Rachel Maddow: Bennet Comes Out Punching in Pueblo

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

CO Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck’s flip-flopping (known on the blogs as “buckpedaling”) is well known in CO. Now, the story’s gone national. Rachel Maddow showed a clip of Thursday’s Senate debate in Pueblo where US Senator Michael Bennet seems to have had enough of Ken Buck’s lies, and nails him to the wall. In the clip, Bennet uses the example of Social Security, and offers several quotes from Ken Buck where he buckpedals in different venues for different audiences. Bennet accuses Buck of changing his stand on the issues to give each audience what they want to hear. Buck denies the flip-flops, yet Michael Bennet is prepared with a steady stream of quotes. Buck cannot explain the buckpedaling.  

Maddow calls Buck’s response, “Stop, squirm, and run.” This is the Michael Bennet we love to see –Michael Bennet the fighter. Michael Bennet on fire. Michael Bennet who won’t put up with any more excrement from Ken Buck.

Perhaps even more entertaining is the newspaper reporter who seemingly was told by his boss before he went on camera, “Try to stay neutral, no matter what she says. Our readership is increasingly older and more conservative. Your job’s on the line”. The reporter will not take Maddow’s bait –instead of laughing, “Snap! Bennet kicked his Republican ass to the curb!” as many bloggers would have done, the mild-mannered reporter invents another “take”. At least Buck stands for something, he points out, even if that stand changes everyday. In true Rachel Maddow form, she schools the reporter, too.

Michael Bennet verbally punching Ken Buck in the nose. Rachel Maddow showing us how squirmy mainstream conservative newspaper reporters have to be to keep their jobs. Aaaaah…. liberal television doesn’t get much better than this.

Kudos to Michael Bennet. Kudos to Rachel Maddow. When’s the next debate?

About nancycronk

Nancy Cronk is a longtime community activist and women's leader living in Arapahoe County. Six months before the historic "red sweep" election of 2014, she was recruited to run as a "placeholder" in HD37, and managed to bring in 40K from 500 small donors, and 42% of the vote -- just one point lower than the previous candidate who ran in a presidential year.

178 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Ah Choo says:

    about the debate is completely detached from Booth’s story–wherein he tries hard to find a blow Buck landed on Bennet but can’t–while Bennet owns Buck on Social Security.

  2. JeffcoBlue says:

    He really was just desperate to get a good word in for Buck somewhere. And it wasn’t Rachel’s fault he couldn’t, outside the carefully managed pages of the Post, there’s just not a lot to work with.

  3. Ralphie says:

    last night while channel msurfing for ball games. It must have been after they put up the graphic saying who he was.

    That guy was a Denver P.O.S. reporter?  I thought he was a Buck shill.

    I guess you can be both.

  4. jimo says:

    that Bennet is in favor of cutting social security, is against more stimulus, and is demanding a balanced budget.  He’s a moderate republican and he won’t advance the progressive cause.



    • Ralphie says:

      We’d all be much better off with Buck.  Especially Boulder progressives.  You’d have something else to bitch about for the next six years.

      • jimo says:

        Vote democrat because they’re slightly less bad then republicans.  The whole system’s a fraud.  It’s undeniable that the progressive movement was far stronger when Bush was in power and it’s been neutered ever since Obama, Summers, Geitner, Bennet, et al have come to power.  Progressives don’t advance their cause by continuously electing moderate republicans.

        But, Ralphie, if you’re a moderate republican, then Bennet’s you’re guy.



          • jimo says:

            But I’m not voting for Bennet either.  Democrats will never move to the left until they realize the left won’t vote for republican nominees.  Voting for Bennet is just perpetuating the system.  Doesn’t there have to be a few minimum standards before you can vote for someone?  Don’t they have to stand for something?  Bennet is on record calling for cuts in social security, reductions in public wages, against public spending, and for a balanced budget amendment.  Other than bluster, I don’t see Buck being much worse.  Progressives must come to realize that the right of the democratic party is actually a bigger enemy than the republicans.  Why?  Because they more effectively diffuse radical movements on the left.


            • ClubTwitty says:

              Boulder is a relatively small part of it.  Politically, PRB is a bit of an anomaly relative to most CO voters.  

              • jimo says:

                are you saying that Bennet is in favor of cutting social security because it’s popular outside Boulder?  That’s not conceivable.

                Bennet represents an elite vision that the US needs to cut worker labor costs in order to compete on the world stage.  It’s not popular but it’s supported by vast sums of money – the ones that are bankrolling much of the democratic party.

                • ClubTwitty says:

                  2-While I believe in holding politicians accountable, I understand that CO is a centrist state and is unlikely to ever elect progressives ‘left’ enough for some, with some of these more purist-inclined elements imaging that the little microcosm they inhabit is somehow reflective of a broader electorate.  

                  I would like to see public financing of elections–meanwhile, I want to win; as incremental, as muddy, as muddled as it is: I prefer this year’s Democratic candidates to their GOP counterparts across the board.  Yes, the difference is substantial, yes on real issues and real policy that matter.  Whether we like it or not, elections are basically now a zero-sum game, not voting for Bennet makes it more likely Buck will be elected.  

                • nancycronk says:

                  He never said that.

                • Ralphie says:

                  But I’ll tell you what I’m saying.

                  The primary is over.  Time to shit or get off the pot.

        • DavidThi808 says:

          That’s life. I’m with you that if we’re this crappy with a majority we’re not going to get much from the Democratic party. But it’s still better than the Republican party.

          What we need to do after November is figure out how to improve our party.

        • MADCO says:

          This is a great illustration of what that approach is questionable.  Sure, protesting Bush/Cheney Rumsfeld was way more fun than protesting Obama.

          But other than feeling good, what did the protests accomplish?  We couldn’t win in 02 or 04. We got the center  to help us  win in 08, but the middle was not going to let us nominate Kucinich.    And if we did it anyway, we’d be having energetic protests about McCain, the war in Iran and VP Palin.

          • jimo says:

            in Afhganistan and Obama’s making an awful lot of noises about Iran.  We’re spending $1 trillion a year on the military and are really at war now with Pakistan.    Remember that Bush got his war with substantial support from most of the democratic establishment and Hilary has always been at the forefront of the ‘all options are on the table’ crowd.  Bottom line: in foreign policy, there’s never been much difference.

            But note, there’s no protests now – which is my point.  The left’s been neutered.

            And what is Obama campaigning on now?  He still endlessly harps on his stimulus of nearly 2 years ago when the unemployment now is even worse.  What’s his plan for next year?  He never says because he has none.  

            I believe the ‘middle’ of the democratic party and onward to the republican right will ruin the country and their differences aren’t that big.  

            And also, the policies of the democratic right are not popular.  Do you think it’s popular to cut social security?


            • MADCO says:

              I haven’t seen it.

              • jimo says:

                favoring cutting benefits through raising the retirement age for younger workers.  You can see him saying that on a video interview posted on the New York Times web site.  I also discuss other aspects of his record on my  blog:



                • MADCO says:


                  Bennet’s on record favoring cutting benefits through raising the retirement age for younger workers.

                  NYT / Bennet interview (bolding is mine)


                  Bennet Yeah, well, here’s the punch line. The punch line is that if you look at our revenue, and you look at what it covers, what it covers is Medicare, Social Security and interest on our debt, which means that virtually everything else we spend money on, whether it’s schools, teachers, bombers that we build, anything that anybody in the Interior Department or any of these other departments are doing, we’re borrowing from our children.

                  And I think what we have to do, and this is hard for Washington to do, is look at this comprehensively and say, “How is it that we’re going to establish some fiscal sanity going forward?” Because the capital markets aren’t going to put up with this much longer. And if they don’t, our interest rates are going to spike and this recession is going to seem modest compared to what’s going to happen.

                  NYT Your Republican opponent Ken Buck said that he is open to indexing the retirement age for Social Security. As a Democrat who’s serious about budget responsibility, what would you be willing to put on the table on Social Security?

                  Bennet :  I actually think Social Security is the easiest of all of these issues to solve. And, and there are ways of changing the retirement age for people much younger than I am today – I’m 45, that would make the program sustainable into the future. I don’t think we should change it for people that have retired or are anywhere near retirement. But I think we ought to have a conversation about how we’re going to do this going forward.


                  So not a bad idea to entertain that for younger workers?


                  Yeah, much younger.



                  Social Security is passed

                  American life expectancy, for Americans who made it age 18: 65 years, 3 months.


                  Social Security is a hot topic in elections nationwide (mostly about whether to privitze and how to stabilize the expense in future years)

                  American life expectancy, for Americans who made it age 18> 78yrs 8 months

                  Social Security is insurance and insurance is based on actuarial predictions.  Perhaps you think the eligibility age should got zero (which is what it should be for Medicare buy-in) but I think it would be prudent to discuss the eligibility age along with the earnings cap.  Index them both for younger workers and keep it even more actuarially sound than it is.

                  *By the way – these are links.

                  Your blogwhoring doesn’t count as a link

                  • jimo says:

                    there are ways of changing the retirement age for people much younger than I am today – I’m 45, that would make the program sustainable into the future.

                    You forgot to highlight his key quote.  Thanks for documenting my case.  Bennet is on record favoring cutting social security.  Raising the retirement age is a real cut in benefits.  If an average person is on social security for 13 years and you reduce it to 11, then you’re reducing benefits by 2/13.

                    You may think it’s a reasonable idea to cut social security and that’s your political right.  I don’t call it a progressive opinion.

                    I’m trying to advance an opinion as are you.  Call it blogwhoring if wish but I don’t consider it that.  A blog is just a simple way of expressing an opinion.  It’s absurd to denigrate it.

                    The anger of moderate democrats toward the left seems as juvenile as that of the right.  There’s a real hatred for any variance of opinion.

                    • MADCO says:

                      He did not say he favors it. Show me where he did.

                      He said it is easy to fix and we should have that conversation. I agree.

                      And nice strawmen – first for claiming that somehow I said raising the age wouldn’t be a reduction in benefits. and then for implying that I was slamming blogs in general instead of your shoddy research skill.

                      As for blogwhoring –


                      link? You (and others) have made the claim that D’s want to cut SS.

                      I haven’t seen it.

                      You provided a link not to a source for that claim, but to some other blog.  Blogwhoring defined.

                      My only frustration with the far left is that you fail to understand when and where you can win.  And while protesting is fine when it’s all you can do, legislating is better.

                    • nancycronk says:

                      I’m willing to have the conversation with Marilou about abortion, with Sarah Palin about off-shore oil drilling, with Ken Buck about gay rights. It doesn’t mean I’ll ever agree with them, but I am happy to entertain their views for a few seconds.

                      The one thing I know for sure about Michael Bennet is he is not a knee-jerk party hack. Many times, people find that refreshing. He talks to everyone, listens to everyone, thinks for himself, and votes with the Dems 91% of the time (because 91% of the time they are better on the issues).  

                    • Ralphie says:

                      Part of that comprehensive look will also involve raising the salary cap on contributions.

                    • DavidThi808 says:

                      I think the most reasonable interpretation is he’s willing to vote for them if they are proposed in a way he thinks makes sense.

                      And I think this is exactly what needs to be done. The idea behind Social Security was to take care of you in the last few years of life when you can’t work anymore, not to cover you from age X regardless of average lifespan increases.

                      And people that make more should contribute more. It’s perverse that those that make more pay a lower percentage.

                      On these two topics I think Bennet is spot on.

            • sxp151 says:

              The point of a protest is not to chill with your buds on the weekend. It’s to get something accomplished.

              Obama has proposed a plan for more infrastructure spending. You may not like it, you may not expect it to be effective (as opposed to most liberal economists who do), but don’t act like an idiot who never reads anything besides his own writings. His plans have been supported broadly by Democrats and opposed unanimously by Republicans.

              Oh look, somehow I magically found a difference between Democrats and Republicans. If I look harder maybe I’ll find more!

            • caroman says:

              Vote for Buck.

              Thanks a lot, sucka.

          • DavidThi808 says:

            I think a lot of Bennet’s votes were Wall St vs Main St. For example, there’s a lot of support on the right for breaking up the banks that are too big to fail.

            The votes required because Colorado is a moderate state I can live with. It’s the votes required to raise campaign money from Wall St I find highly objectionable.

        • sxp151 says:

          “the progressive movement was far stronger” when it wasn’t accomplishing anything? When it was full of people complaining while being ignored by anyone in power? When it failed to stop the war, failed to defeat Bush for reelection, failed to prevent a huge debt-funded shift of the tax burden onto the middle class?

          The progressive movement succeeded only when it finally led to Democrats taking Congress. Yes, that led to disagreements among progressives who might have been more unified before, but that’s the price you pay for having to actually do something instead of complaining.

          As for me, I’m happier that people like my unemployed brother will be able to get health care, happy that stalled infrastructure projects finally got started, happy that troops were pulled out of Iraq, and happy that some of the worst financial abuses were curbed. More could have been done in all those categories, but those were things that make life better for people with real problems.

          Politics matters. It isn’t a game we play on the weekends when the slackline breaks. It isn’t just something to talk about when baseball season is over. And it doesn’t exist for you can pretend you know what the 60s were like. Who’s in charge makes a big difference to people who don’t have the luxury of sipping a light beer on the balcony and being above it all.

          • jimo says:

            I guess see my newer comment above your post.  My point is that politics doesn’t seem to matter as both Clinton and now Obama have carried on the general thrust of war and neo-liberalism.

            I feel for your unemployed brother and I have several friends and family members who are unemployed as well.  But health care isn’t going to come until 2014 and it’s unknown how it’s going to really work.  The loop holes in insurance that we’re seeing now with McDonalds and others does not bode well for the future of this program.

            It seems to be a common theme to claim that those on the left are somehow the elitists – i.e. sipping beer on balcony and being above it all.  But the reality is the left are the ones who are objecting the loudest that the political system is doing nothing but electing elitists.  You object to elitism and so do I.  But somehow you don’t recognize that Bennet and most of the democratic establishment is elitist to the core.


            • MADCO says:

              Not Bernie Sanders or Dennis Kucinich.  Let’s elect D’s like those guys here in Colorado.

            • sxp151 says:

              but I think the fact that you’re longing for the good old days, when we could all just protest together and not worry about agreeing to actually do anything, suggests an elitism on your part that’s detached from reality. When you say it doesn’t matter whether Democrats or Republicans are elected, it tells me it doesn’t matter to you personally since you’ll be fine either way. Many are not so lucky.

              • jimo says:

                I’m not longing for the Bush years – that would be obscene.  What I long for is a waking up of the population to the fact that we are governed by a bipartisan plutocracy of wealth.  I can agree that most democrats are moderately better than most republicans.  But when it comes down to such essential policies as war or economic well being, both parties have perpetuated the existing system.  

                As far as war, Clinton almost got us into a war with N. Korea, continuously attacked Iraq, and got us in a war in ex Yugoslavia.  He and his wife favored the Iraq war.  Obama has expanded Afghanistan, is in near war with Pakistan, and is threatening Iran.  We continue to spend $1 trillion per year on the military.  So, there may be differences but they aren’t too great.

                As far as the economy, his key advisors are well known proponents of the decades old neo-liberal regime.  Obama appointed a deficit commission which is guaranteed (post election) to recommend cuts in social security.  He has made no recommendations to reduce the obscene levels of unemployment and his policies should be seen as neo-Hooverian.  Someone else here liked his infrastructure proposal but if you look at it, it is based on private investment and paid for by user fees and tolls.  That’s a highly regressive move.  I posted about that specific issue on my blog



            • DCCO says:

              (long time lurker, first time poster, so have at me I’m sure)

              I’d like to know your (and others’) definition of elitism.  Is it being elite yourself (wealthy background, pricey education, etc.) or is it supporting an elitist ideology (tax cuts for the wealthy, corporatist, etc.)?  People often rail against “elitism” in what seems a knee-jerk reactionary way rather than actually against an oligarchical system.  Is being an elite related to “sipping lattes” and “eating sushi”?

              If you define elites as people who have a fantastic education, have a record of running organizations well, and perhaps are well known and liked in the community – there are arguments to be made in favor of the elites.  Didn’t we spend enough time electing people we’d love to have a beer with and then watching them fail miserably when it came time to be competent?  Perhaps its time to elect people who understand not only the small viewpoints of an individual neighborhood or their personal background, but how communities and businesses and organizations all work together to make a community, a state, or a country thrive on a macrocosmic level. In order to have that understanding generally a person would have to have experience in many communities, and ideally in business and non-profits as well.  It seems very counterintuitive that at the point someone succeeds in business or even the non-profit world, they definitionally become “an elite” and thus someone who is NOT qualified to hold office… precisely at the point it would seem they are MOST qualified to hold office.

              Mind you I am not making an argument that only the wealthy should hold office (at all) but that this mentality that being “an elite” should bar you from being a worthy (or legitimately populist) candidate has gone way too far.

              • EmeraldKnight76 says:

                This whole anti-elite movement seems extremely dangerous to me. It’s how we end up with another Bush or even worse a Palin in office. We constantly hammer home how important a great education is then turn around and label anyone with a great education an “elite”.

                Personally, I would much rather see an elite in office than a Bush or Palin who wear ignorance and incompetence like a badge of honor.

          • reubenesp says:

            Current divisions among Democrats, however, will seem positively mild in comparison to the coming Republican  internecine wars in Congress, once the extremist Tea Baggers are seated.

            Look for Dems in 2012 to rack up super majorities in both houses.

    • nancycronk says:

      Do you get your information from Republican Senatorial Committee ads?

      If you are talking about Medicaid Advantage, that only trims the fat off of the overhead. It does not decrease payments at all. In fact, the health care reform plan has been better for seniors, and better for the economy.

      Facts are sticky things, huh?

    • bobster1 says:

      to quote Rachel Maddow. Michael Bennet supports a woman’s right to choose and thinks government should stay out of our private business.

      Glad your support for ‘progressivism’ is so myopic it completely ignores the very serious threat Ken Buck poses to individual liberty and reproductive rights and Colorado women.

    • meandmyuncle says:

      It is clear that Buck, not Bennet is looking to eliminate Social Security.  


  5. bjwilson83 says:

    “Michael Booth smacks down Rachel Maddow”. The next debate is Monday; I can’t wait. Bennet has no ideas except for the failed policies of the past.

    • denverco says:

      The reality is Maddow had Booth spinning in circles. The look in buck’s eyes when he knew he’d been caught is priceless. What a phony teabagger liar.

    • reubenesp says:

      “I understand the throw the bums out vote against the incumbents when things are not going well, but you must admit that if we throw the incumbents out we’re simply putting back in the people who screwed it up in the first place.”  – Mark Haines, CNBC, Oct. 8, 2010


      “What are these new ideas?  What is Boehner saying that is new?  That is fresh?  That is different?” – Simon Hobbs, CNBC Oct. 8, 2010

    • ClubTwitty says:

      Boehner K Street GOP ideas this time around BJ?

      • bjwilson83 says:

        Jobs, economic growth, prosperity. You know, those things we’ve been missing for the past 3 years.

        • ClubTwitty says:

          Do you still believe in Santa Claus?

          How much is a tooth worth under your pillow?  

        • MADCO says:

          Like the kind you pretend we had from 2001 – 2006?  OR do you mean the kind we actually had from 1996-2000?

          Or the kind you pretend we had from 1981-1989?

          Or the kind we actually had from 1945 – 1960?

          • Aristotle says:

            Where the expense of wars are kept off the books for political reasons.

            I recently asked beej if he really believed that the end of overthrowing Saddam, in light of the fact that he posed little discernible threat to anyone, justified the means of a costly, bloody, region-destabilizing war. He was stumped and didn’t answer.

          • bjwilson83 says:

            I never said we had fiscal conservatism from 2001-2006. We did indeed have some good fiscal conservatism during the Reagan years, and also in 1994 when Republicans took control of congress.

            • ajb says:

              You should go read up on RR’s economic policies.  

            • MADCO says:

              I have sources that would show 80-88 were not fiscally conservative. Certainly less so than many other times.

              • bjwilson83 says:

                you think Reagan’s economic policies were great?

                • Froward69 says:

                  (later president HW Bush said about them… “Voo Doo economics”. or a better way to put it… smoke and mirrors.

                  Yeah Reagan Lowered Taxes with great fan fare. when that did not work he raised them higher than hey were before with no fan fare. THAT worked abd by th end of his administration the economy seemed fine.

                  HW Bush then lowered Taxes and said “Read my lips, NO NEW TAXES.” The economy tanked HW Bush raised taxes and then lost to Bill Clinton.  Under the moniker “its the economy stupid.”

                  trickle down economics DOES NOT WORK.

                  • bjwilson83 says:

                    Problem solved.

                    “HW Bush raised taxes and then lost to Bill Clinton.  Under the moniker “its the economy stupid.”

                    So you agree high taxes are bad?

                    • sxp151 says:

                      You do know what FICA is, don’t you? Even people like you pay it.

                      Reagan cut taxes on the rich and raised them on the poor. They didn’t cancel out. It’s like if you add 1 to x and subtract 1 from y. You don’t end up back where you started.

                • MADCO says:

                  But he got some things right. And not just the economy.  

                    • Froward69 says:

                      if one agrees with a certain republican policy or disagrees with a certain Democratic policy.

                      tea bag republicans like beej do not recognize creative objective thought. only “YOU AGREE WITH ME.”

                      no discussion.

                      Hell President Obama acknowledged it himself. Should Obama agree with a republican position… republicans will turn 180 and proclaim they are now against it.

                      SO What ever it is they are against it ~ Groucho

                      regardless of the plight of the citizenry or the country as a whole.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      What are you, ACP or something? I was under the impression you were a Democrat, or at least sided with them on most issues.

                    • MADCO says:

                      To my way of thinking, siding with parties is not how it works.

                      Instead, I decide for myself what the most important issues are in any given election, which candidate (s) will do the most good or harm on those issues, and how and where my vote can be the most useful.

                      Since I’ve been old enough, I’ve always been registered and always voted.  At various times for various reasons I’ve registered different ways.


                      2010 Colorado    If there had been no contested primary I cared about, I may have registered U and not caucused.  But there was and I did.  If there had been no contested D primary, I would have registered R and caucused with my R neighbors.

                      I’ve attended D caucuses as a U – attended, not caucused.  Once  tried to attend an R caucus as a U- was booted out for being a U.

                      From whom do you take your orders?

                    • MADCO says:

                      That is funny. I’m just not sure that’s your intent.

                      If not – to whom do you give orders?

                      How’s that working out for ya so far?  

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      We’re not totalitarians like the Dems. We work together to achieve liberty and freedom, and it’s working out just great! Buck is winning.

                    • MADCO says:

                      You should register D and hang out with some D’s sometime.  There closest you can get to “totalitarianism” ….is ….. well, there is no coherence.  You guys talk about a big tent – but you have no idea.

                      BTW-  liberty and freedom are the same thing. And neither need “achieving”, only defending from time to time.

                      And just to be crystal clear – taxes are not punishment.

                      They are the obligation of patriotic citizens.

                    • MADCO says:

                      Though I did write “conservative” in quotes, because I know what I mean by conservative, you have never answered the question “what do you mean by conservative?”  

                      You can call yourself anything you want, doesn’t make it so.

                      I’m King of the World.  See – no I’m not.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      But the basic gist of it was fiscally conservative, socially conservative, and for a strong defense (though not nation-building).

                    • MADCO says:

                      Like I said- you have said this before.

                      But you’ve never defined either.


                      – progressive income taxation or what?

                      – balanced budget?

                      – gold standard?

                      – National Bank or Federal Reserve  (Who controls monetary policy?)

                      – estate tax?

                      – Tariffs and quotas or free trade?


                      – Affirmative action?

                      – Fair Housing Act?

                      – Voting rights act?

                      – American’s With Disability Act?

                      – Social Security Insurance?

                      – Medicare?

                      – Same sex marriage?

                      – DADT?

                      – freedom of religion?

                      – immigration reform (Reagan or Goldwater)?

                      And so on.

                      You write “conservative” and assume everyone knows what you mean – either because you know what you mean, or you cannot explain it further.

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      Fiscal: balanced budget – don’t spend money we don’t have. Smaller government, less taxation.

                      Social: Pro-life, pro-marriage

                    • MADCO says:

                      balanced budget.

                      Never borrow?

                      Smaller than what?

                      By “pro-life” you mean you’d prefer abortion to be illegal, yes?

                      What about capital punishment? Yea or nay? If yea, under what circumstance?

                      Pro-marriage – I’m sure your spouse is glad to hear it.

                      But what do you mean ?

                    • bjwilson83 says:

                      It’s just common sense, something liberals don’t seem to be capable of understanding. Small enough to where freedom actually means something again.

                      By “pro-life” I mean that I support the right of every person to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Complicated, I know.

                      I don’t have a spouse, but I mean that the traditional definition of marriage that has held society together for thousands of years should not be changed. I have nothing against gay couples having the same rights – they can have civil unions – just don’t call it marriage. It’s not the same thing.

                    • sxp151 says:

                      doesn’t involve abortion or indeed anything controversial. Are you also pro-choice because you like capitalism?

                    • MADCO says:

                      Life- so no capital punishment? No assisted suicide? no birth control that prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

                      “traditional definition of marriage”

                      So polygamy is ok with you?  It was accepted for a long, long time and still is in many areas of the world.

                      Who cares What difference does it make whether it’s called “marriage” or “civil union”?  If they have all the same rights and responsibilities- what’s the difference?

                      I get the dig about liberals not understanding “common sense.”  But it’s bullshit.  Lot’s of people do not understand common sense – and partisan affiliation nor political ideology are neither causative nor correlated.

                      But you should acknowledge that “common sense”  has changed over time.  

                      Example- 1848, USA

                      “common sense” for some was that some people would get to own other people.

                      “common sense”  for many was that of course, the USA was going to expand coast to coast.

                      “common sense”   USA money should be backed by gold

                      Jump to 1948, USA

                      “common sense” for some was black Americans were free to do the same as the rest of us, but only if they lived where they were supposed to live and knew their place

                      “common sense” for most was that wimmin could be nurses or teachers, but otherwise should only work if circumstance forced them.

                      “common sense”   USA money should be backed by gold

                      Jump to 2010

                      Jim Demint (one of Buck’s closest political allies) believes it’s “common sense” that sexually active single women and gay people should not be allowed to teach or adopt kids.

                      “common sense” for many AMericans is that taxes are always too high and should always be lower than they are.

                      Rand Paul and others: “common sense”   USA money should be backed by gold

                      I know it’s comforting to have it all figured out and just rely on “common sense.”  But it’s also foolish.

                      BTW- I picked 1848 on purpose.  Trist blew it.  the way he explained it in his letters was that “common sense” guided him more than communications and direction from the President.  And he blew it so bad, that the border definition required a more careful thinking US Senator to fix it several years later.  And even then the boundary was screwed up.

                      But if it was such “common sense” then that USA was going to expand, why have we stopped?

            • sxp151 says:

              Everyone who’s not a complete moron knows that.


              Everyone remembers Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. His admirers are less likely to tout the tax hikes he accepted as the 1981 recession and his own tax cuts began to unravel his long-term fiscal picture–a large tax increase on business in 1982, higher payroll taxes enacted in 1983 and higher energy taxes in 1984.

        • bobster1 says:

          the Onion said it best:


          “My fellow Americans,” Bush said, “at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us.”  

  6. MADCO says:

    It’s not going to matter at all to the Buck supporters who want to privatize social security and MEdicare and the VA.  They know Buck is lying now but they don’t care.

    It’s not going to matter to the Buck supporters who don’t care about SS or other gov’t promises but only want to oppose Obama. They also understand Buck is lying – but they don’t care as long as he can just  say no to anything D.

    It’s not going to matter to the Bennet supporters – we know Buck is lying too. And we already have established that we don’t want Social Security run like Bear Stearns, nor Medicare like Anthem. We don’t want profit margin and sales staff add to the cost of SS and Medicare.

    Hopefully there are some undecided voters who see it and realize that Buck GE is not Buck P and so we don’t know who Buck IO would be.

  7. c rork says:

    Both-ways Buck shouldn’t get away with his pandering to the far right fringe of our electorate.  

  8. Angie Paccione says:

    So glad to see a fired up Sen. Bennet… really important that we hold Buck’s feet to the fire for the flip flopping/buckpeddaling he has done! We need more people holding him accountable. Where is his integrity??? Bennet yes! Buck??? BUCK no!

  9. marilou says:

    are absolutely hysterical.

  10. Froward69 says:

    Bennet clearly hammered Buck and Bucks lies. the post article, I havent read as yet but I have a feeling it will be about how Buck won.

    God damned Propagandists… Reporters should Report, not spin rightward.

  11. H-man says:

    Nancy Cronk and Rachel Maddow telling me Mikey landed some blows is not something a reasonable person would rely on.  

    First off, Mikey does not know how to punch.

    Second, I don’t take the word of the person who writes they are building concentration camps to house rape victims off I-25  caused by Ken Buck while she works for the Bennet campaign as a fair referee in a fight involving Bennet.

    So to the Dems who have tapes coming out their wazzos, where is the link?

  12. protestinthestreet@yahoo.com says:

    Speaking of FLIP FLOPS, appointed Senator Michael Bennet got lots of flack from Dems for voting for a Senate Health Care bill that did not have the Public Option.

    Bennet ran Hundreds of Internet Ads proclaiming himself as the PUBLIC OPTION HERO

    but when thousands of Colorado Dems signed and delivered a Petition calling for him to Actually Fight for the Public Option MICHAEL BENNET IGNORED COLORADO DEMOCRATS.

    After taking thousands of dollars from hopeful Colorado Democrats and Independents off his HERO ADS we saw his true colors as Bennet refused to put his Gift Seat on the line for us by fighting publicly for the Public Option.

    The single biggest problem with the Senate Health care Bill is that it was not a health care bill. It was a massive Bail Out for the Health Insurance Industry financed with a Mandate to voters to buy private insurance. It is just more of the same as insurance companies are already raising premiums.

    And there are one or two well known instances where Bennet and Senator Mark Udall huddled together in the well of the Senate after having voted one way on a bill and after being assured that the bill would not pass on a second vote, Changed their votes to Pretend to Colorado Democrats that they were voting the way most Democrats would want. Yes that is FLIP FLOPPING.

    However the #1 Issue in this Senate Race is THAT OBAMA STOLE THE PRIMARY FOR BENNET. In response to those that say our Colorado Democratic Primary was not stolen, we offer the following evidence:

    Gov. Ritter appointed Bennet even though none of the Democratic rank and file recommendation/emails that Ritter asked for mentioned Bennet even once.

    Prior to our primary vote:

    Obama endorsed Bennet prior to our Caucus, County Assemblies or Primary vote.

    Obama directly raised Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars for Bennet in Denver.

    Obama Personally Campaigned for Bennet in Colorado and elsewhere.

    Obama caused 460,000 Robo-Calls to be placed to Corado Dems with his endorsement.

    Obama Joined a 20,000+ telephone conference call to Colorado Dems with his endorsement.

    Obama caused thousands of Telemarketing Calls to be made to Colorado Dems From Washington DC, just prior to the Primary on Aug. 10.

    Our corrupt State Democratic Party leaders allowed OFA to officially organize for Bennet and do it out of the State Democratic Party offices.

    The DNC and DSCC gave all their Colorado Senate race money to Bennet, thus financially handicapping Romanoff and removing him from prime individual donor lists and preferential media treatment,

    A huge Breach Of Trust With Rank & File Colorado Dems.

    The Greatest Good that can be achieved from the Colorado Senate race

    is Getting Back Our Honest Democratic Senate Primary.

    To make that happen Romanoff supporters will need to send a very powerful message to Obama and Corrupt State and national Democratic Party officials that you will not tolerate the Theft of your Primary

    which you can do by WRITING-IN Romanoff

    Or Just Leaving the Space next to Bennet’s name BLANK

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.