CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 16, 2010 08:13 PM UTC

Bennet Keeps Promise, Introduces Public Option

  • by: IVoted4Change

With the Democrats still holding a majority and Senators maintaining their constitutional ability to introduce bills and amendments, Colorado’s Senator Michael Bennet took a bold stand to keep his promise to voters and the netroots community who donated over $100,000 to his campaign when he said he would introduce the public option during reconciliation on the healthcare bill.

Bennet later clarified that because there were not enough votes to insert the public option during reconciliation without risking the bill, it was not practical to try to force the issue.  

Not one to give up easily on what he says in letters that he sends to lots of important people or those who gave him money after being moved by his letter, Bennet earlier this year assured those who had named him a public option hero that he would in fact be introducing the public option as an amendment later in the year.

Bennet at the time said it was critical that the insurance companies not simply be handed 30 million new customers without being asked for anything in return and that his support of the public option was unwavering. Bennet noted at the time that Democrats hold the majority but it was going to be a difficult election year and that the public option, along with other key pieces of legislation, needed to be passed while Democrats hold the majority and before the heated fall elections have many Democrats needing to move to center in competitive races.

OK, so this didn’t quite happen. Well, it did, except for the part where Bennet made good on his promise to introduce the public option. Maybe Bennet thinks he’s got the primary wrapped up so he doesn’t need to appeal to those annoying activists who want him to do annoying things like do what he said he’d do. Maybe he’s waiting until after the primary that he thinks he’ll win because, you know, it will be much easier to introduce the public option when it’s much easier to push progressive ideas in a Colorado general election against a Republican. Or maybe, just maybe, he knows something we don’t about how the Dems are going to pick up more seats this November and it will be really super easy to introduce the public option after the November election.

Or maybe Occam’s Razor should apply. The simplest explanation? Writing a letter was a nice PR move to boost cred among progressives. Facing the backlash over not introducing the public option, it was effective and easy to say he would introduce it later. When later comes, it would be easy to say that the Republican opposition is just too strong but he meant it – like really meant it – when he wrote that letter and promised to introduce it later but sometimes he’s just not powerful enough to do what he said he’d do.

Maybe Senator Bennet’s office can tell us when to expect that public option to be introduced. Far as I know, Senators can still go to the floor and introduce bills and amendments.

Will Bennet ever introduce the Public Option?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


43 thoughts on “Bennet Keeps Promise, Introduces Public Option

  1. The headline originally said “Breaking: Bennet Keeps Promise…”

    “Breaking” is a heading that should be reserved for actual breaking news.

      1. I posted what I heard on the radio.

        Andrew can deny it now, but I don’t trust him.

        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.

          1. Catpuzzle- my apologies for doubting you – but this is pretty big news in my circles for several reasons.

            The link SK2 is  encouraging us to check has audio from CPR. At 1:07 it is clear that catpuzzle heard exactly correctly, that CPR reported  that AR doesn’t think the bill goes far enough and would have voted against it.  

            At the top of the post, there is this UPDATE: A spokesman from the Romanoff campaign denies reports that the candidate would have voted against the reform.


                Yesterday (Thursday) Colorado Public Radio news reported that Democratic Senator Michael Bennet voted to approve the financial reform package passed by the US Senate. Bennet is a candidate in the state’s August primary, and we mistakenly reported that his democratic challenger Andrew Romanoff would have voted against the bill. Romanoff clarified his position today (Friday)saying that while there’s more to be done on financial reform, he would have supported the legislation.

                SO- Senator Bennet and AR agree, there’s more to do, the bill could have been better, but a yes vote was the best move.

        1. We’re supposed to allow Romanoff the flexibility of saying he was for it when it helps his ratings, and against it when it doesn’t.  

          1. 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.

          2. I am being unfair to Bennetistas on CP for pushing the tired line of bullshit even after CPR retracted their story. When will the Bennetistas retract their support for an admittedly incorrect story? Apparently never!

            1. Though you are and were.

              CPR reported the news of the day.

              Catpuzzle heard the report and blogged it.

              other stuff happened.

              CPR corrected their report.

              Catpuzzle added that correction.

              So- at first a major news source was reporting that Romanoff would have been the one senator to kill the bill.  That was worthy of discussion.

              Then, when corrected, it appears that Romanoff agrees with Bennet that the bill could be better, but should be passed. Also worthy of discussion.

              I support CPR and I am glad they corrected their reporting on this issue.

              1. I said you think, because you implied without directly saying.

                And in between your nice, neat little parens a world of bilious dreck was posted about Andrew and his campaign based on this misinformation. None of that was retracted by catpuzzle nor anyone else.

                    1. Reminds me of that weekend – or was it longer- you took me to the Boehemian Club. You acted like it was the first time I had been to the Russian River, I let you. But then you let me. And that accountant from Burlingame. And those weird a**holes from Truckee.  Ya know- Saturday was the awesomest, but by Sunday brunch you didn’t want to drive me back to the city.  (Ps- just so you know, I went to my condo and got the CBR – that’s how I got back to the city before you.)


                      You’re wrong.

                      You don’t like it.

                      You like it even less for anyone who disagrees with you to point it out to you, though, of course, you want me to throw it in your face. You need me to throw it in your face.

                      But it’s going to be ok. Whistle while you work. Smile. Cause shit happens.

                      Oh- and I say potato.

                    2. not to kiss and tell you little whore.

                      And it seems to me that as soon as you are rhetorically stymied, you like to devolve into the “shut-up” mode. It speaks to the fact that you know you’re wrong and can’t admit it.

                      It is exactly the same psychological phenomenon as your rationalizations about calling Andrew a “career politician” in counter to my “selfless public servant” comment. You can’t admit you’re wrong, so you bloviate endlessly about how you didn’t really mean what you meant.

                      It’s kind of sad really because otherwise you seem like a reasonably intelligent and rational person.

                    3. Maybe I’m missing something, and I’m not trying to be obtuse although I feel like it sometimes. I feel like “tireless public servant” vs. “career politician” is just spin.

                      Senator Byrd was clearly a career politician but there didn’t seem to be any negativity surrounding his years of service. I assume if Romanoff gets elected to the Senate he will run for more than one term. Would he be proud to serve Colorado for as long as Senator Byrd served West Virginia?

                      Just my thoughts on what seemed a very strange argument over semantics. Thoughts?

                    4. are important. As Lakoff told us, they are the frames we view the world by. If someone promotes their candidate as a “selfless public servant”, and someone else responds that they are instead a “career politician” I believe it speaks to the frames those two parties hold of what it means to serve. At least what the service of the candidate in question means.

                      I have never been one of those who thinks long service in and of itself is a bad thing. In fact, I believe we short-change ourselves be eliminating some of the most highly experienced candidates with term limits. Legislating (and governing slightly less so) are complicated activities and take years to learn to do well.

                      I understood why the perpetual minority party wanted limits because they couldn’t get a toe-hold without them. Why the rest of us thought so much of them is still an unanswered question in my mind.

  2. If Bennet had actually followed through on his promise to introduce a public option, that would have gone a long way with voters like me.

    He raised a lot of money promising progressives the world, and then dropped it as soon as he was done with them.

    Writing a letter doesn’t equal action Senator Bennet.

  3. introduced his public option bill mirroring Massachuttes’. I thought to myself “Now there’s a progressive!” when I read his legislation. I knew there was no way our progressive hero, Romanoff, was gonna let a Republican led state out-do the Speaker that helped lead Colorado blue!

    Romanoff’s awesome stand to bring the public option to Colorado was only outdone by his progressive legislation for gay marriage.

    Oh, what’s that? Romanoff hasn’t done anything but talk about a public option also? Even though he was in a position to do something about it?

    Glass houses Andrew!

      1. Cite a source for your bogus claim that Bennet “abandoned it completely”.

        While you are searching, please look for a source for any time Romanoff introduced the public option.  Anywhere.  Any time.  Ever.

        Romanoff has no job other than ladling out snark.

        Heaping, heaping ladles of snark.

        A real role model that guy.  Does nothing.  Has no job.  Criticizes the guy who is in the arena

          1. public option bill. You would think someone powerful enough to turn the state of Colorado blue could have gotten the public option through the state legislature. Talk is cheap.

        1. Romanoff has worked since leaving office as Speaker of the Colorado House for UC Denver.

          But as usual, the truth doesn’t matter to the Bennet crowd here. Only MSU and acting like rabid pit-bulls against all pro-Romanoff posts, diaries and diarists.  

          1. You say UC Denver.

            Recent article in the Daily Prophet says “community colleges”.

            Other places say Metropolitan Sate University.

            I can understand if he worked at all three – but which is it?

            If he was teaching since he left the legislature- which course, for whom?

            I think teaching is great. I would imagine he’s good to very good in a classroom setting. I would also guess that his students think he’s great.  The truth does matter – what is it?

            1. at least you strike me that way usually. You can find the employee listings of any college or university in America if you put your mind to it. I know you can. It’s what I did…

              1. I’m not going to do your work, nor you guy’s work.

                Until he proves otherwise, he’s got no job, and had some part time teaching gigs since leaving the CO House.

            2. over the years.

              After leaving the legislature, he got a job at a policy center at UCD. He’s been on leave from that since he started running.

      2. You’ve convinced me about Bennet. Now convince me that in the face of everything Romanoff hasn’t done for the public option I should vote for him. He had far more power and far more chances to get something passed for Colorado to get a public option. I mean if Massachusetts could get it why couldn’t Andrew push it through as Speaker? I mean he was instrumental in turning Colorado blue.

        He did nothing for Colorado when he had the power, why would we think he’ll do anything for Colorado or the Country if we give him power (albeit he’ll be a junior senator) again?

        1. AR has said he prefers single payor.

          There are states with single payor.

          In fact, Colorado’s single payor has become a model for several states……. oh wait.

          AR did nothing for single payor when he could.

          He did nothing for consumer protections like foreclosure protections, even though the best foreclosure protections are state laws, not federal.

          And so on.

          But see- primaries are good. Now’s the time to bloddy each other up- it makes better candidates.

  4. If you, me and the President are still in office, we’ll have our majority, this Tea Party thing will have shaken the GOP to it’s already weak roots, and the economy will be on the upswing.

    With the current HCR bill starting to kick in, people will be clamoring for more.  It’ll be just the right time to make another run at the Public Option.  And this time we’ll pass it with a simple majority through reconciliation if we need to.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

89 readers online now


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