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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 17, 2010 12:46 AM UTC

Markey First Congressional Incumbent in Colorado on TV

  • 126 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The campaign for Democratic Rep. Betsy Markey today revealed its first TV ad, making her the first Colorado incumbent member of congress to go up on TV this election cycle.

Tweet
Share

Comments

126 thoughts on “Markey First Congressional Incumbent in Colorado on TV”

  1. Considering the fact that many would see her as the person that allowed the bailouts. No matter how she voted, since she’s an incumbent and a Democrat I don’t think this message is believable.

    I love the small business message but don’t think folks will buy the bailout theme. It’ll be interesting to see how Garder counters.  

      2. As one of her constituents, I’ve been driven crazy as she votes time and again against my preferred agenda (read: radical socialism), and claims she can’t support things which are fiscally irresponsible.

        What are you envisioning Denver media will call her on?

          1. dlof was using a hint of it in that comment. As for the Denver media, didn’t the paper that shouldn’t be named endorse MM in ’08? What a class act they are.

  2. Betsy aiming to reel in some of that highly prized teabagger demographic?

    An effective Gardner reponse ad could probably be something simple, along the lines of, “Say what?”

  3. I find it really weird that poll after poll shows jobs is issue #1, study after study shows unemployment determines if the party in power stays in power, yet no one brings up jobs.

    Actually McInnis did. But he’s the only one I can recall making a big deal about jobs.

    1. It’s always post-primary when things get particularly disillusioning for me — when I re-realize that maybe it isn’t just the one party that hasn’t got a freakin’ clue.

        1. But you don’t know what Markey’s polls are saying.  Although I suspect they indicate that people are, as you said, worried about jobs and mad about the bailouts.  In which case, I think this ad is ingenious.  Paints her as tough on the bailout stuff, but also has a small business person who has created jobs and made sacrifices.

          I think the look and the feel of the ad will hit home with voters.

          Just my two cents…I really like the ad.

        2. Brother, I am the Dem base voter and it’s not that hard of a choice. Markey truly represents the 4th congressional district – not yours – and to be honest, I’ll be damned if I’m going to let a right-wing politician like Gardner take us back to the twilight zone Musgrave left the district in.

          Sorry pal, but that’s reality.

          1. And I will do so again this year. But I do think this is one of the big reasons this will be a bad year for us Dems.

            Supporting someone doesn’t mean you don’t speak about what could hurt them in the election.

        3. I’m Dem base, I live in the 4th, and she drives me nuts.  Yeah, I’ll vote for her, but I can see some of the base skipping out.  Especially with her voting against extending unemployment benefits and [initially] voting against health care reform (that’s all people in my precinct were talking about at caucus).

    2. Democrats have been for big spending, higher taxes on business, increased health care costs, cap and trade, etc. Most voters understand that the choice is clear.

      1. Come on beej…..

        Since the time of Hoover Republicans have had a terrible record of job creation and since Reagan, spending like drunken right wing sailors.  

        It’s not the Dems you should be angry about.

        I know that facts and history don’t mean anything to you, but there’s the condensed version of the facts and history.  

            1. This is a common misconception on the left. George Bush actually tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie. It was Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who said everything was fine and kept pushing the mortgage bubble. People made out like bandits because of the bailouts; which I was strongly against. Obama got cozy with the banks (and Bennet too, now that I think about it).

                    1. Yes I agree, Dems passed TARP, a terrible bill which rewarded bad businesses for failure. And your sig line is great too! Wish I’d thought of using it for a sig line first.

                    2. Republicans didn’t contribute much.

                      Half the Republican Senate and House and a Republican president.  Own it, BJ, don’t try to run and hide.  

                    3. not what was done afterward. Also, the Republican support for TARP was hardly comparable to the Dem support for TARP.

                    4. I saw that somewhere you’re trying to blame the Bush recession that we’re currently mired in on the fact that the Dems took control of Congress in 2006.

                      What you’re forgetting is that it takes 4-7 years for Washington policies (other than things like TARP – thanks, GOP, for helping pass that – and the stimulus package) to affect the economy. Therefore, the meltdown in 2008 (while Bush was still in office, vetoing major Dem reforms) has its roots in actions passed 2001-2004. Who was in charge then, please?

                      Own it. GOP control always results in ruin.

                    6. It was the Community Reinvestment Act under Clinton that was the beginning of the mortgage bubble and bad credit.

                    7. That had nothing to do with banks giving loans away, often fabricating data about the credit, earnings and collateral possessed by the loan seekers, with the intent of selling the mortages before they went south. Nothing about the CMA dictated that, or otherwise played even a minor role in the banks tanking out.

                      Sorry beej. You’re not entitled to your own facts.

                    9. Banks, of their own volition and allowed to do so thanks to GOP deregulation, gave loans to unqualified borrowers with the intent of making big profits from the origination fees, and the further intent of selling them as securities to investors before the borrowers defaulted. There was no regulation requiring banks do this, but there was deregulation that allowed it.

                    10. They were pushed to make bad loans to unqualified borrowers by the government as part of “affordable housing”. No successful bank wants to make bad loans. It’s just another example of government meddling messing up the free market system.

                    11. give me some time, and I’ll find you proof that banks did that EXACTLY.

                      The intent wasn’t to KEEP the loans, dummy – I already said that they were selling the loans before they would default. The banks only went belly up when they couldn’t find any more suckers.

                      And no – the government did not mandate any of it. I challenge you to find (from a reliable media outlet, please) any article showing that they did.

                    15. you don’t even know the whole question, so you rephrase it to not make sense.

                      If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

                    16. Sound is nothing but a pressure wave traveling through the air which your ear picks up. Even if no one is there, the pressure wave still exists.

                    17. a pressure wave is a pressure wave and without the instrument to receive it an something else to interpret it (I hesitate to use the term brain in speaking to you) it is not a sound.

                    19. and you can’t make up your own definitions just because you’re a Republican hack.

                    20. I was just reminding you of the rules of debate. It’s up to you to support your assertions, otherwise your opposition is free to disregard your claims.

                      Show me how Freddie and Fannie mandated anything that had a detrimental effect upon the housing market. Legitimate news sources only, please.

                    21. Just makes you a fool though. I won’t show how Freddie and Fannie “mandated” anything because I didn’t say that.

                    22. … how they “pushed” (your word) it. And I’ll only disregard it if it comes from a suspect source (e.g., a political commentary, not a piece of journalism or a vetted scholarly work).

                    24. Forbes isn’t the most objective source, so I’ll keep that in mind when I read this, but at least it wasn’t that schmuck Jonah Goldberg or someone like that. Heck, this might even persuade me that there’s something to this talking point.

                    27. these loans were not qualified for FHA funding at all and were exempt from conventional terms which Fannie MAE and Freddie MAC could buy.

                      The issue with the mortgages being originated in the latter part of the 2000s decade was a stupefyingly huge increase in the amount of net capital awash in the world’s financial markets from the growing trade surpluses of India, China, Brazil, Russia and a number of other smaller developing but cash flush countries. In fact between 2000 and 2005, the amount of money floating around the world’s capital markets grew from ~$32 trillion to ~$75 trillion (World Bank had this data last time I looked and having trouble finding now. Will reply with link when I find it).

                      With the world awash in this excess capital, they needed to find someplace to park it and it seemed that barring US Treasuries, the US real-estate  market was the safest place in the world to invest it as it had never (prior to the most recent melt-down) experienced an nationwide downturn in prices, ever. There were regional downturns, but always off-set by regional boom markets too.

                      But putting that much cash into the system short-circuited many of the previous safeguards which existed, like collateral obligations and income requirements and actually having the ability to pay for a loan regardless of the underlying value of the asset. It didn’t seem to matter, because you could always flip for a profit and make a nice tidy buck and then everyone was happy. The originator got their origination fees. The borrow got the capital appreciation on the asset. The final holder of the debt was paid off safely. All was good, right?

                      Unfortunately, all good things must come to an end though. And here we are two plus years down the road still reeling from the mess that was created. But none of this had anything to do with Clinton’s and Cisneros’ Community Reinvestment Act. It is pure propaganda of the right to suggest as much.

                    29. what diploma mill are you getting your degree from? Or is it from the back of one of your comic books?

                    31. Very credible. The culture of easy credit was the symptom, not the problem. It stemmed from misguided Democrat policies.

                    34. 1) Steal my retort because you can’t think of one of your own.

                      2) Claim you have a point when you’re not making one.

                      3) Projecting (it isn’t me who’s avoiding your point, rather it’s you avoiding my point).

                      This is why even Libertad doesn’t speak up for you.

                      Read the article, if your fragile psyche can handle something that hasn’t been spun beyond recognition by Faux news commentary.

                    35. We’re always right. You seem to think I get my wisdom from you all the time, but that’s just wishful thinking. (Although it would be fun to pretend that was the case and ruin your credibility with leftists.) I could care less what you think.

                    36. You don’t possess any wisdom, so it’s impossible to think of something that doesn’t exist as coming from me, or anywhere else.

                      And since you “could care less,” it means you care more. Which I knew already.

                    37. Apparently it’s not so impossible to think that; you did. You can make arbitrary statements with no basis in fact all day long, but it doesn’t mean they’re true. Half the reason I comment on your comments is the pleasure of watching you somehow think you have the right to tell me what to do, and reacting when I don’t do it.

                    38. You “I can make arbitrary statements with no basis in fact all day long, but it doesn’t mean they’re true.”

                      BJWilson83

                      With that one simple change I believe you may have finally hit on something nearly indisputable.  

                    40. You can make arbitrary statements with no basis in fact all day long, but it doesn’t mean they’re true.

                      See, this is what YOU do. Deep down, you know this but can’t handle it, so you accuse innocent others of this personal flaw. It’s your M.O.

                      The first part of your statement is as nonsensical as it gets. You pulled that out of your ass. The last part is just… sad that you admit that. I mean, it’s obvious that you’re a troll and not a serious participant here, but to come out and admit it? Sad.

                      Good night. You might as well not bother responding to this. I’m going to stop feeding you.

                    1. As I said before, I’m talking about what caused the crisis, not what was done afterwards. I’m just as against the Republican establishment that gave us the bailouts.

          2. Instead of debating trees (bills supported or not), let’s look at the forest:

            Which president produced:

            1. The highest growth in the gross domestic product?

            2. The biggest increase in jobs?

            3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?

            4. The highest growth in industrial production?

            5. The biggest rise in hourly wages?

            6. The lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment)?

            7. The lowest inflation?

            8. The largest reduction in the federal budget deficit?

            Done guessing? Okay, here are the answers: 1. Truman; 2. Carter; 3. Johnson; 4. Kennedy; 5. Johnson; 6. Truman; 7. Truman; 8. Clinton. A Democratic sweep.

            Source: http://makethemaccountable.com…

            On that page you will also see a graph by presidency on job creation……or loss.  Only Reagan didn’t suck as the rest of the Republicand so, but even Carter surpasses him if you compare four years to eight years. And only Republicans were in office during job contraction (Hoover, Bush 2.)

            Like I said, I stand by my facts.  

              1. Although with his incredible record of accomplishment, it is easy to understand why you think he’s already had at least one full term.

                At this point in his first administration, everyone thought Reagan was doomed because of Volker’s heavy foot on the brakes of the economy to quash inflation. Let’s see after Obama finishes his second term.

                  1. Obviously too young to remember the Republicans were the ones who were entirely at fault in dragging this country down into the mess we now find ourselves.

                    From tax breaks for the top fraction of a percent, to two unfunded wars, to rampant failure to enforce existing regulations in all spheres of government leading to the greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression. All due to the Republican’s failed policies.

                    1. A) The tax breaks created the lowest unemployment we have ever seen in America. We were practically at full employment.

                      B) The wars were completely supported by Dems after 9/11 before they started using the brave sacrifices of our men and women serving America in uniform as campaign talking points.

                      C) The recession was caused by Democrats’ push for “affordable housing” and unwillingness to reign in Fannie and Freddie which they had pushed to make bad loans.

                      But then Obama came along with his smooth tongue and everybody drank the kool-aid. Sad what people will believe. We’re worse off today than we ever were under Bush.

                    2. A) Clinton had lower unemployment rates than Shrub ever dreamed of, all with a significantly higher top marginal income tax rate.

                      Strike 1.

                      B) Democrats were “Bush” whacked into supporting the war with false and misleading intelligence estimates ginned up to scare everyone into supporting the war. We didn’t want the next smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, now did we? Again, you may just be too young to remember those facts.

                      Strike 2.

                      C) The recession was caused by crooked financial types in wall street and on main street hustling people into NINJA loans and then trying to hide their crimes by slicing and dicing the resulting shit sandwich into tranches and reselling them to a gullible bunch of investors. Not to mention all the other derivatives created on GWB’s watch which nearly sank our entire economy by bringing down all our major banks.

                      Strike 3. You’re out! But thanks for playing our game. Batter up!

      2. His hollow rhetoric is miles away from reality but we’ve learned to expect nothing less from hypocritical shills like him.

        From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

        From December 2007 to July 2009 – the last year of the Bush second term and the first six months of the Obama presidency, before his policies could affect the economy – private sector employment crashed from 115,574,000 jobs to 107,778,000 jobs. Employment continued to fall, however, for the next six months, reaching a low of 107,107,000 jobs in December of 2009. So, out of 8,467,000 private sector jobs lost in this dismal cycle, 7,796,000 of those jobs or 92 percent were lost on the Republicans’ watch or under the sway of their policies. Some 671,000 additional jobs were lost as the stimulus and other moves by the administration kicked in, but 630,000 jobs then came back in the following six months. The tally, to date: Mr. Obama can be held accountable for the net loss of 41,000 jobs (671,000 – 630,000), while the Republicans should be held responsible for the net losses of 7,796,000 jobs.

        Perhaps someone else can embed the Washington Post graph found here. It makes the point of who’s responsibly for job losses so clear that even a liar like BJ can comprehend.  

        1. As I pointed out before; Dems took control of congress in 2006, and that’s when things started go down hill. Be careful who you call a liar; it will come back to bite you when you’re proven wrong.

          1. As you pointed, Republicans have been all about jobs… right? That might be true if you’re arguing they’re only concerned about their own jobs, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt; just this once.

            Give us examples of legislation Republicans have offered to create jobs in America?

              1. Assuming of course you’re speaking of the tax cuts for the wealthy.

                All other tax cuts are still in effect and will very likely stay in effect. This is most likely an exercise in futility but:

                How about an actual specific “example of legislation Republicans have offered to create jobs in America”?

              1. “Momma’s boy bloggers” – did you think that up all by yourself? That’s so juvenile you must have. You keep at it buddy and someday you just might become a real boy!

    3. because we lose on jobs David. They’re going in the wrong direction and the Dems in power seem powerless to do anything about it because there are enough blue dogs to go with the Rs to stop any meaningful jobs bill (read more stimulus).

      We had a damned hard time just extending unemployment benefits and had Repugs actually arguing that pay-go only applies to spending bills, not to tax cuts for the already wealthy.

  5. .

    She had no need for a bailout.  

    Before running for office, she used her position inside government to unethically get sole-source contracts.  

    Bailouts are for chumps, when you can wire earmarks for yourself.

    .

    2. Do better than just parroting a widely discredited claim.  If you oppose Markey’s politics than fine, but lying and making spurious claims, is not only in poor taste, but it is part of what lost Musgrave the election.

      And before you grace us all with whatever treasure map you pull from your archives, take the time to read Bob Moore’s well researched articles on the matter that ultimately concluded there was nothing to this line of attack:http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/coloradoan/access/1697527471.html?FMT=ABS&date=Sep+23%2C+2008  

  7. Although some are touching upon it.

    By taking this as her first message, and doing it NOW, she’s trying to outflank Gardner. He undoubtedly wants to play the standard teabagger on this point, but now voters will have to look to other things to distinguish between the candidates, IF she’s successful in this strategy. And striking first and early is crucial to that.

    Anyway, that’s how I interpret this ad.

          1. Time will tell if it’s too little, too late, but I think her message is the right one and her timing is good. Her conservative voting record should help. Now we’ll see if CD-4 are anti-HCR (which I believe she voted for).

  9. More importantly, she voted for Cap & Trade and Obamacare, which are both hurtful to small businesses

    Norton tried to get away with this by saying she was a fiscal conservative, when in reality, she was a Ref C and D champion

    Let’s see if Betsy can get away with it – Norton couldn’t…

    1. She wasn’t in Congress when Bush’s bailout was signed into law. And is Cap & Trade law? No. So, what’s your point? The economy sucks right now because of a failed ponzi market.

      Come on Ali, you’re better than this.

    2. I don’t think so! The unending increase in health care costs are a large part of what are hurting all of America’s businesses, large and small. Health care reform is the first honest attempt to address those imbalances in much more than a generation.

  10. …the message is good, if it was meant

    Certainly though, this ad is much better than the garbage Republicans are putting out – we are fiscal conservatives and ending bailouts should be OUR message, not the Democrats

    Ultimately, I imagine America will pick hypocritical Democrats who are anti-bailout (or at least pander to it) rather than Republicans who wanna harass brown people and don’t give a damn about bailouts

    1. She’s sincere and in fact I think she’s voted to end TARP early and use the money to pay down the deficit. Someone can probably find her vote record quicker than I can but I know it’s been a top issue for Markey.

      And I’ve got to say, these Republicans are not just harassing brown people, they’re literally targeting them as enemies of our country. From the rallies along to Arizona border the persecution of New Yorkers, it’s past the point of harassment.

    2. This mosque thing has you a little wrapped up, eh?

      Shoot me an email from my profile if you’d like.

      But if you’re really a fiscal responsibility guy, you’re going to help me fire Markey.

      She voted against ObamacareВ® before she voted for it….because Nancy told her to.

      1. You’ve got to stop calling you’re self a fiscal responsibility guy. It’s just too laughable.

        And this whole “fire Markey” and Nancy shtick… come on man, this isn’t the 1950’s. What are doing to do, send them back to the kitchen?

        I can’t believe you’re using RNC talking points. Pretty weak.

          1. Our Party is throwing away it’s best principles for short-sighted political gains, in the wake of made-up controversies – this is worse than snake oil selling

            What happened to the Chris Christie and Scott Brown messages of fiscal conservatism, ending bailouts, and repealing ObamaCare?

            1070, anti-Mosque, and revoking the 14th Amendement are NOT Conservative principles, LB

            Allow me to explain –

            Opposition against the NYC Mosque? Then you’re violating the Constitutional rights of private property and freedom to worship – not Conservative

            Support 1070? 1070 violates issues of privacy, as American citizens are inevitably to be harassed under a law which gives Big Government too much authority – not Conservative

            Wanna revoke the 14th Amendment? Again, isn’t it ‘Big Government’ that picks and chooses the parts of the Constitution it likes and throws away the parts it doesn’t  like? Not Conservative

            I’m in a fury LB because our Party is becoming more the vision of Joseph Stalin than Ronald Reagan – and again – Reagan supported Amnesty

            Second – do you agree with me that the Republicans would be better off by positioning themselves as anti-bailout and anti-Obamacare, rather than anti-Muslim, anti-gay, and anti-immigrant?

            Clearly – hate-filled issues like 1070 and Mosque opposition do little to advance both the Conservative agenda and the Republican Party

            Which begs the question – why are so many ‘Conservatives’ supporting such garbage?

            My answer – because we are seeing the last great gasp of bigotry in America В 

            2. My answer – because we are seeing the last great gasp of bigotry in America.  

              . . . to the ears of the one true diety.

              (and, permit me also, the ears of all the other dieties worshipped by men and women of faith and goodwill upon this planet we share.)

  11. I think it is a strong ad and what a lot of people forget is that the TARP bailout was signed into law by none other than George W. Bush.  So while everyone calls bailouts a Democratic thing, it was the “compassionate conservative” who signed TARP into law.

  12. When I said “bailout,” I meant to say the Obama Stimulus – it was my mistake and I should have been more meticulous

    That said – if I’m not mistaken, I’m pretty sure Markey voted for the Stimulus?

    Couple that with her votes on ObamaCare and Cap and Trade, and the Congresswomen is not looking strong, in terms of economic policy

    What I will never understand – why did she carry the Cap and Trade bill???

    I know that the the Eastern Plains are not the majority of CD4, but no bill could anger a group of working farmers and ranchers more than Cap And Trade – when Betsy carried that bill, I seriously questioned her political acumen

    2. You are thinking of Ed Markey from Massachusetts whose name is the “Markey” in Waxman-Markey.

      And I am pretty sure she voted for it because half of her district makes money off of renewable energy and/or supports incentives to get the industry going.

      There are a lot of areas where Republicans can attack Dems, but the whole furor over “Cap and Trade” just doesn’t stick with voters in the West.  I’ve seen polling on the energy bill…it’s not the sunbelt state voters that dislike it.  Places like Ohio and Pennsylvania are where it was a problem for Dems.  I live in Windsor…trust me, everyone wants a job at Vestas.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

201 readers online now

Newsletter

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