Markey First Congressional Incumbent in Colorado on TV

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.

126 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. DevilishlyModerate says:

    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. Diogenesdemar says:

    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. DavidThi808 says:

    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.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      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.

      • DavidThi808 says:

        Because the final message to the base for Markey, Bennet, etc. will be “our candidate sucks less.” Hard to get people charged up over that.

        • ace41 says:

          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.

        • Go Blue says:

          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.

        • stadt says:

          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).

    • bjwilson83 says:

      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.

      • parsingreality says:

        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.  

        • bjwilson83 says:

          5% unemployment under Bush until the Dems took over congress.

          • G Pulviczek says:

            Greed, bubbles, and an unsustainable housing market, all encouraged by Bush and cronies.  And all the people you claim to hate are the ones that made off like bandits as a result.

            • bjwilson83 says:

              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).

              • G Pulviczek says:

                Who was in charge of both houses of Congress and the executive branch during the entire first half of the decade?

                Hint: it was not the Dems.

              • DavidThi808 says:

                Helping the banks rob the casino was definitely a bipartisan affair. Both sides contributed to the disaster.

                • bjwilson83 says:

                  to deflect criticism. Republicans didn’t contribute much.

                  • ClubTwitty says:

                    TARP votes

                       yea     nay

                    HOUSE

                    Democratic 172 63

                    Republican 91 108

                    In the Senate it passed 74-25.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      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.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      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.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

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

                    • Aristotle says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      but not to destroy it.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

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

                    • Aristotle says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      but the CRA definitely pushed “affordable housing”.

                    • Aristotle says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      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.

                    • Aristotle says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      but Fannie and Freddie pushed it.

                    • Aristotle says:

                      Either way, if you can’t show that it happened, then it didn’t.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      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?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      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.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      It depends how you define “sound”. My point remains true.

                    • jpsandscl says:

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

                    • Aristotle says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

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

                    • Aristotle says:

                      … 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).

                    • Aristotle says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      it was a commentary. Here’s some other articles on the problems with Fannie and Freddie (which Bush tried to reform), even from sources like NPR and MSNBC.

                      http://www.reuters.com/article

                      http://www.npr.org/templates/s

                      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35

                      http://online.wsj.com/article/

                      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      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.

                    • jpsandscl says:

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

                    • bjwilson83 says:

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

                    • Aristotle says:

                      Shoot the credible messenger. This is especially funny coming from you.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Avoiding the main point of my post.

                    • Aristotle says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      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.

                    • Aristotle says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      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.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      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.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      You can substitute “Aristotle” for “you” though if you want.

                    • Aristotle says:

                      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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      You know I’m right and it’s eating you up inside.

                    • Aristotle says:

                      Good night, beej. Try not to stain your sheets thinking that fantasy, ‘kay?

                  • Voyageur says:

                    You can run fromthe truth but you can’t hide from it, Beej.  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      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.

          • parsingreality says:

            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.  

            • bjwilson83 says:

              Where does he stand?

              • jpsandscl says:

                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.

                • bjwilson83 says:

                  once he has a Republican congress to work with. The record of Democrat control has been absolute failure.

                  • jpsandscl says:

                    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.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      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.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      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!

      • Go Blue says:

        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.  

    • jpsandscl says:

      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.

  4. onebigrepublican says:

    Not the message, but the timing and the message?  WTF?  HELLO…jobs.  Nice ad, but wasted air time!

  5. Barron X says:

    .

    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.

    .

  6. davebarnes says:

    Watch the ad again as a “low information voter”.

    Betsy:

    pleasant

    small businesswomen

    fiscally responsible (traditional value)

    single message

  7. Aristotle says:

    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.

  8. Go Blue says:

    that he never took a bailout too… oops, he can’t really say that can he?

    There’s one really BIG difference between a leader like Betsy Markey and a politican like Corey Gardner. Betsy has a proven record of actually creating jobs while Corey has proven the only job he cares about is his own: http://coloradopols.com/diary/…  

  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…

    • Go Blue says:

      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.

    • jpsandscl says:

      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

    • Go Blue says:

      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.

    • Laughing Boy says:

      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.

      • Go Blue says:

        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.

        • Laughing Boy says:

          She’s toast (politically).

          But it’s great to see you posting again.

          • 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 

  11. jmj0810 says:

    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

    • ace41 says:

      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 Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.