Karl Rove would approve of this Democrat’s tactics – but we don’t

Recently in the Colorado Democratic Primary, Senator Michael Bennet accused former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff of voting to “privatize Social Security.”

Upon further review of the record, it seems that Senator Bennet is taking a page from the Karl Rove playbook. Rove was infamous for attacking a rival’s strength and where his own candidate was vulnerable.

Case in point – let’s take a trip back to the fall of 2009, when I first wrote about the letter Senator Bennet signed that would have gone a lot farther towards privatizing Social Security…

(Crossposted at Square State, Firedoglake, Huffington Post, and Daily Kos)

Is fiscal responsibility good if it creates a filibuster proof commission with the final say on cuts to Medicare and Social Security?

(Senator Michael Bennet) signed a letter supporting the creation of a fiscal responsibility board.

…it would create budget legislation, including deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare. As Conrad has written the proposal, the Senate could only have simple majority (upperdown) votes on this legislation–no filibusters. It would hand over a huge amount of Congressional authority to an unelected, unaccountable commission, all in the name of “fiscal responsibility.” Sadly, a dozen Democrats signed onto a letter to Harry Reid yesterday, stressing their concern over deficits.

(Courtesy of mcjoan)

Now, I don’t know about you, but signing onto this commission can only be considered an early Christmas gift to the Republicans. Remember all those attempts to privatize Social Security by Bush and all the talk of how it will be bankrupt by 2020?

Well, this commission will go a long way towards helping that happen even faster.

And it will be done through a process similar to reconciliation – only a simple majority – 51 votes and no filibuster. Mind you, if Reid even thinks about using reconciliation to pass a strong health care bill, the Republicans will start screaming ‘nuclear option’ and about how undemocratic the Democrats are.

Now let’s compare that to Michael Bennet’s charge that Andrew Romanoff wanted to privatize Social Security.

Senator Bennet says Mr. Romanoff voted for a resolution to partially privatize Social Security.”

Upon further review of the record and the truth, we see that the Bennet campaign is pulling the old Karl Rove tactic of saying the opposite of the truth.

The bill actually states the following:

Privatization will worsen Social Security’s funding needs by draining resources from the trust fund into private accounts, increasing the federal deficit by $2 trillion over the first decade alone, which will put the nation in deeper debt to foreign creditors

And the bill is titled:


But the Bennet Campaign distortions don’t stop there. Don’t forget, Bennet voted against giving seniors a $250 check to offset the recession.


S.Amdt. 3353  to S.Amdt. 3336  to H.R. 4213  (Tax Extenders Act of 2009) Statement of  Purpose: To provide an emergency benefit of $250 to seniors, veterans, and persons with disabilities in 2010 to compensate for the lack of cost-of-living adjustment for such year, and for other purposes.

How about that? Senator Bennet both signed off onto a letter for a commission that would have led the way towards Social Security Privatization, and voted to block a Social Security increase.

It seems Senator Bennet found out some tricks of the Republican playbook. Working for a billionaire Republican like Phillip Anschutz must have its advantages; he must have gotten some personal tutorials from Karl Rove himself.

Colorado voters know the truth – and who has stood with Colorado and Seniors for this past decade – Andrew Romanoff.

76 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. StrykerK2 says:

    I mean it’s really no surprise.

  2. MADCO says:


    No attempted floating of negative rumors that cannot be substantiated. If you can’t cite, with links, a detailed accusation about something, then don’t write it here. Not only will a post or comment like that not be promoted, it will be deleted, and you may be banned from the site (a first warning may or may not be issued, depending on the comment/diary and the context).

    Yes Senators Bennet and Udall (and many others) signed the letter.

    But the way you’ve writen this post, it appears that the quote you post that starts “it would create” is from the letter.  It is not.

    Rather that quote comes form the description of  Senator CBO expert just another poster on Kos Joan McCarter,

    But even misleadinly misplaced citations and quotes aside –


    May 3, 2004, Romanoff voted for Senate Joint Resolution 28. According to the CO House Journal*, SJR 28 was “concerning social security personal retirement accounts.”

    The resolution passed by a vote of 43-21, with the support of the Republican majority and seven Democrats. *Colorado House Journal, 5/3/04

    Senate Joint Resolution 28 said  “That we, the members of the General Assembly of the state of Colorado, respectfully request that 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.”

    Parse it all you like- the plan being pushed by the Bush administration was these same private  accounts as the incremental first step to privatizing Social Security and AR voted in support.

    3) There were two votes for the one time $250 payment.  One he voted against, because it was not funded, the other he voted for which was funded out of the stimulus money.

    • StrykerK2 says:

      I like that you say Wade is floating negative rumors, yet you have absolutely nothing to back up your claim that Romanoff supported a plan similar to Bush’s.

      I mean you even quote language that says Romanoff was opposed to cuts in social security benefits.

      As for the Bennet vote — Wade is accurate right?  Bennet did vote against that — the version that could have passed.

      • MADCO says:

        Said the rabbit to the hare.  I may have been quick- but not as quick as you accusing the Senate of wanting to gut Social Security.

        Bennet voted for  the Stimulus bill and voted FOR the one time $250 payment to social security and VA benefits recipients which was funded by the stimulus.

        The “privatize and not cut” bs was exactly the R spin. We can privatize, stabilize the system, and preserve benefits without cutting a dime. At least until the market tanks, or dips right when you need to draw your benefits.

        Yes- it said both .

        Let’s see that part of Senate Joint Resolution 28 again (bolding is mine)

        “That we, the members of the General Assembly of the state of Colorado, respectfully request that 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.”:

        Wow – it says both.  You want to focus on one part and ignored another, I focused one what it actually said.

        Seriously- would you out someone already.

    • wade norris says:

      along with 12 other conservadems.

      We believe Congress needs to adopt a special process to deal with our nation’s long term fiscal imbalances. We do not believe that action on these important issues will occur under the regular order of congress.

      That special process? a commission – that Joan McCarter accurately stated would be given budget authority on Social Security – in order to cut it to trim the deficit – a deficit caused by 2 unfunded wars, not by reckless spending by Democrats.

      From Mcjoan

      “Conrad and his new bipartisan “gang” which includes Evan Bayh, Diane Feinstein, Joe Lieberman, and Mark Warner (and Bennet) want to cede essential power over to this commission for writing tax law by creating a new permanent Senate rule, that any legislation created by it would be subject to an up-or-down vote; it could not be amended. Note that none of this gang is demanding that critical legislation like healthcare reform not be subject to cloture rules.”


      and more from the Wall Street Journal:


      The idea is to bring Republicans and Democrats together to make tough decisions about how to cut costs or raise revenue in areas including Social Security, Medicare and taxes.

      and the bill Romanoff voted for was called


      nice try though.

      • Ray Springfield says:

        Just as some of the Romanoff people hate my guts.

        You folks have dissembled from day 1  however.

        We didn’t see Romanoff fighting for health care last summer. He was busy trying to be Lt Gov.

        • StrykerK2 says:

          are you still wearing the tinfoil hat that tells you conspiracy theories?  What is it today?  Do you think Romanoff is actually from the lost island of Atlantis or something?

          These are always so entertaining.

        • wade norris says:

          is that you helped organize people and hand out

          “Friends of Romanoff” stickers at the 2009 Jefferson Jackson dinner.

          Now you are accusing him of

          “being a guest of Ortega and the Contras”


          “lying about teaching in Nicaragua”


          Some kind of ‘Friend’ you turned out to be.

          • peacemonger says:

            Romanoff is losing the respect of Dems who used to support him, left and right. Count me and many of my friends in, too.

            Romanoff has shown his personal ambitions trump what’s good for the state and what’s good for his party.  He will never get a second of my time or a penny of my support.

      • MADCO says:

        The letter

        “special process” or commission

        We agree- that’s what it called for.


        The recommendation from the commission gets an up or down vote.

        We agree- that’s what it called for.

        From Joan & You:

        insert leap

        Social Security is going away, Chicken Little demonstrated the sky is falling, and aliens from the Andromeda cluster are coming for our kids.


        “…tough decisions about how to cut costs or raise revenue in areas including Social Security, Medicare and taxes.”

        But you and Strkyer conclude “SS is about to be gutted”

        Then- let’s see that part of Senate Joint Resolution 28 again (bolding is mine)

        “That we, the members of the General Assembly of the state of Colorado, respectfully request that 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.“:

        Yikes! The name said something- sure. But if you are seriously suggesting that Speaker Romanoff only voted yes because it had a great name, …. well, that’s just foolish.  

        You are a funny guy.

        • StrykerK2 says:

          so he wanted to help people set up personal retirement accounts.  I have one.  I hope you do too.  Social Security alone just doesn’t cut it.

          So Romanoff not only wanted to keep social security intact but he…wait for it…wanted to help people be financially stable.  Shame on him you say.

          The next year, when people saw what Bush was trying to do…Romanoff supported a resolution opposing.

          It’s really not that hard MADCO

          • ClubTwitty says:

            Then apparently people can already set them up, right?  Only with their own (or employer’s) money.  In this case, where would the funding come from for government instituted private retirement accounts?

            And how, again, does this differ in substance from Bush’s drive to provide similar accounts?

            • StrykerK2 says:

              people paid less in and got less out.  It’s a very serious difference.

              • ClubTwitty says:

                And private retirement accounts (government instituted) would be funded with what?  New taxes or diverted payroll taxes?

                Optional, the way I understand it, means people could choose to divert payroll taxes into personal accounts which would, in fact, ‘cut money out of social security.’  Now if the State Leg was proposing a different funding stream please elucidate.  Otherwise please explain the apparent discrepancy in your argument.  

                • StrykerK2 says:

                  similar to how you can pull out of a paycheck for any number of retirement plans.  It’s not a tax — it’s not a required payment, but rather something like optional dental plan.  You can choose to divert part of your paycheck or not.

                  This would be in addition to your social security tax.

                  Not a policy expert, but that’s how it sounds.

                  • ClubTwitty says:

                    Rather they DIVERT payroll taxes (FICA) into a dedicated PRA, thus ‘defunding’ SS.


                    A modernized Social Security could do much more than just provide stable retirement benefits. Low-income and moderate-income workers could use Social Security to create family nest eggs that could either enhance their own retirements or be passed on to their heirs under a system of Social Security personal retirement accounts (PRAs).


                    Voluntary [i.e. ‘optional’-Twitty] personal retirement accounts are individual accounts that allow workers to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in bond and stock funds. These accounts are owned by the individual investor, not by the government.

                    • MADCO says:

                      getting all facty and careful.

                      We want ranting, raving uinbalance bullshit artists here! Don’t we?

                      Wait- we don’t. right?

                    • StrykerK2 says:

                      that’s the whole point.  the type you are talking about is not in this resolution in any way.

                      You reference heritage, which of course wants to cut social security benefits once they divert payments.  This resolution says the opposite — there are no cuts to benefits.

                      I get that what you’re talking about is privatization.  That’s not in this resolution at all though.  In fact the language MADCO keeps quoting clearly outlines why the resolution doesn’t support the type that’s been explained to you.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      is JSR 04-28, not the vote in 2005.  It was sponsored by Andrews in the Senate.

                      It specifically mentions PRAs as a means to rescue Social Security–which is to say it is related to, not separate from, that program.

                      It is similar in concept to what both Heritage and the Chamber support, which–by another name–is privatizing Social Security.

                      There is a similar template resolution listed on the right wing state legislative site, ALEC, from which Andrews probably got both the idea and the language.

                      AR can say ‘not true!!!’ and point to a different vote as ‘proof’ but that would be the type of political tactic that his supporters think he is above and that his opponent regularly engages in (i.e. mentioning only one Bennet vote on helping seniors rather than both is ‘the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth’).  So which is it?  Is it fair to criticize Bennet for one vote that he corrected (or rather selected what he thought was the better option–paid for with stimulus funds) but not to criticize Romanoff for two apparently contradictory positions?

                      Please explain.  

                    • StrykerK2 says:

                      you are running under a definition of personal retirement accounts that divert funds from social security, decreasing social security benefits (or which involve a tax increase).

                      The resolution that Romanoff supported specifically says that he opposed a decrease in social security benefits and opposes increased taxes for these.

                      So we are left with two options:

                      1) The personal accounts he supports were optional (like the dental plan idea I explained above).  They don’t increase taxes or reduce benefits, but are an optional add-on.

                      2) The language was added to castrate the idea of privatization.  If there is no way to privatize without increasing the tax or reducing benefits, then privatizing becomes impossible.  Make sense?  Essentially it would be like saying “sure — you can go to war, but I support the idea that if you go to war you cannot use any troops, spend any money, or invade any country.”

                      If you are right that every other instance of these personal accounts requires reducing benefits and/or increasing tax, then be definition what Romanoff supported is not like those.  Therefore it is not like the Bush plan, which Romanoff is on record opposing.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      Is likely a product of the American Legislative Exchange Council.  Their site has a ‘sample resolution’ listed on their page of ‘draft legislation’ under ‘commerce and insurance.’  I cannot get to the page because its password protected, but a search of several relevant phrases from the Colorado resolution shows it to be nearly identical to one crafted the same year in the South Carolina state house.

                      Word doc http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess115_2003-2004/bills/928.doc

                      It is also remarkable similar to the one provided by the Heartland Institute’s ‘policybot’ (pdf: http://www.heartland.org/custo

                      RESOLVED, that the ________ (House/Senate) of the State of ______________ requests our

                      elected Representatives and Senators in the United States Congress support no increases in payroll taxes,

                      no cuts to Social Security benefits, and optional Social Security Personal Retirement Accounts.

                      RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be transmitted to the state of __________’s Congressional


                      The Heartland Institute is one of the policy shops that ALEC relies upon to craft their ‘draft legislation’; which they then share with their members in state legislatures, who do the ol’ McInnis and submit it as their own bill/resolution.  I will bet dimes to dollars this resolution came out of such a right-wing policy machine–was taken up by the Andrews Senate, and was supported by AR, one of only a handful of Dems to do so.  It is–in fact–right in line with Heartland, Heritage, and the US Chamber of Commerce.    

                      Spin. Wade. Spin, I await your response.

                    • StrykerK2 says:

                      are you calling me Wade?  You’re responding to my comments and calling me Wade.  Just curious…there is a large diary on the front page saying you can’t do that.  I’m a tad confused what you’re implying there.

                      As for the measure, look at what it says.  I clearly outlined why the resolution that Romanoff put his name on does not privatize social security.  You haven’t argued with those points.

                      I think this is an interesting conversation actually, and I would like to continue it on it’s own diary rather than hijacking this one.  I should be back on this weekend.  I’m sure you will be too.

                      This was a diary about Bennet supporting a measure that does actually sound a lot like privatization, which clearly no Bennet supporter wanted to talk about.  

                      I took the bait of talking about what you wanted to talk about instead.  I do think this is important to clarify, and I believe I have done so.  Still, perhaps we can take this fight outside so to speak.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      I was just posting more info, took me a while to actually look a few things up and was actually replying to my own comment, didn’t know your’s was inserted in between until after I posted…

                      My point is that the CO reolution which Romanoff voted for is taken nearly verbatim–including the lines about “support no increases in payroll taxes, no cuts to Social Security benefits, and optional Social Security Personal Retirement Accounts” from well-known right-wing corporatist think tanks and policy shops.

                      You can pretend that the language THOSE SHOPS provide doesn’t support privatization, but I disagree.  Indeed, I think that is the whole point.  Maybe they are stupid and added in some self-defeating phrase, but I doubt it.  The whole premise (the whereas’) in the resolution is about Social Security becoming insolvent etc.  and this (‘personal retirement accounts’) being a way to counter that, so I have to ask–if the resolution, on its face is about Social Security–how can you say it is NOT about social security (but merely some encouragement or incentive for IRAs, 401/403s etc)?  That just makes no sense.

                      You’re passionate about your candidate.  That’s good–I do wish you would express it differently, but in another week and a half it won’t matter, I will either (then) be a Romanoff supporter or working to convince you not to jump ship and thereby help elect Jane Buck or Ken Norton.  

                      I understand that you want to believe that Romanoff is not another politician, that somehow he is pure in heart and mind, and not a legislator looking to choose among various shades of gray; while Bennet–who, also a legislator–is not so pure.  

                      Thus you seem to think that Bennet is a weasel for voting against one version of a benefit for seniors, for instance, in favor of a different one (and therefore it is OK to blast him for voting against the former without even acknowledging the latter).

                      I don’t think of it that way.  

                      I operate from the assumption that they are both flawed individuals, that governing requires making deals–some unsavory–and navigating among shades of gray, some quite dark.  There is a reason they call it a ‘sausage factory’ and its not because it tastes good with eggs or on a McMuffin.

                      This is my main beef (sorry for mixing my pork and cow metaphors, but stick with me) with many (not all) Romanoff supporters, they have a thoroughly unrealistic image of their guy. I don’t think his record supports it, I don’t like the campaign he’s running, and I hate to see him waste his considerable political talent, which I fear will be the outcome of all this.  But I have been wrong before.

                      I remember this time in 1997…

                    • botw says:

                      And I think Romanoff has crossed and burned so many bridges for so long that he is 100% done if he doesn’t win the primary through the astounding dishonesty of him and his campaign. He is simply not the person who represented me and my family years ago. He is — and probably always was — something very different.

                    • denverco says:

                      All he had to do before was smile and tell a joke and he was done. Perhaps we are now seeing the true AR – very disgusting.

                    • Ralphie says:

                      You don’t get to debate that.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      Not sure who you are responding to.  I read the resolution as a boiler plate ALEC-inspired call to privatize Social Security.  

                    • Ralphie says:

                      I was responding to Strykerk2, who seems to think that the plain text of the resolution really means something different that what it says.

                      Sorry for the confusion.

        • wade norris says:

          MADCO also accused  Andrew Romanoff of lying about teaching in Central America.


          Now MADCO is calling one of the Editors of Daily Kos and very respected blogger, Joan McCarter a liar.

          And she is not “just another poster on Kos”

          she is Daily Kos’

          Senior Policy Editor Joan McCarter (aka mcjoan)


          (and I emailed her to let her how you felt)

        • wade norris says:

          MADCO also accused  Andrew Romanoff of lying about teaching in Central America.


          Now MADCO is calling one of the Editors of Daily Kos and very respected blogger, Joan McCarter a liar.

          And she is not “just another poster on Kos”

          she is Daily Kos’

          Senior Policy Editor Joan McCarter (aka mcjoan)


          (and I emailed her to let her how you felt)

            • MADCO says:

              I did not accuse Andrew of lying about teaching in Nicaragua.  

              I asked when he was there.  I believe he was there.  But I’d like to know when and what he was doing.  

              Great- Now I can argue with Joan McCarter too.  Awesome.

              I bet she’ll get the quote/citation thingy right so that when she says someone else said something, it will be what they said.

              If she wants to join Copols and explain how the commission will be the death of Social Security or anything else- great.  Almost any explanation would be more useful than your bs.


              • wade norris says:

                Ray said

                I’m also still looking for what year he claims to have taught English

                in Nicaragua. I think he made it up. I was illegal to do business from 1982 to 1990.

                Was he there as a guest of Daniel Ortega or the Contras?

                and you said

                So when was AR working there?

                You may think Ray is crazy, but the question has never been answered. Seems easy enough- month and year he arrived, month and year he left.

                You are just giving Ray’s delusional conspiracies about Andrew more strength by asking for proof.

                • MADCO says:


                  Was Andrew a civil rights lawyer for the Southern Poverty Law Center?

                  No. He interned at SPLC long before he went to law school

                  Is Andrew a lawyer?

                  No. While has graduated from an accredited law school, he has not yet passed the bar exam.

                  Has Andrew ever been the regular starring shortstop for the CUbs?

                  No, Andrew was born in 1966.  Starlin Castro is the Cubs youngest ever shortstop – he was 20.  And from 1986 until now the Cubs regular shortstops were

                  Shawon Dunston-1985-1997

                  Jeff Blauser 1998

                  Jose Hernandez 1999

                  Ricky Gutierrez 2000-2001

                  Alex Gonzalez 2002-2003

                  Ramon Martinez/ Nomar Garciappara 2004

                  Nafi Perez 2005

                  Ronny Cedeno 2006

                  Ryan Theriot  2007-Present

                  See- it’s not that hard.

                  Questions that get answered go away.  Questions that get deflected, even by derision, tend to make me wonder why no answer.

          • MADCO says:

            I ddin’t call Joan McCarter a liar.

            I disagreed with her leap logic analysis editorial or conclusion or whatever it was.

  3. When Andrew Romanoff comes forward and denounces the misleading ads from New Leadership In Colorado, then we can talk.

    • wade norris says:

      i usually steer clear of talking to people who tell me to STFU

    • StrykerK2 says:

      that starts down a dangerous road.  New Leadership, assuming it is supporting Romanoff and not a Republican group that decided to start a little early attacking the guy they think will win in order to drive up his negatives with democrats (it would be a great time after all — people are assuming they are pro-Romanoff), is a separate entity.

      Where would that line stop?  Can I say I expect Michael Bennet to denounce Ray Springfield for comparing Romanoff supporters to the KKK?  He is a 3rd party that is spreading a message too.

      *For the record, I wouldn’t expect a candidate to have to denounce the actions of supporters unless they were acting with instructions from the campaign.  I assume Ray is just a lone crazy.

      • ClubTwitty says:

        or at least that it was clear to everyone (except BennetPols) that AR was the only Dem who could win…

        Thus the GOP ‘3rd party’ would want to take out the ‘stronger’ candidate before the Primary (presumably-cf. Sue Lowry, NV). So I believe it to be a pro-Romanoff 527/c4.  

        You understand the difference between a real person (i.e. an individual) and an organization, right?  Equating Ray (who I agree goes too far as I have told him on this blog several times–he is to Bennet (IMO) as you are to Romanoff, shrill, hyperbolic, incendiary–a poor reflection on the chosen candidate) with a c4 or 527 is silly.  

      • I’m holding him accountable for his own statement that he was doing this the old-fashioned honest way, by getting individual campaign contributions and declining corporate support.

        This is an independent expenditure on his behalf, and furthermore it’s an out-and-out lie.  If Romanoff wants to look like a stand-up candidate, he will want to distance himself from these ads.

        As far as individual support goes, both campaigns surely watch this site to a greater or lesser extent.  It is a public forum where the candidates are, to some extent, represented by volunteers and fans rather than by official campaign responses.  I don’t expect a candidate to refute every nutball’s statement supposedly in support of their campaign, but I do think the campaigns would do themselves a great and simple service by reminding their supporters (and neutral observers, and opponents’ supporters) just how civil discourse can actually be without changing the game from NFL to touch football.

        How much better would this whole debate have gone if the Romanoff and Bennet campaigns had said, here, just once or twice each, ‘the other guy is a good man, and we don’t condone this type of attack’?

        • StrykerK2 says:

          neither does anymore.  Honestly not sure what to make of that fact.  Maybe they don’t pay as much attention to the site as they used to?

          As for the ad, check out the conversation below.  The ad is not a lie — it states a true fact.

      • Ralphie says:

        “Do I want to be like Wade and Strykerk2?”

    • StrykerK2 says:

      I keep hearing that point made.  Bennet voted against amendment xyz987 (whatever the number was) right?  This group runs an ad saying he voted against an amendment that would have given $250 to seniors (I’m remembering the ad correctly right?)

      Ok – so he voted for a different one.  The point is that it was different.  That’s fine.  The Bennet campaign is within their right to say that Bennet supports $250 to seniors only if we have a funding source for the money.

      • The ad specifically says he voted against a COLA increase.  He never did that.

        The one-time $250 payment was not a COLA increase.  (By definition, since a COLA increase is an ongoing change.)

        And the new ad also calls Bennet’s vote a ‘cut’ in Social Security payments.  It wasn’t.

        And the ad says his vote will hurt senior citizens for years to come.  Another lie, since his actions did pass the one-time $250 check.

        And, as MADCO points out elsewhere, the bank bailout (TARP) was passed before Sen. Bennet was even in the Senate.  Therefore he did not vote for bank bailouts.

        So it’s a LIE.  Not a half-truth, not an omission, not an alternate interpretation.  It’s a LIE, and your continued attempts to support it paint you in the least flattering light.

        • StrykerK2 says:

          I think I understand the confusion.  This is site right? http://thebennetrecord.com/

          What I was talking about was this:

          Senator Michael Bennet voted against Senate Amendment 3353 (thirty-three, fifty-three) that would have provided senior citizens with a $250 increase in their Social Security.

          (taken from the ad on the site under the radio tab).  That is factually accurate.  Bennet voted against the $250 increase that amendment included.

          I see the second one.  I don’t know what the cost of living increase is they are talking about, but you seem pretty sure on this point so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Don’t mean that to be snarky, I’m just not familiar with what that other ad is talking about.

          • RedGreen says:

            it claims Bennet voted against cost of living increases for seniors. That is an out and out lie.

            The 527 has a new ad out today that phrases things differently. It’s not any better.

          • Ralphie says:

            You only make yourself and your candidate look foolish by clinging to this lie.

          • botw says:

            Check your facts, dude!

            Bennet voted FOR the $250 COLA increase for seniors.

            That is the OPPOSITE of what the ad is saying.  That makes the ad a LIE.

            This really isn’t tough stuff.  But for the Romanoff folks, its MUS, all the time.

            • And I’ll also correct myself (previously relying on others…) regarding the ‘second vote’.

              Bennet (and Udall) did vote against S.Amdt. 3353 (3/3/2010), the vote specifically mentioned in Romanoff’s campaign e-mail (but not in the 2nd NLIC ad), which would have given a one-time $250 bump in Social Security benefits.  This $250 one-time payment was a follow-on to the $250 one-time payment included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

              As far as I can tell, there has been no ‘second vote’ on this particular measure; the Senate Republicans gutted the larger measure that was supposed to include unemployment benefit extensions, aid to states, and (if the Amendment had passed) this $250 check to Social Security recipients.  So far only the unemployment benefits have been extended.

              The vote was not about a COLA, though.  It was a one-time stimulus measure, and that’s how Obama sold it.  Just to be clear, since the ad tries to blur that line.  Some people have called it a ‘COLA compensation’, but it is not COLA – there was no COLA for this year or last.

              I can’t get too worked up about this claim, given the nature of the vote.  The bill was a group of payments for people hit hard by the recession; SSI checks are constant – the extra $250 was strictly new stimulus.  I think we need some new stimulus, but in the manner of “one of these things is not like the others”, I would be fine seeing it put in a more stimulus-oriented package.

  4. botw says:

    This diary (which has apparently been cross-posted across half the planet) is a disaster and is really shameful.

    First, Romanoff is on record saying he supports “social security personal retirement accounts.”  The centerpiece of Bush’s social security plan was personal retirement accounts that could invest in stocks and bonds.

    Second, Bennet is not even remotely for “cutting” social security.  Bennet voted for the COLA increase, he just didn’t vote for the version that wasn’t paid for.

    This diary, like the candidate for which it shills, is really sickening.

    • StrykerK2 says:

      attack the diarist, give some spin, and then continue ignoring the point with incorrect facts.

      you want to address this whole “fiscal responsibility board” thing Bennet supports?

      • botw says:

        This diary is simply wrong.

        What facts am I wrong about?  I quoted from the bill for which Romanoff voted.

        It says:

        “That we, the members of the General Assembly of the state of Colorado, respectfully request that 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.” [SJR04-028

        You agree that Romanoff supported personal retirement accounts, right?

  5. CJ says:

    I’m no Michael Bennet fan; but, on what basis should we trust Andrew Romanoff’s conversion from a DLC centrist (remembering that DLC has been talking up the “urgent” need to “reform” Social Security for quite some time) to a progressive populist?

    What I’m wondering, Wade, is why I should trust Romanoff?  I’m leaning toward voting for him in the primary primarily because of the robocall I got from Obama telling me to support Bennet; but, I need a better reason.

    • MADCO says:

      If President Obama endorsing Bennet bothers you and you don’t mind Romanoff being endorsed by President Clinton. You’re done.

      Or if you mind that Bennet has some out o state donors, but Romanoff fundraising off Clinton’s national list, you’re done.

      You’e got 8 years of legislative history with AR – moderate and pragmatic.  You’ve got 18 months of legislative history with Bennet – also moderate and pragmatic.  Romanoff has made a big deal out of “actions speak louder than words” – but if you believe AR2.0’s words, or at least more than AR1.0’s actions- you’re done.

      Otherwise – Bennet.

    • wade norris says:

      is part of this administrations’ decision to back an incumbent no matter what.

      For instance

      Barack Obama

      “I love Arlen Specter”

      Same as President Bush’s message.

      It has nothing to do with Bennet’s merits.

      • CJ says:

        is now a genuine progressive populist?

        I don’t like the robocall here any better than the one done on behalf of Specter over Sestak, or Blanche Lincoln over Bill Halter.  What I am seeking is some reason to trust that this is a genuine conversion.

        • MADCO says:

          The AR supporters, shills and staff her eon CoPols have demonstrated a shocking lack of ability to articulate AR’s positives other than he’s just so awesome

          Don’t believe it?

          Click on any user name to get to their diary page.

          Wade, Striker, Andrea Merida, JeffcoTrue, Firewalker,  Conductrix, JO, dfarrah, and others – no diary history articulating AR’s positives.  Meanwhile- keep asking and watch.  The answer you will get will be claims about Bennet’s negatives. unsupported, but claimed all the same.

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.