Karl Rove’s “Super PAC” Ad Plays Romanoff’s Tune

From the Colorado Independent’s John Amick:

Two groups conceived by former Bush White House Senior Advisor Karl Rove and former RNC chairman Ed Gillespie have new independent expenditure ads opposing Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and supporting Florida candidate for U.S. Senate Marco Rubio (R). The ads appear the same day as campaign finance watchdog organizations wrote a letter to the IRS asking them to investigate the 501(c)(4) tax status of one of those groups, American Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (GPS)…

The $770,000 Colorado ad buy hits Sen. Bennet over a pension bond deal that he did as Denver Public Schools superintendent with JP Morgan Chase that had an exploding interest rate like an adjustable-rate mortgage. The story, reported by Gretchen Morgenson of the New York Times, broke the Friday before Bennet’s primary win against Andrew Romanoff. American Crossroads, a 527 group, is running the ad, and has spent $1,793,207 against Bennet.

Of course, local media outlets swiftly debunked this attack when Bennet’s primary opponent Andrew Romanoff fired it off as his last-minute (and unsuccessful) Hail Mary play the weekend before the election–but we knew then that wouldn’t stop Republicans and their allies from pulling it out against Bennet later. If nothing else, there’s more time to refute this story than before–helped by the fact that it’s already been refuted.

On the other hand, $770,000 buys an awful lot of truth-by-repetition…

67 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. 20th Maine says:

    More like running up the score.

  2. Ralphie says:

    any variety of truth besides truth by repetition?

    And who is funding these ads?

  3. MADCO says:

    How does the Buck campaign have $770k for this kind of media buy?

  4. Interlocken Loop says:

    If Andrew Romanoff’s ad had been this good he would be the Democratic nominee for US Senate.

    Senator Bennet’s explanation has not been very good so far.    

  5. Ron-Westminster says:

    Back during the primaries as soon as the Romanoff campaign rolled out this ad I said that we would see it again in the primaries!!

    Sure the ad is a crock of bull and we all know it and sure we all know that the GOP has no respect for the truth and yes, they may have come up with this very ad on their own BUT we didn’t sure didn’t need a Democrat using these sort of lies against a fellow Democrat and simultaneously handing Karl Rove this BS on a silver platter.  And ‘Rovian’ is exactly how I branded this ad when Romanoff came out with it.

    I thought that I had gotten past the anger and frustration that I felt when Andrew’s campaign ran that piece of crap but I guess not.

    Boy sometimes I do so I hate it when I’m right.

    Hopefully, the Bennet campaign can use the fact that these allegations have already been proven false to their advantage.

  6. jW says:

    Remind me what this ad has to do with Romanoff’s ad that “virtually ever media outlet in the state swiftly debunked”? Nothing? Yeah, because the two are on completely different topics. The ad that was debunked via your link was in regards to Bennet’s involvement with Anschutz. This one is in regards to the DPS investment decision.

    You may want to fix your links.

    • RedGreen says:

      Romanoff had at least two widely discredited ads, and the new Rove ad virtually duplicates one of them.  

      • Colorado Pols says:

        We linked to the wrong thing–a debunking of an older Romanoff ad–and we’ve updated to a link that pertains to this story.

      • jW says:

        So let me spell it out to you slowly. Only moments ago, Pols linked the text “swiftly debunked this ad” to this thread: http://coloradopols.com/showDi

        Problem is, the ad above has nothing to do with Bennet’s involvement with Anschutz, which is what “swiftly debunked” thread focuses on. Apparently, Pols has corrected this error and now links to a Denver Post article.

        Did you get there ok, or do you need me to slow down a bit more?

        Thanks for fixing it, Pols.

      • Ralphie says:

        If the ads hadn’t been effective, Romanoff would have been blown out even worse.

        Rove doesn’t care about “true,” just “effective.”

        Thanks, Andrew.

        • The realist says:

          and his initials are not AR.  Bennet either wins the race because he has spent the last year and one-half getting to know Colorado and its people, and has organized an outstanding ground game, and has connected to the pain people are feeling from this god-awful recession, and has charted a clear path out of the disaster so that people can keep their homes and can find a job which pays enough to live on.  Or he doesn’t win the race.  Bennet has had so many advantages – money, D.C. connections, the support of the Governor and the President, incumbency.  The outcome of the race is up to him.  If he loses it won’t be because he had a primary opponent.

          • marilou says:

            then he loses.  The last I heard, he’s hiring volunteers.

          • reubenesp says:

            because Buck is unacceptable to the majority of Coloradans.

            • No2Dems says:

              The majority of Coloradoans are against what you haters try to portray Ken Buck as! The issue is they see right through typical dem slanders now.

              On the flip side they see what an ugly SF liberal voting record Michael Bennet has. You guys try to decieve, but people are living the misery caused by Bennet and Obama everyday and that my friends is hard to spin, even for the spin masters that the democrats are.  

              You guys are trying to make people hate Ken Buck since your political philosophy depends on it. The only issue is people hate not having a job, a home, or a pension even more. Wake up Bennet supports obama’s failed economic model and in just the two years he has been appointed Coloradoans are paying the price. Ultimately Bennet walked the plank for Obama!  

          • EmeraldKnight76 says:

            Is it realistic to label “D.C. Connections, support of the President and incumbency” as advantages in this election cycle? Seems like everything I’ve been hearing says those are disadvantages. Bennet has certainly been attacked over and over by both the left and the right because of them.

            • The realist says:

              Spending ” . . . the last year and one-half getting to know Colorado and its people,” organizing “an outstanding ground game,” and connecting “to the pain people are feeling from this god-awful recession,” charting “a clear path out of the disaster so that people can keep their homes and can find a job which pays enough to live on.”  If he and his campaign decided early on that incumbency and D.C. connections were a disadvantage, why didn’t they craft a campaign focusing on the above?  

              Bennet is one of many candidates who are absolutely failing at understanding the devastating impact the recession has had on millions of people.  Why aren’t candidates connecting on an emotional level?  Why aren’t they showing at least some degree of empathy, and why aren’t they communicating with people about how they’ll help it get better?  People are going to vote based on their own circumstances – absent a candidate doing what I’ve described, they’re likely to follow the candidates who stir up their fear and anger.  

  7. marilou says:

    Mikey Bennet didn’t consider the downside when he entered this transaction.  I don’t know if he dragged DPS into it or if the bankers dragged Mikey into it.  Regardless, someone got dragged and DPS taxpayers paid dearly for Mikey’s adventure.  A positive for him is that he surely built some goodwill with Wall Street.

    • Interlocken Loop says:

      Cary Kennedy did not fall for any of these schemes that the DPS Board bought into

    • ajb says:

      Try this article:

      Denver Public Schools bond deal doesn’t add up to disaster – Denver Business Journal

      Here are some pertinent quotes:

      The $400 million pension fund hole was costing the district 8.5 percent per year…

      At the time, the district could have issued fixed-rate debt at an interest rate of about 7.25 percent, Boasberg said. But the more complex arrangement was expected to result in a rate of about 6 percent, including fees and costs.

      Instead, it paid about 8.6 percent in 2008-09 and 6.1 percent in 2009-10. For the life of the deal so far, the total cost of the financing has been 7.14 percent.

      Right now, the costs are at 6.1 percent … which is right about what we’d expected.

      “To date, we’re about $20 million ahead of what we would have paid under the previous financing.”

      So did you get all that?

      Do nothing: pay 8.5%

      Fixed rate financing: pay 7.25%

      Complex credit swap financing: To date: 7.14% / Present rate: 6.1%

      Savings to date: $20-million

      Remember, just because you don’t understand it doesn’t make it bad.

  8. Ray Springfield says:

    Consider the source.

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.