CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


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

(D) Joe Neguse*


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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 29, 2010 09:17 AM UTC

Message to Dem Senate Candidates

  • by: Phoenix Rising

Knock it off.  Really.

This recent factually vacuous exchange about Social Security displays the absolute worst of both sides of the campaign – and I’m not talking about the truth of the attacks, either.

First the Bennet campaign goes on the attack and says Andrew Romanoff ‘voted to privatize Social Security’.  The Fort Collins Coloradoan has the analysis: Romanoff voted for one of the Republican ‘gotcha’ votes in 2004 that stated “the members of Colorado’s congressional delegation support optional personal retirement accounts and not support increases in payroll taxes and cuts to Social Security benefits.”  Like so many Republican bills/resolutions that year, this was a question designed to bolster Republican claims while giving potential fodder to the GOP for campaign attacks against Democrats.

Then the Romanoff campaign, bolstered by an independent group, goes on the attack saying Bennet voted against increasing Social Security benefits.  (The official campaign message at least does the courtesy of recognizing that the proposed one-time $250 payout was a stimulus, not part of a COLA increase; the independent expenditure is not so honest.  I’d link to it, but it’s been pulled from the Web.)

To both campaigns: you’re not really good at this.  Stop before you inflict damage on yourselves.

I’d also like to add: Speaker Romanoff, you wanted to get PAC money out of this campaign.  Do you denounce this independent expenditure ad that appears to support your campaign?

Are you tired of the pettiness in this race?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...


33 thoughts on “Message to Dem Senate Candidates

  1. It is tiring to see two smart men debase themselves in front of the voters. Both Dem candidates are good men, so act like good men.

    It is depressing that this is what it comes to in our election process.

    With that said, however, I’ve had the pleasure of being involved with other countries’ elections in the past and this isn’t only an American phenomenon; it happens everywhere.

    The large increase of political candidate shills has made it especially tiresome. I don’t see the TV ads (thankfully!) so having to wade through the crap to get the facts on this blog during primary and general election seasons drives me to drink.

    But that’s my problem, I suppose…

  2. I did numerous searches for this group and couldn’t find anything. I will definitely keep looking as I find this “attack and disappear” tactic very fishy.

    Cherry Creek News had a blurb on this talking about how Bennet was “slammed” for voting against COLA while voting for Wall Street. No mention that Bennet actually did vote for the paid for $250 in this blurb.

    CCN says the ad points listeners to a defunct website: but I was able to get to the website just fine. The site is registered with a Candadian company:

    1. Where did you get the information on the “paid for” vote.  I could only find one amendment in Project Vote Smart (Senate Amendment 3353).  I’d sure like to see the other.

      1. Social Security. Sorry I was gone for two days. Trying to play catch up. There was talk of two votes, one Bennet voted against as it was unpaid and one he voted for that was paid for.

        I realize my wording is crappy. By paid for I mean funded. Not that the vote was paid for, the bill was paid for.

        1. I was thinking that you were the second person who knew this.

          I want to write about the robocall, and if it was bullshit I want to say so.  But first I have to find that other amendment, if there is one.

  3. Up till now I think both campaigns have done a good job. Yes their efforts were slanted but they were factual and were discussing real differences between them.

    But this is totally made up by the Bennet campaign. I do think the Romanoff response was necessary and proportional, but still it’s joining Bennet down in the gutter.

    Anyways, I agree – both of you are better than this (I think).

      1. And until this back and forth, it’s been honest comparisons. Each side thinks the other side is unfairly framing those issues, but that’s what you get in politics.

        Both can point to things where they say the other was off-base, but I think til this, each had a legit argument to their points.

  4. It is the way the game is played.  Frankly, I want a candidate to go into the general election that can both take a hard punch and deliver one right back.

    What Bennet and Romanoff are doing to each other now is going to seem like a pillow fight when Norton/Buck/RNC starts landing punches come October, so they need to be prepared and ready to hit back and hit back hard.  This is good prep-work.

      1. It works as long as we acquiesce to it. If we the people want cleaner, more issue-focused political contests, then we have to reward candidates for doing their part to give us that, and penalize candidates for contributing to the thus-far accurate calculation that it works better not to. One negative ad may not generally be enough to change my vote, but if it ever is, it will change it in favor of the candidate it was directed against.

  5. New Leadership in Colorado now has their second ad – and a transcript of it – up at (I refuse to provide a direct link to such a sleazy outfit).

    From the transcript:

    “I live on a fixed-income and this guy goes to Washington, votes to bailout Wall Street banks, and also votes to cut a cost of living increase in my Social Security?.”

    Not only is this wrong in the ways previously discussed (it wasn’t a COLA increase, and he did wind up voting for it when it was paid for by PAYGO), but the ad portrays this as an actual CUT in benefits.

    And Speaker Romanoff has been silent about this shady corporate expenditure designed to help his campaign.

            1. running this same “Bennet voted to cut Social Security” message.

              I’m not accusing them of being in cahoots with Romanoff’s campaign but I got a 2nd “reminder” call from the Romanoff campaign about an hour later.

              They didn’t mention anything other than they would be “honored if I chose Andrew Romanoff to send to Washington to take on the Washington corporate cash machine” or something like that.

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

56 readers online now


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