Michael Bennet

Obama says retirement accounts off the table in Social Security debate

According to media reports, Obama reiterated that Social Security would not be privatized while he was president. Hopefully, that will only mean another two and one half years. He suggested that the struggling federal entitlement program only needed some minor “adjustments” to make it solvent, which is blatantly inaccurate and he knows it.

The projections show Social Security is running a deficit currently and again in 2015 from that point forward, meaning more money is going out to retirees than coming in from current workers. The fund will be completely empty by 2037. According to the Obama administration, and in fairness every administration before, that gives us plenty of time to figure something out.
 
Unfortunately, we continue to take taxes from younger workers promising them money when they retire. I know this is an easy issue to “boogeyman” for politicians. In fact, we’re already seeing Bennet and the Democrats attack Buck saying “Buck wants to privatize social security.” This coming from the guy worth millions of dollars in private investment. Bennet doesn’t have to worry about social security because he has enough money to invest to get a “real” return in the stock market. Bennet’s social security check might pay his country club dues.
 
Buck on the other hand also doesn’t have to worry about social security. Buck clearly has a much more modest income and would likely be reliant on the entitlement, except he hasn’t contributed much money into Social Security. As an attorney with the US Attorney’s office and a District Attorney, the portion of the paycheck that most workers have to pay into Social Security, goes into mutual funds and Wall Street options. While the politicians and public sector employees across this country get to take advantage of controlled, private investment accounts that average a 10% return, everyone else is stuck paying into a cruddy retirement program that averages a 3% return.
 
The elderly that rely on social security vote and have a powerful lobby to protect their income and cost of living increases. Let me be clear, we’ve made a promise robbing these workers of their paychecks for decades, so the country has to pay them their due. However, now is the time to begin to wean workers off this entitlement program. If the public sector workers don’t have to pay into social security and they love their retirement benefits, why not offer that same option to small businesses and younger private sector workers? This will inject significant capital into the stock market and private enterprise. In exchange, congress should consider a temporary capital gains tax to help get those current retirees, who we’ve promised retirement income, across the finish line.
 
I thought this president said it was time for change. Instead, Obama has vowed to continue the failed policies of the past. By the time I retire, the Band-Aids on social security will require me to be 76 for whatever benefits are left. Ah, the Golden Years.

 

Is Michael Bennet covering up an affair?

A few months ago a friend told me about a persistant rumor in the Denver Public School District -- that Ritter appointed Senator Michael Bennet had an affair with one of his daughter's teachers.  This isn't just the normal "you know what I heard?" type of thing.  There have been several reports of it, but apparently the liberal media won't investigate.

This came to light when a fellow teacher walked in on then Superintendent Bennet and the teacher in (shall we say) and unusual position.  Apparently everyone quickly was told that superindendent Bennet was going places and it was best not to make an issue of it.

I can't prove this, except that the National Enquirer is looking into it (yes they think Aliens visit Earth, but they are the same people that uncovered John "$500 haircut" Edward's affair with a staffer).

PS- bringing up this story got me banned from Colorado Pols.  Apparently they will do whatever they need in order to protect our appointed Senator.

By The Numbers: Republican Challengers for Federal Offices Report In

Q4 2009 Fundraising Totals (Incumbent in Bold)

Michael Bennet - 1,149,091
Tom Wiens - 725,000
Jane Norton - 550,605
Ken Buck - 39,850

John Salazar - 187,160
Scott Tipton - 109,981
Bob McConnell - 12,471

Betsy Markey - 227,442
Cory Gardner - 197,553
Diggs Brown - 61,174
Tom Lucero - 25,824

Ryan Frazier - 218,824
Ed Perlmutter - 215,201
Lang Sias - 30,931

U.S. Senate

Michael Bennet's fundraising continues at a monumental pace and it is starting to look as if he will have a massive advantage no matter who the Republican nominee may be. Jane Norton once again posted strong numbers, though many observers found it troublesome she did not improve much over the last quarter's take.

Though the Wiens campaign is declining to say how much of the $725,000 they are claiming to have brought in came from the candidate himself, it appears safe to assume that Wiens followed through on his previous statement that he would be investing $500,000 of his money into his campaign. Regardless of where the money came from, this means Wiens now has a very well-financed primary campaign.

Ken Buck had an extremely disappointing quarter. The sole consolation here is the massive ad buy by the Campaign for Liberty that can free up some money that may have been allocated by the Buck campaign for media and divert it into organizational costs.

CD-3

Scott Tipton had a strong showing for his first month in the race. If he is able to keep up the pace he should be able to place the seat into play.

CD-4

Cory Gardner had another strong fundraising quarter. Despite being outraised by Makey, CD-4's Republican voter registration advantage means that Makey would have to be raising even more than she is to make it up. Gardner is strongly positioning himself as the leading candidate in both the primary and general elections.

At $61,174, Diggs Brown has enough money to mount a primary challenge, even if it is a long-shot. He will at least be able to afford a working campaign organization, which is more than what most other underdog candidates in these Republican primaries can say.

Tom Lucero again had a lackluster quarter, but even more damaging to his prospects than his low fundraising haul is his astounding 200% burn rate. When a campaign spends twice what they raised in a given quarter, it is a sure sign it is on it's last legs.

CD-7

Ryan Frazier had a strong fundraising quarter and stands as the only Colorado Republican challenger for federal office to outraise the Democratic incumbent. While a narrow victory, Frazier's take places what was expected to be a safe Democratic seat into play.

Ex-Democrat and Mark Udall supporter Lang Sias, despite starting fundraising at the beginning of November and having most of the quarter to fundraise, came in with a dismal $30,931. Nearly half of his money came from Washington DC, as opposed to Frazier who blew him out of the water and raised funds mostly from in-state, and $5,000 of that came from John McCain's PAC. While Sias gave the illusion of being a strong candidate with his McCain backing and much-touted Washington connections, after raising only $30,391 it is hard to see how he is even remotely serious. Sias' funding problems will become even more severe as he is rumored to be planning to bypass the grassroots by running a costly petition campaign in the coming months.

Foreshadows for Colorado

 ( - promoted by Rocky Mountain Right - )

Speaking in Massachusett(e)s on behalf of Martha Coakley, Obama tells us;
 
If Republicans want to campaign against what we've done by standing up for the status quo and for insurance companies over American families and businesses, [then] that is a fight I want to have.
 
Straw Man Alert!
 
In fact, due to the RINO phenomenon, most Republicans self-identify as conservative more so than republican. These Conservatives are in the process of taking the Republican Party back from McCain's RINO crowd.
 
In fact, Conservatives are not for the status quo. For example, they seek genuine, meaningful tort reform and increased competition among private insurance providers. Both tend to help families and businesses by driving health care costs down.
 
In fact, health insurance companies are American businesses currently being prevented from providing more cost-effective services due to excessive government regulation, regulation that will grow under the Obama plan.
 
In fact, a majority of Americans are reasonably happy with their health insurance now, and recognize Obama & Co. as a threat to their health insurance.
 
So, Obama seeks a fight with a straw man of his own construction made in his own image, in fact, his own shadow.
 
Several months ago a real man challenged Obama to a debate. Obama has not accepted, and he won't. Unlike his shadow, real men hit back. Real men surprise and confound an opponent. Real men expose an opponent's weaknesses, educating rather than confusing the audience. Real men present a real fight. Shadow fighting is just pretend.
 
Since Colorado's Senator Michael Bennet (D) has secured Obama's blessing, we can expect this straw man, and all his relatives to make many appearances here in Colorado this year. The question Colorado conservatives ask is, which of Bennet's Republican opponents will best meet the straw man challenge.
 
Straw men are not strong, but they can fool enough people to win elections if the skill and will to destroy them is not brought to bear.
 
Oh, and McCain & Co. have already shown us they have neither the skill nor the will.

 

Bennet Campaign Repudiates Poll Predicting Loss With New Poll Predicting Loss

ColoradoPols reports that the Michael Bennet campaign is in full-fledged damage control mode over a Rasmussen poll showing Bennet losing to all three major Republican candidates. Bennet's camapign has issued a release boldly asserting that Rasmussen Reports, which conducted the poll showing Bennet trailing Jane Norton by 12-points, has "long been identified as a partisan polling outfit whose survey results are consistently wrong, and always favor the Republican candidate."

The Bennet campaign's press release is accompanied by a poll conducted by their own partisan polling outfit showing Bennet trailing Norton by only 3-points.

What does a Hick statewide campaign offer?

( - promoted by Rocky Mountain Right - )

Around the state, those voters that have heard of Mayor John Hickenlooper know he’s the guy that helped folks out with the parking meters. He’s the guy that ingratiated himself to the downtown business community by pushing tax increases for FasTracks, the Justice Center, the local school district, Ref. C. and pledged to end homelessness in Colorado.

Let’s take a look at the Mayor’s “Denver Promise.” His support of the FasTracks tax increase turned out to be the first broken promise, well, half broken. The south suburbs got theirs, now all he wants to do is double the FasTracks tax so everyone can get what they were originally promised. What’s interesting is that the new RTD chief was in the paper saying they had to go to the voters in 2010 or risk paying more for every year they waited to go on the ballot. This would be bad news for Hick’s Denver Promise. Here’s a line for the opposition, “Fire sale in Denver! For only the next 20 years, you can get 1 for the price of 2. That’s right, folks! Get one item for the price of 2.”
 
Also, early in Hick’s tenure, he established a 10-year plan to end homelessness. Six years into the plan and how’s that coming along? 10-year plans are great for politicians elected to two, 4-year terms. All I remember about Hick’s efforts to end homelessness was an idea to build projects in residential areas in Denver. Only problem was “noisy” neighbors worried about home values and safety. Running the entire state, however, Hick could build these projects in Douglas County, since voters there won’t vote for him anyway.
 
In addition, Hick decided that panhandling was simply inappropriate on the 16th Street Mall. So, he put a stop to panhandling. To make up for the void of begging for change, Hick installed red parking meters to collect money from people addicted to giving change to the homeless, something I doubt has raised much money in 3 years! Hick took people’s love of feeding parking meters and turned it into a donation machine. Same thing with taxes, since people love government programs and taxes, Hick makes it easier for people to give to their government.
 
Someone breathing a sigh of relief today with Salazar’s choice not to run, is Ritter’s former campaign manager and Hick consultant, David Kenney. Dude quickly replaced a client. But, speaking of his campaign team, most of Hick’s “A-team” has left with his former chief of staff, Michael Bennet’s campaign. But, good news is, his most recent chief of staff is now at the Denver Metro Chamber, which will find itself in a precarious spot deciding whether to support business friendly Republicans or remain loyal to prior employers, Hickenlooper and Bennet.
 
My predications for a Hick governorship, more blue ribbon panels, more 10-year unaccountable pie-in-the-sky plans, more fees and more government. Better have some snazzy television ads.

 

Udall and Bennet Responces to Climategate Questions

 (- promoted by Rocky Mountain Right - )

Yesterday, Lee Cary at AmericanThinker.com tasked readers to poll their senators on Climategate. I live in Aurora, CO. I decided to answer the call. Now, I have never called my senators before, and I have observed that questioning politicians about touchy subjects generally gets a run-around response. So, before making my calls, I decided to prepare my questions with care.
 
As suggested by Lee, I began my preparations by examining their websites. As expected, there were no press releases regarding Climategate. However, under their positions on "Issues", I found that both of my senators believe that global warming (= climate change) is caused by human activity. I crafted my questions around these findings.
 
Here is my report.

First, Mark Udall (D);

Q) What is Senator Udall's position on Climategate?
A) The female staffer responded that Udall supports legislation that fights global warming. I reminded her that I was asking about Climategate, not any particular legislation. The staffer said, "I do not know what Climategate is".
Q) When will Senator Udall come out with a statement on Climategate?
A) Again, the staffer denied knowledge of Climategate.
Q) The senator's website calls for a top-to-bottom review of all federal programs. Does this include federal programs refusing to release climate data to independent researchers, as is the case for FOIA requests made to NASA for climate data?
A) The staffer did not know.
Q) Is the senator concerned that Climategate exposes scientific fraud?
A) The staffer again denied knowledge of Climategate, AND claimed I would not explain what Climategate is. I reminded her that this was the first time she showed any interest in learning what Climategate is. I told her that I would now explain Climategate. However, before I could start she said the discussion would be negated because Udall believes in global warming. At this point, I simply terminated the call.
 
From this conversation, I draw two conclusions;
 
a) Apparently, the staffer does not know that NASA is a federal program.
b) This staffer admitted that she lied to me. She knows very well what Climategate refers to. Otherwise, how would she know that the discussion would be negated?

 

As a reminder to the reader, two weeks ago the term Climategate did not exist. Today, the term gets 30 million google hits, and 51 million bing hits. And Udall's staffer would have us believe she does not know what Climategate is.
 
Second, Michael Bennet (D);
 
Q) What is Senator Bennet's position on Climategate?
A) The male staffer said Bennet has not commented on Climategate. The staffer offered to pass my thoughts on Climategate on to Bennet. I declined to provide my thoughts.
Q) When will Senator Bennet come out with a statement on Climategate?
A) The staffer did not know.
Q) The senator's website indicates he is against fraud. Does this include scientific fraud?
A) The staffer said, "I cannot comment on that". I decided to terminate the call.
 
 
And from this conversation I draw two conclusions;
 
a) Bennet is unable to make up his own mind about an ethical issue without first polling his constituency on that ethical issue.
b) Senator Bennet (D-CO) may support scientific fraud.
 
I decided to take it one step further. I sent the following email to Udall via his contact form.
 
Senator Udall's website specifically lists climate change as an issue, and calls for humans to change their behavior in order to forestall climate change.

Climategate exposes fraud in climate science. The fraud negates the belief that humans cause global warming and/or climate change. The exposed fraud also makes a joke of the much-cited alleged "consensus".

QUESTION: Like many victims of fraud, is the senator reluctant to admit he has fallen for a con when the fraud fundamentally negates the belief that humans impact global climate?

Note: This is not a question regarding any particular legislation. The answer to this question is either YES or NO. Any response that does not clearly say YES or NO will automatically be interpreted as a YES. A non-response will also be interpreted as a YES.

 

I sent the same email to Bennet, but with a different opening paragraph, as follows;
 
Senator Bennet's website states that we must "protect the planet from the threat of climate change" by "harnessing the power of the wind and sun and natural gas". Apparently, Senator Bennet believes humans cause climate change.
 
Oh, and I took screen-shots of the relevant pages on their websites.

 

Senate Candidate Ken Buck visits the Douglas County GOP

( - promoted by Rocky Mountain Right - )

Castle Rock, CO

From the screenplay of The Untouchables starring Kevin Costner and Sean Connery:
Charles Martin Smith - l've found a financial disbursement pattern which shows some irregu... 
Sean Connery - You carry a badge? 
Charles Martin Smith - Yes.
Sean Connery - Carry a gun
Sean Connery -  Well, here we are. 
Kevin Costner - What are we doing here?  (seeing it's the Chicago Post Office)
Sean Connery - Liquor raid.
Kevin Costner - Here?!
Sean Connery - Everybody knows where the booze is. The problem isn't finding it. The problem is who wants to cross Capone. Let's go.
Kevin Costner - You'd better be damn sure, Malone.
Sean Connery - If you walk through this door, you're walking into a world of trouble. There's no turning back. Do you understand?
Kevin Costner - Yes, l do.
Sean Connery - Good. Give me that axe. - Federal officers! - Get your hands in the air! - Nobody moves! - This is a raid!

The Douglas County Republicans are a necessary stop for any aspiring GOP candidate.  Candidates for Governor, Senator, Congressman and State Legislature come by for the breakfast meetings.  Last week’s meeting hosted U.S. Senate Candidate Ken Buck.   He was asked questions and eventually identity theft issues came up.

On October 17, 2008 Operation Number Games kicked off.  The raid was the brainchild of the District Attorney for Colorado's 19th Judicial District, one Kenneth R. Buck.  Ten Law Enforcement Officers raided Amalia's Translation and Tax Service ("Amalia's") in Greeley, Colorado.  They seized computers and boxes of paper records. After copying the records, Operation Number Games found 1,338 of Amalia's Clients were using forged social security and idenfication records of other Americans.  This was identity theft and felony criminal impersonation as only organized crime can do it.

Just as Kevin Costner made the decision to walk into a world of trouble in enforcing the law, Ken Buck got his share of trouble.  This time it wasn't Al Capone but the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Colorado.  The ACLU retained six lawyers and filed a massive lawsuit against Ken Buck and Weld County Sheriff John Cooke.  Some highlights of the ACLU's allegations are:

  • *Amalia's has assisted thousands of her customers with filing income tax returns.
  • *Seizing the records of felony criminal activity violated Amalia's right of privacy.
  • *Amalia's customers include persons who are not eligible to obtain social security numbers.
  • *Three of the ACLU plaintiffs are "Doe Plaintiffs".  They have filed a motion seeking permission to participate without revealing their true identities.
  • *Amalia's serves primarily a community of Spanish-speaking clients, a community that has seen tremendous growth in recent years in Weld County.
  • *Amalia's is damaged because of fear that their spanish-speaking customer will not return.
  • *Amalia is afraid because the District Attorney asserts that continuing the company's tax practice could constitute probable cause for additional future searches.

So how does a person who is not a CPA or licensed tax professional get so many tax customers?  Tax Service owner Amalia Cerrillo has filed thousands of tax returns for Mexican migrants since the Greeley meat packers began their recruiting of workers from Mexico.  A few years back the INS did a massive raid on the Swift meatpacking plant and carted off illegal immigrants by the dozens.  The other meatpackers were largely untouched.

So far, even with six attorneys, the court case hasn't gone as the ACLU has wanted it.  They have now appealed the case to the Colorado Supreme Court and the case goes on and on, with D.A. Buck and Sheriff Cooke still defending the right to enforce our laws.

Now Ken Buck has tossed his hat into the U.S. Senate race and is making the rounds. 

If selected as the GOP nominee, he will likely run against the foppish appointed senator, Michael Bennet.  Bennet, is "to the manor born", having inherited untold millions.  To hear him speak is to hear the old style upper class East Coast speech pattern we usually only hear in movies like Trading Places.

Let's look at these two guys.

 

  • *Ken Buck has worked as a truck driver, high school football coach, ranch hand, school janitor, paper boy, furniture mover, adjunct law professor, prosecutor, and businessman.  He went to Princeton for undergrad and to the University of Wyoming for Law School.
  • *Bennet has had a series of appointed jobs, as a Governor's Aide, in the Clinton Administration as Asst. Sec. of State for International Organization Affairs, director of the Anschutz Investment Company, Hickenlooper's Chief of Staff and four years ago got appointed Superintendent of the DPS.  Now he's appointed U.S. Senator.  Sound familiar?  Bennet got into Wesleyan University under the legacy rules because his dad was an alumni and past President of this elite, private school.   He later went to Yale Law School, presumably by the same legacy way.
  • *Ken Buck's grandfather first started a shoe repair shop in Greeley in the 1930's.  He has long and deep roots in Colorado.
  • *Bennett moved here a few years ago and has much greater knowledge of the foxhunting and country clubs of the East than Brighton, Greeley, Castle Rock, or Pueblo.
  • *Buck is being sued by the ACLU.
  • *Bennet is adored by the ACLU.  Their ACLU scoreboard gives Bennet a  Lifetime Score of 100%. 

Take your choice.  Elliott Ness or Louis Winthorpe III
 

Bennet Staff Impersonates Headless Chickens

After news of a possible terrorist cell in Colorado broke, an accidentally sent chain of emails from Michael Bennet's staff reveals that his office was plunged into chaos and preoccupied with looking like they were as "in the loop" as Sen. Udall. The Denver Post reports:

Bennet's staff suggested that he tell reporters he had been "in close contact" with the FBI since that morning, when he was apparently still waiting for an FBI briefing late in the afternoon.

Bennet's staff also openly fretted that he would be upstaged by his Democratic colleague, Sen. Mark Udall, who had been briefed by the FBI and had spoken to reporters.


"Bummed we missed this — I was under the impression we were being asked not to talk — looks like everyone else did and will lieky (sic) get the press. Lesson learned for next time," Sarah Hughes, Bennet's deputy chief of staff, wrote in one missive.

But his staff also suggested that Udall gave what was essentially a law enforcement script in telling reporters that there was no imminent danger and that the investigation was ongoing — a comment they noted was almost identical to one given to reporters on the East Coast by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

"I'm sure it's what the fbi/mueller (FBI Director Robert Mueller) is telling the members to say," commented Deirdre Murphy, Bennet's communications director.

Atop more than a dozen e-mails was an official statement meant for public consumption: "We have been monitoring this situation closely and I have been in touch with the U.S. Deputy Attorney General. I will continue to keep close contact with law enforcement and work to ensure they have the resources they need."

Late Tuesday, Bennet reiterated that sentiment and said that he would not be commenting on the e-mails.

It's not surprising that Bennet doesn't want to comment on the e-mails. He never seems to want to comment on anything.

Bennet and Ritter wide open to Frazier, McInnis, and Penry

Following up on the Washington Post's recent article predicting doom for Colorado Democrats, Rasmussen Reports follows up with polls on the Governor and Senate races showing bad news for Michael Bennet and Bill Ritter.

Colorado Governor's Race

Scott McInnis: 44%
Bill Ritter: 39%

Bill Ritter: 41%
Josh Penry: 40%

Colorado Senate Race

Ryan Frazier: 40%
Michael Bennet: 39%

Michael Bennet: 43%
Ken Buck: 37%

Of course, the NRSC is poised to piss away any gains in the Senate race by forcing through a divisive candidate as their annointed candidate and fracturing the party in the process. But, hey, us dumb hicks out here in flyover country can't be trusted to pick our own representation.

On another note, this is RMR's 1000th post so pop out the champagne and have a toast to the conservative  blogosphere. Or not.

Washington Post: Colorado Democrats In Trouble

The Washington Post has taken note of Obama's unusually low approval rating in the state and the Romanoff/Ritter civil war:

Bennet is preparing for a difficult general-election campaign, but his most immediate problem is a likely primary challenge from Andrew Romanoff, a former speaker of the Colorado House.

Romanoff was a leading candidate for the Salazar vacancy before Ritter tapped Bennet, and other Democrats see his challenge to Bennet as motivated more by personal pique than by principled differences with him. Whatever his motivation, Romanoff creates one more obstacle in Bennet's path as he tries to win his Senate seat outright.

Ritter also has problems. Foremost is the challenge facing every governor this year and next: how to run a state in the middle of a recession that has created a sizable budget deficit.

 

Romanoff Preparing Challenge To Bennet

The Denver Post reports that Andrew Romanoff will challenge Sen. Michael Bennet in the Democratic primary:

Wally Stealey, a longtime lobbyist and political mover in Pueblo, said Romanoff called him Friday morning to tell him he had decided to run.

"If I'd have had my choice, I'd have him running against Ritter," Stealey said. "But I didn't get my choice. That doesn't matter. You don't always get your choice in politics."

Democratic strategists say the 43-year-old Romanoff faces significant hurdles in mounting a run against a sitting U.S. senator, even one appointed less than eight months ago and who still has relatively limited name recognition.

As we observed shortly after Bennet's appointment, you would be hard pressed to find anyone in either party willing to claim that Michael Bennet would make a better Senator than Romanoff. Why Romanoff decided to wait until September, giving Bennet a nearly three quarter head-start, is anyone's guess.

Leader makes the voting record or voting record makes the leader?

( - promoted by Rocky Mountain Right - )

Remember that political ad from last year, I believe. The visual included a wind mill of sorts followed by an announcer asking about a candidate’s position on various issues. After each question, the wind would kick up and the image would spin frantically.

 
I couldn’t help but think about that ad after reading about the disgraceful concealed carry vote in the U.S. Senate yesterday. Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank wrote about the vote illustrating a scene in which Senator Michael Bennet appeared to ask Senator Schumer if it was safe to vote for the measure, knowing the majority had the votes to kill it first. He even hints that Colorado Senior Senator Mark Udall gave a nod to Bennet just before he voted, insinuating, “It’s okay, go ahead and vote for this terrible policy, it’s dead anyway.”
 
The story probably wouldn’t be given as much attention if we knew where Bennet sat before we knew where he stood. This scenario plays into exactly how Bennet’s opponents are defining him, a political puppet doing anything to get elected. From healthcare, to EFCA, to any other issue, Coloradans simply hear he’s undecided until after the vote has already occurred. This illustration only shows that Bennet isn’t undecided or acting in the best interests of Colorado, he’s only doing it to get elected.
 
I was incredibly surprised with Udall’s spokeswoman, who told Lynn Bartels, “…we are not going to pick a fight with Dana Milbank over what he observed.” A columnist questions your boss’ voting integrity, the very reason he’s sent to Congress, and it’s not worth a fight? A columnist insinuates that your boss only voted with the NRA against his principles because it seemed popular? Wow.
 
Every vote, thus far, is a surprise from Bennet, because Coloradans have no idea who he is. All we know is that he is from Denver, a political appointment from an unpopular governor and has ties to the East Coast and Obama. Instead of defining himself and giving us an idea of what makes him tick, what his philosophies are or why he even wants to be a Senator, he’s trying to define himself with a scorecard. We have no idea why he votes the way he does.
 
Contrast Bennet with Senator Wayne Allard. Most Coloradans knew Allard was a Veterinarian from northern Colorado. He was socially and fiscally conservative. These were philosophies that defined him and played a strong factor in his votes. You knew Allard would vote against taxes and spending increases and would likely support efforts to recognize traditional marriage. You may not have agreed with his votes, but you knew and respected where he was coming from.
 
In Bennet’s attempt to try and let his voting record define him, his opponents are selling a more persuasive argument against him. Get ready to see more that campaign ad next year.

 

Michael Bennet Gutsy on Gun Rights - If He Has Permission

Dana Milbank reports on The Washington Post blog that Michael Bennet was ready to vote against the recent bill that would have allowed individuals to carry guns across state lines. Bennet only voted in favor of it after getting permission from Chuck Schumer and being reassured that his vote would not result in passage of the bill:

The slim margin was no accident: Other Democrats, such as Pennsylvania's Bob Casey and Colorado's Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, were said to have been willing to vote "no" if necessary. Twenty minutes after the voting began, Bennet and Udall left the cloakroom together and walked into the chamber. Bennet went to the well to consult with Schumer, who indicated that it was safe for Bennet -- a product of D.C.'s St. Albans School -- to vote with the NRA. Bennet looked to Udall, who gave an approving nod, and cast his "aye" vote.

 

ANTI-SOCIALIZED MEDICINE GROUP TO TARGET MICHAEL BENNET: "As a 501(c)4 organization, Patients First is able to target individual lawmakers by name in advertisements, encouraging constituents to put pressure on their senators and congressmen to oppose Obama’s health plan. Patients First will launch its new ad next week in 11 states, including Colorado, aimed at Sen. Michael Bennet, Louisiana, aimed at Sen. Mary Landrieu, and Nevada at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. " (Human Events)

Read more about the group at JoinPatientsFirst.com.

Last-ditch Ritter campaign email avoids mentioning Michael Bennet

It's approaching the end of the fundraising quarter for campaigns and they're starting to send out their last-minute pitches for donations. Bill Ritter's pitch oddly goes out of it's way to mention former Sen. Ken Salazar, Sen. Mark Udall, and Barack Obama:

We've reshaped the electoral map, sending forward-thinking leaders like Barack Obama, Ken Salazar, Mark Udall, and many others to represent our voice in Washington. And we've changed the dynamic here in the state capitol, too.

But as The Hill reported last week, "Party of Nope" leaders believe their resurrection begins with taking back the Mountain West in 2010. In fact, they have already recruited a challenger to my re-election effort, who quietly filed his candidate papers late last month.

How odd that Bill Ritter would mention Salazar but not the man who replaced him. Does Bill have some internal polling showing that people are upset with him over Michael Bennet's appointment?

Taxpayers will soon be funding car trade-ins

This is getting a little ridiculous. Congress has now taken to wasting taxpayer money on publicly funding car trade-in deals that you usually see in cheesey used car dealership commercials. The Associated Press reports:

Under the proposal, car owners could get a voucher worth $3,500 if they traded in a vehicle getting 18 miles per gallon or less for one getting at least 22 mpg. The value of the voucher would grow to $4,500 if the mileage of the new car was 10 mpg higher than the old vehicle. The miles per gallon figures are listed on the car window's sticker.

Owners of sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks or minivans that get 18 mpg or less could receive a voucher for $3,500 if their new truck or SUV got at least 2 mpg higher than their old vehicle. The voucher would increase to $4,500 if the mileage of the new truck or SUV was at least 5 mpg higher than the older vehicle.

Michael Bennet is reportedly one of the Senators who was on the fence over this bill but caved to pressure from the Obama administration.

Denver Post analyzes Bennet donors

The Denver Post has picked up on the story of Michael Bennet's out-of-state donors, which was first broken on this site last week, and has come up with a few extra details on his fundraising such as this gem:

His Colorado donor base was heavily Denver-oriented. More than 60 percent came from the state's capital. He got no contributions from Pueblo, Greeley or Grand Junction and only one from Fort Collins.

That doesn't exactly speak well to his ability to reach out to Ken Salazar's base.

Out-of-state interests deliver for Michael Bennet

Michael Bennet's hefty fundraising in the first quarter of the year may have been intimidating at first glance, but a closer examination reveals that the bulk of the money came from out-of-state. Potential primary opponents to Bennet should especially take notice, as his fundraising among traditional Democratic in-state donors is weak and the rest of his in-state fundraising (primarily from the business community) may soon evaporate thanks to his waffling on EFCA.

New York, Washington D.C., and California provided Bennet nearly as many contributions as Colorado did. The graph below shows the source of Bennet's first quarter haul:

PAC contributions to Bennet topped a quarter of a million dollars, which along with the massive out-of-state funding leads one to wonder just who exactly want Michael Bennet to be Colorado's U.S. Senator.

Top sources of funding to Michael Bennet
Colorado - $509,810
PACs and other committees - $261,125
New York - $188,000
Washington DC - $136,958
California - $100,367
Maryland - $36,550
Massachusetts - $30,200

One thing is clear, Bennet's Republican opponent will have to have a strong backing from in-state donors. Those donors aren't going to just come out of no where, they are people like you reading this right now. The Democrats have figured out that in order to win elections they have to man up and give a few dollars, so please donate to Ryan Frazier or Ken Buck. Even if it is just $5 or $10 you can help send Michael Bennet a message that the people of Colorado do not want him in office.

Ask And Ye Shall Receive

Ben DeGrow wonders what would make a better nickname for Michael Bennet in light of his waffling on EFCA: "Back N Forth Bennet" as the NRSC seems to be trying to introduce or "Both Ways Bennet." Go ahead and vote below, the NRSC's "Back N Forth Bennet" is below the poll if you want to take a look.

Syndicate content