FactCheck.org takes on Bennet v. Romanoff

not sure why the Bennet campaign keeps pimping this article

but sure -- let's talk about it.

The article says that Romanoff used to take PAC money and doesn't anymore.  It doesn't mention that he hasn't taken it for several years, but that is an inconvenient fact for your argument I suppose.

That isn't any different than what Romanoff has said himself.  Not quite sure what you mean by

Romanoff bloggers went berzerk, claiming it was not true.

 

I haven't seen anyone on here say that Romanoff never took PAC money.  A lot of people have said what the article says...that he used to and doesn't anymore.

As for tying Bennet's votes to his contributions?  That's really up to people to decide.  Bennet did vote with big banks on cramdown.  He also voted with big oil when he kept tax breaks for BP.

So yes -- Bennet has voted with the industries that are making large contributions to his campaign.

My only beef with Bennet's attack ad?  The statement "has been taking PAC money" implies that he still is.  Of course that's the intent of the ad -- to make people think Romanoff is still taking PAC money when he isn't.  The truth (and you know it) is that Romanoff stopped taking PAC money several years ago and is funding his campaign with individual contributions -- just like when President Obama turned away from special interest money when he ran for President.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 18:06:42 PM UTC

I don't represent the Bennet campaign.

If Andrew had been appointed, then Michael decided to run, and Michael's team was trashing an innocent man with accusations of being bought where it never happened, I would be defending Andrew.

I'm not interested in one winning over the other. I am interested in truth... and for the Democrats to win in November.  If everything was equal, I would be hard pressed to make a decision.

The fact of the matter is that they are not equal.  One candidate decided to divide the Democratic party to further his own personal ambitions, and has proven he cannot raise the funds necessary to beat Norton or Buck. That same candidate has disengenously attacked an honest man.  

PAC money doesn't make either candidate unethical. Everyone takes it. The only thing that makes it unethical is when someone is beholden to it. Neither men were, or are. That is the truth.

Someone needs to keep telling the truth about it.  

My opinions here do not reflect any organization or group with which I may be affiliated.  

---

by: peacemonger @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 20:29:51 PM UTC

"Everyone" doesn't take it

I supported Barack Obama over other candidates in part because he refused to play ball with special interests.  I see the same in Andrew Romanoff.

That's the truth.

---

by: Firewalker @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 22:19:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

One candidate can beat Buck or Norton

Actually Peacemonger, one candidate can beat Buck or Norton and it's not your phone-pal or the hubbie of your coffee-talk friend. Andrew Romanoff is the only candidate who can hold this seat. The polls say it. President Clinton says it. The Republicans know it which is why they're chomping at the bit to let loose if Bennet buys a win.

Romanoff has talked at length about why he decided not to take PAC money. He saw the impact special interest money was having on the ability (or will) to get things done in Washington. He has said he is not the perfect messenger but that doesn't mean the message is not valid. In Colorado, every meeting of lawmakers was open to the public. In Colorado, hearings were televised because of Romanoff's work. At his speech at the assembly Romanoff described the differences between the Democratic party he led and what he has seen going on in Washington:

---

by: JeffcoTrueBlue @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 00:52:48 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Still slinging the mud, eh, girl.

I agree with Strykerk2

"The truth (and you know it)
is that Romanoff stopped taking PAC money several years ago and is funding his campaign with individual contributions
--

just like when President Obama turned away from special interest money when he ran for President"

So are you calling Obama a liar as well?

Obama Stole Dems 2010 Senate Primary Nomination for "appointed" Sen. Michael Bennet but 57,497 "UnderVotes" by angry Romanoff progressives nearly Stopped them

---

by: johnhkennedy @ Sun Jul 25, 2010 at 21:13:29 PM UTC

As someone who was (honestly)

ambivalent about both candidates in the spring. The clear choice for me is Romanoff.  Nothing personal regarding either man.  I have been extremely underwhelmed by Bennet's job performance and how he has handled a lot of situations.

I think it is silly to argue back and forth with people who already know who they are going to vote for -

If you don't know who you are going to vote for yet, - look at both mens' records, accomplishments, and stance on issues, throw in a gut check, and make a choice.  

---

by: sisterfish @ Mon Jul 26, 2010 at 03:26:01 AM UTC

Thanks

This is unrelated to this post, but just wanted to thank you for your words on CoTrolls.  You didn't have to stick out your neck, but you were very decent.  Thanks.

---

by: Andrea Merida @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 04:33:20 AM UTC

I was on the fence earlier this year.

I finally realized that, even though I like Romanoff, Bennett has done all the things I want from my Senator.  He came out early on supporting the Public Option (unlike Udall).  He lead the way pushing for filibuster reform. He's been a good solid progressive overall.

So fire a guy who is doing a good job?  Bennett isn't a career politician.  He already had a job when the Gov. asked him to take the Senate seat.  He gave up his job to do his civic duty for the people of Colorado (no extra pay in it, either).  So again, why fire him for doing his job?

---

by: GMFORD @ Wed Jul 28, 2010 at 10:56:26 AM UTC