean truck.

      1. I am asking lots of people, trying to get a direct quote from Andrew. I have not found anyone who knows for sure, including the person I mentioned above. I just used them as one example of people saying something like, “This may be an exaggeration”.  

        The words above are not verbatim from one person — it’s more like a summary of the caution I am hearing in getting too carried away with this story. Sorry — wish I could edit and/or delete when I make a mistake.

        1. posted by someone named Nick Kelly, whom I do not know personally,

          “Evidently the “reform” bill doesn’t accomplish much….

          Andrew’s position indicates he would at least have pushed to restore Glass-Steagall -which would have been far better than what was just passed.”

          As far as I know, there isn’t legislation out there to restore Glass-Steagall being voted on today.

          This still begs the question for me,”Does Andrew think he can single-handedly create and pass legislation? Is he realistic?” (It’s pretty easy to be an “armchair” Senator.)I admire Romanoff’s passion for his work, but could he really do any better himself? I could say, for example, “If I were Senator I would outlaw eating meat, and enact legislation to banish the world of child abuse and human trafficking” but it doesn’t mean I could really do it.

          I hope the media is working on this story. I think we’re all waiting for a straight answer from Andrew.

            1. is that Andrew has to find ways to criticise every step Michael Bennet takes — if his shirt is unbuttoned, if he fails to say “Gezundheit” to someone who sneezes, etc.  If Andrew is saying he would not have voted against this bill, I WANT TO HEAR HIM SAY HE WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING MICHAEL BENNET DID.(As in vote for it.)

              Which is it, Andrew? You would have voted for it, or wouldn’t you? Or would you have abstained or skipped the vote? Let’s get you on record here. Did Michael Bennet do the right thing? Would have you done exactly what Michael Bennet did? Please, we want to know.

              1. let me tell you why I am no different than my opponent. How many of those you seen in your life PM?

                And good to know now the whole post was bullshit to begin with. Not that I am likely to see any meaningful retraction of the hate from the Bennetistas if I scroll down though, am I?

                  1. but the hate lingers on.

                    And I did see you calling for clarity all through. I respect you for that MADCO.

                    But others spewing their bile couldn’t be bothered to say “Oh, this wasn’t really true. We were wrong.”

                    1. No one on your side can be bothered to stop and acknowledge catpuzzle heard CPR correctly. And to then ask the question; How did CPR get this wrong?

                      Could it be that when Andrew gives that “it only takes one” foolishness and the other stump y double talk that it sounds like he  means it?  And that it would be easy enough for an outside observer, in this case CPR, to get confused?

                      He did it in the healthcare debate too – the bill doens’t go far enough, there oughtta be single payer, the process was stupid, it would only take one senator to stand up and stop it   Oh, so you would have voted no? that;s a false choice, blh blah stump, 50 yard line  Would you have been that one?  no

                      It comes from running the “i’m an insurgent outsider campaign, that opposes everything my opponent has done, (except not really ’cause I would have voted the same way on healthcare,energy, and now financial reform.”

                      So when you can acknowledge there is good reason for the confusion and frustration, it will be a good thing caus the general ballots will be int he mail in just 10 weeks.

                    2. Damn how time flies.

                      And I really don’t get the Bennet team here. As I said to EmeraldKnight, is the expectation here that Andrew should just run his campaign as a “me too” for everything Bennet would do?

                      Of course Andrew wants to draw a distinction to things he thinks are worth fighting for and that would a few more Senators stand up and fight, maybe we would have a public option today.

                      But that isn’t good enough for you all. You’d rather he didn’t call these things out and just sat meekly on the side without campaigning at all.

                      In fact, from the overall timbre of the pro-Bennet comments here, there is a great deal of frustration with Andrew for him having the temerity to challenge the appointed Senator in the first place. The nerve of him for daring to challenge the party’s established leadership like that and take on one of their own!

                    3. He should campaign anyway he wants.

                      But it feels …. over the top when Campanoff comes on here and blasts catpuzzle and Team Bennet for reacting to the CPR report, then to blast Team Bennet again because CPR made a mistake, then to blast Team Bennet again because we understand how CPR could make such an error.

                      Be as oppositiony as you want- or agree as much as you want.

                      Where it gets weird is when you claim to be in opposition. but, really you agree.

                      Most of us got over any frustration or concern about having a primary many many months ago.

                      The rest of us will get over it in a few days.

                    4. challenged the very basis of the report, as you did yourself.

                      The willingness of Team Bennet to jump all over the report and never offer any retraction of the vitriol when it was found wanting is much more telling in my view…

              2. His opponent does on almost every issue.

                It’s unfortunate that his opponent shows typical negative campaign tactics that have been used since his entry.

                The ends do not justify the means.

          2. He never questioned Bill CLinton repealing Glass-Steagel to my knowledge. Considering how often he states that he’d vote with the

            Republicans, he would appear to be running for the wrong party’s nomination.

    3. I too am sick of the whiney, mamby pamby Democrats who will say anything, no matter how unrealistic or unbelievable, to try to get Romanoff elected as if that were more important that putting people back to work or getting health insurance for those with pre-existing conditions.  They rarely even have a decent case to make, maybe because their just isn’t one.

        2. I have some problems with the final bill, such as a lack of public option, but that is not to say there were not good elements.  It addressed pre-existing conditions and helped ensure people couldn’t be dropped when they became ill.

        3. I’m talking about the mamby pamby Romanoff supporters who criticize the health care bill, because single-handedly Romanoff would have passed the public option.

  3. I want to hear it my self- are you sure it was CPR?

    Which one? What time? What show?

    I heard the one where he would have been the one senator to kill healthcare (It only takes one). (It was cited and blogged to death right her eon CoPols last winter.)

    And I heard the one where he said he would have been the one to hold off the recent recess, and gotten the unemployment benefit extension passed.  (hear it here: http://www.cpr.org/#load_artic…

    But I’m not believing this one without citation or source.

    No offense catpuzzl – I just don’t believe he’s that naive. Or crazy. Or whatever.

    1. I don’t know where to find it online, but I am very sure that I heard it.

      I believe the line was something like…

      “Bennet’s primary opponent Andrew Romanoff says the bill didn’t do enough to reform Wall St., and he would have voted against it.”

      1. weeks of denying that he said he’d have been the one to kill it (he did say it) he was asked point blank would he have been the one D to say no and he admitted no.

        I would have thought- was thinking- that he had learned that CO voters generally value pragmatism over idealism. Just like he does. Or did.

  4. .

    The Health Care Reform thingy was theater.  It was mostly designed by the health care insurance industry to favor the health care insurance industry.  

    This Financial Reform thingy is also theater.  It was also mostly designed by the industry it purports to regulate to favor that same industry.  

    Pro-Bennet Dems apparently will say anything to help him get elected, but this sort of mendacity does not belong on a site catering to folks who can read.  Save this blather for the TV ads.

    .

    How can any of you say that Romanoff opposed reform ?  Don’t you worry about your credibility ?  

    Romanoff opposed THIS BILL, because it substitutes form for substance.  It is dishonest for you to say otherwise.  

    A GREAT start ?  That’s only true if you are a banker on Wall Street.

    .

      1. Romanoff and Rasmussen pols help his cause. I can’t blame him for taking adavantage of  the weakening of the Dem party that Romanoff has created.

        Glass-Steagle was repealed by Bill Clinton. Romanoff wasn’t against it before. He’s running completely away from the DLC Dem that he is.

        Fortunately we have a Senator in place that is pragmatic and would rather stay silent than lie to the public.

        1. regrets some of the stupid things he supported while president, such as NAFTA.

          Get over it, Ray, the finance bill is as much of a joke as the health bill was.

          D.C. is the rigged casino that AR says it is.  And phony pragmatism does not trump substance, IMO.

          And will you please cut the DLC garbage?  Bennett is so well connected, he’s the epitome of a DLC-er [or any other similar organization] even if he lacks official membership.

          1. Ray, nor I nor anyone else I can think of that has posted here in support of Senator Bennet has.

            What we’ve challenged is AR2.0’s complete avoidance of the subject.  I say – “let your DLC flag fly”

    2. fight so hard against it? Why weren’t they fighting to toughen it up instead of weakening it? I’m confused. Either it was a real step forward towards reforming Wall Street, which would explain Republican opposition or it was “theater” and didn’t really do anything which should have gotten lots of Republican votes.

      Remember that this legislation is a lot like health care, it’s a great first step. It will be improved upon in future congresses. I truly believe in the adage of not letting the perfect get in the way of the good. Medicare and Social Security were not passed in their current forms. They were improved upon, and to this day are still improved upon.

      1. .

        Sorta like the Dems.

        Not a nickel’s worth of difference between them, when it comes to bending to the will of bankers and traders and the Masters of the Universe.

        .

        1. any surprise that the bill does not address the root problem?

          This is a feel good, do nothing, piece of legislation so Bennet can spend the financial services industry money that they bought him with running commercials about how he was tough on them.

            1. This legislation does not erect the barriers separating different types of financial product risks that had existed until Glass/Steagal was repealed.  The Dems wrote this legislation and have 59 votes in the Senate and a few persuadable Republicans.  This bill is all about posturing that they did something.

                1. They passed this legislation and if they wanted to make it meaningful they would need to fight to make it meaningful.  The apparantly were not willing to do that.  The R’s don’t have the votes to pass anything so why would one of them take on the financial services industry just for grins?

                  1. Clearly the years of R congressional majorities were squandered.  Oh, wait, Clinton wouldn’t have worked with them.

                    Well then we elected GWB – and he had R majorities for 6 years.  All that financial reform.

                    1. Those were the bad Republicans. The ones that got the Potomac Fever. We don’t have to worry about them anymore.

                    2. But the repeal of Glass Steagal is the problem that should have been addressed.  If you want to throw blame around, there is plenty for both sides of the aisle.  If you want to be an adult and address the problem, it is the repeal of Glass Steagall.

          2. with possibly the least seniority of any member of the Senate except Scott Brown was the one responsible for the bill’s failings? He’s the most powerful man in the world!

          3. I keep hearing these claims of how much money he got but haven’t seen a link or a number put to the claims. How about a ranking? Out of the 100 senators where does he rank for taking financial services industry money? Or is this just another nice attack talking point?

            2. Little bit of searching on these here internets and you can find all the info you want:

              From OpenSecrets – Top 10 Wall Street $$ in Congress

              1. Schumer, Charles E (D-NY)   $3,896,839

              2. Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)   $1,778,550

              3. Reid, Harry (D-NV)   $1,523,567

              4. Kirk, Mark (R-IL)   $1,458,255

              5. Shelby, Richard C (R-AL)   $1,227,738

              6. Bennet, Michael F (D-CO)   $983,701

              7. Brown, Scott P (R-MA)   $967,564

              8. Lincoln, Blanche (D-AR)   $941,350

              9. Blunt, Roy (R-MO)   $936,922

              10. Cantor, Eric (R-VA)   $917,247

              From US News and World Report, June 18, 2010

              Top 10 Dems or Repubs running in 2010 – Oil & Gas money

              1 Lincoln, BlancheDemocrat AR

              2 Vitter, David Republican LA

              3 Murkowski, Lisa Republican AK

              4 Cornyn, John Republican TX

              5 Coburn, Tom Republican OK

              6 Thune, John Republican SD

              7 DeMint, Jim Republican SC

              8 Burr, Richard Republican NC

              9 Bennet, Michael Democrat CO

              1. claim and never challenged it. I appreciate the info. seems pretty ballsy of Bennet to vote for FinReg in spite of getting all that money. I guess Wall Street isn’t getting their money’s worth.

                Does anyone know the name of Romanoff’s old PAC before he shut it down? I’ve also been trying to find out how much O&G money Romanoff took before he saw the error of his ways. OpenSecrets.org doesn’t track state house members. I have tried different google searches but don’t know who I would call to find this info out. Any suggestions?

                1. ’76, If you believe that by voting for this bill that Bennett voted for financial reform, then you probably also believe that the “Patriot Act” was all about patriots.

                  1. big comprehensive legislation it’s not perfect. I do think that you have to start somewhere though. With the way Washington is, there was absolutely NO WAY to pass Financial Regulation legislation that was as tough as Democrats wanted it to be and still get Republican votes needed. I live in the real world, and in the real world, you need 60 votes to break a filibuster to invoke cloture. Democrats don’t have 60 seats to do it themselves. Unfortunately, they HAVE to compromise, aka give up some of the things they wanted, to get some Republicans to vote with them.

                    Now that this has passed, it’s up to US to pressure our Senators and Congressman to keep creating amendments to improve the bill. That’s how our system works. It’s not pretty but it’s realistic.

                    I’m really sick of people criticizing the bill for not doing enough but not coming up with solutions on how to pass a stronger bill without a single Republican vote. Or a much stronger bill and losing some of the Blue Dogs?  

              2. If Romanoff wins the primary then he better stop saying that Bennet donors are corrupt now if he expects to get any backing.

                If he doesn’t then he’ll probably leave Colorado and blamr someone else for his failure.

    2. Apparently Romanoff’s hypothetical votes in the Senate would have held more weight than any other Senator’s. I didn’t realize he was that awesome! Apparently Romanoff has laid out plans to fix everything that’s wrong with our country. He also has the novel idea of hunting down Al Qaeda wherever they are. Then we can worry about “democratizing” Afghanistan by working the polls but not necessarily supporting Karzai.

      I didn’t hear him say he wouldn’t have voted for the FinReg bill. Maybe catpuzzle hear it somewhere else?

      2. but it sounds like a CPR reporter was summarizing in the news, not a new interview per se.

        I no longer care.  Sure, I  would prefer to get a quote for  clarity, but I’ve preferred more clarity for some time. Maybe it’s just me.

  6. So you heard on the radio, don’t remember who said it, what the words were and can’t find any verification but let’s just go with it. Or maybe what you heard was the BS coming from Camp Bennet because your claim is exactly what they are telling the press. Or, we could go with pesky things like verifiable quotes from Romanoff himself instead of your distortion of something somebody might have said but we’re not really sure. Maybe you just MSU since what you are saying is exactly what Bennet’s own Baghdad Bob is telling the press despite knowing it to be false. At least you and Trevor Kincaid are consistent in MSU.

    BTW, should Russ Feingold be thrown out of the Senate by real Dems like you because he did in fact vote against it saying it did not go far enough and would not prevent another financial crisis? Kaufman was also a vocal critic but, like Romanoff said he would, ultimately voted for a bill saying it was far from perfect but was the best that could have passed with how much influence the banks had on the bill. (Also see http://www.time.com/time/polit… )

    Getting back to you MSU about what Romanoff said on the bill and I mean what he said, not what Bennet’s shill is saying:


    http://www.gjsentinel.com/news…

    The measure, Romanoff said Thursday night, “was the best we could expect from the Congress that we have. That’s not good enough.”

    The measure, however, fails to rebuild a wall between commercial and investment banking that was erected in 1933, Romanoff said.

    The measure also falls short of protecting taxpayers from having to cover banks deemed too big to fail because it did not limit the leverage used by large banks, Romanoff said.

        1. Today the Mason Dixon poll has Reid over Angle 44-37. Same thing will happen here. Tea Party support will be toxic for many Republicans in the general.

    2. You chastise others for not quoting AR, then say that Romanoff said he would have voted yes, and then provide a quote where that’s not what he said.

      Do you have a verifiable quote from AR himself where he says- “yes, I would have voted yes”

      2. It gets a little tough I know – you have to click on links and read the first line but I’ll do the heavy research for you:

        The financial regulation bill passed Thursday by the Senate would have won his vote, but not his enthusiasm, Senate challenger Andrew Romanoff said.

        See I know it wasn’t in quotes, but here’s how that reporting stuff works – when a reporter says somebody “said” it means that was what the person they are referring to stated. So when it’s “would have won his vote” and “Romanoff said” that means that Romanoff stated it would have won his vote.

  7. I remember reading quite a bit on the terms of service about this not being a place for spreading rumors and unsupported claims.

    This diary is not only an unsupported claim, but an outright lie, as JeffcoTrueBlue showed.

    As I recall there was some teabagger banned a few weeks ago for making a bunch of unsupported claims about Bennet (and rightfully so as that is a policy).

    Assuming the policy applies to everyone and not just every except people who want to trash Romanoff, please remove this diary.

    If I start putting up diaries like “Michael Bennet said he would vote to eliminate the department of education and turn everything into a glorious charter school for rich white kids” and my only proof was “no guys trust me — I heard it on the radio I swear,” I would expect the same.

    1. as hopefully this entire diary is disappearing soon, I would like to thank MADCO and a few others who I normally disagree with on this site for calling bullshit until some sources emerged.  Now we know that this diary is, in fact, bullshit.

      1. I posted a diary based on a report I heard on Colorado Radio, which is now posted.

        Maybe Andrew is trying to walk this back and tell something else to reporters, I don’t know. But the report exists and everything this diary says is true.

        Even if the reporter unfortunately mis-characterized his position, I think the reasons for that are interesting. How far can Romanoff get away with trashing a piece of legislation, and then saying he would have voted for it. There has to be some accountability. It’s the same games he played with health care.

        It’s an understandable thing for a reporter to assume that if you spend 5 minutes tee’ing off on something, you probably oppose it. If not, you’re just a self-serving politician-y hypocrite.

        Which actually sounds just like….Romanoff.

          1. Andrew Romanoff is not man enough to step out and say he supports Michael Bennet’s vote here.

            Andrew Romanoff prefers innuendo, snark, and dishonesty, leaving the impression that Michael Bennet is corrupt and bought, but then claiming he isn’t, just that “the system” is corrupt yadda yadda.

    2. Then it was passed to the Senate. Ammendments happened. Then he was not enthusiastic about it. The devil is in the details.

      The world is not black and white, on or off, up or down, right or wrong, Stryker. There are a million in-betweens on every level, in every subject, at every phase. The Romanoff camp’s insistence on demonizing Michael Bennet is an example of this extreme thinking. Far left whiners and tea party people are more examples. Religious zealots are another.

      Where did thinking in extremes get us? The Dark Ages. George Bush. Nazis. Stalin. You name it, everything bad in history came from people thinking in extremes. The truth is buried somewhere in the details. Dialogue to uncover the details is a good thing.

      Want another frame?  Write a blog saying Andrew agreed with Michael Bennet on this bill.

  8. None of these pieces actually has Romanoff saying he would vote against the bill.  There is commentary, and summarizing, but no quote.

    The simplest story would have a quote from the candidate.  The fact that is missing is really fishy.

    Something is rotten in the state of Denmark; this has the feeling of a Bennet campaign hacket job.

        1. [like Ray Springfield, greenpurple or whatever] just foam all over this blog because of ‘nasty, nasty’ Romanoff and then complain about AR’s supporters.   Weird.

      1. just saying that it looks like it was wrong.  CPR doesn’t have a quote.  Huffpo ran without one, but no longer makes the claim Romanoff said he would vote against it, instead saying CPR said…

        it looks like a mistake the Bennet campaign pounced on to push.  Well done?  Sure.  Accurate?  Doesn’t look that way.

        1. Corrections are sometimes made, when corrections are done well, they are fast and accurate.  This was apparently both.

          But absent further clarification from CPR on how this mistake was made,  to suggest this was somehow Bennt’s fault is … weird.

          BTW- I preferred “hacket-job”- reminded of the time I saw Buddy Hacket live. He killed, and even though I was never a big fan of his movies, (Love Bug was fun) he was as funny as funny gets that night.

  9. Check the link catpuzzle provides — Huffpo backs off the claim that Romanoff said he would vote against it.  They changed the language in their story.

    Catpuzzle — now that the little house of cards everyone over at the Bennet camp has been building is collapsing, would you care to take down your diary?  Or are you not allowed to?

    1. The update is interesting.

      The error is clearly CPR’s.

      The omg, ott reaction is Stryker’s.

      The truth now is that AR and Senator Bennet agree.

      That;s right, they both think the bill is imperfect and should have gone farther, but that in the end it had to pass.

  10. I am running because I really want to be a US Senator more than the other guys do.

    I will end the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Before Christmas.

    I will pass Marijuana legalization.

    I will pass legislation that prevents BP from drilling anywhere, forever.

    I will save the Pandas.

    I will pass legislation that makes sure women are paid the same as men in respective jobs.  

    My team has a plan to end foreclosures in Colorado, forever.  I just can’t tell you about until I am elected.  

    I will be more progressive than the other guys.

    I am pissed that Gov. Ritter didn’t appoint me, a Bi-Racial, Military Veteran woman, for the US Senate.  I am clearly the only person that has a different take on things because I am not a White man and I have served my country in uniform.

    I am business owner and I pay people regularly who work for me.

    I have done my time with Democratic Party by raising a whole bunch of money for the President and couple of other elected officials and I fought the good the fight in CD5.

    Did I mention, I was Bi-Racial and a woman?

    So, vote for me, because I will change Washington.  No one can change Washington like I can change Washington because I am a political outsider and I own a Pot Dispensary.  

    I am really different.

    I promise when I am elected, I won’t do what all the other Senators do.  I won’t vote for anything that is not 100% perfect and I won’t vote for anything that I don’t 100% agree with!

    Seriously!

    2. I don’t get the talking points everyday, so I am not up on the ins and outs.  But as a normal citizen that is concerned about taxes and running her small business, I find this whole thing really silly.  No junior anything is going to make a difference.  

      Anyone elect to office who wants to stay in office is going to spend more time campaigning and raising money than they are running the country and making policy.

      Politics is about compromise.  Anyone who believes that Washington is going to change because we elect another white male democrat, who has never served in the military, owned a business or paid off a school loan is just fooling themselves.

      Want change, talk to Warren Buffet or Bill Gates and find out why the auto lobby has killed any money for alternative fuel research.  That is America’s power base.

      Our elected officials will do whatever they need to stay in office.  Our Party system is more concerned with keeping Dems or Repubs in office than they are about taking care of the American people.

      Look, I love Andrew.  I am sorry there are not higher end positions available for him.  He is bright and very talented.  But there is nothing about Andrew that yells CHANGE.  Nothing.

          1. and I can say with confidence that the Scott McInnis campaign was chugging right along UNTIL AFTER Andrew threw his hat in the ring. He’s THAT powerful. And that good for Colorado.

  11. Unfortunately for Bennet’s spokesman Kid Kincaid and those who got their talking points early from Kincaid & Carey, looks like it’s not quite what they were claiming.

    Although peacemonger on here and Nancy Cronk on HuffPo have been carrying the lie Bennet’s camp put out with the help of Madcow & catpizzle, HuffPo has now updated with the statement from the original alleged source:

    Colorado Public Radio has issued the following clarification Friday:

    Colorado Public Radio has corrected themselves saying in part “we mistakenly reported that his democratic challenger Andrew Romanoff would have voted against the bill.”

    So the one source that has a quote from Romanoff, the Grand Junction Sentinel, says Romanoff would have voted for the bill though he thinks it falls short of what needed to be done.

    Looks like the only ones left out in the wind pushing a lie are Kincaid and his shills on here.

    1. I guess little catpuzzle doesn’t actually want to update their diary to reflect the truth, nor does Pols want to step in to pull obvious campaign trash posing as BREAKING! news.

      1. I’ll update in a sec.

        That said, I don’t think Andrew gets his money’s worth with you.

        Hiring a scumbag like you has reflected VERY poorly on him. When this is over, you’ll be gone. But the negative smears you’ve made will still be attached to Andrew forever. He’s done.

        1. I mean that’s clear.  Or maybe you’re just an intern for Bennet?  You give a price sheet for the Senator’s time to anyone recently?

          You also may want to update the part where you quote Huffpo…since that’s wrong too.

          Oh and for the last time, I’m not a paid blogger for the Romanoff camapaign.

    2. I pushed back- not helped get CPR’s mistake out there.

      You’ve done this to me before.

      Why do you and StrykerK2 (and Sharon and oldbenkenobi and several others) automatically assume we’re all singing from the same choir book?  I don’t sing in the choir.

      Please top misattributing stuff to me.

      It makes me feel … dirty.

      1. You are correct MADCO. I incorrectly jumped to including you when I should not have. I apologize for that. Though you and I often disagree, in this situation you called for people to provide sources. I’ll be more careful next time.  

  12. Since the title is still a complete lie and Catpuzzle apparently won’t get rid of HuffPo statements that they themselves have admitted were false?

    Seriously — this meets the criteria for where you guys normally step in.  I mean if not I guess “BREAKING: Michael Bennet kills puppies” is cool as long as I say things like “oh wait I was wrong and he doesn’t kill puppies”

    1. It does not need to be pulled.

      It is no longer “breaking”.

      And the headline could be modified to indicate there is an update.

      But it was correctly reported from the start.

      Catpuzzle heard CPR report XYZ.

      CPR was wrong- and provided a correction. Catpuzzle update with that correction.

      1. it still has a complete lie.  The new headline still has some crap about Romanoff killing reform.

        It’s blatantly obvious this is an effort from the Bennet campaign to spread their normal lies about Romanoff.  

  13. I scrolled all the way to the bottom and nowhere, not once, did any of the Bennetistas slamming Andrew for this initial report in the original diary step up and say “Wow! We were wrong. We’re sorry.” Nope, the main tenor was “Well, even though the facts showed Andrew would have voted for the bill, we still want to act like he wouldn’t have because Andrew is such a terrible human being for challenging our darling Senator!”

    un-fucking-believable!

    1. I scrolled all the way to the bottom and nowhere, not once, did any of the Romanoff supporters slamming anyone for this CPR”S cited report  in the original diary step up and say “Wow! We were wrong. We’re sorry. CPR did say it exactly as Catpuzzle posted”   Nope, the main tenor was “Well, even though the facts showed Andrew agreed with Bennet while saying he didn’t and was the source of all the confusion, we still want to act like he wouldn’t have because Andrew is such a saintly human being for challenging the anointed  Senator!”

      totally fucking-believable!

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

93 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!