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%
December 05, 2009 01:29 AM UTC
111 Comments
Loading ...
for granted. His staff certainly isn’t.
I read the Denver Post (or was it Colorado Independent) write up about his visit and the only thing that I ardently disagree with is his disdain for funding his campaign outside the state. I would bet dollars to donuts that he won’t say not to DSCC $$$ if he is the candidate to win the primary. He seems to lump any out of state donation into one category. Frankly, it makes me nervous how clueless he seems to be about how much money it will take to win this race. I agree that public financing of campaigns would be great–it would also be great if I became a millionaire next year but the reality is neither of those things are realistically going to happen.
Other than that, I enjoyed seeing some definitive answers to questions.
But it’s SOMETHING. Whether or not it will be effective is a discussion worth having–and seeing it would probably help Romanoff greatly–but something is better than nothing.
Money is the biggest problem facing his campaign right now. Before it was money, and not having some kind of message.
And thanks for mentioning the Colorado Independent write-up, because it was a lot better than mine.
http://coloradoindependent.com…
for a personal viewpoint. Good job and well done.
Coming from you all, that means a lot to me.
Who ever said that?
I’ve never seen any indication that Senator Bennet thinks is going to be anything other than what it will be: a tough primary followed by a tough general.
I don’t see the Senator taking anything for granted- except that it is going to be hard.
As proof- he started campaigning soon after his appointment was announced. He started fundraising just as fast. He’s been throwing down million dollar months all year – which is going to be necessary if not in the primary then in the general.
I’d be interested to see the last non-incumbent to win the nomination in a major race like this without PAC or big outside money. I’m glad he shined- esp on the home court.
His website is a little better. But his graphics are a lot better- not so much on the website, but on Facebook. the black invite for the thing at the Merccury looked pretty good.
http://www.facebook.com/event….
Though the “Colorado is Our Cause” (italics mine) message makes it sound like Colorado is homelessness, breast cancer, or something. Colorado is not a cause.
Let’s not get carried away. He’s been raising a little over a million bucks every quarter so far.
really raise some funds (but hey, at least his number of instate donors will go up this quarter, right?) is being Administered by non other than Johne from Square State, who was also recently appointed Romanoff’s new Media Director.
A guy who lives to hide comments and ban users and has pretty much killed a progressive blog is now in charge of media for Romanoff’s campaign. And people wonder why I’m backing Bennet…
Romanoff was in Trinidad, Walsenburg and Pueblo yesterday. Don’t know the details of the first two. There were two fundraisers in Pueblo. One was an invitation only high dollar event. The other was a $20 meatball dinner. Have no idea how much was raised.
As for Bennet, he was the keynote speaker at the JacXPres (local Democratic club) annual dinner last month. My understanding is that he agreed to speak before Andrew got into the race. What concerns me is that there appears to be no organized campaign activity on Bennet’s part in Southern Colorado. Is he planning on the metro area carrying him?
but Bennet is certainly getting well organized in northern Colorado and that’s hardly “metro” by any stretch of the imagination. You do raise a good question, though and I’d suggest you email his campaign and ask them. That’s a large area with quite a bit of potential.
and my cousin, who ran the Chamber of Commerce for 15 years in Trinidad. She also made and sold commerials for comcast from Pueblo South to the Trinidad border. She knows every Democrat in Las Animas County, and has been very active in ballot initiatives impacting Trinidad.
n/t
If the cake was good enough, I might even bid.
More than anything, I was referring to myself. I’ve been less-than-kind to AR on this site, and on Wednesday I got a little reminder that Romanoff is still Romanoff. He was very impressive.
OTOH- he has a good day, on his home turf, in his base. I’m glad for him – but thank god.
He should now take that show on the road- Mesa, Adams, CDU, UNC, Colorado COllege, and some others.
He’s running for the U.S. Senate, meets with students billed as a “foreign policy discussion” the day after Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, and Afghanistan isn’t discussed?
From your post, sounds like he talked about everything BUT foreign policy. Is something being left out here?
Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
Sorry I didn’t mention it. It wasn’t really part of his overall message.
Since the event was the day after the President’s speech, I don’t think he had time to fully formulate his position. Here’s the Independent’s summary of that part of the conversation:
IMO, it sounded like he was more against the troop surge, and in favor of the civilian surge, but maybe the Independent heard it a little better than me. I wasn’t taking physical notes, just mental ones.
I would find it hard to believe it was billed as a “foreign policy discussion” and Afghanistan was not discussed. But again, if it was billed as a “foreign policy discussion”, why wasn’t it a significant part of his overall message? I’m confused, and I think this maybe why the general public is confused as well about his candidacy.
I like Romanoff, and like a lot of Democrats either he, or Ed Perlmutter would have been my furst choice for the Senate seat. And I’ll probably vote for him over Bennet, who gives me a queasy feeling over his corporate connections.
But Romanoff’s campaign has been disjointed and lacking focus (and I speak from having some experience working on campaigns and even managing one years ago). He has failed to even garner much support from posters on Pols, which is a predominately liberal, activist blog, which should be his base.
If your going to depose the king, you better have a damn good reason for doing so, and I just haven’t seen the message put forth by Romanoff for doing so.
Admittedly I am a critic of the buildup in Afghanistan, so I am looking for some “profiles in courage” responses from local pols and candidates opposing the Afghanistan escalation.
I was hoping that Romanoff would come out in strong opposition like Polis (who stated unequivocally not one more soldier should be sent there), but unfortunately he’s hedging his bets just like DeGette, Perlmutter, and others.
That could have been the issue he could have used to differentiate himself, to energize the base, but looks like its not going to happen.
The event was billed a foreign policy discussion by the Metro State Poli Sci Dept, but when Romanoff got up there, he made it clear that we could ask about anything we wanted to.
It’s possible that the MSCD poli sci profs had a different idea of what the event would be than the Romanoff campaign, and they found a way to have both their interests met.
There were several questions about Afghanistan, but the issues ran the gamut.
I’ve done a few posts on here in which I reported on events I actually attended, so I appreciate the time and effort you made to attend the event and report on it.
Plenty of open source data exists. He basically just copied Sen Bennet’s statements. To be fair, Sen.Bennet needs to come up to speed more on the issue as well. He had planned on visiting Afghanistan two weeks ago, but the trip was cancelled to vote on moving the health care bill forward.
As an AIPAC member, I find it somewhat distrubing that empahsis has not previously been spent by either candidate becoming very familiar with the situation prior to now. It has been on onging engagement.
Also, It still bothers me as an American that nobody really cares about bringing Bin Laden to justice. He killed 3000 Americans
in as devastating surprise attack as Pearl Harbor.
Of course, GWB could have sent the US army to Afghanistan in numbers to capture or kill him. He chose to send them to Iraq on either a personal vendetta, oil grab, or both.
I can say that Sen Bennet opposed the war in Iraq openly from the start. The Speaker voted to endorse GWB’s invasion of Iraq in the state house. .
The Iraq war has obviously been won by Iran regarding increased leverage, politcal influence, and military aggressiveness.
The issue facing most Americans today is the economy and the lack of regulations for the banking industry. The fact that they are still responsible for our poor economy has many Democrats and Independents losing enthusiasm about the change we need ever happening. And most blame incumbent politicians for taking money from special interests and voting for legislation that favors these same industries as can be argued is the case with Michael Bennet.
I will tell you right now that I don’t favor the Afghanistan war but I also don’t favor another attack and there appears to be evidence that Al Qaeda is going strong in that area. I think Obama has been up front about this issue and not knowing what he knows I’m willing to give him the benefit of a doubt as many progressives are doing. He has an awful mess to clean up and I’m going to support him in hopes that he can bring some kind of orderly exit from that region. It scares the hell out of me that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and Pakistan’s nuclear weapons may wind up in the hands of Al Qaeda.
Romanoff can win on the banking issue and campaign reform and he is articulating this strategy to his supporters and those who are listening.
GWB and Paulsen did the give away. Sen. Benmet supports financial regulatory reform and knows what questions to ask.
Just because Bennet reads the bills, which as mentioned not everyone does (you can extrapoloate that if you wish) does not mean that he doesn’t support stiff reform.
It does bring up the questions of the Speakers finances. It would be interesting to note how a man on a 30k salaray (maybe 50k at most with teaching assignments) affords to pay 27k out of his own pocket for a poll. His trips abroad may have been funded by NGO’s, or by other leadership non-profits, but it would be prudent to know where his money comes from. He should have declared in February to mount a serious challenge. Instead, he was off visiting the Mediteranian and the Middle East.He came back and pursued the Lt.Governorship. Perhaps he is just independently wealthy.
Once again, the Speaker’s lifestyle does not match the profile his supporters put out.He is not a super iberal. He is a DLC conservative Democrat. He has been for years.
I had told him that I wouldn’t attack him, but that was based upon my assumption that his campaign would be a high road campaign.
Instead we find his suppporters dissembling Sen Bennet’s record over and over again. It’s happened too many times to be a coincidence.
Bending rules appears to be ok with his supporters, too. The CDP captain in HD5 cancelled an HD5 meeting and held a fundraiser for the Speaker at the same time and location as the planned HD5 meeting. This was over the objection of at least one member of HD5. Its up to the state party to investigate if any rules violations took place, but it’s clear that we will be in the arena of what the definition of “is” is.
Of course Romanoff can win on the issue and he will win on this issue and I’ll tell you why. Bennet is trapped with his millions. He has and will continue to vote in favor of the banks while leaving his constituents homeless, unemployed and by and large living in poverty. And no matter how complex and perplexing the issue seems people know that the banks caused the collapse of our economy and they are unforgiving. Bennet has painted himself in the corner and he will lose on this issue.
options in the poll rsb. How about, “never lost his way in the first place but is a little more shrewd than you, pols, and a handful of Bennet supporters think.”?
What did Andrew have to gain by thundering out of the chute and spending his money and energy when the electorate isn’t engaged? Nothing, I think.
I am looking forward to a primary between two honorable, honest and capable men in a debate focusing on issues and policy. Won’t that be refreshing?
Our criticism has always been the same – he hasn’t articulated a message or reason for why he should be elected instead of Bennet. If he doesn’t draw clear distinctions between himself and Bennet, then voters will just choose the incumbent.
What money? He hasn’t raised enough to hire a decent staff, for God’s sake.
that’s not fair. First, you gotta define “decent”.
Then we can thrash the staff.
Romanoff is the underdog in this race, both in terms of money and perception. Had he been appointed, rather than Bennet, he would be enjoying the same advantages Bennet is enjoying.
His campaign, up until very recently, hasn’t really offered anything in the way of a serious message. He didn’t even have an issues page on his website until a couple weeks ago.
Romanoff hasn’t ever really been in this position in his political career. He’s starting to get used to it, and I think if he can have more conversations with voters like he did on Wednesday, then he at least stands a shot.
“He’s not going to make this campaign about, in his words, the shortcomings of the other candidates in the race.”
Fine, but I want to know which policies he disagrees with Bennet. Didn’t anyone ask him at this event? Why are we having a primary fight over two candidates who apparently think, or at least vote, alike?
Also, what DNC resources are we missing (staff and money) because there is a primary fight? Let’s not think that the general election will be easy. We need all the help we can get, as soon as possible. If Romanoff cannot demonstrate serious fundraising ability this quarter, then he should get out of the race and let’s focus on the general election.
And I reiterate that what makes me the most nervous about Romanoff is his continued, dismissive attitude towards out of state fundraising and campaign contributions.
If he really believes what he is saying (and frankly, I don’t buy it and I don’t believe he does–I think he is saying it because he is waaaaaaaay behind in fundraising dollars,) then he has no business running for federal office until public financing becomes law in this country because he is wasting our time and potential national dollars we could be spending to beat the Republican opponent in this race.
You’re “nervous” about AR and you don’t even support the guy.
AR is apparently a naturally optimistic guy with a can-do attitude. It served him well when repubs dominated the leg and when Owens was gov.
It also served him very well when he participated in the Colorado Comeback–you know, when the dems took the statehouse and later most of the executive elective offices.
He was the one pushing the Colorado Comeback while the rest of the dems were whining about how red Colorado was and how difficult it was for dems to win offices. [apologies to the dems I know personally who held that failure-oriented attitude–it was a very prevalent attitude at the time].
As to his fund raising, either he’ll win or he won’t. He simply isn’t hamstrung by old attitudes or old models of action, like most people are.
Like having to hire actual staff or pay for real ads and phone banks?
I am glad to see AR stepping it up, I want to hear his ideas and positions. I don’t have a problem with a Primary. But seeing how much he can raise 4Q 09 and 1Q 10 will, in fact, say a lot. Old models or new–campaigns cost money and this one is going to be particularly expensive, both in expenditures from within campaigns and expenditures from without.
fundraising for those quarters says a lot to people who are convinced that only the $$ wins, and there is no other possible way to win.
IMO, AR just doesn’t think like that [although I don’t know for certain].
If he wins the primary, he’ll have plenty of money for the general. And since general election voters tend to vote for who they like, AR would probably win.
I submit, is to realize the publics’ susceptibility to a new populism ala Huey Long, without, of course, the corruption that went along with his administration.
I will say again that the anti-corporate, “Big Money as oppressor” message that worked for Huey, is at play once more.
The distance between the left and right is not as great as the distance between the haves and the have-nots. Whoever exploits this principle enhances their chance of getting elected. I do not see big, out-of-state money as an asset in the current political market.
Of course, I could be completely wrong about that.
…such as Safeway…
…and the ability of people to find and spread this information outside the confines of a few right-wing newspapers…
…then, if you need a job, you could consider getting a post signing the refund checks from Appointed One to his Townhouse Fellows in DC.
I would submit that the only harder thing than perceiving that things haven’t changed as much as you think is perceiving that things have changed more than you think. Might be that Hillary could speak to that.
Grassroots support is powerful. Effectively using the web is powerful. But even for those operations you need some staff and money.
And paid TV remains the most powerful method of campaigning. And that costs.
sucks.
In other words, I want to keep this seat and if Romanoff wins the primary, unlike you with Bennet, I’ll be working overtime to get him into office.
And I would prefer a candidate who has more than a “can-do attitude” and an “old attitude or old models of action” (golly gee, Opie, he’s swell) but no fucking money to run against his Republican opponent.
The lack of corporate PAC money is a huge difference, I think. And, it is not only an “issue” that voters care about, but also a comparison with Bennet that helps AR with the primary voters. I think AR ought to pound away at that difference at every opportunity (e.g., “someone is going to buy your Senator, how about one bought by you the voters?”)
I think you have a logic problem here.
Probably the Romanoff campaign wasn’t getting any coroporate money, so they thought that they’d try and make it an issue.
AR will get crushed by Norton with no corporate money were he to win the nomination. He isn’t exactly doing the Barack Obama and busting loose on online contributions.
PACs give money disproportionately to candidates who already vote, or presumably would vote, the way they like. The money, for the most part, buys access (to make their case when a bill comes up for a vote, or to suggest a bill for introduction), not votes. To some limited extent, you can use the distribution of money a candidate receives, relative to other candidates, as a loose measure of what they support, though one danger with this is that large PACs give money to both sides, just to hedge their bets.
In our current flawed system, the ability to attract large amounts of money is a rough measure of one’s perceived political capital. Yes, if a candidate is receiving a large amount of money, compared to both other candidates and similarly situated office-holders, from some interest whose current degree of influence you reasonably consider to be contrary to the public interest, then that could be cause for concern. But this game of “he received X amount of money from Y PACs, and so is in the pocket of such-and-such industry,” is really just noise.
The problem with your statement that Bennet taking PAC money is business as usual fails to explain the fact that he voted against legislation that was in line with what his paymasters the banks wanted. The cram-down legislation would have helped homeowners which I believe deserve to be helped more than the rich and corrupt banks but more important it would have helped our economy and yes the rich bankers who are now experiencing a wave of strategic foreclosures.
Coming from a business background that includes accounting, finance and economics his vote showed a) he knew nothing about the severity of our country’s economic downturn, 2) he showed an appalling lack of understanding of what the outcome of his vote meant and 3) he thought he was protecting his paymasters, the banks while screwing homeowners who really needed help. In the long run banks will suffer as well because when you take out the middle class in a society you take out the very customers who buy your products and services. We all benefit from a strong middle class. Everyone prospers. This is what Michael Bennet and many others I might add don’t grasp but they will because reality is here to stay and it isn’t pretty.
and am not commenting on the cram-down vote (and am implying nothing by not commenting on it now). I was responding to a specific fallacy, nothing more. His vote on cram-down may indicate loyalty to or an affinity for banking interests, or it may indicate that he has a different analysis from yours. Since we have no way of knowing which, it is not proof of either.
The mea culpa is on Bennet. He’s the one that needs to show he is working for his constituents not the banks. I see prima facie evidence in his contributions history and his voting record as well as his recent threat to join with the Republicans to block legislation that would regulate the banks.
We all know that Bennet eaned his money being a strong businessman.
Where did the Speaker get his money?
I repeat:
It does bring up the questions of the Speakers finances. It would be interesting to note how a man on a 30k salaray (maybe 50k at most with teaching assignments) affords to pay 27k out of his own pocket for a poll. His trips abroad may have been funded by NGO’s, or by other leadership non-profits, but it would be prudent to know where his money comes from. He should have declared in February to mount a serious challenge. Instead, he was off visiting the Mediteranian and the Middle East.He came back and pursued the Lt.Governorship. Perhaps he is just independently wealthy.
Once again, the Speaker’s lifestyle does not match the profile his supporters put out. He is not a super iberal. He is a DLC conservative Democrat. He has been for years.
The Speaker took roughly 76k in 2 state house races representing rougly 25% of his total funds. Tht’s not a lot of money for a stae wie race, but it is a very large amont fora safe state house district.
PAC’s the House Majority Project accepted money from under Speaker’s Romanoff’s watch totaled about 2.5 million and came from the likes of:
PHARMA
Eli Lilly
Anglogold Mining
JP Morgan Chase
Anadarko Petroleum Company
Mining for Colorado’s Future
Marathon Oil
I won’t stoop to the mudlinging that Sharon does when she says that Sen. Bennet has paymasters. He doesn’t. I happen to see a very large bank, and a large oil company on the list above. I don’t believe that Speaker Romanoff does either.
Still, it would be nice to know a little about how the Speakers’ international lifestyle is paid for. Or for that matter, how he has 27k to pay for a poll, and then chose to pursue the Lt. Governorship.
It would be interesting to see the results of that poll.
I like to stay focused on issues, and on how candidates will address those issues. A very high threshold has to be met, for me, before I’ll entertain any speculation, of any kind, about malfeasance, and, even then, I consider it an unfortunate distraction from the real issues.
Frankly, I have exactly as little interest in Andrew’s finances, both personal and campaign, as I do in Michael’s.
I remain adamant that we would be much better off focusing more on policies, and less on individuals. I believe that either Michael or Andrew would do an excellent job representing us in the senate, and have nothing but respect and good will for both of them.
I’d like to see this discussion, and this process, stay focused on issues, and on which of the candidates (including those of the Republican Party) is best suited to advancing our collective interests. Personal attacks and innuendo do not contribute anything of value to that discussion.
I can agree to disagree.I do that all the time.
I agree that it would be better to focus on policy.
Unforuntately, that is not what the Romanoff supporters have been doing since the Speaker entered the race.
This posting prompted me to revisit Romanoff’s website. Good news: he finally has an issues section that addresses four problems and includes a “Plan of Action” for each.
Bad news: the “plans of action” are full of platitudes that sound like they came out of McInnis’ mouth. Romanoff wants the Federal government to “expand” this, “strengthen” that, “Improve” here, “Repair” there, and “Invest” everywhere. Fine, but how might you pay for this Mr. Speaker? His only answer is: “performance based budgeting” and “establish a Commission”.
This sounds almost exactly like McInnis’ answer to how he would plug a $1 billion budget shortfall (“improve government program performance”).
Based on the above, I conclude that Andrew Romanoff is not a serious candidate for the US Senate.
Now I’ve not been happy with the depth of the answers on most politicians websites, but if the level of detail tells you about how well a candidate will do, I’d like Senator Bennet to have more information on how he’d pay for the healthcare bill on his website. Its not to knock either website, but to totally discount a candidate because they haven’t given you the budget that they’d use to pay for every single idea that they have on their website is disingenuous. I believe that the Senator is using “think innovatively and creatively and find a workable solution” as his solution for healthcare. Is that the standard for your decision?
You can’t cherry pick one quote – “think innovatively and creatively and find a workable solution”- and say hat’s all the Senator has.
see here
http://bennetforcolorado.com/i…
and here
http://bennet.senate.gov/issue…
and here
http://bennet.senate.gov/newsr…
There are more- but the point is the Senator has been and is being careful about providing as much detail as possible about how we pay for what we get, what we get, and how what we get saves us expense.
But for Speaker Romanoff if you can find one quote- that’s all you got.
Maybe others are right- he’s smart to save his big guns for later …when it will matter more. Somehow.
I’d rather get the DSSC in here next month and get to work running against the R’s.
So they are starting to get it in gear. Give him a couple of weeks to get more of this in place, then look and see what he has going.
When did he agree? I mean, what day did you get word?
When I posted here in a Romonoff discussion that I would like to interview him.
2. Ask him why he has permitted his supporters to put out that Bennet didn’t back the public option until September, when Bennet is on record in June
3. Ask him why he permitted Wade Norris to accuse Sen Bennt of being soft on climate change, when Susan Dagget is the best enviromental lawyer in town.
4. Ask him how he plans to raise 7 to 10 million if he should win the nomination
5. Ask him what kind of committee assignments he expects and how it compares to the HELF should he win.
6. Ask him why he opposes tuition equity and statwd that in 2006 that his legislative session on immigration was such a success when it makes Colorado one of the most anti-immigrant states in the union. i.e. human rights in our hemisphere.
7. Ask him how he manged to pay 27k for a poll in March on a 30k salary.
These are the nice questions.
I’ll put up a diary for questions then.
thanks – dave
Ask him to speculate on why Ray Springfield thinks that Wade Norris needs AR’s permission to write anything. How long did it take him to learn the secret high-signs while driving down South Broadway, or is it North 38th?
Ask him how he communicates his orders to critics of Bennet and whether it bothers him when they don’t hop to (as I gather from the premise of the RS’s question that Mr. Appointed’s supporters must be used to doing).
Ask him if he expects all of Mr. Appoionted’s supporters to disappear, unwilling to donate, if he isn’t the nominee, and if so, why. What isn’t he providing the lobbyists in Washington that The Appointed One is delivering?
Ask him whether he‘s running, or his wife, as evidently is the case with another candidate.
Ask him if his parakeet plans to fill in while he’s using the men’s room of the Senate. Does he believe in bisexual bathrooms? Does he call them bathrooms?
Ask him….
Either the Speaker has control over his suppoters and it is planned, or he does not and he is a poor leader.
Romanoff has been in the busimess too long to not be a leader.
I give him the benefit of the doubt. It’s a planned campaign tactic. He acts like a saint, while his supportere smear the opposition. It’s right out of Karl Rove’s play book.
One thing Andrew Romamoff is not is stupid.
When YOU helped me pass out ‘Friends of Andrew Romanoff’ stickers at the Jefferson Jackson Dinner in February, YOU heard me tell everyone there that I was not going to have any direct communication with Andrew Romanoff in case anything I did or wrote would be considered offensive. That is also why I did not speak to Senator Bennet when he came to the after party of the Young Dems (and you did)
I’d think you’d have a better memory of the events that you directly participated in.
The fact is, my first direct communication with Andrew via email was AFTER he announced and it was to congratulate him on the decision.
I also have video of me talking to Andrew at his campaign kick off verifying this information.
here is what you are missing, Ray, I have a much bigger fish to fry than who our next Senator is – and that is, what our next Senator will do about Climate Change.
So you once campaigned for Andrew and now you are comparing him to Karl Rove?
low blow dude
Ray seems to think he is the only one that can write about a candidate. We all have a right to free speech Ray whether we support a candidate or not.
thre was no campaign. I wer urging him to announe immediately. You continued to post draft Romaoff positions and appeared with him on several occasions in his build up to the announcement.
I believed him when he put out to not just my Rabbi (Andrew’s too) that he was not going to run.
If you are saying that you have no associaition or have not volunteered to work on his campaign then I’d like to see it in wrting.
Your attack on Sen Bennet had no merit on fact, and you all but admitted it in your article.
You have a right to free speech, but a cadidate has the right to veto that wpeech or to can you if you don’t follow his instructions.
Perhpas the speaker should put out that your views in no way epresnt his, and that you do not volunteeer for his campaign.
He better be able to guarantee that he can control every single one his supporters and stop them from saying anything that I think sounds negative about his opponent’s record…
/snark
and ask her if a House Disctrict Captain cancelling a house district meeting over objections, and then holding a fund raising event at the same time and place is within party rules.
She said on Satuday that it was not.
Romanoff has a better chance of winning, but you don’t support him because you LOVE your Obamabot appointee Bennet. Total SHEEPLE
I say unmitigated bull.
a) If he can’t win the primary, where it’s relatively safe and friendly, he cannot win the general.
b) If he is so much more electable, why?
c) Who’s going to win the R nomination?
Romaoff has been clearly less represented here, or flat out debated and has been missing in action on Coloradopols for at least a month.
you’re right. They’ve taken their toys and gone away. Somewhere.
And I no longer get AR email, nor FB announcements.
about which one of our candidates has the best chance to win.
I kind of like Bennet’s coming up with an amendment that every R and every D and every indie had to support and that rendered moot the lie about cutting seniors guaranteed medicare benefits myself. I think that showed smarts, imagination and leadership. Really made McCain and his robocall look lame, not that making McCain look lame is very hard to do these days.
I think it supports my view that Bennet will be a stronger candidate with a superior chance of winning. Also think that if Romanoff is serious about needing to keep Ritter as governor, he needs to end his divisive quest sooner rather than later. His campaign, based on the injustice done him by Ritter, cannot possibly be helpful to Ritter’s chances of retaining his seat.
I’m looking forward to the discourse.
GOPWarrior–unless you plan to vote in this primary, nobody gives a rat’s ass what you think.
We have so much to learn from the GOP and their independant minded base, I mean they are so vigorous in their vetting they’d never let anyone unqualified survive a primary. In fact, they just chuck em out without giving em a chance.
n/t
I’m just wondering, I don’t have a horse in the race. Why are you guys supporting Bennet? What’s the inherent quality he has, or the few awesome things he’s done, or amazing principled stands he taken?
Bennet to me is only what I’ve seen on CNN et al. since his appointment, and it’s been all vanilla. I haven’t seen anything to get me even remotely fired up about him, much less give me a strong preference for him over AR.
(On the other hand I have seen AR in a forum where he shared the stage with Joan F-G, Hink and Ritter, and he blew them all out of the water at that event.)
but
1) I just love that he got appointed. That by itself would probably be enough, I mean, c’mon he was appointed.
2) He’s never run for elected office before.
3) Oh, and he was endorsed by President Obama and I do whatever the President tells me I should do.
He’s risking a lot by being out in front on HCR. He’s been far better than Udall on that particular issue.
Policy-wise, he’s more in line with me than Ken Salazar was. In fact, even though I love Sec. Salazar, I think Bennet is more in line with the Democratic platform. He’s smart, he’s well spoken. He’s gotten seats on important committees like HELP and Homeland Security.
Aside from health care, he’s been quite vocal on another issue that could potentially hurt him in the general election–immigration reform. Sen. Bennet is a sponsor of the DREAM act, which would give tuition equity to students who may have come here illegally, but graduated from American schools.
And even though some argue that his incumbency isn’t real, it’s more real than Romanoff’s incumbency, which is zilch. Bennet is the only candidate who can claim that characteristic, and it’s important.
But I think that you have your preference, which is fine. I’ll gladly support either candidate in the general, and I feel a lot better about potentially supporting Andrew as the nominee after seeing him at this event.
1.He stands for HCR
2.He stands for a path to citizenship and the dream act
3. He has lead the healthcare fight in the Senate.
4. He has the best environmental advisor that a Senator could have, Susan Daggett.
5. He”s a family man that understands fmaily values.
6. He isn’t arrogant, but shows every constituent respect
7. Once he says he’ll do something, he sticks to it. He doesn’t waffle and change his mind. He keeps his word.
8. He’s been successful at everything he has ever done. He’s smart and adaptable.
9. He has a good relationship with the Democratic leadership as exemplified by his HELF committee assignment.
10. He reads the bills.Most politicians don’t.
11. He’s not willing to say anything to win. He’s prepared to lose to back his principles.
12. He has the endorsement of the President.
I for one am an Obama democrat and back the President. Other’s who were clearly johnny come lately’s last year, in the words of an African-American friend laugh at people trying to actually change this nation, while serving their egos and wallets rather than their constituents.
That’s a start
Lily Ledbetter. Didn’t he vote for Lily Ledbetter?
When he first came out about HCR, he was quite waffle-y, saying he supported it as long as there was money in the budget. He did not unequivocally voice support until AR jumped in.
As for the rest of what you list, like Lily Ledbetter, those choices are politically easy. In fact, it appears that he has decided to go all out on HCR because it is the hot topic of the moment, the legislation has been very watered down now, and many of his other positions are conservative [cram-down, financial reform], so he can stick his neck out on at least one issue.
The guy is, after all, a member of the Blue Dog Caucus.
Further, the community was very pleased that he voiced support for civil unions, and rights to health care, inheritance, and the right to be grated access in hospital visits.
I suppose that the Speaker’s supporters will now state that every thing that Sen Bennet supports will be answred by “me too, and I made you do it”
When legislation passes then I expect the same mantra. “Speaker Romanoff passed legislation” even though the Speaker does not currenty hold the chair.
It’s hogwash.
13. He shines his shoes, or has them shined, in odd-numbered weeks of even-numbered weeks.
14. He remembers to smile, at least sometimes.
15. He roots for Wesleyan whenever they play Amherst or Williams.
16. His eyeballs are in the right sockets, i.e. right in right, left in left.
17. He knows the richest man in Denver, even worked for him longer than any other single employer.
18. He didn’t mess up the DPS even more than before.
19. He settled for the Senate when he found there was no one to appoint him to the White House…yet.
20. He drives on the right side of the street while sober.
This is hysterical Jo. You should be a professional writer.
They don’t read the bills. They have no idea what they are voting for. When Bennet takes his time on an issue, it’s because he is interpreting the consequences of the bill.
I don’t think Spekaer Romanoff did that with the 2006 immigration conference. He announced how great it was, when in fact it makes Colorado one of the most anti immigrant states in the union. I don’t believe that Andrew Romanoff is against human rights. I think he either doesn’t understand the issue, or he didn’t read the bill.
Otherwise you would stop being such a target for Bennet.
You’re kidding, right?
she does that a lot. She claims that she was a Bush Republican that saw the light.
I wonder if she forgot to change party affiliation.
So consider the source….
I’m rusty though, havent played professionally in years.
Not too bad at backgammon
I suck at GO…you could probablt smear me at that
Ray
He stands for civil rights in America
Sharon
Unless you’re a card carrying member of the tea baggers you stand for civil rights.
Ray
1. He stands for HCR
Sharon’ response
It would be political suicide if he didn’t especially where he is screwing the middle class on regulating banks. Bennet can support one or two Democratic issues so he can bamboozle us while keeping the legal status quo for his paymasters, the banks. He’s a smooth operator for sure.
Ray
2.He stands for a path to citizenship and the dream act
Sharon’s response
This is also a non-issue. Most of us would like to see a legal path to citizenship that makes sense. This in my opinion does not differentiate Bennet from Romanoff. And don’t come back with the argument that Romanoff voted in the toughest immigration policies in our state – he fought like hell to water it down as best he could from the hypocritical, cheating then Governor Owens.
Ray
3. He has lead the healthcare fight in the Senate.
Sharon’s response
Says who? This is a flat out lie. He only weakly supported it in the beginning and then when Andrew Romanoff got into the race he started to realize if he didn’t tow the progressive line he would be defeated and he still may be defeated by Romanoff.
Ray
4. He has the best environmental advisor that a Senator could have, Susan Daggett.
Sharon’s response
This means nothing to me until I see him go up against his paymasters for his constituents and do what is right for the country.
Ray
5. He”s a family man that understands fmaily values.
Sharon’s response
This is fluffy propaganda. The Republicans are the ones with the family values remember?
Ray
6. He isn’t arrogant, but shows every constituent respect
Sharon’s response
He would have shown me respect by standing up for his constituents and not in favor of the banks by first voting for the cram-down legislation and now by agreeing to stand with the Republicans if the banks don’t get their way.
Ray
7. Once he says he’ll do something, he sticks to it. – He doesn’t waffle and change his mind. He keeps his word.
Sharon’s response
You are right especially where the banks are concerned. He really supports their issues. After all they have only destroyed our economy and continue to do so at an alarming rate.
Ray
8. He’s been successful at everything he has ever done. He’s smart and adaptable.
Sharon’s response
He has shown all of us that white privilege pays off in a big way in our society. He has done nothing to show he cares about the less privileged in our society.
Ray
9. He has a good relationship with the Democratic leadership as exemplified by his HELF committee assignment.
Sharon’s response
Who cares? At this point I like to see a bunch of them lose their seats especially the blue dogs.
Ray
10. He reads the bills.Most politicians don’t.
Sharon’s response
OMG I’m speechless. Can someone help me out with this one?
Ray
11. He’s not willing to say anything to win. He’s prepared to lose to back his principles.
Sharon’s response
Yes sticking up for the banks shows he has principles.
Ray
12. He has the endorsement of the President.
Sharon’s response
So does Joe Lieberman and Arlen Spector.
That’s a start
Presumably The Appointed One’s supporters–and Ray Springfield is a knowledgeable, good guy, no mistaking that–go with whatever they can dredge up. I gotta wonder why the One’s frequency of showering wasn’t listed… Hmmmm.
answer the fact that major differences exist between my points and th Speakers’.
The Rpesident and SEn harry Reid have acknowledged that SEn Bennet has lead the fight for health care.
I know many of you don’t like the Rpesident and nevver supported him in the first place, but he is th President.
His immigration policies clearly differ from the Speaker’s formerly stated postions. The Spaker stated he opposed tuition equity because it would dissapont yung people that they have a US degree, and cannot owrk here. Well, A US degree is wuite markatal ion both North and South America.
I’m not surprised that I’m being persoanally attacked for pointing out some of these differences. I’ve grown used to it.
It is sad that the anonymous policy exists here though. I doubt that many flamers would not post the content of their material if they used their own name. It’s once again like the sheet over the head of the klansman.
The above should mention that a US BA is marketable in the Americas, and Europe, and truly all over the world. In addition, it would mark a step to giving people that have been marginalized like the Jews under the 1938 Nuremberg laws, human rights in our society.
Civil Rights in Africa have merit. Civll rights in our own back yard makes sense as well. I believe that this is similar to the response that Speaker Romanoff received from the Chinese. They told him that the USA has no moral grond to argue about Chnese civil rights abuses until it deals with its own civil rights issues, and international arms sales.
comapring it to the definitiion of a “BLue Dog”, but decided to wait on it in the interest of party unity.
It would sdaly dissapoint some of his supporters to find that his style of politics, acceptance of PAC money in the past, towing the DLC line, working with Republicans, fits the bill very closely.
I don’t like the term “Blue Dog”. It reminds too much of “runniong Dog” a term made famous by a man that wrote a little red book. For the younger generation that doesn’t know the reference that was a man named Mao.It does not accurately reflect any Democratic senator that i know of.
Opposition research works both ways.
I was at the same event and Romanoff did not say he was for “pay for what you burn, not what you earn” but only that he mourned the fact that that part of the debate was not even on the table because of corporate influence on the election process. I think it would be fair to change or at least update that part of your diary. I don’t think we need people thinking Romanoff would propose that or even advocate for it. He doesn’t. My impression is that he wants to see a more well-rounded debate.
Thanks.
If someone from the campaign would like to e-mail me or post something in an official manner, I will gladly update it with a correction noted.
“resurgence?” He’s getting buried in terms of fundraising and PR, so to believe that a single good appearance is a “resurgence” strains credulity.
Going from nothing to positive activity is an infinite increase. I don’t know if resurgence is the right word but they are definitely getting it in gear.
it’s a differential improvement, not an “infinite” one. 😉
He is still getting BURIED in fundraising, and has been utterly invisible in the news. I, for one, don’t think he has a clue about how to run a competitive electoral campaign (he never has had to), and his amateurish work so far has totally soured a lot of people, me included, on even the possibility of supporting him.
I know him and like him personally, and agree he can be quick-witted and engaging. But he simply has not demonstrated the ability to run a serious Senatorial campaign.
read this information about his latest move and tell me if you still think that is an accurate assessment.
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
joining with Romanoff indicates inability to you?
wow.
Remember The Appointed One’s appearance that snowy weekend in Kit Carson last February? That was pretty much curtains for Romanoff, or anyone else.
You don’t remember what he said? Errr, hmmm, I’ll get back to you on that. Might have been something about adjusting mortgage balances in case of bankruptcy… An obviously terrible idea, as explained quite ably in Washington townhouses if not in Colorado meeting halls.
It’s not about this event. It’s about the fact that, up until this event, the campaign was kind of bumbling along. He has a message now. If he can pick up the fund raising pace then maybe he stands a chance.
If you don’t think that Romanoff is the underdog in this race, you’re completely delusional. No amount of animosity you or other have for Bennet is going to change that. He has a lot of ground to pick up, and having a message is a big part of that.
1. Is being the incumbent the place to be this year?
2. Is being perceived as the representative of lobbyists in Washington the way to be perceived this year?
3. Ah, an investment banker! That’s what I’d want to be as a qualification to run for office for the very first time since 6th grade (and I woulda been elected class secretary then if it weren’t for that Sally Smithers!).
4. Feel like betting on the turnout in a primary? That is, betting on odds over 70%? Ok, how about 65% 60%?
5. What’s Bennet’s message again? Screw those with dicey mortgages? Check. Take money from those screwing the grocery workers (with or without hot sauce; makes no difference)? Check. Be seen to be taking money from the pharmaceuticals and bankers? Check his list. Gotta get the money part right. Hey, Townhouse Man! Love the loafers! Thanks for comin’ by this evening! Any idea what $5,000 will get you here in the Lower Altitudes? Hell, we’ve got a vote comin’ up next week I think you’ll be interested in!
JO knows…