Rolling Stone and David Sirota call out Bennet about vote change

(Matt Taibbi gives this story credibility (IMO) – promoted by DavidThi808)

This was going to be cross-posted on, but I see their administrator already has the story up.  Good for them jumping on this topic so quickly.

Huffington Post blogger (and of course syndicated Radio show host and author) David Sirota joins Rolling Stone in discussing Bennet’s seemingly odd vote switch:

While getting caught on camera is certainly clumsy, Bennet’s calculation makes a certain kind of (grotesque) sense – he is among the top recipients of financial industry cash in the Senate, but also running in a contested Democratic primary at a time when core Democratic voters in particular despise Wall Street. He, out of any senator, has a particular interest in trying to simultaneously look like a courageous populist to voters and a reliable corporatist to his big campaign donors.

The vote in question here is regarding consumer protection against the credit card industry.  Senators Bennet and Udall both voted no, but then waited and changed their vote.  It appears as if they did this after consulting party leadership and seeing the vote would ultimately fail regardless of their vote.

Rolling Stone has a fully story as well, with this to say of the legislation:

The short version of this story: Bernie Sanders had put forth a proposal in the Senate to put a 15 percent cap on credit-card interest. Who isn’t in favor of this kind of legislation? The only difference between credit card companies and loan sharks at this point is that you can choose to not patronize a loan shark. As an adult professional in this country one has to have a credit card – it’s impossible to rent a car, buy a hotel room, shop online or do countless other things without one.

I would agree that this looks very bad for the two Senators.  This was a measure that would have helped those of us suffering from credit card debt — debt which was incurred in many cases — because those companies changed agreements only after consumers had acquired debt.  

I think of it this way: if I borrow from a mobster, I expect that they might break my legs if I’m slow in paying them, or might even break my legs if I am paying on time.  These credit card companies are now operating like mobsters, breaking legs even if payments are met on time.

This is especially bad for Senator Bennet, as primary voters this month may not be too keen on his odd change.  Not to miss an opportunity, the Romanoff campaign was quick to pounce:

“The general public has no idea what goes on in the name of political self-preservation,” said Romanoff spokesman Roy Teicher. “This is why people hate Washington, and this video makes their case swiftly.”

172 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. H-man says:

    This was really slimy and disgraceful.  I don’t care if you think he should have voted for it or against it, this was just dishonest. I am glad it was caught on video.  Expect to see it a few times between now and November.

    Seems Senator Bennet learned awful quick how they do business in that Washington.

    • StrykerK2 says:

      it’s also really sad that this is how our government works right now.

    • wade norris says:

      To see the sequence, watch  at 3:03:30 Bennet vote against the interest rate cap amendment. Then watch at 3:05:23 Udall vote against the amendment. Then, watch Bennet and Udall confer with Senator Charles Schumer, waiting to see if the amendment will lose. Once the amendment is guaranteed to die, Bennet switches his vote at 3:07:57 and 15 seconds later Udall does the same.

    • Ray Springfield says:

      Oh, I forgot, you are one of his smear tactics

      bloggers. As for Sirota, he idolizes Chomsky who is a well known Marxist. I don’t need to say anything more.

    • peacemonger says:

      The video shows Bennet and Udall, as well as all of the other Senators, talking to each other, mixing and mingling and handing each other documents constantly.  The audio does not allow us to hear what they are saying. Sirota is assuming the motives of our Senators — that they changed their votes for political reasons. (If he really has ESP, he should be in the circus.)

      Maybe Sirota’s assumptions are correct, maybe not.  

      It could also be true that in the minutes on this video, they were actually persuaded by something someone said or handed them. The fact that around 3:09:40, you see Schumer and Sanders talking, it looks like they are working together on getting votes for this bill. Schumer is Michael Bennet’s democratic mentor (McCain is his Republican one — every freshman Senator has one of each).  Bennet values Schumers opinions.  

      It is just as likely Schumer has influenced Bennet and Udall with another argument.  

    • toobadsosad999 says:

      But don’t expect Bennet to explain his actions.  He still hasn’t explained why he voted no on cram-down and no on the Brown/Kaufman amendment.  His actions are disgraceful and I don’t know why anyone would vote for him in the primary.  

      • MADCO says:

        ANd Bennet DID explain his vote on the cramdown amendment and Kauffman Brown.   You may have your own opinion, you don’t get your own facts.

        • Rainidog says:

          I was at a meeting with Bennet two months ago and heard a very detailed and rational explanation for those votes.

          And no, 999 and H-man, I can’t regurgitate those because I’m not smart enough to be a U.S. Senator and retain all the arcane crap about amendments here and holds there and Senate rule !%#@ and how this section impacts that section, etc., etc., etc.  I suspect neither are you.  I just know that Sen. Bennet laid it all out, he didn’t duck or weave, and it made sense.  

          So, call me a liar, doesn’t change the fact that you insist on saying he “hasn’t explained” when he has.  And would again if you’d seek him out the next time he’s in your area.  Have you ever spoken with him in person?  

  2. JeffcoBlue says:

    Coloradans know desperation when they see it.

    One of you Trippisocks(tm) be sure to give him the message, okay?

    And if Sirota gets any more “neutral” in this primary he needs to put on a uniform.

    I am sick of having the credit card reform that Senator Udall fought for for YEARS, years before he was a Senator, smeared because Romanoff needs to make up 15 points in three weeks. Diary coming.

    • wade norris says:

      why  Bennet votes the way he does on the Senate floor?

      He must be like Nostradamus or something.

      • JeffcoBlue says:

        Bennet explained his vote. If you don’t like it, take it up at the ballot box.

        The CARD Act as a whole is one of the best consumer financial protections to pass in years. The credit card industry fought it tooth and nail. Udall and Bennet both voted in favor, and every Coloradan who holds a credit card owes them a debt of thanks. I am sick of seeing that accomplishment attacked by Andrew Pipsqueak Romanoff and his pack of PUMA malcontents (that means you).

        Sen. Udall worked on this bill for years. The Sanders amendment was a last-minute change that threatened the whole bill. There is nothing unusual about voting against a proposal that upsets a delicate compromise, even if you agree with the goal. This point is lost on those who are willing to take a very good bill and turn it against its proponents because of some additional unattainable level of perfection. And, of course, a primary!

        Tell us again, which Republican would you be willing to water down the bill for to make up for Romanoff’s fucking protest votes? Or is passing NOTHING really okay with you?

        • StrykerK2 says:

          the original story about this a few days had Bennet refusing comment on the change.  Nor do you explain why he did so.

          Instead, you just attack the posters.  I mean it’s no surprise.  You just say what “Pols” wants to but can’t.

        • wade norris says:

          and spinning is what you do best I suppose.

          Because you certainly did not answer the merits of the diary or explain why Bennet or Udall voted no before their yes.

          • MADCO says:

            Shouldn’t we have seen 3Q numbers by now?

          • JeffcoBlue says:

            The way I understand it, the Sanders amendment endangered the larger compromise that got Udall to 60 votes on the bill.

            I can support a goal, but still realize that i have to get a bill passed. If I have a delicate compromise that wins me passage of my bill and it gets spiked by an amendment that would cost me half my votes, I would vote against that amendment. I might well vote for it at a different point to express my support for the goal without endangering what I have already achieved.

            This is actually very easy to understand if you’re not blinded by misplaced rage. But you are, of course – got to remember this.

            • jpsandscl says:

              I am quite dispassionate actually. But this reeks of an attempt to have it both ways and nothing you’ve said makes me think otherwise.

              • JeffcoBlue says:

                Is that the majority of Colorado Democrats are less naive than the author of this diary. The polls say they are by a fifteen point margin, which I find encouraging.

                You’re making fools of yourselves, and unfairly denigrating two good men. What did Udall have to gain, anyway? He’s not up for reelection for over four years. You’re taking a mundane event, hyperbolizing it, and using it to attack both of Colorado’s Democratic Senators – one of whom fought for credit card protections for consumers for the entire time he has been in Congress, years before he was elected to the Senate.

                You could not be more wrong about their intentions, or their character.

                By the way, is there anybody left for Romanoff to attack? Obama, Udall, Ritter too back when that was useful. Hell, maybe Romanoff and David Sirota are the ONLY good Democrats left in the whole state!

                Or, maybe he’s just losing a primary.

              • Voyageur says:

                than God arriving at Mt. Sinai with 100,000 angels and endorsing Michael

                Bennet would prompt you to think anything other than  bad thoughts about Bennet.  And even then, you’d argue that the Bennet campaign was trying to violate the separation of church and state!

                • DavidThi808 says:

                  I don’t see any way you would switch from Bennet to Romanoff.

                  • MADCO says:

                    If 100, 000 angels came and told me that AR was the guy – I’m pretty sure I’d switch. Though, admittedly, only after wrestling with that church state thing, and my church’s resistance to the angel Christology.  

                  • Voyageur says:

                    And you switched from Bennet to, well, whatever gray area you occupy now, I guess Romanoff.  So I don’t think either one of our records is that of a mindless shill.  Stryker’s is precisely that.

                    • StrykerK2 says:

                      I mean you just show up rambling about whatever is apparently on your mind…or was on daytime TV…or something.

                      Wait a minute…Voyageur is Grandpa Simpson!  My god I figured it out!

                    • JeffcoBlue says:

                      Your boss Andrew Romanoff (Trippi probably does not give a shit, because he is an asshole) might not appreciate your ageist name-calling. Please do not complain that others aren’t making germane comments again, I’ll take tangential over plain offensive any day.

                      Primary voters in an off year tend to show a little gray, too. What a fine representative of your candidate you are! I’m going to forward this thread around to some friends.

                    • DavidThi808 says:

                      SK2 – your dropping down to personal attacks and denigrating age are total bullshit. (Not to mention they hurt Romanoff’s chances.)

                      I know you are frustrated by Voyager’s very effective efforts to change the subject. But that does not excuse your being a total dick.  

                    • Ralphie says:

                      Because you might just have cost your candidate TWO votes.

                      Keep it up Strykerk2.  You’re helping me make up my mind.  And once I show my wife your comment, her too.

                    • toobadsosad999 says:

                      with the name calling. Why does a former journalist have to resort to name calling? Are you losing it? Mindless shill is but a name you call yourself.  

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Stryker is a mindless shill.  Doubt that?  Show me one post, any post, that was critical of Romanoff in any way, or laudatory of Bennet.  Every single thing, knee-jerk, no logic, no analysis, two-legs bad, four legs good, Bennet bad and I won’t vote for him if he wins, Romanoff good and all good democrats must support him in the name of party unity if he wins.  This is mindless shilling.  In all honest, toobad, you fit that category too, but not so incessantly as Stryker.  He has done an enormous amount of damage to a good man, Romanoff, with his stupid and vicious behavior.


                    • toobadsosad999 says:

                      It’s what he did with health care reform and it’s what he’ll do in the future.  What will it take for Bennet supporters to realize that Bennet is not in Washington to represent us? He is there to represent the banks and Wall Street and only votes Democratic when he has to make it look like he is progressive.  You are the one that needs to explain why you continue to support a man that has thus far been very supportive of the banks and Wall Street and not so supportive of Main Street.  He is like Timothy Geithner the treasury secretary but he has to be more covert about it or he will not get elected.  But most of us realize what many of you on Bennet Pols don’t, Bennet is going to lose.  It will be either against Romanoff which I hope or against the Republican opponent.  

                      Voyageur you resort to name calling quite frequently.  I would expect it from most on here but you are a former respected journalist and it’s unbecoming and unproductive.  Why can’t you stick to the issues and stop the name calling?

                    • Voyageur says:

                      thus covering 37 million Americans including 500,000 Coloradans.  No doubt, that makes him a monster in human form!

                       Again, here’s my challenge: show one post, just one, from Stryker or yourself that wasn’t mindless shilling but instead took a balanced, constructive viewpoint.  As of now, you’re just human talking points memo.

                    • toobadsosad999 says:

                      The American people are going to get a lousy product and poor healthcare at unaffordable rates. The only redeeming quality is by the time it kicks in we will be so broke from the depression/recession that 39 million Americans will be on welfare to pay for it and the government will have to borrow more money while not raising the taxes of the wealthiest swine among us. Thanks Bennet I’m really blessed to be your ungrateful constituent.  

                    • DavidThi808 says:

                      Nope, you’re not a mindless shill. But I do think you’re giving Bennet a pass on this question. Personally I’d like to hear a compelling explanation direct from Bennet before I say there was nothing to his vote flip.

                    • MADCO says:

                      Just like I’d like to see an explanation for how Sirota is just finding this now.  that vote was last week, right?

                    • toobadsosad999 says:

                      or is he not allowed to have one?

                    • MADCO says:

                      SENATE SESSION

                      May 13, 2009

                      U.S. Senate


                      It’s ancient, in the context of the campaign. Why is it just coming up now?

                    • JeffcoBlue says:

                      Because David Sirota is a hack, and is supporting Romanoff so openly that his protestations to the contrary are utterly laughable.

                      That is why, three weeks before the primary, this over a year-old vote is suddenly all he has to talk about. Joe Trippi is pulling out all the stops now, between this story pushed at exactly the right time by his blogerati friends (Sirota, Taibbi), the push polls, the spike in sockpuppets on this blog…

                      Way too over the top. Way too obvious.

                    • MADCO says:

                      BTW- DS is no real fan of AR.

                      If AR was in the Senate and acted and voted like he did when he was in the CO House, Sirota would be ripping on  him constantly for being way too moderate.

                      Oh, wait maybe I’m thinking of someone else – Sirota loves the DLC, right?

                    • toobadsosad999 says:

                      You just don’t like getting a taste of your own medicine.  

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Is a 15 percent AR cap a good thing.  Sure.  If it dooms the entire bill, can you jettison it?  Sure.  Does it make sense to vote for it as a free standing amendment just to show its a good thing.  Sure.  

                        What’s so hard to understand about that?

                      It certainly doesn’t shock me.

                • JeffcoBlue says:

                  Were they real angels? If you look closely at the C-SPAN video, you can see suspension wires! Do you realize what this means? They’re ALL ON THE TAKE!!!!!!!!!

                  Trust no one, not even God Almighty himself! Only Andrew Romanoff can save us!

                • jpsandscl says:

                  I don’t hate Bennet, I just think he has had a history over the years of being handed things on a silver platter. DPS Superintendent? Really? With absolutely no qualifications for the job? I guess he proved with that post that actual job experience and relevant qualifications are highly overrated!

                  And he slides from that into US Senator? I mean really? There were no better qualified people out there? And I’m not just talking about Romanoff here. I mean in the entire Colorado Democratic Party- not one? Amazing to me.

                  I’ve had to struggle mightily in my life to prove to prospective employers that I had the skills and experience for every job I’ve ever had. It just doesn’t seem to apply to Michael.

                  But I don’t hate him for all that. I just think we could do better and I think Andrew is better.

                  • Voyageur says:

                    and I happen to think Bennet is a better one.

                    But I have no real quarrel with you because I haven’t heard you say that you will do your best to undermine the Democratic Party and let Buck win if Romanoff loses to Bennet.  That’s why I call Stryker a shill boy — that’s his constant theme, along with vicious personal attacks on Bennet.  He’s a mindless, vicious, shill and a hypocrit.  You’re an ardent, even militant, ar man, but not a party wrecker as far as I can see.  So, love and kisses and after the primary, let’s work together to keep this seat in Democratic hands.  

                  • Voyageur says:

                    As far as Ritter’s appointment, I get tired of the Pumanoff line that somehow AR was owed that job.  Could he have done it?  Sure.  But he was by no means the preeminent candidate– that, by consensus, was Hickenlooper (remember, this was before Ritter dropped out and everybody then wanted Hick for Gov.)

                     If I had been Ritter and didn’t want Hick, my first choice would have been former majority leader Alice Madden.  Scary smart, brilliant organizer and, you know, it wouldn’t be such a bad idea to have a woman on the ticket.

                      Next choice:  Cary Kennedy.  Not as good a political organizer as Madden (few if any are) but scary smart and strong voter appeal.

                      Ask Romanoff himself what he thinks of Alice and Cary — he knows how fabulous they are.  So, is he entitle3d to run: sure.  Was he somehow wronged by not being handed the job on a silver platter.  No.

                     Sometimes in this game you have to sit out a dance.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      I think had the choice been anyone actually “qualified” for the job, someone with even a little electoral experience, any of the other many fine Democratic leaders in the state, then I double very strongly that Andrew would have ever considered running at all.

                      I think what has many of his supporters up in arms over the appointment is that it wasn’t one of those many dedicated, tireless, selfless Democrats that was nominated. Instead it was Michael Bennet, whose history with the party is a complete mystery to me.  

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      damned double Scotches blurring my vision…

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      This is gonna sounds like a kooky Teabagger but isn’t that what the Founding Fathers had in mind? Why has it become something “less than”?

                      Lord! It did sound all Teabaggy. I couldn’t figure out how to word it without sounding like Glenn Beck.  

                    • toobadsosad999 says:

                      He worked as a corporate raider and negotiated a derivative deal with tax payer money that is costing DPS millions while enriching the banks. In a derivative deal, also referred to as gambling and now highly regulated, the banks always win no matter which party loses because they charge fees and commissions.

                      Bennet is not a citizen representative he is connected and highly regarded by the banks and Wall Street.  That is what landed him the position and why most ordinary Democrats in Colorado will vote for Romanoff.  

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      when we struggle to find the correct words to put our ideas out there, it is often because the ideas are in themselves incorrect. We are all citizens, even our elected representatives. It is not an us versus them thing we have going on here in America. it is a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

                      In the beginning of our nation, only landed aristocracy could afford to represent the people in government because everyone else had to work to sustain themselves and their families. This is still true to a great degree today (and one of several reason I have for wanting the Colorado legislature to become a full-year institution).

                      Today, those economic barriers have been lowered a lot if not quite eliminated so that more citizens can enter into the process. However, the process of running a campaign, getting elected, serving effectively, etc, etc is difficult at best. It takes years for most to learn the ropes. Some never really do.

                      This is why, in my view, experience does matter. I still fail to understand why we want to hire only experienced people for every other job in America (except school district superintendents now apparently), but we think any or all of us can master the legislative process with no experience. It is a strange idea to me.

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      I do however think that because someone hasn’t held elected office before should not in any way be held against them. Bennet whether you agree with the way he has voted or not, certainly hasn’t had a problem “learning the ropes”. Someone on another thread pointed out that every new incoming Senator is paired up with “mentor” Senators. This country has many examples of people elected at all levels from the private sector and being successful.

      • GregKing says:

        Rats!  Had I known about the May 16th change of vote on the Bernie Sanders amendment by Bennet and Udall, I would not have dropped my ballot in the ballot box – I would have gone down to the county elections department and changed my vote to Romanoff!

        I am very angry about the unedited C-SPAN video showing both Bennet and Udall voting no on the 15% interest rate cap on credit cards, then switching their votes minutes later to a “yea” – for whatever reason they had, the voting record shows they voted yes for a measure they helped defeat.

        This goes on all the time in the Senate and to have someone like Bennet, who espouses change in the way things are done, to use a despicable tactic like that makes me very angry – for people to justify the action and continued support of Bennet with a logical fallacy such as “two wrongs make a right” makes me think they are just as responsible for poor government as the right wing extremists that continue to support McInnis and Maes in the face of their unethical stunts and clueless, rambling, pointless answers to questions in the Denver Post interviews.

        20 minutes.  It was only 20 minutes after I dropped off my ballot that I found out about the double-cross.

        Shame on me for not paying closer attention…

        Rationalize all you want, but the fact remains the final voting record shows a “yea” where it should show a “nay”

  3. MADCO says:

    I watched the CSPAN video, read commentary in more than one place and It looks like a procedural thing.  Nothing int he video or in any of the commentary I’ve seen suggests otherwise.

    I don’t remember ever seeing anything from Bennet or Udall about having voted yes for the Sanders amendment.  If you’ve got something – please post it. Or a link.

  4. jpsandscl says:

    They come out in full force and much cursing and gnashing of teeth and insults and condescension. I think this diary hi tthat nerve.

    Especially you JeffcoBlue. I mean really. Take a valium or somethig, ok?

    • Sage Sam says:

      I think JeffCoBlue gave a pretty plausible explanation to what may have occurred.  I’d like to hear from Udall and Bennet before I go all whaaargarbbbl on them selling my children’s souls to to MasterCard.

      BTW, I’m not a “Bennetista” nor to I have any idea what that is.  However, if I get to wear a cool hat I might consider signing up.  Unless of course I get to part of a packs of  PUMA’s and wear a cool costume, which might be pretty cool as well.

      Seriously, for the millionth time, cut the insults and hyperbole, take a deep breath and please attempt to objectively talk about the issues.  

      • JeffcoBlue says:

        NO ONE has fought harder for credit card reforms that Sen. Mark Udall. He carried this legislation every year while Republican majorities laughed it off. This is like accusing Mother Teresa of beating up little kids. Everyone who knows anything about Udall knows where he stands. Romanoff is trading on ignorance and Pat Caddell rage, and it makes me sick.

        All this proves to me is that Romanoff’s supporters have no grasp of reality, let alone decency. They will throw anyone under the bis if that attack gives them a way to hit Bennet.

        Someday they will be ashamed, assuming they have any.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          Has he put anything out about why he flipped his vote on the amendment?

          • JeffcoBlue says:

            Because Sen. Udall doesn’t have to. No one questions Udall’s commitment to consumers over credit card companies, not in all the long years he was the House sponsor of this legislation.

            Correction: some do now, because Andrew Romanoff is down fifteen points in this primary. He is now at the point of attacking anyone and everyone from whom he believes he can gain an advantage.

            And it is wrong. It is morally and ethically wrong, and I would say so if I supported Romanoff. Plenty of things to attack Udall on, the CARD Act is not one of them. To attack Udall on this issue in order to get at Bennet shows how desperate the Romanoff camp truly is.

            • StrykerK2 says:

              Sestak was down for months too.  The poll you (and Pols of course) reference is old.

              A lot of people have heard that Bennet just polled end of last week.  I’m guessing it wasn’t good since they started directly attacking Romanoff.  Bennet had ignored him up until now.

              • JeffcoBlue says:

                Obviously, the way to make me shut up is to post that new internal Romanoff poll showing how all these ridiculous attacks are working.

                Don’t have it? Well, I never heard about Bennet’s mythical poll either. Talk is so very very cheap.

                So Bennet=Specter now, does it? You go right on with the self delusion.

      • MADCO says:

        You have to deserve one though.

        The bar is not insane- but it’s non negotiable.

        Whatta ya got?

    • OuiserBoudreaux says:

      When Bennet supporters come out in “full force” to defend him, it means that the allegations against him are serious and accurate.

      Ditto for the times when Bennet supporters ignore such allegations (in which case they can’t handle the truth and run away to hide under the bed).

    • DavidThi808 says:

      I haven’t heard any real explanation for the vote switch on this specific amendment. And there is a ton of ad-hominem attacks which generally means that there is no legit answer.

      • JeffcoBlue says:

        If you choose not agree, that’s one thing, but please read it before you say no one has.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          I think your key point was:

          There is nothing unusual about voting against a proposal that upsets a delicate compromise, even if you agree with the goal.

          The thing is they voted against, then for that particular amendment. I can understand voting against a good amendment to keep 60 votes for the bill. What I don’t understand is the no/yes switch on the amendment.

          Or did I miss something?

          • JeffcoBlue says:

            They voted against the amendment when it would have scuttled the CARD Act entirely, then voted yes on the amendment to show support for its goals. This seems very reasonable to me, and happens all the time, and does not indicate all the ridiculous tripe people in this thread seem to think it does. The Denver Post was good enough to point out all the times Romanoff changed his votes in the House as part of symbolism or a longer-term strategy, too.

            Again, why did Udall vote this way if it was just to trick the voters? I’m guessing it wasn’t his election in 2014.

            • StrykerK2 says:

              when this story first came out they just refused to comment as to why (source at unlinkable dying newspaper).

              Sounds like some spin they came up with a few days later, but I haven’t seen it anywhere.

              • JeffcoBlue says:

                Or am I to seriously believe that the man who carried credit card reform legislation for years suddenly sold us all out at the last minute?

                Sorry, but as much as you try, I just can’t buy in to the idea that every Democrat is evil except for Andrew Romanoff.

                • MADCO says:

                  JB- you make the most sense.  Until I hear something better or better documented- that’s the explanation I’m going with.

                • StrykerK2 says:

                  you said

                  They voted against the amendment when it would have scuttled the CARD Act entirely, then voted yes on the amendment to show support for its goals. This seems very reasonable to me, and happens all the time, and does not indicate all the ridiculous tripe people in this thread seem to think it


                  Is this an official statement from the campaign JeffcoBlue?

                  • JeffcoBlue says:

                    It reflects an understanding of how. Congress. Works.

                    Am I an agent of the Dead Governors or do I work for Bennet/Udall/both? You really need to pick a conspiracy theory and stick with it.

                    • StrykerK2 says:

                      I mean isn’t Pols just an extension of the Bennet campaign anymore?

                      Some of us do know, and it makes us sad for what this site used to be.

                    • Voyageur says:

                      Desperate too.  Especially since you  burned your  bridges b y admitting that you won’t vote for Bennet even if he wins, that you prefer six years of Buck to Bennet.  And, of course, in the unlikely e vent that your man does win, you will expect the rest of us to support him, despite your own flaming hypocrisy on the subject.

                       Boy, it will be fun to watch you bellow party unity then!

                    • StrykerK2 says:

                      you actually have anything to discuss on the topic of this diary?

                    • Voyageur says:

                      I doubt it.  But answer the question, shill  boy!  Will you vote for the winner of the Democratic primary in November?

                      Don’t you just hate it when I call you on your hypocrisy?

                    • StrykerK2 says:

                      Here is a diary with news.  You know news right?  Once upon a time I think you might have thought you did.

                      we’ve been round and round on this.  No hypocrisy on my part.  You are the one who has always said we need to unify support for a dem now.  You know what?  Bennet is a sinking ship.  Stay on if you want, but a lot of us aren’t boarding.

                      But back to the topic at hand (and yes I will stay on the topic at hand), here is another example of shady shit from Bennet.  Yet another time he’s playing the usual Washington games.  It was the top recommended diary over at daily kos all afternoon, it’s in rolling stone, on Huffpo…but apparently it doesn’t seem like an issue to you.

                    • JeffcoBlue says:

                      This is going to play really well in Windsor Gardens, sport!

                      You need to ask somebody other than Trippi. He’s never heard of Windsor Gardens either.

                    • MADCO says:

                      Yes, V is probably older than you.

                      But when yuo slam him just for his age, well, it is offensive.

                      It would be like slamming on a poster for his or her race or gender or religion or any of a dozen other things that cannot in and of themselves be slams.

                      Take a deep breath – out then in – and think about it.

                      You want V and the rest of us on your team, right?

                    • Voyageur says:

                      the judge of what constitutes news?

                      Indeed, since you are both a blatant hypocrite and a venomous shill, what gives your opinion any standing on anything.

                        Inquiring minds want to know.

                    • JeffcoBlue says:

                      Yes, Guvs=Bennet=Denver Post=everybody else who doesn’t genuflect to the shopworn idol of Andrew Romanoff. We all plot on conference calls every day to steal your lunch money.

                      I would say this is the dumbest thing from you yet, but it isn’t. And besides, maybe this is what it really looks like when someone drinks the Kool-Aid of a minor candidate. If so, I pity you much more than you piss me off.

    • JeffcoBlue says:

      You were probably expecting my Romanoff sockpuppet doppelganger JeffcoTRUEBlue. It looks like he had the day off today. Not that I know for sure, was he in the office? Stryker would know better than me.

  5. MADCO says:

    And why not take every last chance to slash and burn Senator Bennet while we’re still in a primary.  The bloodier he is after the better, right?

    Taibbi’s frustration about the function of the US Senate is clearly established.  But in this casae, all he’s got is innuendo and supposition.  I could guess what went on too.   SO could you.

    But if the point was to vote “yes” in a token way to be able to make a claim to anyone- where’s the claim? Sirota found the video- I’d have thought he’d have the false bragging after.  

    Maybe, and I’m just guessing here, Sirota knew that if he put up the video, the high energy in the primary would supply all the speculation required.  Maybe not.

  6. Say Hey Kid says:

    The whiney email from in over his head campaign manager Craig Hughes

    shows the first signs that Senator Bennet is clearly worried.  What once looked like an easy primary win has gotten close.  

    With Norton vs. Buck and Maes vs.McInnis August 10 could have three close races.  I think of the three races Maes will win by the largest margin.

    • StrykerK2 says:

      I loved that they attacked Romanoff for…uhh…talking about Bennet’s votes or something.  I mean the irony of a negative piece attacking negativity is just thick.

      Sorry Bennet — if you aren’t proud of the money you take and the votes you make, don’t do it.

      I agree that it showed the Bennet campaign was really worried.  I think they see the writing on the wall.  Campaign members selling access, Bennet changing votes to appear like something he isnt…I wonder what’s next?

  7. JeffcoBlue says:

    It inspired a new sig line, I’ve been needing one.

  8. The realist says:

    I come to ColoradoPols to read breaking political news, and incisive political commentary.  When instead I read something like the above, I feel as if I’ve wasted my time.  Y’all need to rewrite your term papers and turn them in tomorrow.  The only useful commentary I found above was the link to the C-SPAN video (a B minus to Wade – okay, you’re right, I’m not being very generous today).  And by the way, insult MY age all you want – I’ve earned every year.  

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      What I don’t get is the absolute hatred with which Sirota attacks Democratic politicians.  The guy has this Ahab like obsession with attacking Democrats for not being good enough.  It is weird that this guy who basically carries water for the right by constantly repeating how bad Democratic politicians are considers himself a hero of the left.

      • EmeraldKnight76 says:

        and found a few gems. It will come as no surprise to most that I’ve been a consistent Bennet supporter. This story at first blush really upset me. Then I watched the video. You can’t hear anything being said! The dairy makes it sound like you can hear the collusion to change votes and snow the voters. Then I read Jeffco’s completely plausible explanation of the vote switch. I am a big believer in Occam’s Razor and what’s the simplest explanation in this situation? Udall went against everything he has fought for? Bennet forgot that all Senate votes are televised and switched votes as a way to pull a fast one on voters? Or this was standard Congressional posturing as Jeffco laid out? Hell it could be neither.

        I appreciate Jeffco’s thoughtful input. Although I don’t always agree with jpsandscl, denverco, DavidThi808, and other Romanoff supporters or undecideds I appreciate that at least they bring something to the discussions. I know that with these and many of the other posters here, regardless of how uh..spirited the discussions come Aug 11th we will get a Dem elected.

        StrykerK2 brings vitriol, hate, and division.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Hey, I’m not saying I don’t enjoy a good rolicking ripping on someone, especially  if it’s deserved.  However, I’m still of the opinion that in this case it is undeserved (but you’re all working overtime to change that).

      IMHO AR has done a lot of good work for Colorado, and I greatly admire his potential for the future.

      IMHO MB at this point now has a bit more experience at this particular job, a broader overall experience, and connections that are important to getting things done.

      I’m not going to list any of the downsides of either, they both have them, and you all rehash them here everyday.

      You don’t have to convince me, I’m not eligible to vote in Colorado’s primaries.  Having said that, neither side in this ongoing catfight is doing anything to provide me with a reason to want to vote for either of these candidates (except for what I know already — that either of the republican alternatives will obviously be the evil of two lessers.)

      Having said that, I am one voter who doesn’t feel the need to vote a ballot in every race.  If everyone’s a jerk, regardless of affiliation, then I don’t want to feel that I had any hand in putting another one into a seat.

      So whay not give me some reasons why I can feel proud to cast my vote in the Senatorial race in the general?  

  9. MADCO says:

    primaries are good

    primaries are good

    primaries are good

    primaries are good

    primaries are good

    primaries are good

    It’s like banging your head on a wall. It doesn’t help at all- but it does feel good when you stop.

  10. DavidThi808 says:

    I am hitting this one last time before heading to bed and it struck me, I keep hoping for one thing, that could (mostly) put this to rest.

    Why is there no statement from the Bennet campaign on this? We have different theories being tossed around. But no statement from the Bennet campaign. And that’s weird because that allows this to continue to fester.

    So can someone (they don’t respond to me since I went undecided – very mature) who they listen to suggest that they have Senator Bennet issue a statement on his vote flip? I think that would be of benefit to Senator Bennet.

    Post it as a diary and I’ll front page it.

  11. MikeD1970 says:

    I wrote this diary as a commentary on the attention this matter was getting.  As seems to be a trend, people supporting both campaigns jumped on hashing out last weeks war.

    To be blunt — StrykerK2: you’re probably not helping Romanoff.  That said, maybe you’re not trying to.  Not really my business I suppose, but I thought I’d share my thoughts.

    Equally Blunt: Voyaguer, Ray Springfield, and a few others — deflection is a time honored political move, but doesn’t make the subject matter go away and you’re not really helping Bennet.  I’m pretty sure everyone on here knows that Romanoff used to take PAC money and is raising less than Bennet.  That has nothing to do with this subject matter.  Might I recommend writing your own diary?

    The topic at hand is Bennet (and Udall) changing their votes mid counting.  It is clear the vote was going to fail, and that’s what makes it interesting.  People like Sirota and the writer at Rolling Stone are talking about this as a sign of everything that is wrong with Washington.  Unless the senators would care to explain what happened, I’m inclined to agree.  It looks very much like they saw it was going to fail and voted to give themselves cover with liberals while not angering the banking lobby.

    We have a series of laws in this state called the “sunshine laws” that made meetings be held out in the open.  I always equated it with the phrase “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”  The longer people dodge on this issue the more it seems negative.  If there is some other logical reason for the vote change other than the one implied, Bennet and Udall (but let’s be honest it’s an election year so we really care about Bennet) should come into the sunlight and explain.

    • Voyageur says:

      The one and only thing that counts in this election was a single vote on a foredoomed amendment a year ago.  That’s the only issue — and the fate of the Republic hangs on it.

        Uhh, why is that again?  Oh, yes:

      it’s an election year so we really care about Bennet

        Well, yes, if you’re an AR backer and getting a little desperate about your inability to get traction.  See today’s article in That Which Must Not Be Named about Romanoff going negative.

      • MikeD1970 says:

        Of course I don’t think this is the only important story.  I do, however, think it’s an interesting one — especially given the larger conversation that is permeating this election cyle: Washington is corrupt and (Candidate X) will fix it.

        I think this issue fits into that larger conversation.

        • Voyageur says:

          obviously, there is no point to a larger conservation until the week the ballots go out!

          Yeah, I think you’re getting a little desperate about AR’s failure to get traction.

          It’s an election year so we really care about Bennet _MikeD1970

          • MikeD1970 says:

            I’m not really interested in a back and forth with you regarding my intentions.  

            I registered here recently and wrote the diary when the news stories began running.  It’s really that simple.  You can see from the few diaries and comments that I have written that I am trying to present the topic for conversation.  I have a preference, and I’ve stated it, but I think my diaries have been fair in presenting a topic.

            • Voyageur says:

              So, don’t cry in your beer if I point that out.  It’s also fair to note that this 14 month old story is in the news because Team Romanoff and it’s sometime cheerleader Sirota wants it in the news this week.  

                It’s an election year so we really care about Bennet _MikeD1970

              • MikeD1970 says:

                I’m not surprised in the least that stories like this come out now.  That’s smart campaigning.  Just as the Republicans will hold whatever they have on both candidates until the general to make full use of it so they don’t waste it while the democrats have a primary.  The democrats will use whatever they have against Buck and Norton when their primary is over.  

                That’s how these things work.

                That said, I think it’s a fair topic to discuss, whether it came out this week, last month, or 2 months from now.

                Bennet would be well served to issue a statement and move on.  If it is, as you say, not an issue, then it will fade and no one will care.  If there is something not quite above board, pretending won’t make it go away.

    • MADCO says:

      way over a year ago.

      Sirota used to work for Bernie Sanders- author of the amendment. Why doesn’t he call him and ask what happend and whther Bennet & Udall support credit card reform (they do).

      It’s no deflection to further observe that this is exactly the kind of sensationalistic hooey that takes awhile to debunk  and it comes up just as the ballots are going in the mail.  Even if it’s essentially meaningless- as I predict we’ll eventually find out- that won’t get a front paged diary.

      • MikeD1970 says:

        I gave my thoughts above in response to Voyaguer.  My guess is that Sirota et al didn’t know about it until recently.

        • Rainidog says:

          to speak to the point.  Thus, deflection on your part.

          Before Sirota wrote and published the hit piece, why didn’t he use his “inside” cred and call Bernie Sanders and get the facts?  Why did he throw out a video with no audio, and play the “I’m just asking” game?  Or rather, “I’m going to tell you what this means, even tho I don’t have any evidence.”

          And to speak to your last “guess”–why didn’t Sirota et al know about this video until recently?  It’s been available, and good oppo research should have found it months ago.

          • StrykerK2 says:

            oh noes! stories that can make mikey look bad are coming out!  clearly the response is that it’s mean that someone put them out when people are paying attention!

            Bennet hasn’t answered why he switched and it reeks of politics as usual.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.