President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta



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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson



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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd



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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese



CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore



CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans



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 22, 2010 04:58 PM UTC

Is Bennet Calling Obama a Liar Too?

  • by: oldbenkenobi

Obama sent out an email yesterday on behalf of Organizing for America that said in part:

Organizing for America counts entirely on supporters like you to fight back — no special interests, no corporate PACs. To keep making change and to defend the change we have already won, we need you — and at least 104 other people in Denver — to contribute so we have the resources necessary going into the election. [my emphasis]

Interesting.  Made me wonder if Obama ever accepted PAC money. Yes he did (Chris Cillizza, Wash Post).  Made me wonder if Obama ever had his own PAC.  Yes he did, and in fact he was disbursing funds from it during the Presidential campaign (John Solomon, Wash Post).

Now, just two days ago, Michael Bennet put out an ad attacking Romanoff because Romanoff once took PAC money.  Of course, the ad Bennet approved implies Romanoff is still taking PAC money.  He is not.  And the ad implies Romanoff lied in his own ad when he said, “I don’t take a dime of their money.”  He was telling the truth.  “Now we know the truth,” the ad says.  Not by watching that ad, we don’t.  Susan Daggett is disappointed in all the negativity.  Is she disappointed her husband’s ad is intentionally deceptive?

Bennet’s ad says of Romanoff, “He’s even run his own PAC while campaigning for Senate.”  I don’t know the truth of this statement, it is worded strangely.  But if true it is exactly what Obama did while he was running for President.  

So what we have here is a fundraising letter from OFA that trumpets that it does not take PAC money. Is OFA going to then turn around and donate that money to Bennet, who does take PAC money? OFA has already helped the Bennet campaign in various ways.  It seems likely it will help the Bennet campaign again.

And will Bennet be launching the same attack against Barack Obama that he used against Romanoff?  Obama and Romanoff have done exactly the same thing.  It bears repeating, Bennet is attacking Romanoff for doing exactly what Bennet’s Great Benefactor did.

Here’s a quote from another PAC-related article (Scott Helman, Boston Globe):

Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that after seeing the influence of lobbyists firsthand during his two years in Washington, Obama decided before he entered the presidential race that he would take a different approach to fund-raising than he had in the past.

“He’s leading by example and taking steps that he feels need to be taken on the national stage to clean up the undue influence of Washington lobbyists on the policies and priorities of Washington,” Psaki said.

Obama also says in that article, “The reason that I’m running for president is because of you, not because of folks who are writing big checks, and that’s a clear message that has to be sent, I think, by every candidate.”  That’s not the message Bennet is sending.  

From the Cillizza article:

“Taking these steps is going to make fundraising more difficult and our campaign more dependent on the grassroots,” said Obama spokesman Dan Pfeiffer. “But Senator Obama felt it was important to demonstrate that he is serious about changing the way Washington does business.”

I applaud Obama for his decision not to accept PAC money.  And I applaud Romanoff too.  We need a leader in the Senate who recognizes the biggest problems facing the country and then takes action to correct them, even — especially — if it means changing his mind and making his Senate campaign more difficult.  Here in Colorado, Romanoff took action against Colorado’s biggest problem, TABOR.  We don’t have to wait and see if he lives up to his potential, he has already been tested by fire and we have seen him lead.  

Bennet should not have been appointed: Ritter’s Gamble

He’s run a lousy campaign: Bennet’s Cliche Cavalcade

Romanoff is the proven leader: Leadership, Romanoff v. Bennet


95 thoughts on “Is Bennet Calling Obama a Liar Too?

  1.  I can’t help but think of Syriana. A certain candidate (Romanoff) that feels jilted reminds me of the Prnice that a Rovian character asks the fairly good natured Prince if he wants to be a King. It leads to fratricide.Metaphorically a certain race seems quite similar.

    Karma is what karma does

    Romanoff  has never been the rest of us.

    He’s a spoiled man-child that doesn’t care about anyone but his own ego.

  2. whether or not taking PAC money is good/bad/whatever, Bennet engaging on this issue means he is losing control of the message.

    There are too many open avenues of attack on Bennet once he decided to start talking about this.  I think you bring up two really interesting points with OFA and Obama.  

    1) OFA makes a point to highlight that they are PAC-free (and therefore free of special interest influence) but OFA is currently being used not to push legislation but to push Bennet, a top recipient of PAC money.

    2) Obama took the same approach Romanoff is.  Yes he used to take special interest money, but at some point he decided it had undue influence.

    The longer this is the topic of conversation the better it is for Romanoff.

    1. Obama raised funds through other sources like no one has seen before. thia is merely a gimick by Romanoff to try and look like the progressive he never was. Interesting that he is now trying to evade is DLC background.

      Romanoff looks like a hypocrite on this issue as he was very fond of pac money until recently.

    2. The fact that Romanoff is going down the drain means that Bennet is losing control of the message?  Right, we heard you the first 123 times.  

      The longer this is the topic of conversation the better it is for Romanoff.

       You’re admittedly high up in Team Romanoff.  If you really believed your own spin, you’d do your damnest to keep Romanoff’s hypocrisy in taking PAC funds right up to the time when he started to denounce Bennet for doing what he did in the conversation.  But you post diary after dairy urging Bennet to stop attacking Romanoff on this issue — strictly objectively, of course, because even though you’re an ardent Romanoff guy you really want to reach out and help Bennet.

        All this spinning makes me dizzy.  

      I’m Voyageur and I find I get more respect when I don’t demand it in my sig line.

      1. not “diary after diary” as you said.  In that diary (you can read it here) I say that I think Bennet is worse off for having to engage Romanoff on this issue, and actually I’m glad to see it.

        As a Romanoff supporter, I’m glad to see Bennet’s new ad.  The more Bennet wants to make this an issue in the public discourse, the more people will examine his votes in comparison to his contributions.

        I agree with others commenting here that there is no hypocrisy on Romanoff’s part.

        He used to take PAC money, saw the effect it can have, decided it creates undue influence, and now he’s an advocate against it.  Simple enough.

        1. I thought it was funny.  God forbid anyone should have a sense of humor around here.  Typical Voyageur to jump to conclusions rather than think, “Maybe there’s something I’m not getting here…”

    1. Bennet is bad because he’s still doing what Romanoff did until it became clear that Bennet was better at it than Romanoff was and so Romanoff decided to stop doing it and start denouncing it.

        Are you clear on this?  There will be a test Friday.

  3. I’ve worked on this type of messaging for years.

    1) You can create a very populist message by refusing PAC money. That message can carry, especially in years like 2008 and this election year. In 2008, with Barack Obama, people were so disgusted at Bush era politics that refusing PAC money was politically expedient. Refusing now in 2010 is also politically expedient because of the fundamental mistrust in Government that currently exists. What Barack Obama did in 2008 and supports now is not a symbol of any sort of effort to “clean up Washington,” but rather a awareness that people can perceive PACS as dirty.

    2) Barack Obama never attacked Michael Bennet on this issue. If he had attacked Michael, Bennet probably would’ve had a counter-ad up, don’t you think? But this kind of hypothetical is a moot point.

    3) Nobody has told me why PAC money is bad? I don’t believe that a Senator, Congressman, or State Representative will vote with the interests of a PAC just to continue to get PAC money. The political fallout is too great, for one, and frankly, unlike most of the people on this blog (looking at you, Wade Norris) I still believe that the American Democratic system is the ideal form of government. Can PACS contribute money in hopes of getting what they want? Sure. But I support Michael Bennet because I don’t believe that, despite their donations, PACs have any influence on his votes. And unfortunately, because Andrew does not have the grassroots support to win this election in the General without PACS, he is not viable as a candidate.

    1. I have spent enough time in Denver and DC to doubt the accuracy of this statement:

      I don’t believe that, despite their donations, PACs have any influence on his votes.

      I am not, of course, accusing the Senator of any wrongdoing…but I am NOT happy with his voting record.

        1. it’s the 8 or 9 percent that is the problem. There are important votes and not-so-important votes.

          I don’t remember saying I oppose everything Bennet does. I just don’t think he reflects my position on some of the most important(to me) bills.

          But to imply that elected officials aren’t affected by their contributors is quite naive.

          I just got a robo-call from Obama asking me to vote for Bennet. It lessens my opinion of him.

          1. of Bennet or Obama? I wasn’t sure who the pronoun was referring to. Why does a call from Obama lessen your opinion of Bennet if that’s what you meant?

            1. It occured to me that might be unclear, but I was in a hurry, so I didn’t rewrite it. Sorry for the lack of clarity.

              I am just one of those weird ducks that thinks a sitting President should stay out of such things, I would feel the same if Obama campaigned for Andrew. I would advise him against it if he asked.

              I know there are some Bennetistas who won’t believe that…but, it doesn’t really matter if you believe me or not.

              I respect Senator Bennet for many things. He has done a pretty good job as a placeholder for whomever the people of Colorado elect, maybe even him. But, I hope it will be Senator Romanoff I will shake hands with come November.

              1. When first I heard about the President’s endorsement I was ecstatic. I’ve even defended his right, not as President, but as a Democrat to do so. I gotta be honest, after really giving it some thought I am less sure about it. I’ve really struggled with my political instinct to win win win with my gut feeling that it just doesn’t feel quite right.

                It’s impossible to separate Barack Obama from President Obama and having a sitting Prez throw the weight of the office of the President of the United States of America behind a candidate in a primary isn’t fair. Of course I also feel this extends to past Presidents also. Just because they aren’t currently in power doesn’t mean they don’t wield quite a bit of influence on Democratic voters. We don’t just call them Bill or Jim when we write their names in letters or introduce them onstage, we call them Mr. President or President Clinton, President Carter.

                I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and I was definitely wrong about this. Upon reflection I think it was a mistake for the President(both of em) to endorse one Democrat over the other in a primary. It was a mistake for me to defend that endorsement.

                P.s. I hate the “Bennetista” moniker. Mainly because I don’t know if I should be insulted or not. lol

                1. I don’t mean it as such. I just think it is a very clever nickname and… judging from the passion SOME Bennetistas exude…an appropriate one. But, just for you, I will forego its’ use.

                  On the President “thing”…It just seems to me that when I was a young pup in the party politics circus, it just wasn’t done…it was, in certain circles, even considered gauche for a sitting official in high office to take sides in a primary.

                  Of course, that was when you could lose for spending TOO MUCH MONEY on a campaign. People considered it buying the election. Of course, Television (big T intentional) and the 24 hr. news cycle had not enslaved the consciousness of the planet at that time (people still read newspapers). And, the corporate takeover of our government was not as firmly ensconced as we find it today.

                  Paraphrasing Marshall McLuhan, “the Media is the Message”.

                  Times have just changed, I guess.

                  1. I think this whole blaming corporate money for the corruption of our politicians is giving those politicians a pass on their corruption. One of the 12 steps in AA is to accept responsibility for YOUR actions. You can’t blame the alcohol. It’s the same idea. Politicians who allow money they accept to influence their votes are corrupt, the corporations are looking out for their shareholders. That’s what they’re SUPPOSED to do. Senators are SUPPOSED to look out for us. Money is an object.

                    Just my opinion. I’m sick of people excusing senators by blaming the evil corporations. Senators should be judged by their votes regardless of what money they’ve taken.

                    1. blaming corporate money for the corruption of our politicians

                      I don’t blame the corporations, for, as you say, they are just doing what corporations do.

                      The system is at fault, and that system has developed from the impetus of both aggressive corporate operatives AND corruptable elected officials, over many years. Eisenhower warned us, didn’t he?

                      The system allows those with large sums of cash to have an inordinate effect on both our elective and legislative processes.

                      I think the solution starts with equalization of opportunity to become elected to office. I am a big believer in publicly funded elections.

                      Short of that, I really like the idea that AR talks about frequently. That is…require all recipients of large corporate contributions, say…more than $200, to wear a patch on their clothing like the NASCAR drivers do. If you take money from Goldman Sachs, it will be obvious to everyone. That will never happen, but it is fun to imagine it.  

    2. And exactly correct.

      For those people who believe PAC money buys votes (let us call a spade a spade–that IS what Sen. Bennet is being accused of), please explain how all the various PACs that have contributed have the same interests.  They do not.  To believe that a particular industry is monolithic when it comes to legislative goals is simplistic and incorrect.

      1. here are a few bad votes from Bennet.

        Cramdown.  He happens to be a top recipient of banking money compared to other freshmen senators.

        Too big to fail.  Again, a top recipient of banking money.

        Keeping tax breaks for BP. Bennet took from BP and many other oil companies such as Anadarko, which was also involved in the disaster in the gulf.

        If you want to say his bad votes aren’t tied to the money, fine.  I happen to disagree.  Regardless, they are bad votes and reason enough to replace him.

        1. all the other senators (a filibuster-proof majority) who voted against cramdown but aren’t “top recipients” of banking money aren’t corrupt, they’re just wrong? So Bennet can’t be merely wrong, he has to be corrupt too?

          A better question is why the energy producer tax break amendment didn’t exempt the small operators. Let’s see a vote on that and then decide how corrupting the big oil money was.

          You’ll also go on record that if Romanoff casts three “bad votes” on amendments sometime in his first two years in office, that’ll be reason enough to replace him? Have you picked a challenger yet?

          1. but it’s the issue being discussed here.  Reiterating everything I like about Romanoff over Bennet would be redundant to do.

            RedGreen — this diary is about Bennet calling Romanoff a hypocrite (or a liar — take your pick).  Based on Bennet’s criteria, do you have any thoughts on if Bennet must think Obama is a hypocrite (or liar) too?

            1. Well, if Obama ran an ad attacking Bennet for taking PAC money and implied Bennet’s votes were for sale, I would expect Bennet to call Obama out on his own history. But that’s not going to happen, since Obama has, as you know, wholeheartedly endorsed Bennet.

              1. this issue at hand isn’t that Obama hasn’t attacked Bennet…

                Obama and Romanoff both used to take money from PACs.  They both saw the problems special interest money causes.  Both spoke out against it when they ran for higher office.  There are plenty of speeches where Obama talks about how bad PAC money is.

                If Bennet wants to say Romanoff is a hypocrite for talking about it, then he must also think Obama is one.  Senator Bennet: why do you hate our president?

                1. Romanoff for taking PAC money therefor he must also be attacking Obama. That entire premise is wrong. Bennet simply stated that Romanoff has taken PAC money just like he did. He called Romanoff a hypocrite for attacking him on the PAC issue. It’s the “those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones” attack. Obama wasn’t throwing stones so there was nothing aimed at him. It’s as simple as that. If Obama were to suddenly attack Bennet about PAC money THEN this discussion would be moot.

        2. Cramdown was the correct vote.  Others have attempted to explain why to you, but you are either incapable of understanding or simply refuse to.  

          At least you finally admit that what you’ve been claiming to be facts are merely your own opinions.  


          1. I guess you’re cool with kicking people out of their homes.

            Regardless, I see you also won’t actually engage the topic of this diary.

            1. You really think its that simple? And you’re holding Romanoff to equal account for every vote he cast during his eight-year career in the legislature? Really?

              1. I get it.  I really do.  I understand the talking points on the other side of the vote; I disagree, but I know issues are complicated.

                How about the rest of them?  Do you agree with all of Bennet’s votes?

                    1. want a response from you–we already know what you’ll say.  But you keep spouting off anyway . . .  

                    2. Answer. Don’t answer.  But I suspect we know the answer.

                      You think the subject is …something that justifies suggesting that Bennet is corrupt and that justifies claiming that Bennet’s ad calls anyone a liar, let alone Obama. You offend me.

                      However, you are wrong. (though that is not in and of it self offensive).

                      The subject is who said what, how it was said and whether it matters.  It does.

                      You say the cramdown vote was bad and claim that you understand the other side. Who said what? How was it said?  Why does it matter?

                      Answer. Don’t answer.  But I suspect we know the answer.

        3. Did you miss a little piece of legislation that was signed into law yesterday Stryker?

          You probably had your head buried in this blog (as usual) and were out-of-pocket so let me fill you in.

          The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Law of 2010 was signed by President Obama yesterday and is the strongest reform on Wall Street since the 1930s. It lays out new rules for Wall Street, cracks down on big bank abuses, improves accountability and transparency in the financial sector, ends taxpayer-funded bailouts and protects consumers.

          Oh, and this historical law includes key language from a bipartisan Pay It Back Amendment, authored by…

          You guessed it! Colorado Senator Michael Bennet. The Amendment was used, among other things, to strengthen consumer protections in the bill.

          Now that you have a little more info, I think you might have to update your talking points and stop making claims that have little substance or evidence.  

          1. He was in a web meeting getting the latest talking points from Campanoff.

            You simply must stop confusing the AR sock puppets with facts–they just can’t deal with them other than attacking the messenger.

              1. so…no actually.  I’m sorry if you don’t understand how legislation works, but every big vote is made up of a lot of small votes.  Bennet voted no on the measures that would have made the bill better.  Guess who didn’t want those provisions…the big banks that fund his campaign.

                This actually highlights how the special interests work — it doesn’t provide “daming evidence” of anything except that the big banks can tell Bennet how to vote.  

                See if you kill enough of the measures that would make the bill more effective, then it passes and looks good while not hurting your interests.

                Oh and as for welcoming you — you’re welcome to Pols.  Though if you are new, I find your comments about knowing how I spend my time kind of odd.

                Lots of new Bennet supporters today it seems.  Maybe the old names got tired.

          2. I support the financial reform bill.  I’m glad it passed and that Senator Bennet voted for it.  I wish he had voted for several parts of it that would have made it a lot stronger.

            Passing a bill that sounds good isn’t enough.  The reform bill, while a good start, lacked teeth that it needed.

            Just because President Bush signed a bill called the “clean sky act” doesn’t make him an environmentalist.

            1. You were going full speed ahead with bashing Bennet for taking PAC money and making the inference that this influences his votes, but after my comment you do an about-face and respond that the bill doesn’t do enough, lacked teeth, blah blah blah – let’s go back to the original subject real quick.

              The fact is, this vote provides damming evidence against your previous claim, re: PAC contributions = votes = Bennet is in bed with Wall Street. Why don’t you just acquiesce to me on this one and we can move on to other special interests you believe have Bennet in the bag or at least make sure this dialogue is heading somewhere productive? I realize after months of clinging to the same few attacks against Bennet it’s hard to release the death grip with which you’re holding on to them, but I believe you can do it!

              Thank you for welcoming me btw 🙂

              1. so…no actually.  I’m sorry if you don’t understand how legislation works, but every big vote is made up of a lot of small votes.  Bennet voted no on the measures that would have made the bill better.  Guess who didn’t want those provisions…the big banks that fund his campaign.

                This actually highlights how the special interests work — it doesn’t provide “daming evidence” of anything except that the big banks can tell Bennet how to vote.  

                See if you kill enough of the measures that would make the bill more effective, then it passes and looks good while not hurting your interests.

                Oh and as for welcoming you — you’re welcome to Pols.  Though if you are new, I find your comments about knowing how I spend my time kind of odd.

                Lots of new Bennet supporters today it seems.  Maybe the old names got tired.


                      only got two (names)

                      StrykerK2 and the one my parents gave me…which obviously I don’t use here.

                       I bet your parents, Waldo and Jasmine StrykerK2 of 915 Ponderosa Way, Northglenn, Co, 84351 are going to feel very sad when they read this post where you repudiate your family name, StrykerK2 😉

                    2. no trying to out right?  no warnings given.  It’s what you’ve said and what you’ve done elsewhere.

                    3. I put a phony zip code on your mom and dad’s address to protect their privacy.

                    4. until Romanoff announced his candidacy.  Desperate times call for desperate measures.

                    5. ridiculously shi++y thing to do.

                      You need to be banned and if Pols doesn’t do it, then this is no longer a safe place to share opinions freely.

                    6. because if you’re taking Voyageur’s obvious joke seriously, I’m not sure what to think of that.

    3. Romanoff is not a hypocrite, he changed his mind.  Obama changed his mind too.  He now speaks out against the influence of PAC money, as he does in the email probably every Democrat in Colorado got yesterday.  Is he a hypocrite?  Bennet presumably does not think so.  That makes him, Bennet, a hypocrite.

      And you are one of the very few who don’t see the problem with PACs.

      1. Romanoff is not a hypocrite, he changed his mind.  

         Well, he changed his mind after ten years of avidly taking pac money because he realized he wasn’t getting much any more and figured he could reposition himself as a reformer by announcing he would no longer take pac money and assailing everybody who kept on doing what he had done so long as corrupt.

         If that kind of cynical finger-to-the-wind approach to situational ethics isn’t hypocritical, what is?

        1. Are you against changing your mind?  No, you are against people trying to change other people’s minds.  

          If a reformed gang member told a current gang member to stop gangbanging–that gangbanging was wrong–would you call the reformed gangbanger a hypocrite?

      2. I’ll use small words.

        The hypocrisy isn’t that he changed his mind. The hypocrisy is when he changed his mind then started attacking Bennet for doing what he changed his mind about. Get it? Choosing not to take PAC money is very noble and Romanoff had ever right to run on that platform. But you can’t criticize someone for doing what you used to do, especially in politics.

        1. Bennet’s ad quotes Romanoff saying, “I don’t take a dime of their money.”  Then their deep voice announcer sarcastically says, “OH REALLLLLY.”  And at the end the announcer says, “Now we know the truth.”  Meaning, Romanoff was not truthful.

          So the ad calls Romanoff a liar for saying, “I don’t take a dime of their money.”  But he is telling the truth.  He once took PAC money, as he has admitted, but now he does not.

          The ad also tries to tarnish Romanoff generally for taking PAC money, which is funny since Bennet DOES take PAC money.

          So EmeraldKnight and the rest of the Bennet Groupthinkers, should OFA be giving money to Bennet given that Obama is talking them up as not taking PAC money?  And how do you feel supporting the guy who did NOT follow the President’s lead on PAC money.  How have you rationalized that one?  

          1. The only way the ad can “tarnish” Romanoff “generally for taking PAC money” is if you buy into the premise that PAC money tarnishes!!! Bennet has never made that claim. Romanoff has over and over. So if anyone has insinuated that Romanoff was “tarnished” it’s been Romanoff himself.  That’s the whole fucking point of the ad.

            Your question about OFA is a bit convoluted. Why does it matter if OFA takes PAC money or not? What does that have to do with Bennet receiving money from them? I appologize if I don’t get what you’re asking there.

            As for how I feel supporting the guy who did not follow the President’s lead on PAC money? I feel fine. Not everyone can be Obama. It’s as simple as that. If everyone could do it, everyone would. Bennet is by no means the only Dem across the nation taking PAC money. Since the amount of PAC money he takes in is a small fraction of his overall contributions, I have no issue supporting him. I’m not looking to vote in a carbon copy of Obama.

            Let me ask oldbenkenobi and Romanoff supporters this:

            Is Andrew going to be in lock step with Obama on everything?  

  4. Senator Bennet has not been influenced by the PAC money he has been given.  Check his votes.  The problem is not the AR took PAC money, and now he doesn’t.  The problem is that AR as stooped so low as to call Senator Bennet corrupt.  During the caucus the AR  person read a statement where AR was comparing himself to Barack Obama.  Nice try, but not close.  AR needs to do what is right for Colorado and drop out of this race.  He should never have let his sour grapes get this squashed. Move on.  Life is full of disappointments.  Let’s get Senator Michael Bennet elected.

    1. I said something similar above, but I think this is really the heart of a lot of this conversation.  Are there bad votes from Bennet?  Yes.  Are there major contributions from industries that benefited from those votes?  Yes.

      Cramdown.  He happens to be a top recipient of banking money compared to other freshmen senators.

      Too big to fail.  Again, a top recipient of banking money.

      Keeping tax breaks for BP. Bennet took from BP and many other oil companies such as Anadarko, which was also involved in the disaster in the gulf.

      If you want to say his bad votes aren’t tied to the money, fine.  I happen to disagree.  Regardless, they are bad votes and reason enough to replace him.

      Also, welcome to Coloradopols.  I see you’re new here.

      1. Those are words – cramdown, TBTF, etc –

        Which votes are you referring to?

        While you are looking up the votes – please also reference whether there was a) a vote b) the vote was procedural c) whether there was any potential unintended impact from the vote and d) whether the vote mattered.

        If you really want to nail it- explain the Senator’s thinking for each of the votes you disagree. Which I don’t think were all actual “votes’.

        1. when I see what seems to be a “bad vote” by a good senator. Sure it leaves him open to shills like Stryker to take advantage of but sometimes it is the hard votes like those I respect the most.

          So I am interested to see if Stryker has the cajones to answer MADCOs post regarding Bennet’s supposed bad votes that were supposedly influenced by PAC money.

      2. You’re learning.

        I have never defended Michael Bennet on cramdown, but I do get the oil and gas company vote. We have lots of small oil and gas companies in CO that operate on relatively narrown margins. They would be much more affected than the big guys in the gulf. Bennet voted for and ammendment to remove liability caps which would hurt the big guys. He voted the way he did to protect CO jobs at medium-sized and small businesses.  

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

40 readers online now


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