CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
November 24, 2009 11:59 PM UTC

Head, Meet Brick Wall. Commence Banging

  • 75 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

We’ve been tough on Democrat Andrew Romanoff and his bizarre campaign for U.S. Senate, but we’re not saying anything that a lot of political observers aren’t.

Romanoff continues to be silent in terms of any sort of platform — hell, we haven’t even seen talking points — that mention what he believes in and why you should vote for him over incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet. While Bennet makes national headlines with his bold statement that he would risk losing his seat over his vote on health care reform, Romanoff says…nothing. About anything. (Well, except for talking about how he’s a leader and stuff, which is, in a word, pointless).

The criticism aimed at Romanoff’s campaign has largely been about the total absence of any position, yet inexplicably he keeps feeding the beast. Witness, if you will, an email sent today from the campaign with this headline” “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

We’d normally make a joke here, but this narrative has gone from amusing and ironic to confusing to just, well, just plain sad. A candidate criticized for not having a position on anything sends out an email with the headline “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” Are they trying to look silly?

Full text of said email below.

“If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

I was reminded of that line today when I read about the GOP’s new Contract with Colorado, dubiously dubbed the “Platform for Prosperity.”  We should educate our workforce, rebuild our roads and bridges, and save for a rainy day, the platform says – but we don’t want to pay for it.

Click here to call their bluff.

This is not a new trick.  It’s one of the oldest in the political playbook: Promise the voters anything they want, and then hope that no one bothers to do the math before the election.

Such short-sighted schemes are one of the reasons our economy is ailing.  It’s the same sort of fact-free snake oil that so many seductive salesmen – from politicians to predatory lenders – have been peddling.  

Instant gratification, by definition, doesn’t last.  And the side effects can be devastating: ever-deepening debt, rising foreclosure rates, a crumbling infrastructure.

We can do better.  We can put an end to partisan gamesmanship.  We can demand leaders who solve problems rather than point fingers or pick fights – and we can hold those leaders accountable.

Principled leadership.  That’s what I’ve sought to provide for the past eight years, first as a state legislator and then as speaker of the House.  It’s what I’ll bring to the U.S. Senate.  The stakes we face are too high to settle – or fall – for anything less.

Tweet
Share

Comments

75 thoughts on “Head, Meet Brick Wall. Commence Banging”

  1. This focus on the state-oriented Contract On Colorado/Platform For Prosperity might cause one to wonder why Andrew didn’t look a little closer to home for an incumbent to primary if he’s upset about being passed over for the Senate seat.  That was my immediate reaction when this message arrived in my Inbox.

  2. I thought that it was a resonable & appropriate response to the local GOP’s silly attempt to revive Gingrich’s contract with America.  Why bother to slam Romanoff? It’s a press release-not a 100-point program!

    The breathless, invented urgency that Pols brings to the Bennet-Romanoff (and prior to that, to the Repub scramble)is fun to read, but not necessarily fact-based.

    1. It’s surprising to read such an over-the-top attempt to lampoon Romanoff on…oh wait, I forgot what Blog I was on. No, this fits perfectly on Pols. 🙂

      I can’t think of why Romanoff would want to release a campaign platform on the scale that ColoradoPols is asking for while we’re still a year away from the election. No one would pay attention and you’d give your opponents tons of time to poke holes in your arguments, create advantageous differences, or search for inconsistencies in your record. Bennett doesn’t have that luxury, because he’s in office. He has no choice but to go on the record about big issues. As evidence of this, look no further than the above press release.

      I think most voters will make a decision based more on personality than on policy anyway. I mean, this is a Primary between two mainstream Democrats. They’re going to have similar platforms. Like last year’s Obama/Hillary primary, it’ll come down to a question of likability.

      1. perhaps you should head over to Square State where he has already achieved Sainthood. Preaching to the choir is what he and his faithful followers do best, don’t you?

            1. I’m not a long time pro at this political blogging crap-er stuff

              but I lurked here for awhile and then joined to start yaking and I feel like I could come here and post almost anything.

              I feel like if anyone posts there they’ll need medical treatment or at least a good scrubbing before and after.  I can’t get into words- but …ewww.

              1. Ideology seems to overrule common sense and I really find it hard to take a blog seriously, including DKos, when they feel they simply must have a “troll” or “hide” rating system in order to function as a blog. I mean really. Is there really any comment that will be so horrible that it must be hidden from my sight? When a blog treats me like a child, I usually do what a child does–rebel and run away. Which maybe explains why they have 5 regular bloggers and this place has hundreds.  

        2. I like this blog 100% of the time, but that doesn’t mean I need to agree with it 100% of the time. The only blog I’d agree with that often is called “ColoSquare Creates the Coolest Ideas Ever” but I’m too lazy to get that off the ground.

        3. all Romanoff has ever had to do in his little safe state legislature district campaigns. Did he think a senatorial campaign would be pretty much the same only bigger?

          2. I don’t think he’s ready for primetime. I’m not convinced he would be doing much better if he were the only candidate running on the Dem ticket.

            Look at his fundraising last quarter–70% came from Denver based donors. Seventy percent. That’s as localized as you can get and that’s good news when you are running for your House district in your state, not when you are running for the United States Senate. I was stunned to see Wade Norris actually bragging about that.

            I think Romanoff is getting some pretty rookie advice from some good hearted folks that don’t have a clue what it takes to run a race in the big leagues (I’ve seen them all enthusiastically tooting his horn on Daily Kos as if blogging there will surely win him the primary) and if he hasn’t raised at least $2 million this last quarter, I can’t see him convincing anyone other than the hard core faithful that he’s doing the Democratic Party an ounce of good by staying in a race he will surely lose.

            I’d suggest he take a page from the Republican play book (ie. Penry) and if his numbers are not outstanding in the 4th quarter, he step aside for the good of the party and for the future of this seat staying in Democratic hands.  

              1. than mine, quite frankly. I was trying to cut the guy a little slack but he has to post at least 3 million this quarter just to be in the same ballpark as Bennet, let alone what he needs to start socking away for the general.  

                1. asking for support for Romanoff.  Had nice conversation about why I was supporting Bennet and even the gal calling admitted she thought Bennet was doing a good job.  Could offer no concrete compelling policy reasons to support Romanoff over Bennet (Did see something in today’s Post about Romanoff being more enthusiastic about contents of Wall Street Regulation Bill while Wall Street friendly Bennet more cautious on details but that never came up) besides referring me to their site to see bills Romanoff has been instrumental in passing in the state legislature.

                  If this is all they’ve got at this point they really need to accept reality. Especially since pulling together to support Ritter has become such a necessity.  This campaign has passed lame, passed weak, and seems to have arrived at utterly pointless distraction. Time to put a fork in it.  

                  1. If Romanoff raise $2 million this last quarter, as far as I’m concerned, he should stay in at least until the caucuses and let the best man win. If he raises a penny less, he needs to step aside in the greater interest of keeping a Democrat in the Senate.

                    I can’t find a single issue that he differentiates on, he hasn’t been out advocating for health care reform (and to those that say he isn’t in office so doesn’t need to be, I suggest you see Darcy Burner for an example of how to use your political clout even when you don’t serve in office) and he doesn’t seem to get back to people who are voters that want answers.

                    I hope that by ignoring everyone this is a signal that Romanoff is burning up the phones, raising dollars. Otherwise, this is the worst run campaign I’ve seen in ages. I think you are getting called because his campaign is trying to line up caucus support, which is smart. But if he doesn’t have the money to run or if he continues to run a feeble campaign, I can’t see him being able to explain to a Democratic voter why they should continue to support him.

                    1. Without a strong Q4, Romanoff won’t have the money to actually run a statewide campaign unless the entire staff works for free. In order for him to win the caucus, Romanoff will need field people in every major county, which is a lot of money tied up in staff. He’ll also need to spend a lot on mail and office space. This is all terrible timing for Romanoff, because Q4 is always the worst quarter for fundraising with the holidays.

                      We wouldn’t at all be surprised if Romanoff is no longer a candidate for Senate in January. Depending on his fundraising, he may not be able to actually run a full campaign. Then he would have a tough decision to make; it’s one thing to lose a primary to a tough incumbent, but if Romanoff did poorly at the caucus — which will be naturally stacked in his favor — then his political future will be decimated.

                    3. to dump Bennet for Romanoff is doubtless not terribly good for raising Colorado money.  Neither is the growing perception that the campaign is going nowhere and you might as well flush your money down the toilet. That and the fact that Bennet is the guy who commands out of state money from various sources as the incumbent Dem Senator make it pretty much a foregone conclusion that enough money is just not going to be there. Fork in it time is here.

                    4. 1. Bennet is friendlier to immigration reform. He sponsored the Dream Act.  Romanoff was involved in the special session that squashed tuition equity.

                      2. Bennet is still thinking about EFCA. Romanoff is in favor of private ballots (anti-union).

                      3. Romanoff is more progressive on education policy, yet Bennet is more realistic about what it will take to save schools from a financial point of view.

                      Otherwise, I think they are identical.  

    2. “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything”

      The implication is if you don’t stand for much, you’ll fall for some things.  Based on the content of the Romanoff website, and the campaign emails (so far) he stands for:

      – fundraising

      – really, really wanting the job

      – a track record of moderate leadership

      All good things. But sort of vague generalities.

      As for reasonable and appropriate – sure.  If he’s going to win my support in the primary however, he better start breathing fire. Bennet seems reasonable and appropriate too.  ANd he also seems focused on national issues.

      Is the Senate general election going to come down to the P4P? I doubt it.  Have Wiens or Norton even commented on it?  And if they did- did anyone care?

      It is local. Let the locals figure it out.

  3. Everyone is tripping over themselves to criticize and bash McInnis for issuing a  Platform for Prosperity but then CoPols criticizes Romanoff for not having a platform. Go figure!  

        2. Obama had positions- you and your’s saying otherwise didn’t change that reality.

          McInnis has a slogan and some talking points.  He may have well developed policy positions- he may not. We don’t know yet and the P4P doesn’t tell us.

              1. First this was in response to Ellie and I got confused about what was being compared to complaints about Obama. Somehow read that as response to complaint about Romanoff not having a platform. Sorry.

    2. The point is that Romanoff is responding to a platform being offered by the GOP candidate for Governor. Romanoff is running for the Senate. His response would make far more sense if he was still in the State Legislator. It’s like the guy doesn’t even know what office he’s running for.

      And the larger point is that several folks have asked him about specific issues and have gotten no response. To say we don’t know what he stands for isn’t being spiteful or catty. It’s just being honest–at this point, I haven’t got a clue what he’s doing and after reading this, I’m not sure he does either. Hell, I don’t think he even knows what office he’s running for.

      1. The reason every available Republican in the state was on hand for the unveiling of this platform is because they want to unite as one under this 15 year-old banner. That’s why every Democratic leader worth their salt should be at work to undermine it. Senate Candidates included.

        1. By pointing out that he has even less of a plan than they do? And by pointing out that he isn’t running for governor? I call bullshit. This is a platform being offered by the gubernatorial candidate for the state of Colorado. If Romanoff were in the State House, it would make sense to speak up. He isn’t. This is nothing more than a feeble attempt at fundraising.  

          1. No argument here on that. Maybe I should have called it something like a “Contract with Colorado” (or whatever lame title the GOP finally decides on).

            It seems pretty clear, though that this was an attempt to create a long-term singular message, with McInnis as the front guy rather than the only guy. Since there’s still a Primary on the Senate side, he is the most logical focal point for the CO-GOP to rally behind.

            That makes it fair game for Romanoff to use to poke at the Republicans and activate his supporters. I hope he had 5 big “Click Here to Contribute Today!” links on the email. That’s the real test of whether he should have sent out this critique.

      2. I’ve asked repeatedly for an interview and have never received a response. At least the McInnis team was active enough to tell me no thanks.

        Come on Andrew, you should at least handle this as well as McInnis (yes different race).

        1. that he emailed the campaign four to six weeks ago and still hasn’t gotten a response. Even if they are playing catch up and eventually do get back to folks like you and Twitty, that’s a bad precedent that won’t soon be forgotten.

    3. platform.  Just as calling a 4-page document with no numbers a ‘budget’ doesn’t make it a budget.

      McInnis is against the stimulus (it’s right there in the ‘platform’) so he goes to a business that gets stimulus money.  He’s against wasteful spending, unless he actually has to identify it.

      etc. etc.

    4. And we said as much. Our issue with their platform is that it doesn’t make sense – you can’t do what they call for and also fix the budget.

      We’re not saying Romanoff needs to issue a 30-page outline of his policies. Far from it. But he needs to outline SOMETHING if he is going to differentiate himself from Bennet.

  4. I’m a Romanoff supporter, but the “action” links in this email that take you directly to the ActBlue page? Draws a correlation between donating to Romanoff and fighting the Contract on Colorado that I just don’t see.

    Also, he needs a new dictionary. Instant gratification can last, just doesn’t usually.

    /crankiness

    1. solicit funds. Surely he has a paid campaign fundraising coordinator at this point on staff that ought to know how to raise funds better than this. This is little league stuff.  

      1. maybe AR is going to do something so astonishing and mind blowing (soon) that he’ll have more media attention than all the other candidates in this cycle combined.  Maybe he can get some more Rachel love.  Maybe, and I mean just maybe, he’s about to get it together.

        Maybe not.

        1. I agree with your comment above–he knows what office he wants and he wants it bad. He’s wanted it since Salazar got appointed to the Interior. The problem, as you succinctly pointed out, is that he has absolutely no idea how to run a campaign where there is a real opponent and it’s larger than a safe Democratic House district. He’s running for the Senate and raising money for his run like he’s running for the State House.

          I really wanted him to be appointed back in February. Now I’m thanking God he wasn’t because he is proving to be awful at campaigning and raising the money it will take to be competitive. I not only need a candidate that can stand up for health care (which is really a deciding factor in my support for Bennet) but also one that recognizes that this race is going to require millions of dollars. It’s an ugly reality but it’s also the truth–this race is going to be costly and if our candidate doesn’t have the support of out of state contributors, we are dead in the water. Bennet does. Romanoff doesn’t. Hell, he can’t even raise more than 30% of his funds outside of Denver.

          1. Let’s be fair here. If Romanoff were running for an open seat against a Republican, or from an appointed position, I don’t doubt he’d be dazzling us. He’s shown in the past he’s an engaging and effective campaigner. The problem is, he’s never had to run a campaign against a Democrat, much less one with whom he probably shares most views, and more than that one who can get in the news every day for grappling with urgent questions. It’s not an easy needle to thread for a lifelong Democrat to run hard against another.

            2. He’s not ready for primetime and I don’t think it’s just because he’s running in a primary. He can’t seem to step outside of the local campaign mode/mentality. It’s killing his momentum, it’s killing his fundraising and I have serious doubts that he would be dazzling me right now if he were the only candidate running on the Dem side.

              1. Though if Romanoff were running unopposed, instead of against an incumbent Democrat, he could have Craig Hughes and Co.  running his campaign instead of the Denver Backwater Bunch, and that’d make a huge difference.

          2. It’s a little funny. But it would be funnier if he had kids. And then it would also be mean.

            But if he started dating Paula Abdul or Daryl Hannah or Alex Rodriguez or almost anyone mega famous- that would get the media attention.

  5. Not the super liberal that his activist base wants people to believe. Bi partianship means compromise with Republicans, let alone conservadems or “blue dogs.”

    The cadidate doesn’t match the profile his passionate supporters evoke. His record, while impressive, does not match the super liberal neither. One need look no further than a statement from the house backing the war in Iraq to see that.  

  6. I love Andrew and yet I was VERY surprised to see the title of his e-mail coming on the heels of Bennet REALLY standing for something… health care reform. Bennet STOOD for it in such a strong way on national tv! I thought Andrew’s e-mail was going to congratulate Sen. Bennet on standing for health care reform. Which I am doing here.

    1. But it’s a  problem- at least here in CoPols land.  We’ve sort got this theme here of “tell us how you’re different…why we should toss out an incumbent who seems to be doing pretty well and agreeing, even when he clearly does agree, is problematic.

      But thanks for your acknowledgement- I live about as far south of Denver as CD4 is north, but I remember you.

  7. means that Romanoff will have to convince the party faithful that he can fill the office better than Bennet has. Running against Scott McInnis will not accomplish this. He needs to start running, seriously running, to have any chance of even being in this race in six months let alone win the general

    1. I run into more people who started out strong for Andrew and just don’t see it happening anymore.  Seems like most of the grownups are getting behind Bennet because he keeps giving us good reasons to and Romanoff keeps failing to give us any  compelling reasons to kick Bennet to the curb for him.

      1. People aren’t opposed to a primary, or a challenge to Bennet, they just wish AR would either actually run a campaign or get out of the way.  It’s getting rather pathetic.  

  8. After reading this post and the comments, I’m starting to feel sorry for Romanoff.  It gives me an urge to support him.

    wait….am I falling for his strategy? That would be tres sneaky!

  9. with “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything,” maybe Andrew should take a spin back in time and listen to some Kenny Rogers: “You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, know when to walk away, know when to run.”

    Just fold ’em and walk away, Andrew. You should have challenged Ritter.

      1. A primary challenger — or any candidate, for that matter — has to look like he WANTS to win. So far, I’ve seen nothing resembling a “fire in the belly” from Romanoff. We already know he’s a nice guy, but being a nice guy isn’t much of a basis for a statewide political race.

  10. but he should have waited to run until he was ready. He doesn’t have enough money, quality strategists, and a defined message. As one of his previous supporters, I cringe watching him right now. I hope he will publicly admit he is not different enough from Bennet and save his reputation for another race.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

197 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!