Romanoff Attack Ad Universally Panned as Untrue

We were critical of the latest ad from Democrat Andrew Romanoff, called “Greed,” for saying that Sen. Michael Bennet “pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted a billion dollars.” While there are certainly votes and other issues that Romanoff could use to criticize Bennet, this ad went way beyond just negative campaigning because it outright lied in accusing Bennet of stealing from companies.

Well, the three biggest Denver news networks have all come out with their “Truth Test” or “Fact Checks” or whatever other clever name they have for checking the accuracy of campaign ads. The result: 3 out of 3 say the main message and components of the “Greed” ad are false.

  • 9News (NBC)

  • Channel 7 (ABC)

  • Channel 4 (CBS)
  • 45 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

    1. BlueCat says:

      Duh. Not to you, ColPols.  Just a general duh.

    2. ColoDem Di says:

      If he really thinks that Anschutz “pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted…” it indicates to me that he is really, truly completely clueless on matters of finance.

      For all of you who think Andrew would be better on banking reform, it’s the blind leading the blind.  As a long-time finance/capital markets professional, that ignorance scares the wits out of me.

      If we want true, effective financial reform, why would you vote out one of the few US Senators who actually understands WTF they’re dealing with?

      • DavidThi808 says:

        FDR tapped Joe Kennedy to head the SEC because he knew every trick the stock traders would pull. So having someone in who really understands the system is a good thing.

        But the other key part is it has to be someone who’s willing to do what’s best for the country rather than what’s best for their peers. And that’s a hard thing for people to do, both because they have to see through the system they used to believe in and they have to handle peers disliking them.

        I’ll agree Bennet meets the first half. I don’t think he meets the second half. And that may be because he’s too nice of a guy, which speaks well of him personally, but not of him as a Senator.

        Anyways, very good point.

        • RedGreen says:

          You managed to make it all the way through that post without your current favorite buzz phrase.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            I’m guessing I’m over-using something, but nothing comes to mind. (BTW, I view you as my personal ombudsperson here as you immediately call me on anything I have wrong. Not always happy about it, but I am appreciative.)

        • ColoDem Di says:

          Shame on you for being to naive to get conned into that groupthink that Bennet cares more about bankers.

          You keep on this shrill thing about “insufficient” financial reform guarantees that we’ll have another bubble.  Guess what?  There will be many other economic bubbles with or without financial reform.  While I understand and can relate to the sentiment that the banks should be reined in from taking unreasonable risks, the reality is that suffocating the banks is the wrong answer.

          The cramdown might have helped a few homeowners in the short term, but it would have hurt us all in the long term.  Banks originate mortgage loans with the intent to sell or securitize them.  If they sell them to some other entity, that entity will most likely securitize them.  The cramdown would throw in a whole new layer of uncertainly and, most likely, force ratings downgrades of MBS.  What do you think happens to the price of the security after a downgrade?  Who do you think holds those MBS?  Teachers Pension Funds, among others.  So the cramdown might help a few struggling homeowners, but it would hose all current MBS holders.  Is that what you want??

          Banks originate residential conforming mortgages at razor thin margins, hence the narrow interest rate spread over treasuries.  Limiting the banks’ ability to sell/securitze these loans will, out of necessity increase interest rates on all loans.

          Is this starting to make sense?  There is not a one to one correlation that what is good for banks is bad for consumers, nor vice versa.  This argument is getting tiresome.

          I want more, not fewer, US Senators who understand, or at least have the capacity to understand the moving parts here.  Andrew Romanoff is clearly not one of them.

          • DevilishlyModerate says:

            Good to see someone with some financial services knowledge participating in the discussion. Send me an email sometime, I think we have a lot in common:


          • DavidThi808 says:

            Cramdown (the least important of his votes) – The core issue was we faced the tragedy of the commons. The financial system as a whole would be better off if fewer people lost their homes, but each bank operating day to day was worried about their balance sheet.

            In addition, because the loans were sliced, you needed approval from the institutions holding each slice. But the institution holding the bottom 10% was worse off if the mortgage was discounted because they then had to list that loan’s value as 0 on their books.

            Finally cramdown would not have stolen value from those securities, it would have just had the holders face the true value of the paper sooner.

            I won’t go in to each vote, just list one of the biggest – bringing back Glass-Steagall. Those regulations kept us safe from a financial meltdown for 70 years. Within 10 years of being removed we had one. Reinstituting that should have been a no-brainer – we already knew exactly what the regulations should be and that they worked.

            Bennet may care more about us than the banks, but he votes for the banks. Just as he may care more for the environment, but voted to leave big oil its tax breaks that could have gone to green energy initiatives.

            • ColoDem Di says:

              The expectation that any one senator, freshman senator at that, could have single-handedly gotten it passed is ludicrous.

              • DavidThi808 says:

                Everyone just states it like “the sun rises in the east.” But the fact of the matter is many were proposing reinstating it. It was something that could be placed on the table.

                If you guys want to claim Senator Bennet could make a difference in Washington – then this would have been a very good place to do so. Instead you are making excuses for why he can’t make a difference there. If he can’t make a difference, then we should replace him with someone who can.

                • MADCO says:

                  If he did,. he’d have showed up already.

                  Michael Perino is dead.

                  Stiglitz is not a Colorado resident.

                  Neither is Elliot Spitzer and he has other political challenges.

                  What would be great is if we had a state legislator who had already done this kind of financial reform at the state level since most of the best financial legislation and regulation of the past 20 years in the US happened at the state level (after FIRREA). But we don’t.

                  The next best thing would be a finance guy who understands the complexity and would be willing to seek a balanced approach of regulation and reform without tipping over the boat. Oohh – we do have this.

                  Bennet has greater potential to accomplish this than any other Senate candidate in Colorado this year.

    3. StrykerK2 says:

      watch the 3 TV spots.  Channel 4 does not use the word “false” at any point in their analysis, and all three use the word “true” far more often.  The only real problem 4 seemed to have was the use of the word “loot” which they said is “misleading.”

      On a related note, it’s interesting that you choose to link to the “TheRealRomanoff” youtube channel instead of the individual news sites.  That youtube channel is the same one the Bennet campaign is spamming out.  I’m sure the Bennet campaign sent it all to you in a neat little package, but you could at least look like you found all this yourselves.

      • DavidThi808 says:

        That if the TV channels did their truth test to this diary, they would say it was false?


      • Colorado Pols says:

        The entire ad is based around two points: 1) the “pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted a billion dollars” line, and 2) that a lot of people are out of work because of it. The first point is factually incorrect, and indisputably so. The second point doesn’t mesh with the fact that there are now more people employed with Regal than there were before.

        It doesn’t matter if other parts of the ad are factual, because the main components are not (and one is called “FICTIONAL” by one of the reports). If you took out the “pushed companies into bankruptcy and looted a billion dollars” line, and if you removed the part about the job losses, then this ad is probably completely factual. It would also then be totally pointless to be running it on TV.

        As we said in the post, there are other votes and issues that you could use to attack Bennet, and there’s nothing wrong with negative ads as long as they aren’t intentionally false. If you want to say that Romanoff should be allowed to run false ads, then that’s an argument for another time. But you cannot possibly argue that these ads are factually correct. Too many independent sources have already clearly proven otherwise.

    4. jaytee says:

      and really bad strategery. Bennet as a corporate raider. Chrissake.

    5. Gilpin Guy says:

      If Romanoff loses this primary it will be traced back to this ad that killed his momentum.

      How ironic that it got titled “GREED”.

    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.