This week on Huffington Post's Denver page, Michael Bennet posted an article, "Close the Revolving Door," which talks about his efforts to reform the lobbyist ways of Washington.
It would seem the readers from Colorado did not take comfort in the Senator's words in light of his recent votes.
I have a friendly tip for Senator Bennet's staff: next time your candidate writes an article, remember to turn off the "Comments" section of his article - which Huffington Post allows diarists to do.
The resulting comments in response to Bennet's post can only be summed up as 'devastating' for a candidate trailing his Republican opponents and facing a grassroots backed primary challenge from Andrew Romanoff.
Shall we take a peak at why the respondents are so angry?
Senator Bennet: Speaking as one of your constituents, I must say that it is my philosophy that actions speak louder than words (more honestly as well).
As others have pointed out in previous letters on this article, your name is conspicuous by being listed as one of those that voted against the Kaufman-Brown SAFE amendment.
Would you care to explain your actions? It will determine what actions I will take in November.
Appointed never-been-elected Senator Bennet, I would also like to know why you voted no on the cramdown legislation. Will you continue to vote in favor of the banks and against tax payers? Why don't you stop taking contributions from the banks after all banking reform legislation is before you and it would be the right thing to do?
Talk about revolving door. Bennet just voted against downsizing the biggest banks. This guy is one of the greatest recipients of money from financial institutions. How corrupt can you get. He is on his way out come November. Good riddance to this corrupt senator from CO.
"Yeah, I agree with you, Senator Bennet!! The close of "the revolving door" should begin by voting you out in November. With this piece, are you trying to cover up your tracks----voting against the American people and for the banks?? If that's the reason of penning this piece, then I think you haven't succeeded.
I used to like you as a senator, but yesterday's vote scuttle it all when I wasn't able to find your name among the "yeahs" to that amendment. I guess it's time for Coloradans to try Romanoff out by sending him to Washington in your place."
And the hits just keep coming...So what specifically did Bennet do that was so wrong?
From a press release issued by the Romanoff campaign:
The battle between Main Street and Wall Street has emerged as a key dividing line in the Colorado Senate race:
• Twice, Sen. Bennet voted against a full audit of the Federal Reserve. This morning, Sen. Bennet voted no on the Vitter Amendment (S. Amdt. 3760 to S. Amdt. 3739 to SB 3217) that would require a full audit of the FED. He did the same in April of last year. (S. Amdt. 875 to S.Con.Res.13) Andrew would have voted to fully audit the Federal Reserve.
• On May 6th, 2010, Sen. Bennet voted against an amendment that would have imposed leverage and liability limits on bank holding companies and financial companies, to prevent them from becoming too big to fail. (S. Amdt. 3733 to S. Amdt. 3739 to SB 3217) Andrew supported this proposal.
• On April 30th, 2009, Sen. Bennet voted against legislation that would have prevented mortgage foreclosures and preserved home values (S. Amdt. 1014 to SB 896). Andrew supported this proposal. Sen. Bennet's no vote was a victory for Wall Street and an insult to families across the country who are struggling to stay in their homes during this weak economic time.
Yikes. This is where raising the 5th highest amount of campaign money from Wall Street changes from being an advantage to a liability.
It seems Mr. Bennet's votes certainly have a way of favoring those who have given him the most money.
The real question, though, is why? Bennet had to have known that these votes were going to be fodder for either his primary or general opponent - so why do it?
That's the real rub - he had to vote these terrible votes because of who is really representing - Wall Street and the banks. They have their Senator, but we have our opportunity to be heard in the primary.
For those who like Senator Bennet and can overlook his votes, consider the fact that in polling done versus his Republican rivals, he trails them by a larger margin than his primary candidate, Andrew Romanoff.
Most importantly, Bennet's poll of positive view vs. negative view is 45 positive vs 45 negative - which is worse than any other candidate running - while Andrew Romanoff's numbers of 46 positive to 34 negative, and is better than all three Republicans in the field.
If you need anything to know, it's that keeping Bennet past the primary is the most certainly the best way to turn a Senate seat over to the Republicans - most likely a Tea Party candidate.
For me, I agree that it is time to support someone who has pledged to take no Corporate PAC money - Andrew Romanoff.
Stop by his fundraising page and toss him a buck or two.
Follow Wade Norris on Twitter: www.twitter.com/wadenorris