CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
August 06, 2010 02:53 AM UTC
82 Comments
I won’t take PAC money…now I will.
I didn’t vote to privatize social security…except when I did.
I’m not going to run a negative dishonest campaign…except when I do….
etc.
Even if he wins, he deserves to lose. Zero integrity.
He is not taking PAC money. The DSSC has a special non PAC bank account set aside only to serve the need of Mr. Romanoff to have it both ways.
I like him more all the time!
That AR’s efforts to privatize social security didn’t pan out so we could have even more broke old people when the market tanked.
Does this really go to the heart of AR’s integrity?
It looks a bit contrived, and the financial markets sure have changed since 2004.
That said, I would hope that AR would not be for privatization today given the financial failures that have occurred in the last 2 years. And the main question would be: do people really believe that AR would want to privatize social security and do away with the current system?
The tone of the commercial implies that AR and Bush are pretty much the same. Is that believable?
when he voted on a resolution that actually said “privatization” unlike the 2004 one. He made it clear at the time he was opposed
his words!
Speaking of negative outcomes though, did anyone see this article today???
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…
place, atmosphere, position of the moon, mean republicans or anything else. However, each one of Bennet’s votes are point blank cut and dry, we don’t want to know the details of his reasons for voting the way he did.
Bennet can be attacked, but Romanoff gets excuses because conditions were against him. Just exactly what was the point of him being speaker of the house?
C’mon – you know that’s just an exaggeration.
Republicans are warm, soft loving people.
That would be one thing. Instead he denied that his vote was for privatization, although all information points the other way.
Either he was terribly uniformed (which I doubt) or, yes, his integrity is called into question.
Going down to the State archives and listening to the actual floor debate. Romanoff said he spoke on the floor against this. The vote itself wasn’t a bill (AARP is misspeaking there), it was a resolution. The resolution was a “gotcha” resolution designed to trap Democrats between a rock and a hard place.
Someone go down to the archives, pull the audio, listen to it, and tell me what Romanoff said on the floor.
Until then, 9News has as much credibility as Romanoff on this issue.
I’d be very curious to understand exactly what was said. I just don’t see how AR or MB would ever be with Bush on privatizing social security. It seems like a crazy issue to make this SS issue based on a state resolution the focal point of AR’s integrity (almost laughable to me personally).
Now that said, I think that the blue dog coalition supports the commission considering reducing social security. I hope that AR would never be a blue dog, but MB was declared as one at one point. So this concerns me. Would AR be a blue dog as well — he’s not running like a blue dog — but this is politics.
conservadem he’s whole career. That is until he decided to run as a fake progressive. Don’t you ever wonder why he never mentions his DLC leadership position in his campaign?
Not that he would try to compare our Democratic senator to an odious Republican operative or anything… snark
I posted a citation to a template resolution on the Heartland Institute’s website that is nearly verbatim to what was passed in the statehouse with Romanoff as one of only a handful of Dems in support.
The contact listed for more info is with Americans for Tax Reform, and the notes are all about how this is consistent and in line with Bush’s plans on ‘social security reform.’
Honestly, I think its a stae resolution, it doesn’t matter. It’s AR’s attempt to
liemisleadtotally obfuscate about it that offends me.Mr. Romanoff–admit you made some flawed votes, that you are–as your record shows–a centrist DLC Dem and not the Great Progressive Hope. It will only lead to heartache in the Wade’s of the world should you actually have to legislate.
The markets had already proven their volatility. The most recent bubble was just bigger, that’s all.
And thank you, but your compliment doesn’t help how sore I feel when I get up each morning. I remember watching the Watergate hearings, but I won’t hint at how old beyond that.
AJB, the dot com bubble was actually 3 times bigger, roughly, than the housing bubble.
http://online.wsj.com/article/…
(It’s a very fact heavy article, search for “10 trillion” and “3 trillion” to find the numbers.)
The reason the dot-com bubble didn’t cause a financial collapse is that it was private wealth that was lost. People saw their portfolios dry up, or saw their 401(k)s fall apart, or saw their college accounts shrink–but banks themselves were not heavily exposed, and continued to lend money without problems. Sure, a $10 trillion dollar hit can put the brakes on the economy, as people buy less and become more careful with their money–but the fundamentals of the economy remained strong, and we were back to cruising speed quickly.
With the housing bubble, it was more like the wheels came off entirely. Many or most of the assets whose value evaporated were owned by banks (that still owned the houses, or still owned the mortgage backed securities, or owned promises-to-pay from banks that owned those securities, etc.) so banks–even many good ones–were suddenly unsure if they could lend more, and at what price, or if they could stay in business at all. People couldn’t get loans to buy cars, and car salesmen couldn’t sell cars, and car companies couldn’t clear inventory, and ditto for every other sector that requires loans to function well–there’s really no better metaphor than the wheels coming off. That’s why economists went into a tizzy and the bailouts and so forth were necessary–no banks (or not enough functioning ones) and you have depression-era economic problems all over again.
The dot-com bubble is a perfectly good argument against privatizing social security tho, since it had a huge and in some cases devastating effect on people’s private net worth.
And a good argument for treating large banks like utilities – drastically limit what they can do and give them a guaranteed rate of return.
and even when not were domestic.
They are global now – and if we attempt what you suggest here, the capital will go off shore. Well, a lot of it already has- more will follow.
But you’re right- if we can’t afford them failing, and we cannot, and we want to have an economy that depends on banking, and all signs point to we do, then you are right on.
Put Elizabeth Warren in charge of the new CFPA, give her the hammer equal to the FDIC, OCC, and the Fed. ANd review the deal every 3 years.
I learn so much on the site sometimes.
Romanoff’s votes are in the public record.
Denying them is lying. Plain and simple.
The resolution is here. His vote is recorded here.
You can disagree with me, you can call me names, but don’t try to bullshit me. That pisses me off.
Yep — that’s what I meant. To run a commercial that almost any democrat was with Bush on privatizing social security. That seems pretty contrived. Sorry Ralphie.
I just linked you to them.
You can believe what you want. Me, I still believe in the tooth fairy. That doesn’t make her a fact. But the facts are in the House Journal, and denying them makes you just as much of a liar as Romanoff.
It doesn’t make you a liar. But the question would be: do you really believe that AR or MB would ever support the privatization scheme that Bush was promoting?
Yes is an OK answer.
Did he vote for it although he was against it? I don’t know. I know he voted for it, I understand its intent and I know its origins.
The text of the resolution has been linked.
I believe that AR voted for what he voted for.
Private Social Security accounts.
Deny the facts at the risk of your own credibility.
Have you looked at the record of the rest of the members voting for that (and the other several “gotcha” votes that day)?
Do you really believe that so many Democrats in the Colorado legislature really supported privatizing Social Security?
Or are you just being a dishonest partisan cheerleader like so many other people on this blog have become?
I guess you actually believe that AR would dismantle social security in favor of private accounts based on him signing on to a resolution in a state legislature that some say was a Republican trick. Yikes — what are we coming to?
It’s a public record.
As for being a dishonest partisan cheerleader, that’s your characterization. Actually it’s namecalling, but what’s a little namecalling among friends.
I believe in facts.
PR, you’re a smart person. Are you telling me that the facts are wrong?
Depends very much on the interpretation. I also believe in tricks. Maybe another question: do you believe that the SS privatization resolution was a trick by Republicans?
Also, take a look at the post history. I did not call anybody a dishonest partisan cheerleader. I think that tempers are running high enough — and I don’t want to add to the heat. I’m sorry that you are reading my previous post that way (unless you are referring to somebody else’s post).
Facts are facts.
If Romanoff wants to put a different spin on his vote, he’s welcome to man up and explain what he was thinking.
Without that explanation, we are left only with the facts.
And you, PV, didn’t call anybody a partisan cheerleader. That was PR.
Promise that this is my last post tonight since I have to get back to earning a living.
One big thing I’ve learned in life is that facts are always interpreted, rationalized, bent, distorted, etc. I was really struggling with life a couple decades ago, and a very wise person told me to always remember that there are many shades of gray. Never think in black and white (or absolutes), and you’ll be able to cope much better with the realities of our world.
Shades of gray don’t work in political campaigns (and 30 second ads), but shades of gray are to me what politics are all about.
Keep researching and make your best guess at the truth at all times, but always realize that there is no black and white.
AARP made their opposition known.
Again, I don’t think a state resolution is a big deal. I just sometimes politicians make political choices and I wish they would just admit that instead of trying to pretend they never did.
And, worse, you know that your “facts” are based on a vote that was (a) nonbinding, and (b) designed to be a lose-lose trap for Democrats.
I consider myself to be a reasonably rational fellow, usually cool-headed. And this Romanoff-Bennet fan feud is going to make me leave this pop stand Really Soon Now. You’ve all gone ’round the bend, on both sides of the campaign aisle, as far as I’m concerned.
I hope that I didn’t add too much fuel to the fire. As an aside, this is my first election in Colorado, and I come from some red (not purple) states and am glad to be here. I hope that you keep posting, and I again I hope that I’ve stayed within reason. I am asking a lot of questions, because this feud is so confusing.
If you have different facts, post a link.
Better yet, post a link to Romanoff’s explanation. All I have is yours. You’re not running for anything.
I don’t consider reading the House Journal to be going “round the bend.” I consider it to be part of my responsibility as a voter.
And Social Security is a big deal to me.
I’m not running for anything.
I’ve been a weak supporter of Romanoff through some of this campaign, and an on-the-fence supporter the rest of the time. I’ve defended Romanoff, I’ve defended Bennet.
I don’t have a strong horse in this race. If I had 101 votes, 51 would go to Romanoff, 50 to Bennet, and I will gladly support whoever wins.
The House Journal is a simple recording of bill action and votes. It is not the full record of the House – that resides in the archives on tape, annoyingly inaccessible to the masses (or at least that’s how it was back then – don’t know about now).
I remember these votes at the time they were happening. I remember the discussion at the time. I remember the idiocy that surrounded these votes back when Joan Fitz-Gerald was running for CO-02, and the idiocy has only grown by an order of magnitude in the two years since then.
That journal you linked to had resolutions supporting the troops fighting in the Iraq war, “private retirement accounts”, expedited passing of the national defense budget – and Democrats were voting for them because the resolution text was designed by Republicans to put Democrats in a bad light no matter how they voted. There were discussions at the time on which of the two votes (yea or nay) were “better”.
The problem isn’t that any state resolution was going to modify Social Security. It wasn’t.
The problem isn’t that the R’s didn’t do it as a gotcha strategy – they did.
The problem isn’t even that AR voted yes when he could have voted no. Though he did.
The problem is that Camp Romanoff has campaigned as if AR was all things liberal and all things progressive and pure and uncorruptible. And as if any vote, anywhere anytime by Bennet indicates that legislator’s heart of hearts on any given issue. So when Michael Bennet voted against the cramdown amendment, Campanoff complained that he wanted to force millions of homeowners into the street. When he voted this way or that way on this or that amendment- they howled that it revealed his true heart of hearts.
He could have voted for cramdown- it wasn’t going to pass. He could have proposed single payer- it wouldn’t have passed. He could have voted for or against a hundred things that would have made no difference to the final legislation. And at every chance Campanoff has dinged him as if.
Some legislation Bennet voted on didn’t go far enough or my own preference. Some legislation didn’t passs I would have preferred did, some did that I would have preferred did not. But Bennet was allowed no explanation of the rock and hard place- just Campanoff painting him however worked best for whatever argument they were making that day.
Bennet finally gets around to the negative hits to push back- and Campanoff complains and whines. It’s unfair he …snif…didn’t really mean to support Bush’s ss privatization Oddly, at the same time, DT and MikeD and Sk2 and others complain that Bennet hasn’t been negative enough..not “aggressive” enough.
AR is not a “different” kind of politician in that he’s clean and truthful all the time. He is as pragmatic as they come. As moderate a D as moderates can be. I don’t know why he voted for the resolution – and he doesn’t want to talk about it except to remind everyone that in 2005 and since he made it very clear he opposes SS privatization.
and actually calls Bennet out on a lot of it. Schrager is the one that talks about the 2005 resolution when Romanoff made it clear he opposed privatization.
Schrager also says the 2004 resolution doesn’t include the word “privatization,” making your diary inaccurate.
but it doesn’t fit the
Bennet campaign’sglasscup’s viewpoint, so of course that part is ignored as well.You’ll get used to the completely obscene bias around here eventually. Sadly.
Now I get it. Romanoff can lie about Bennet. Bennet can’t tell the truth about Romanoff lying about his own record?
…but none of us are allowed to tell the truth about Romanoff lying about running a postive campaign, or lying about running an issues based campaign, or lying about not taking PAC money, or lying about…
of those progressive groups are lining up in support of Romanoff. If that really is his name – I’ll ask his campaign manager just to make sure.
enough you probably could find yourself a great spot in the Romanoff campaign.
…what Campaign Manager Romjue said” “You can always find an ivory-tower person that’s completely pure. We’re not an ivory-tower person. Andrew’s going to be funded by individuals, but of course we’ll accept money from the DSCC.”
You have to make the point that the DSSC has an Andrew approved special clean account that they will only use to give money to him. This special account will insulate him from an PAC funds. This account is held separately from the funds they use to help all other Democratic Senate Candidates. They think so highly of him that they went to the trouble to make these special arrangements just for him.
Because that is not what Adam Schrager said.
For someone who got your panties in such a twist over the difference between “untrue” and “lie” – I started to think you actually had started to care about the meaning of words.
Cite what you attribute to Mr Schrager – or shut up. Thank you.
OK, I know that this is deflecting in a way, but legislators sign on to all kinds of stuff.
MB (along with Udall) signed on to the blue dog group in the senate within just a few weeks of MB becoming a senator.
Now it’s my understanding that Colorado is pretty conservative and this may have been a shrewd move back in March of 2009. But I happen to think it was horrible and will not vote for a “blue dog” if I can help it.
Even so, I haven’t seen anybody talk about it. Is signing on as a “blue dog” 17 months ago any better than signing on to a resolution related to social security private accounts 5 years ago. And it’s pretty clear today where AR stands on this social security issue (because of the ads, etc.), but I have no idea where MB stands on being a blue dog.
Does the “blue dog” thing bother anybody else, or is this what Colorado wants?
I’m convinced that most people would assume (even despite the commercial) that AR probably has no desire to get rid of our social security system.
Again, I’m not trying to deflect, but simply point out that legislators sign on to all kinds of stuff.
Andrew has made some votes that progressives should abhor, like signing onto a resolution taken nearly verbatim from a template pushed by the Heartland Institute and Americans for Tax Reform in support of Bush’s SS privatization scheme. Did he have a reason to? Perhaps, but explaining that–rather than denying he ever did such a thing–would be the better approach.
Instead I get the sense that some of his supporters here believe he–or should I type He–is the Second Coming and thus, by definition, can do no wrong.
As Raf wrote in his excellent diary, the reality is that all and any candidate for office is flawed. Any and all legislators will cast votes which some people will disagree with, and for the most part any thinking person will have reason to disagree with one or several of any legislator’s votes.
Its this attempt to remanufacture himself as the bestest most progressive perfect candidate ever–and the propensity of certain (not all) of his supporters to believe that–that makes me cringe.
OK, if I have this right:
Central point of AR’s negative attack on Bennet: the Anschutz/Bennet Regal deal
Central point of MB’s negative attack on Romanoff: Signing on to a social security resolution on privatization in the state house
If I research more deeply on each, which one worries me more?
…if both were true one impacted a few thousand people one impacted a few hundred million.
If both were true, MB doesn’t have a social conscience and AR signed a state resolution that would never carry any weight at the federal level.
Of course, there are many shades of gray there, right?
not a handful of votes I disagree with. I expect such from any politician.
I have yet to find a way to be OK with the Regal deal.
Looks like we’ll probably wipe out each other’s votes.
What would it take for you to be ok?
You’re a personal friend of Bennet’s wife, right?
I think Andrew should be a bit more honest about his record since his supporters seem to think that he is and has always been super progressive rather than a centrist Western Dem. I have always said I will vote for whichever comes out of the Primary. I liked Andrew when he was in the State House, and I didn’t feel beholden to vote for Bennet. I wanted AR to convince me that he was the better candidate, that he was better (IMO) than Bennet (who I also acknowledge isn’t perfect nor have I agreed with all his votes) on my issues. He has done neither and many (not all) of his supporters bug me.
They attack anyone that disagrees with him including you. I have never once said I supported AR because he was super progressive. I know what we will get with Bennet, he has voted in favor of the banks more than once. Why that is not reason enough for one to vote for AR and not be questioned and bashed by rabid Bennet supporters?
I don’t mind people who are voting for AR I choose not too. Some (not all) of his supporters I find insufferable.
The Anschutz deal’s only “squirmy” part is that after the (already failing) companies were merged and people let go (that happens all the time in the land of failing companies), Anschutz (and Bennet for running the deal) took out a cash advance (bond issue) from the new company to give themselves lump sum bonuses. This is also relatively standard in corporate turnarounds, and IIRC the bonds were paid off with little effort.
The Social Security bit is, I still maintain (and someone will have to give me a floor speech before I believe otherwise), a “gimmick” vote and that Romanoff has never expressed an actual interest in privatizing in part or in whole Social Security.
“Neither” may be too absolute.
But I would definitely have to say that: (1) I don’t honestly believe that MB doesn’t have a social conscience; and (2) I don’t trust AR not to go much more conservative after the election.
I have my hopes, but the last presidential election and 18 months afterward taught me a new definition of hope. It’s all a gamble, and we all have to look at the facts and try and cast the best vote possible.
Unlike most people, I realize that in order for progressive legislation to get passed through Congress/Senate we need a majority. In order to get that majority we are going to need to take normally conservative Republican seats. The only way to successfully do this is with “blue dog” Democrats.
It’s called living in the real world. A Washington filled with only progressive Democrats would rarely hold majorities.
Look what Republican conservative “purity” is doing to their party. I’d rather the same doesn’t happen to us. Even if it does mean having a Ben Nelson along.
privatizing the Ponzi scheme known as Social Security.
As someone who is 61 years old, I just want the money (along with some imputed interest) that I (and my employers) have dumped into SS so I can invest it myself.
My money and I will take the risks.
So Goldman Sachs could swindle it out of you. They need the money Dave and you obviously don’t. Poor Goldman Sachs, don’t you feel sorry for them Dave?
I will take the risks.
You can always invest in:
US T-bills
US Treasuries
Japanese govt bond
UK govt bonds
Stocks from many countries.
Gold. (And, not involving Goldman Sachs)
Don’t believe it??
Die before you are 62 and see how much you get to withdraw. Check out the SCOTUS – they said it’s insurance.
It is a crappy investment vehicle and anyone who says otherwise doesn’t understand investments.
But it’s decent insurance.
So we should believe this a-hole from 9news, oh really.
I remember the day I gave up on mainstream media. They were doing one of these political truthy things and said,
Halliburton got a no bid contract; True or False?
False
The jerks called it false. You know why? Because they said there were no other companies qualified. That just bites because what we get with Halliburton, the qualified contractor is the biggest oil spill of all times, True or False 9news? True
And your foolish to shoot the messenger.
I agree, however, that its good to read between the lines and see whatinhell is really going on.
Did AR vote for the thing? yes.
Did it matter one whit? no.
If you are playing defense you are losing.
Andrew has been playing a lot of defense this week.
He had this won, and then made a couple of dumb mistakes. That happens, but then he went on to defense and that was the really bad move.
On the good news side, the Bennet campaign has finally awoken from its torpor and started fighting back. So if Bennet wins, he might have a prayer in the general.
reads
specifically contains the word optional, and calls for the preservation of benefit levels.
Whether it was wise or progressive, it is stretch to say he supported the privatization of SS.
One way to support the Social Security fund would be to remove or, at the very least, raise the income cap that is subject to FICA withholding. I’m very much in favor of doing that; I don’t understand why someone who makes $1,000,000 should pay the same amount as someone who makes $100,000 or whatever the current cap is. Warren Buffet even thinks that’s stupid.
I think that’s exactly what the language I quoted in the subject line was getting at. I wish Romanoff had not voted for this ridiculous resolution.