Bennet Hits Back at Romanoff as Gloves Come Off in Dem Primary

For those who would lament that it is sad that both candidates in the Democratic Senate Primary are going negative, we’ll say this: Right or wrong, it was inevitable, just as it was inevitable that Republicans Ken Buck and Jane Norton would attack each other in their Senate race.

The campaign of Sen. Michael Bennet went up this evening with its own negative ad in response to the attack ad started today by Andrew Romanoff.

Both sides will argue over which ad is more damaging, but Bennet’s ad hits what has really been Romanoff’s only message — that Bennet takes PAC money and he doesn’t. The Romanoff ad against Bennet certainly hurts, but Bennet has other things he can talk about; Romanoff has put all his chips in the PAC attack basket. As we wrote before, we thought Romanoff should have gone up on TV with a message about his own record first, rather than using his PAC message out of the gate, in part so that he would at least have had another narrative to fall back on should the PAC thing blow up.

Given Romanoff’s small campaign warchest and Bennet’s ability to drive this ad relentlessly, it’s not hard to see how the Bennet ad will hurt more.

This back and forth also shows the benefit of being the frontrunner in a race; Bennet got to sit back and stay positive until Romanoff was forced to go negative, and in response Bennet’s campaign could generate press for a day making Romanoff look bad. They could then go negative themselves with the message that “Romanoff did it first, so we had to respond.” The same thing is happening in the Republican Primary, where Norton went negative first because she is trailing Buck.  


164 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Ah Choo says:

    By your definition, this isn’t a negative ad, right?  

    • wade norris says:


      Romanoff’s ad states fact about Bennet’s donations and votes, this ad says Romanoff is taking PAC money, ‘for ten years’ without clarifying that he indeed is not

      ‘taking a dime of their money’ in this race.

      you can call it semantics, but it is clearly a lie.

      (thanks for the $5 btw)

      • Ah Choo says:

        (Do you even know what semantics means?)

      • CityParkRebel says:

        Andrew Romanoff posted on his Facebook this evening that he took PAC money for 8 years.

        Michael Bennet continues to take in more money from special interests most weeks than Andrew did in 8 years.

        So where is the lie?  Seems Romanoff is just upset that he got called out.  Good for Bennet to give him a taste of his own medicine.

        • Ah Choo says:

          Indeed. By Andrew’s logic, he was bought and paid for when he was an insider politician, it just cost a lot less. But, logic, schmlogic! Let the goal posts be moved for Andrew Romanoff…yet again.  

        • wade norris says:

          Romanoff has been taking PAC money for 10 years – and implies directly that he continues to do so.

          that’s a lie.  

          • Ah Choo says:

            An “implication” that you draw is different from a specific claim. Andrew’s ad “implies” Bennet’s votes are bought and paid for–without directly saying so.

            Bennet’s ad clips Romanoff sanctimoniously saying he doesn’t take PAC money, then lists all the PAC’s he’s received contributions from during his career.

            These are how ads get put together. There’s nothing new under the sun in either of them.

            Here’s the key point you’re missing (so try reading slowly): Bennet’s ad is not about whether Romanoff is still taking PAC money; rather, the ad is a negative attack on Romanoff’s character for making hypocritical claims in his attacks on Bennet.

            Don’t blame Bennet for that you just misunderstand the obvious!  

            Bennet’s ad attack ad response strategy: When your opponent stupidly leaves a barn door open, walk through that door.  

          • CityParkRebel says:

            Don’t you think it’s weird though that Romanoff was cashing PAC checks in 2007 when he was term limited and not running for office?  He said it himself.

            The last PAC contribution Romanoff received was in 2007

            He didn’t even “swear off” PAC money until he was four months into his Senate campaign.  Now that’s commitment (sarcasm)

            My guess is he approached PAC’s for money who turned him down and then he “refused to accept it” — easy to refuse what you can’t get.

          • peacemonger says:

            Isn’t that like millions of gallons of BP oil calling a grain of pepper black?

          • bud says:

            Listen to it carefully.  What it says is true, and it makes Romanoff look like a liar.

        • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

          He just started doing it himself at the Colorado Springs debate rather than have his sycophants do it since September of last yeat.

          The man is a hypocrite, and a disgrace to the decalogue.

      • Rainidog says:

        If anyone who takes PAC money is corrupt, then does that mean Romanoff was corrupt for all those years when he was doing just that?  But now he is corrupt no more?  Is Bill Ritter corrupt?  Pres. Barack Obama?  Rep. Markey? Reps. Perlmutter, Salazar, DeGette?  Mayor Hickenlooper?

        I want to hear just one Romanoff supporter be honest and brave enough to say what they believe.  All the people I just named are corrupt, and so was Andrew Romanoff–for 8 long years.

        I will be able to respect your stance if you, for once, say what you mean.

        • wade norris says:

          are you saying that Barack Obama, who took PAC money, then before his Presidential run – decided not to take money, was lying about why he did it?

          (which was to limit their influence on him as a candidate?)

        • MADCO says:

          So- as carman said: WWAR3.0 do?

        • jpsandscl says:

          there is no limit in your view to what PAC and corporations should be able to spend to buy our political system. That’s it in a nutshell, right?

          I’ve heard it argued here on many occasions that money is the key decider in who wins and loses because of the ability to buy tv ads. And then on top of those candidate ads, we’ll also have the newly unlimited “issue advocacy” ads that will attempt to sway public opinion for or against the chosen candidate under the guise of advocacy for issues, not candidates.

          And no one here sees anything wrong with this system. It is okay to keep going on, business as usual. As MADCO likes to say “Nothing to see here. Move along folks”

          Let’s be a little honest and say that we have to start somewhere to stop the pernicious effects of huge money on our political process. As I’ve said before, money doesn’t have to buy the vote (straight corruption), but it can buy the voter by putting the candidate most likely to support the money’s interests in place.

          • EmeraldKnight76 says:

            who are inherently corrupt. Money does not corrupt a good person. Look at the McInnis fiasco, he didn’t get the 300K from a PAC. Corrupt politicians will find a way to money. There are even PACs out there that represent good causes:

            AVMA PAC – Veterinarians – CORRUPTION!!

            Sierra Club PAC – Horrible corruption!

            Asian Pacific Americans for Progress

            ActBlue – Are they corrupt?

            Boeing Company PAC – They could need a vote!

            Can Individual PACs be bad? Speaker Nancy Pelosi has her PAC to the Future but it’s not like she needs to bribe a vote outta anyone with money…or does she?

      • peacemonger says:

        Either you are against PAC money altogether or you know it is a necessary evil.

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      And it lists facts. So it’s also a fair way of comparing the candidates.

      What’s interesting though is the Bennet response in this ad is that Andrew is also bought by the large companies. That may be true but it’s a sad commentary on the acceptance of corporate influence.

  2. IVoted4Change says:

    To listen to peacemonger, Cronk and the Bennet staff/shills, botw, ah-choo etc. you’d think Michael Bennet walked on water and was the epitome of staying above it all.

    I know, I know, he had to hit back – Romanoff made him do it to protect his sacred honor. Question though: If Bennet is so filled with honor, why not hit back but be honest – say Hey this guy used to take PAC money but he hasn’t taken a dime since 2006 (about the same time as Obama stopped) but he still used to take it. Right, because that wouldn’t be as effective. His distortions and misrepresenting the facts are effective so that’s ok. Got it.

    • Ah Choo says:

      Andrew’s hypocrisy is Michael Bennet’s fault, and it is Romanoff who is the real victim in all of this.

      Keep up the good work!  

    • CityParkRebel says:

      Why did Romanoff go negative and leave out the facts that Bennet saved Colorado jobs with his vote and cracked down on big oil and BP by working to lift the liability cap for oil companies.  

      Also, Bennet worked hard to hold BP accountable and thus a fund was created to restore the communities that were impacted by the spill.

      Also, Bennet voted for Wall Street reform, which ran contrary to the wishes of big banks but Romanoff would have us believe Bennet is bought and paid for.

      Romanoff is trying to smear a good man, Bennet is just responding in kind.  

      • jpsandscl says:

        I would’ve sworn it was Obama that “extorted” (as the right likes to say) the money out of BP. Now I realize it was all Bennet! I should have known all along that Obama is really Bennet’s sock puppet! Thanks for setting the record straight Ah-Choo!

        Every good thing that comes out of Washington is now directly Bennet’s handiwork. he really is amazing, isn’t he?

    • peacemonger says:

      I don’t like seeing the election go negative, but Romanoff had it coming for many months. Bennet could have done worse. Let’s hope this little blow is the only one needed to get Romanoff to stop the push-polling and the negative ads himself.

      If Andrew sticks to clean campaigning, we already know Michael Bennet will. We’ve seen it.

  3. toobadsosad999 says:


  4. LoDoVoter says:

    I don’t like Romanoff’s ad at all attacking Senator Bennet over a couple of votes out of dozens of other good ones but I am disappointed with his response.

    Can somebody tell me the truth about Romanoff’s PAC that he had? For him to say he doesn’t take it is misleading if he used to. If he changed his mind and doesn’t I respect that but he should tell the whole truth. At the same time,if Romanoff really hasn’t taken PACs money in 3 or 4 years I think it’s disingenuous for Bennet to say he’s been taking it for 10 years and was still running a PAC while running for Senate if he really hasn’t done anything with it for years.

    I understand Bennet needs to respond to Romanoff’s attack and I’m sick of the Romanoff trolls who always attack Bennet for every little vote but I wish Senator Bennet would be completely honest instead of being just like the politicians he says he thinks are the problems. Otherwise we just have a choice between a guy who became a typical politician and a typical politician who says he’s changed.

    • StrykerK2 says:

      This popped up on Romanoff’s facebook page a bit ago.

      The truth is: The last PAC contribution Romanoff received was in 2007 and the Leadership PAC (that helped elect Dems in Colorado) has been dormant for years – the remaining money in it was given to a charity for veterans. Michael Bennet knows this but he’s attacking Andrew with smears and distortions to deflect the questions voters are asking about… See More who is funding Bennet’s own campaign and about the votes Bennet is casting while representing the people of Colorado. Andrew has always said he is not the perfect messenger, but Andrew got the wake-up call just like President Obama did. Michael Bennet continues to take in more money from special interests most weeks than Andrew did in 8 years – Bennet has already taken over a million dollars from special interests. – Romanoff for Colorado

      In other words, Romanoff hasn’t taken PAC money in years, though he used to — something he has never hid.

      • Rainidog says:

        So how about you Stryker?  Any chance you’ve got the guts to answer truthfully?

        If anyone who takes PAC money is corrupt, then does that mean Romanoff was corrupt for all those years when he was doing just that?  But now he is corrupt no more?  Is Bill Ritter corrupt?  Pres. Barack Obama?  Rep. Markey? Reps. Perlmutter, Salazar, DeGette?  Mayor Hickenlooper?

        I want to hear just one Romanoff supporter be honest and brave enough to say what they believe.  All the people I just named are corrupt, and so was Andrew Romanoff–for 8 long years.

        I will be able to respect your stance if you, for once, say what you mean.

        • StrykerK2 says:

          but here is my thought.  Bennet doesn’t (and I would say can’t) make a connection between any money Romanoff took and his votes.  This differes greatly from Bennet, who

          1) takes money from big banks and votes against people on cramdown

          2) takes money from BP and votes to ensure they keep their tax breaks

          3) takes money from big pharma and abandons the public option.

          You want to put words in people’s mouths, but no one said what you are saying.

          • MADCO says:

            Since I’ll have to look it up anyway – would you prefer to have information on corresponding special interest donations and votes with Bennet from all the D’s in Colorado, just Udall or just Udall and your rep?

            Or perhaps Feingold and Sanders?

            Maybe the late Ted Kennedy? Perhaps Senator Clinton? Name names if you want.

          • MADCO says:


            Bennet has more individual donors than any other candidate in the race.  He has more individual donors from Colorado than any other candidate in the race.

            And through 1Q 2010* Bennet’s contributions were approx 18% from PAC/corp donors.  The other 82% was from individual donors. That’s a lower percentage of PAC/corp donors than any other member of the Colorado Congressional delegation, except Polis who is self funded.  Which of the rest do you consider corrupt? Degette? Perlmutter? Udall? Coffman? Markey?  Just name names so I can tell i f you are sincerely concerned about PAC donations or just FUS?

            Michael Bennet (2010) $885,195 $4,824,998 18.3%

            Mark Udall (2008)   $2,186,292 $11,787,048 18.5%

            Betsy Markey (2010) $448,820 $1,179,896 38.0%

            Diana Degette (2010) $205,515 $311,667 65.9%

            Jared Polis (2010)      $1,000         $242,305  0.4%

            Ed Perlmutter (2010) $428,799 $882,124 48.6%

            John Salazar (2010) $381,049 $676,561 56.3%

            Doug Lamborn (2010) $90,135 $153,256 58.8%

            Mike Coffman (2010) $148,336 $410,447 36.1%


      • Ah Choo says:

        The head spins. The mind reels. The stomach belches.

        That’s the problem with moral purity, the day comes when a lot of awkward shuck and jive becomes necessary to keep up appearances.  

    • Rainidog says:

      Romanoff’s own PAC did not receive any contributions after November of 2006, after which it lay dormant until he closed it earlier this year.

    • peacemonger says:

      Andrew had a PAC that was dormant since his last election cycle, which he closed after this campaign started. Technically, he might not have had any contributions to it, but it was still available to accept them.

      I won’t speculate why he didn’t close it earlier. That is my understanding of it.

  5. BenjaminDithers says:

    Andrew has always admitted taking PAC money and he’s even said it was wrong.  As a previous post mentioned Andrew stoped taking money at the same time that Obama stopped because it is wrong and calls into question any vote any Senator or Congressman casts.  As to the posts that talk about Senator Bennet being a “job creation” force, etc.  I’d like to direct their attention to the following link concerning the DPS Bond situation which is costing us millions and millions. . . so how’s that business experience working for ya?


    • CityParkRebel says:

      And when Bennet gave BP money to charity Romanoff attacked him.  

      Why can’t Bennet call out Romanoff for this?

      As mentioned earlier, my guess, Romanoff isn’t taking PAC money because no one would invest in a poorly run campaign.

    • Ah Choo says:

      PACs are  devices for individuals to collectively support a cause and their political priorities at the same time. So are Small Donor Committees. It’s organized giving. You may not like who is doing it and the umbrella they organize under, but that’s a different issue. PACs themselves are just legal entities to route political support a certain way.

      It’s a phony issue, and always has been. The fact that it’s finally biting Romanoff on the ass the real reason the usual Romanoff shills are hyperventilating.

      Sorry, folks. The cult of personality got old about 11 months ago.  

  6. Say Hey Kid says:

    Nothing like a little blood and gore to liven things up.  Much more interesting than the GOP Senate race.  Andrew even had a fundraiser for Capital lobbyists right after he announced.

    What we do know for sure is that this is now a horse race.  If, Bennet had a sixteen point lead:

    1. He would not be running attack ads

    2. His wife would not be sending out a whiny e-mail.

    3. His in over his head campaign manager would not be sending out a whiny email attacking his former client Ken Gordon. The only impressive thing Craig Hughes has done tis whole campaign is having this ad in the can ready to go.  

    Three statewide races and all three are down to the wire.

  7. catpuzzle says:

    “Have you seen andrew romaonff’s ads.” Yes, occasionally.

    “I don’t take a dime of their money.” Yes, saw him say it.

    “Romanoff’s been taking PAC money almost 10 years.” So he started in 2000. Stopped in 2007. Didn’t say he wasn’t taking them until 2010. So…true.

    “Banks. Insurance companies. Oil Companies.” Yep. All there.

    “He’s even been running his own pac while running for senate.” Didn’t shut it down until January, according to this good piece from Dana Milbank:

    Who care if he wasn’t actively using it. If it was so bad, and he cared so much about this, he should have shut it down.

    “I don’t take a dime of their money.” Ok.

    “Sorry Andrew, now we know the truth.” Yes. Yes we do.

    The truth is it’s time to for Andrew to stop with these stupid attacks games. Looks to me like he’s going to get what he deserves.

    • StrykerK2 says:

      how’s your internship at the Bennet campaign going?  I would really like to sit down and talk to Bennet about some legislation.  Is it still $2400?

      • catpuzzle says:

        Internship is going great, thanks for asking. Learning what it’s like to work for a real campaign, with a message, resources, strategy. All that good stuff. You should try it sometime, maybe after you’re out of a job in August.

        Asked my supervisor if we could set something up really quick, and they said that they’d be happy to meet with you, your coworkers on Andrew’s campaign, and even Andrew himself, for free in fact.

        They’re just curious (like most of us) about how Andrew knows so much about how corrupting PAC money is. What votes did he sell out on? And why was he so cheap? Hoping to set this up soon. Can’t wait for your answer!

        FULL DISCLOSURE: TO BE VERY CLEAR THE FIRST TWO PARAGRAPHS AREN’T TRUE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. (except the free part. having met Bennet at events and talked to him, I can verify that I wasn’t asked for a dime. Gave anyway though).

        • denverco says:

          shills get. Looks like they think they can say whatever they want about Bennet and call it the truth. But when the truth about Romanoff is aired and it doesn’t fit with saint andy’s fake image the hysteria begins.

        • Ah Choo says:

          Probably includes the staff going on unemployment for GOTV. More money for TV. Brilliant!

          (So Michael Bennet voting to extend benefits would be indirectly underwriting his opponent’s campaign. Yikes!)  

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        that attacking Bennet’s family thing. By the way, did you learfn that tactic from yourmother the prostitute or your father the drug dealer?  Oh, you don’t like it so much when you get answered in kind, do you?

      • bluestater says:

        A really solid effort at refuting these (obviously valid) points.

        Probably the best effort I’ve seen from the Romanoff campaign so far, in fact (wish that was a joke, but it’s not).  

      • EmeraldKnight76 says:

        Apparently every Bennet supporter on this site is working for the campaign. Projecting much?

  8. Sage Sam says:

    Glad we aren’t seeing this all devolve into a pissing match between sock puppets, that would be a shame.

    As someone who doesn’t have a horse in this race (I’ll take either of them over Buck or Norton).

    I have to agree with Pols analysis, they hit it on the head.  Romanoff couldn’t wait any longer, needed to go negative in order to make a move.  Unfortunately, that opened the door for Bennet to swing down the hammer that is a full warchest.  I’m sure that the Bennet campaign had the ad revved up and ready to go for a month—as they should have.  

    Romanoff’s ad correctly goes after a typical Lib issue (corporate influence) and might have pulled some votes, but Bennet’s is a gut punch.  Regardless of either of them being disingenuous, this was smart politics, I just think Bennet got the best of the foray.

    The next step will be the most interesting, how does Romanoff respond (other than Facebook posts)?  It’ll be the make or break moment.

    Now please resume your ad hominem attacks on one another.

    • MADCO says:

      There is sure to be an attempt to earn free media coverage – with whomever will have him.

    • Gilpin Guy says:

      because it gives him practice countering a negative ad with his own narrative which shrinks the window of effectiveness of the first ad.  I’ve always thought this is what Romanoff could give to the party.  Practice for Bennet and the claim that Bennet can run and win a statewide race.

      It doesn’t seem like the Romanoff campaign expected such a quick counter punch towards their ad.  Everyone remembers that other caught off guard moment when a pre-dawn charge against the breastworks of the Mule Shoe and wet gun powder caught the rebels at their most vulnerable and turned the tide for the Union in the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House. The surprise of this ad gives some advantage back to Bennet.

      Search term: Battle of Spotsylvania Court House

      • Sage Sam says:

        but could this be a Haw’s Shop moment and provide Romanoff with a better understanding of how/where he must launch his volley?  That is the question my friend.

        • Gilpin Guy says:

          Hampton was able to get successful reconnaissance and hold off Custer but in the end had to withdraw.

          I doubt that Romanoff’s ad was a ploy to see how Bennet would react but it should give Romanoff pretty good information that a lot of preparation to defend against these kinds of attacks has already been done.  Having the backing of a sitting president makes it exceedingly difficult for the rebels to launch a successful attack to overwhelm the opposition.

          The aftermath of the Haw’s Shop skirmish was another retreat by Lee as he turned his troops south towards the Appomattox Courthouse.  

  9. oldbenkenobi says:

    And he doesn’t.  He used to but he doesn’t now.  The ad allegedly refutes the statement, “I don’t take a dime of their money.”  In fact, it does not refute that statement.  He used to but he no longer does.  So the Bennet campaign lied or at best was disingenuous.

    The Bennet campaign has been “going negative” for this whole campaign calling Romanoff a “political insider” and “career politician.”  Those are not meant as compliments.  So cry me a river, Susan Daggett.

    But I think it’s perfectly okay to criticize the other side.  When the criticism is no longer honest, then it’s unacceptable.

    The Romanoff ad is true.  The implication may offend Bennet supporters but the fact is Bennet did take that money and he did make those votes.  

    • MADCO says:

      Bennet has more individual donors than any other candidate in the race.  He has more individual donors from Colorado than any other candidate in the race.

      And through 1Q 2010* Bennet’s contributions were approx 18% from PAC/corp donors.  The other 82% was from individual donors. That’s a lower percentage of PAC/corp donors than any other member of the Colorado Congressional delegation, except Polis who is self funded.  

      Which of the rest do you consider corrupt? Degette? Perlmutter? Udall? Coffman? Markey?  Just name names so I can tell i f you are sincerely concerned about PAC donations or just FUS?

      Michael Bennet (2010) $885,195 $4,824,998 18.3%

      Mark Udall (2008)   $2,186,292 $11,787,048 18.5%

      Betsy Markey (2010) $448,820 $1,179,896 38.0%

      Diana Degette (2010) $205,515 $311,667 65.9%

      Jared Polis (2010)      $1,000         $242,305  0.4%

      Ed Perlmutter (2010) $428,799 $882,124 48.6%

      John Salazar (2010) $381,049 $676,561 56.3%

      Doug Lamborn (2010) $90,135 $153,256 58.8%

      Mike Coffman (2010) $148,336 $410,447 36.1%


      • Rainidog says:

        Of the three I asked the question of, one answered dishonestly.  He insisted that Bennet’s the only one who ever voted in a way that might have been favorable to a PAC contributor.  You shot that down by posting the voting records of other Colorado Democrats.

        Therefore, I’m convinced that the three I queried, and others by their continued repetition of the mantra, are dishonest and hypocritical.  They do believe that Romanoff used to be corrupt, and they do believe that all Colorado elected Democrats as well as the President are corrupt.

        They have nothing positive to offer about their candidate, only pointing fingers and allegations they can’t back up.

        • MADCO says:

          I’ve been thinking about that.

          What if, and I don’t know them other than by what they have posted here,  but what if they were just going to come to CoPols to agitate and attempt to instigate dissension.?

          What would that look like?

          More to the point- how would it be any different than what they do now?

      • jpsandscl says:

        aren’t ya MADCO?

        • MADCO says:

          Which of the rest of the CO delegation do you consider corrupt?

          Name names.

          “I’m not proud. I’m not tired either.”

          • jpsandscl says:

            the corruption is of the process and the system, not necessarily of any individual (although there are cases of actual corruption in our government in the near recent past…)

            • MADCO says:

              So now Senator Bennet has to defend his own accomplishments, his votes in the Senate, his work history, the politics of his old boss, and that someone thought it was politically advantageous that he’s married with kids, all of his donors AND the function of the United States Congress.

              Well, at least that’s clear now.  I refudiate that. You should too.

      • oldbenkenobi says:

        Bennet got the money and made the votes just as Romanoff talks about in the ads.  Those are the facts.  

        The Bennet campaign on the other hand is bending time in its ad.  And the ad was released moments after Susan Daggett sent around an email talking about how disappointed she was that AR was being negative.  

        Her husband’s campaign has been calling Romanoff a “career politician” with a “political machine” since day one.  Was it disappointing to her to participate in the trashing of Romanoff and Romanoff supporters?  Is she disappointed by all the lies the Bennet campaign has been telling?

        I read your piece on Bennet.  I think you ultimately chose him over Romanoff because he is the incumbent–but he’s not!  He was never elected!  

    • Ah Choo says:

      The obligation is on Bennet to do all the able goal post shifting and and contextualizing that puts the Romanoff hypocrisy into its appropriate context of being “different” ’cause it was a different time and place and helped out other Dem candidates (even though when his leadership wasn’t on the line in 2008, he basically stopped doing anything for anyone else).

      Give me a break. Join in the hypocrisy if you must, but it’s just plain sad at this point.

  10. marilou says:

    There are no negative ads by Ken Buck.

  11. The realistThe realist says:

    not lying, not imitating a cricket, and V’eur, not “squealing.”

    But still supporting Romanoff 100 percent.

    • MADCO says:

      will you support Bennet in the general?

      • The realistThe realist says:

        I have voted for Repubs but rarely – and don’t see any running for anything this year whom I would support.  But I’m not likely to work on Bennet’s behalf – I will pick another race to put my efforts into.

        • MADCO says:

          Not quite unity, not quite PUMAnoff.

          • The realistThe realist says:

            (if you ignore the corrupting nature of big money in politics) is the fact that voters make individual decisions in the voting booth, and do not (mostly) feel compelled to vote as a member of a pack.  I really don’t need to apologize for keeping my vote private, and I can tell you that I rarely make voting decisions very far before an election – too much can happen.

            • MADCO says:

              Issues, world view and values are why you support your guy in the primary.

              If your is not the nominee, my guy is the closest to him on issues, world view and values.

              Of course, vote however you choose.

              Decide whenever you want.

              Tell or not.

              • The realistThe realist says:

                Your response doesn’t fit with what I’ve said.

                I have to say (as I’ve said here in the past) – I had an experience at a Bennet town hall last August that impacted my view of him tremendously.  The tea partiers nearly took over that town hall, and he sat in the front looking “unleaderlike.”  I had the opportunity to make some comments and ask a question at the end, and received more applause from several hundred people than he had received during the entire town hall meeting.  I came away from that with very mixed feelings – distinct surprise when person after person came up to shake MY hand and thank me at the end of the meeting, but at the same time disappointment that the congratulations weren’t going to our Senator.  I guess ya had to be there . . .

                • MADCO says:

                  And I can sympathize with a less than great event.

                  I still hope we can get you if and when.


                  I’m tired and …. well,


                • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                  for whether a Dem deserves our vote or not then we are in as much trouble as the Republicans say we are. If bad town halls are the measuring stick then the Tea Party has truly achieved their goal.

                  I agree that who you vote for is no one’s business but your own. Everyone has their own reasons for who they choose to support. I’m just saddened that for all the reasons I’ve heard on this site to not support Bennet yours really strikes me as odd. We were all disappointed in what happened at town halls last August but I place the blame where blame is due: Republicans and Tea Party members who passed out memos on how to take these events over.

                  I’m curious about what question you asked the Senator that got you “more applause from several hundred people than he had received during the entire town hall meeting” as well as all those handshakes. Since you mentioned there were enough Teabaggers to nearly take over this town hall I would guess your applaud inducing question was rather unfriendly toward the Senator.

                  Please correct me if I’m wrong. This is just what I’m inferring with the information you stated.

                  • The realistThe realist says:

                    I actually still have the brief notes I prepared for that meeting.  It took place in a predominantly Democratic location, but as I said, the tea partiers were determined to take over the event and convince Bennet that they didn’t want health care reform.  I cited recent polls (in August) showing strong support for health care reform.  I noted that even the health insurance industry had had a reform proposal for years, and was saying the worst thing we could do was nothing at all.  

                    I talked about the opponents’ use of fear, and that fear is a primitive response in the human brain that takes over, dominates thinking, and is contagious.  I said we’re counting on Congress and the President to move past the primitive brain emotion of fear, and create a plan that provides access to health care for all.  My question to Sen Bennet was, how will you help lead the way forward?

                    Now, if you consider that an “unfriendly” question, I can’t help you.

                    Supporting one candidate over another in a Primary does not mean you are against the other candidate.  You have simply decided who you believe is the best candidate.  I’ve known Romanoff for years, I’ve heard him speak numerous times, I’ve seen the work he did for Colorado’s people in the state legislature, and I believe he’s the best candidate for the US Senate.

                    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                      My comments were solely based on the information you originally provided which is why they were an inference.

                      Do you still have a link to the reform proposals by the health care industry? I’d be interested in seeing what they offered up as ‘reform’.

                      I’m curious at this town hall, did you thank Bennet for his 8 months of service? Did you thank him for having a town hall? Or did you stand up and immediately start citing polls and talking about fear and the human brain and the opponent use of brain fear and THEN get to your question about how Bennet would lead the way forward? This is not an attack on you, just trying to ascertain your state of mind going into your questioning of Sen. Bennet as it would color your perception of both the crowd’s reaction as well as how he answered your question.

                      How did Bennet answer you? Did his answer meet your expectations?  

  12. TheDeminator says:

    That is the most airtime Andrew’s name is going to get all election.  Nice work Bennet team… Kudos

  13. TheDeminator says:

    Take a look at Fitz-Gerald vs Polis.  She never made a clear case why she should be a Congresswoman, it was all about how awful Polis was.  Andrew is not making a case just bitching about PAC money… He’s also going to end up in that boat with Joan.  Maybe he can go lead a national org like she did.  

  14. BlueCat says:

    He asked for it over and over. He put all his eggs in this basket and it’s a pretty easy basket to kick over. Did he expect that the Bennet campaign was going to go on taking his crap without ever hitting back?  Really?

    • Rainidog says:

      I think they came to believe that Bennet’s a wimp and was just going to be a door mat for them to wipe their feet on, taking insult and smear without responding.  Shock and surprise have ensued.

    • Ralphie says:

      If you attack, you’re asking for a response.


      Any attack that you don’t respond to becomes the “truth” in 24 hours.

      That’s the nature of politics.

      Did the Romanoff people really expect the Bennet people to roll over and play dead?

      • BlueCat says:

        at least the odd dollar or minute or two getting out a message about his very real accomplishments.  What does the average primary voter know, for instance, about his leadership in giving Dems the majority in the state legislature and the accomplishments of the State House under his working across the aisle style leadership? It’s all Bennet takes dirty money and I don’t, at least not anymore.  Once that balloon suffers a puncture, there isn’t much left.

        Maybe he doesn’t want to talk about his accomplishments as a legislator and leader because they are the accomplishments of a solid DLC centrist in a purple state and the only other thing he’s ever tried to establish in this campaign, besides Bennet bad, is the fiction that he’s the progressive in the race. Maybe that’s why there has been no effort to educate voters about who he is and what he’s done. And there is plenty there for him to be very proud of.  His pissy campaign, not so much.

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.