Under the Radar or Barely ON the Radar?

(Bumped into Thursday by popular demand – promoted by Colorado Pols)



Politico takes a look at Democrat Andrew Romanoff and his challenge to Sen. Michael Bennet, coming to many of the same conclusions that we’d already reached:

Romanoff’s campaign is shaping up to be a far lower-profile — and less damaging — effort than Democrats anticipated. Three months after announcing his bid, Romanoff remains a distinctly under-the-radar candidate, picking up little media coverage and shying away from launching pointed barbs against his establishment opponent.

“I don’t think he’s been able to give an answer to the question, ‘Why are you running?’” said Floyd Ciruli, an independent Denver-based pollster. “It’s left the campaign without a clear constituency and without a clear message.”

Perhaps most surprising to state insiders, Romanoff has overseen a Senate campaign that is decidedly lacking in infrastructure. Sue Casey, a veteran party operative who ran Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 effort in the state, confirmed to POLITICO that she left Romanoff’s campaign in October – a departure that has left the campaign without a manager for the past several months…

…With Casey gone, sources familiar with the campaign say Romanoff has largely relied on a staff of informal advisers, including his cousin Melissa Caplan and Ken Gordon, a former Democratic leader in the state Legislature. Dave Hemrick and Tom McMahon, two veteran Washington-based Democratic strategists, have also been advising the campaign.

To Democrats in the state, Romanoff’s relative quietness in a contest many expected to be a barnburner has raised broader questions about whether he should have stepped into the race in the first place.

We first noted that Casey was out of the Romanoff campaign back in November, wondering who was driving and where they were headed. Some Romanoff supporters have jumped to his defense here on Colorado Pols, but we’ve just been calling it like we see it — despite the spin attempts.

“There’s no sense of momentum; there’s no sense anything is happening,” said another well-connected Democrat in the state. “I’m not sure anyone is running his campaign, quite frankly.”

In a statement to POLITICO, Romanoff spokesman John Schroyer said the team was “delighted with how the campaign is developing. The campaign staff continues to grow.” Schroyer noted that the campaign “has been endorsed by 200 elected leaders, has 900 volunteers … and has collected more than 2,600 contributions, with 95 percent of those from in-state donors.”

Look, this is what you are supposed to say when you are a campaign spokesperson — that you are “delighted with how the campaign is developing.” But no rational observer could look at this campaign and think everything is just swell.

The Politico article runs down basically the same issues and concerns that most Colorado political observers — including us — have had about Romanoff’s campaign. There’s no message, no clear direction, and not much to get excited about now that the potential of Romanoff as a candidate has given way to the reality.

The only part of the Politico article that we don’t agree with is Ciruli’s nonsense statement that a Romanoff victory in the caucus will make this a race; Romanoff is supposed to win the caucus because hardcore Democrats are more familiar with him. The real question is whether Romanoff’s campaign can make it that far.

236 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Libertad says:

    the massive corporate – political-class – law firm complex that has brought us so many other nifty things.

    Precinct captains and activists just might not have the appointment intensity that ushered the opponent into his latest appointment.

    40% of active Democrats are union members … aren’t they?

    Say, just what is the Senators position on Card Check-Forced Abortion Arbitration?

  2. caroman says:

    Here are the latest ActBlue fundraising numbers:

    Bennet  $1,306,097

    Romanoff  $212,328

    That is, Bennet has raised more than six times Romanoff’s amount.

    I hear the clock ticking on Romanoff’s “campaign”.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      it mentions on the 2nd page of the article that sources familiar with Bennet’s campaign are predicting he will rake in another $1 million plus for the 4th quarter. Romanoff pretty much has to raise between $2 and $3 million this quarter just to be competitive or it’s unlikely he will make it to March.

      Bennet’s been doing too good of a job in the Senate for the tired old chestnut of “Romanoff was the people’s choice all along” to gain much traction and that doesn’t seem to be much of a reason to vote for the guy when he is asking us to fire someone else. Like the article said, Romanoff can’t seem to provide an explanation for why he is a better choice. Period. The bitterness and constant assertion that because Bennet was appointed, his term in the Senate is somehow illegitimate, is embarrassing and beneath Romanoff worshipers. Would they have been claiming that if Romanoff had been appointed and Bennet was running against him? I’m betting they wouldn’t give a tinker’s ass if Romanoff had been the one appointed by Ritter.

      This ongoing claim that Romanoff was everyone’s choice all along and the rage over Ritter choosing someone else just makes AR and his supporters look petty and divisive.


      “I don’t think he’s been able to give an answer to the question, ‘Why are you running?’” said Floyd Ciruli, an independent Denver-based pollster. “It’s left the campaign without a clear constituency and without a clear message.”

      • caroman says:

        I can’t get an answer to what policy differences Romanoff has with Bennet (other than perhaps cramdown, on which I agree with Bennet).

        My other concern is that Romanoff’s candidacy blocks the DSCC from providing staff and cash resources for this race.  General election mail ballots will be arriving only six weeks after the August primary.  The general election is going to be tough, and we have to keep this seat.

        Tick-tock, tick-tock.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          Whatever happens with this caucus/primary, I am hoping that after this election cycle, both parties will wise up and move their primary dates back to the spring like Virginia. Our late date is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

        • wade norris says:

          with Bennet on Cramdown?

          By the way, that bill is getting re-introduced in the House for voting on December 9th.

          http://www.dailykos.com/storyo

          and here is why I think Bennet is wrong to side with the banking lobby (who he has raised a lot of money from) on Cramdown.

          (from Senator Durbin)

           

           One other argument that I think takes the cake: “Senator, you understand the moral hazard here. People have to be held responsible for their wrongdoing. If you make a mistake, darn it, you’ve gotta pay the price. That’s what America is all about.” Really, Mr. Banker on Wall Street? That’s what America is all about? What price did Wall Street pay for their miserable decisions creating rotten portfolios, destroying the credit of America and its businesses? Oh, they paid a pretty heavy price. Hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money sent to them to bail them out, to put them back in business, even to fund executive bonuses for those guilty of mismanaging. Moral hazard, huh? How can they argue that with a straight face? [...]

             We want America to be strong, but if it’s going to be strong, you should be respectful, Mr. Banker, of the people who live in the communities where your banks are located. You should be respectful of those families who are doing their best to make ends meet in the toughest recession that they’ve ever seen. You should be respectful of the people that you want to sign up for checking accounts and savings accounts, and make sure that they have decent neighborhoods to live in. Show a little loyalty to this great nation instead of just your bottom line when it comes to profitability. Take a little consideration of what it takes to make America strong…

             I’ll offer this Durbin amendment as I did last year. When I offered it last year, they said, “Not a big problem, only two million foreclosures coming up.” They were wrong. It turned out to be eight million. And if the bankers prevail today, and we can’t get something through conference committee to deal with this issue, I’ll be back. I’m not going to quit on this [...] At some point, the Senators in this chamber will decide, the bankers shouldn’t write the agenda in the United States Senate.

          • MADCO says:

            This kind of financial regulation is hard to actually understand even if it’s emotional appeal is easier to feel.

            No one wants to see anyone lose thier home and I love that Sentator Durbin is going to reintroduce this.

            But

            In the end it will not pass unless the fiscal pros in the Senate- including Bennet- get on board. And it’s not jus the votes.  When the banks counter that it will increase the cost to everyone- including those of us who have somehow managed to make all of our payment s as agreed- that’s the emotional appeal.  When they whine to Geithner (and Bernanke and et al) that they aren’t healthy enough yet to really take on this kind of expense (alpha) and risk (beta) – the finance guys in the room will agree.

            Not for nothing- when Bennet voted no, he had plenty of politcal cover to vote yes.  It still would have failed. (He was like vote 44 or 45 against- yes it needed 60)

            I disagreed with Bennet last Spring – concluding though it makes things more expensive and risky for everyone and that it would hinder the banks from stablilizing, since the taxpayers were bailing out the banks anyway we were paying fot it one way or another.

            I’m probably still with Durbin, but I understand Senator bennet’s vote- he’s right on the math.

            • wade norris says:

              This kind of financial regulation is hard to actually understand even if it’s emotional appeal is easier to feel.

              Bennet is going to have a really tough time explaining the ‘math’ of why he voted against homeowners staying in their homes through renegotiated mortgages during the worst recession since the depression.

              I’d say this is his achilles heel, and probably one of the main reasons Romanoff got in the race.

              • redstateblues says:

                probably one of the main reasons Romanoff got in the race.

                That’s just not true, Wade. He’s in the race because he wants to be in the Senate. I believe those are your words.

                  • allyncooper says:

                    But he needs an issue to do so.

                    Don’t confuse the two.

                    He should be out there making cramdown an issue, to differentiate himself from Benett, and tieing Bennet to the bankers (or at least the perception he’s tied into the bankers. In politics, perception is everything)

                    • MADCO says:

                      it’s complicated and at the end of the day it’s a loser in Arapahoe County. And El Paso & Elbert Park and most others.

                      It wins in Denver.    

                    • allyncooper says:

                      but then tell me what issue(s) he has to differentiate himself from Benett? Something that will resonate with the voters and provide a raison d’etre for his candidacy?

                    • MADCO says:

                      I support Senator Bennet.

                      He’s done and is doing a good to great job. I didn’t know him before January, but I got to know him and I like him.

                      Not that voting is all there is to the job, but he’s voted the way I would have on everything but one thing.  He’s a strong supporter of the President’s agenda. He’s smart (he thinks like me) and I have no reason to throw him out.   I also think he’s more electable in the general.

                      If AR was anti-Obama, or anti health insurance reform, or strongly anti-war in Iraq, or anti- war in Afghanistan  or a huge deficit hawk, or anti-global warming skeptic or he could differentiate himself in some way that would be a big help in the general, I’d think about it differently.  He can’t.  

                • Sharon Hanson says:

                  With all due respect redstateblues I don’t think you know how badly off many are. Those getting out of college will not find a job and having a middle class is virtually a memory to many Americans of better times.

                  Bennet supports the status quo and has said as much. He has a privileged background unlike you and I who have had to work hard to achieve meager wages. Bennet will ensure he sticks to his supporters, the banks and this is his weakness and where he is the most vulnerable.

                  And it’s not just Bennet the bankers will suffer too. The time of smoke and mirror profits is gone and what we have in its place is reality.  The truth will set you free though and Americans are coming around and realizing that thirty years of Reaganomics has left this country less competitive, in debt and undereducated.   And it has left our most valuable asset the people without a safety net.  We are in a world of hurt right now and the likes of those like Bennet has put us in this situation.  We need to wake up before it’s too late.

                  Remember the world works better when prosperity is shared and not in the hands of a few of the rich and powerful.  

                  • redstateblues says:

                    I just don’t think it was as big of a motivating factor for Romanoff entering the race as you and Wade do. He didn’t start making a big deal about it until well after he announced. He didn’t mention it in his campaign rollout. It’s not a centerpiece of his newly found message–though it is one of the few areas where Romanoff says he would have voted differently than Bennet.

                    But like I’ve said for a while now, it’s fair game for Romanoff to hit Bennet on that vote. I just think that if it was such a large motivating factor for Romanoff to get in the race, he’d be hitting Bennet harder on it.

              • JO says:

                “I expected the bankers to finance my campaign. (And they are, they are…)”

              • Ralphie says:

                Because he felt he was “entitled” and was passed over.

                Now he’s looking for contrasts, which is a good thing.

                But don’t pretend that those contrasts had anything to do with his candidacy, because they’re minimal at best and after the fact.

                I don’t even care who the candidate is.  Whoever it is will probably get my vote.

                Just don’t try to bullshit me.

              • MADCO says:

                The explanation is ez – if not warm and fuzzy

                cramdown would have made mortgages more expensive for everyone else and would have further destabilized the banks… Also it would have created incentive for people to abuse their lender

                Serisouly, Wade- how many additional homes were lost to foreclosure because cramdown didn’t pass?  Not that it would have passed with the Senator’s vote any way.

                main reasons?

                Huh? Why hasn’t he said so?

                Look- politically this issue is a loser. Not in northeast Denver, but just about everywhere else. And totally in the general. Dude.

                • Sharon Hanson says:

                  cramdown would have made mortgages more expensive for everyone else and would have further destabilized the banks… Also it would have created incentive for people to abuse their lender

                  Spoken like a true sock puppet. Housing prices continue to decline due to an ever increasing number of foreclosures. This puts those who pay their mortgages and those who own their home outright at risk by depleting the equity they have in their homes.

                  Abuse of lenders….those poor, rich lenders that needed to be bailed out by us tax payers to the tune of billions of dollars and no help for Main Street. And this is what you think will save Bennet?

  3. redstateblues says:

    Or, barring that, he should have been planning on how to overcome all of these challenges that were created by waiting in the wings.

    I still think that he made a good decision in refusing corporate PAC money, but that decision needs to generate a ton of small dollar donations from his core constituency. He also needs to find new donors, because the same people aren’t going to be able to cough up the dough quarter after quarter–unless it’s $20-$50 here and there, but that won’t be enough to compete.

    And as for the precinct caucuses, it’s not just that Romanoff needs to do well, he needs to absolutely cream Bennet. He needs to make a statement. Just “doing well” like Pols said, is expected, and won’t be enough to get it going in earnest.

  4. foconocoPeterFisk says:

    “There’s no sense of momentum; there’s no sense anything is happening,” said another well-connected Democrat in the state. “I’m not sure anyone is running his campaign, quite frankly.”

    A “well-connected Democrat in the state” could mean someone high-up in the Bennet campaign. What a ridiculous use of anonymous sourcing.  

    • redstateblues says:

      It appears to be the most closely guarded secret in Colorado politics. I’ve written the campaign a few times and have never received a reponse regarding the matter.

    • wade norris says:

      if a blogger like me were to use an unnamed source in a blog post, I’d get blasted on this site (and have been several times)

      It is surprising that CoPols doesn’t call out Politico for citing an unnamed source.

      • Colorado PolsColorado Pols says:

        Mainstream media, online media, blogs. We do it too. As we’ve said time and time again, the accuracy of the reporting and the news is what is relevant, not who is saying it.

        When we first started Colorado Pols, our first big story was that Rep. Joel Hefley would retire. Hefley went nuts, said it wasn’t true…and several months later he announced his retirement.

        Romanoff’s Senate campaign has been bizarre at best. Attacking the messenger doesn’t change the reality.

        • sxp151 says:

          If someone gives you information, and disclosing his identity could get him fired, it’s reasonable to grant anonymity.

          But why grant anonymity to someone for this? There’s no sense of momentum; there’s no sense anything is happening. I’m not sure anyone is running his campaign, quite frankly.”

          That’s public knowledge and a very common sentiment. So why quote it anonymously? It gives no information whatsoever.

          Peter and Wade are absolutely right on this. Anonymity is important and should be respected, not just thrown around arbitrarily.

          Yes this makes me a bit of a hypocrite, but nobody would write a story saying, “An anonymous poster on a blog called Jared Polis a douchebag.” It’s not news.  

        • allyncooper says:

          But a professional journalist has a responsibility to not taint their sources with bias. It would be totally unethical to use a “source” from the the opposing campaign comment on the perceived disarray of AR’s campaign as has been suggested here.

          Not to say it couldn’t ever happen. But any journalist caught doing this would lose all credibility, if not their job, as a journalist.

          • RedGreenRedGreen says:

            Absolutely, and the provisos you list against abusing anonymous sources are also important — you describe the source in sufficient detail to disclose potential taint to the information.

            There is another, albeit minor, problem with the Politico quote, however, and it’s the one sxp points out. It’s a bullshit quote, one that could have come from plenty of big-deal Democrats (just as the opposite sentiment could have been expressed by plenty of others), but it’s laziness on the reporter’s part to put the salient point of the article in an anonymous quote. It’s a way of keeping the reporting just this side of “analysis,” but including the quote just means the reporter couldn’t find anyone to clearly state what the story was about, and it’s shoddy to get someone to do that anonymously.  

  5. Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

    The fact of the matter is that Romoanoff may not have been the Governor’s 2nd choice.

    Congressman Perlmutter was a strong candidate.

    COngressman Salazar was a strong candidate.

    The Mayor was high on the list,too.

    I initially tried to get the Speaker to run in February, He told me that he wanted to, but wasn’t sure he could beat Sen Bennet in 18 months. Then his sources put out that he was not running. A well known lobbyist that

    contributed to his campaign flat told me that in the spring The Speaker had said he had no interest in the Senate race. The Speaker spent months negotiating with the Governor to join the ticket as Lt.Gov.

    That fell through, and then suddenly we have a candidate with a strong desire for the Senate job.

    I imagine that the poll that he paid for in March showed Sen.Bennet winning. Why else would he have opted to pursue the Lt. Governorship?

    My political life went on and I came to know Sen. Bennet. The fact of the matter is

    that Sen Bennet is more of an Obama Democrat than the Speaker. This became quite clear when the President endorsed him the day the Speaker announced.

    Even if the Speaker were to win the general, his committee assignments would be far less significant than the chair that Sen. Bennet currently holds. How can he claim to better represent Colorado under these circumstances?

     

    • indipol says:

      says who?  what do you base that on?  a personal relationship with Reid?

      I have absolutely no horse in this race, so please don’t lump me as a Bennet basher or AR lover or whatever.

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        was some kind of special dispensation to Bennet and will pass on to others avid to hold it before it comes open again for another freshman from Colorado.

        • indipol says:

          becomes irrelevant after health care is done.  oops, already irrelevant, it’s about to be in the hands of the Conference Committee and no frosh is getting on that.

          Best non-approps committee to be on in general is Finance.  Best non-approps for CO is either Energy Natural Resources or Commerce, Science and Transpo  

  6. Automaticftp says:

    a political temper tantrum.  I’ve said it before, but it remains true.  

    • Leonard Smalls says:

      back when people would have supported him over annoyance with Ritter and before Bennet got to spend 8 months defining himself.

      Romanoff is boxed into being another Mike Miles. He might win the assembly, but he’s screwed in the primary.

      • wade norris says:

        Mike Miles was never elected to an office in Colorado, whereas Salazar had been and had statewide name id.

        hmm… sounds like role reversal to me.

        I don’t see Bennet coming close to Romanoff on name id with Colorado voters.

        • BlueCat says:

          state legislators have such high name recognition among the general public, even those who vote in primaries. And at least Mike Miles represented a clearly different choice, a liberal vs a moderate bordering on conservative.  

          What we have in Bennet and Romanoff is two candidates similarly close to the center.  The big difference is one of them is already my senator and is doing a good job, especially for a freshman.  I see zero reason to kick him to the curb for Romanoff who can’t raise enough money, is used to running for a nice little safe seat and is not exactly dazzling me with his political skills in this contest so far.  

        • ec says:

          I don’t see Bennet coming close to Romanoff on name id with Colorado voters.

          However, I don’t think this race coming down to name ID. I see campaign organization and fundraising as much more important.  

    • wade norris says:

      does not make it true.

      One thing any objective person can see is that Andrew Romanoff is not a ‘temper tantrum’ kind of guy. (neither of them strike me as people who get ruffled feathers)

  7. allyncooper says:

    As I’ve said on here before, if you want to depose the king, you better have a damn good reason, and AR simply hasn’t articulated that reason.

    AR’s campaign reminds me of Ted Kennedy’s bid for the Dem nomination against a sitting president. Kennedy’s disatrous interview in which he was asked why he was running for president, and he couldn’t articulate a credible answer (other than my name is Ted Kennedy, guardian of the flame and heir to Camelot), dogged him throughout the campaign.

    Either AR or Perlmutter would have been my choices for the appointment, but it is what it is. I’m uneasy about Bennet and his corporate ties, but I don’t see the AR campaign happening.  

  8. untouchable8 says:

    Andrew Romanoff is running for Senator because he’s the better person for the job. He responds to us, he stands on his convictions, and defends those convictions rather than pander to special interests or the far right. that message is good enough for me. I’m not interested in who is managing his campaign or when he decided to enter the race. Frankly, I wasn’t sure I would have supported him early on. I needed to give Bennet a chance. Well I have, and he’s been a disappointment, which I’m thinking is what drove Romanoff into the race. He’s running because we need him, not out of sour grapes, not because of yanked job offers, but to be a true and genuine voice for us in Washington. What more does anyone want?

      • allyncooper says:

        in order to challenge and take the nomination away from the officeholder, there has to be at least one big issue that differentiates the challenger from the officeholder, that can motivate voters in sufficient numbers to “throw the rascal out” . There is none here, and I don’t see one developing.  

    • BlueCat says:

      I guess you haven’t been payng much attention to what Bennet has been saying and doing these days. I know a lot more, without having to lift a finger to find out on my own, about Bennet’s stands on the the issues that are important to me than I do about Romanoff’s.  

      If Romanoff does wind up our candidate I’ll be pleased if he does as good a job as a freshman as Bennet. But I’ve already got Bennet so I really don’t feel the need to  take a chance on Romanoff. Would have been happy to have him appointed but that was then.

      • wade norris says:

        who can win in the general.

        I think Bennet can do well with Independents, but the base will be needed to win, and Romanoff, i believe, will be able to rally both the base and independents.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          Bennet can rally the base and then some. He has the official endorsement of the President of the United States, who is particularly popular with the base and I think most Democrats, other than the most strident, bitter AR worshipers, will do just about anything to keep this seat in Dem hands.

          To imply that he won’t be able to rally the base implies that if Romanoff loses, you lame fucks will sit on your hands and sadly enough, that does not surprise me. I think that’s what differentiates you from real Democrats, Wade. I’ll do anything and everything to get Romanoff in office if he wins the primary because I know what’s at stake if a Republican wins this seat.

          Can you say you will do the same if it ends up Bennet? Can JO? Can Sharon Hanson?  

          • wade norris says:

            was poorly timed,and would have had a much bigger impact before the caucus. Also, in other races where he has endorsed, such as Pennsylvania, which also has a popular democrat in a primary contest, the weight of Obama’s endorsement has peeled away due to the popularity of the perceived ‘grassroots’ candidate.

            “PA-Sen: Barney Frank bucks establishment, endorses Sestak”

            http://www.dailykos.com/storyo


            the value of individual endorsements, with a few narrow exceptions, is generally overstated. And the bigger the election being contested, the smaller the value of such endorsements.

            The only thing bigger than a Senate election is a presidential one, so in practical terms, Rep. Barney Frank endorsing Joe Sestak should win the challenger to Sen. Arlen Specter’s seat few votes.

            Yet Frank may be the first elected Congressional Democrat to endorse Sestak, which is significant….

            Specter isn’t the only suspect Democrat inside our caucus. Far too many are making common cause with Republicans while pretending to be Democrats. A few more primary challenges might convince recalcitrant Democrats to support their party’s top priorities, and a culture that encourages such challenges, even if it angers the DSCC and DCCC, would certainly be welcome, and clearly help Democrats advance their now-stymied policy goals.

            • Middle of the Road says:

              Just keep comparing this race to Sestak/Specter in PA. And while you’re at it, try not to drown with your head stuck in all that sand, little laddie.

            • Middle of the Road says:

              Do you read replies or just go off half cocked in real life like you do here? Because my comment, about 99% of it to be exact, was about the general, which you originally commented on. Here, I’ll copy and paste it again and see if you can muddle through this time.


              To imply that he won’t be able to rally the base implies that if Romanoff loses, you lame fucks will sit on your hands and sadly enough, that does not surprise me. I think that’s what differentiates you from real Democrats, Wade. I’ll do anything and everything to get Romanoff in office if he wins the primary because I know what’s at stake if a Republican wins this seat.

              Can you say you will do the same if it ends up Bennet? Can JO? Can Sharon Hanson?  

          • indipol says:

            cold getting to you up there in Estes?  did Libertad stand you up for a match.com date?  ;-)

            • Middle of the Road says:

              about the word “fuck?” It was marvelous.

              And yes, it is freezing up here. Windy as all get out today which just made it unbearable. But that has nothing to do with my use of the word “fuck.” I just really like that word. :)

              • indipol says:

                what the hell else would I do with my day but read every single fucking comment on this blog?

                minus 15 when I woke up this morning, never got above 5, right now it’s windy and minus 5

                • Middle of the Road says:

                  Just reading your comment is making me cold. Where are you located, approximately? (I don’t want you to cough up personal details, just a general vicinity is fine.)

                  I think I’m headed home for the night. My workspace hasn’t gotten above 55 degrees today so I have two space heaters practically sitting on top of me in order to continue to feel my appendages. :)

                  Stay warm, Indipol.

        • BlueCat says:

          so you’ve just given us one more reason to support Bennet. Was recently at a local base event and most of the people I talked to were starting to resent the Romanoff campaign because they don’t believe it will do anything but drain funding we’ll need in the general for Bennet.  Even Romanoff backers were conceding that it’s very unlikely he will be the candidate.  We all politely agreed that we could support whichever one wins the nomination.  

          So don’t assume that sticking with Romanoff to the bitter end is as important as you think it is to most of the base.  The base has tasted victory over the past few election cycles and it tastes better than losing on principle.  Not that there would be much in the way of progressive principle involved here.  I feel support for Romanoff getting weaker, not stronger.

          • wade norris says:

            is rampant here

            Was recently at a local base event and most of the people I talked to were starting to resent the Romanoff campaign because they don’t believe it will do anything but drain funding we’ll need in the general for Bennet.

            Well, I am sure those unnamed people represent the truth.

            By the way, I was at a recent event were people said Bennet couldn’t win re-election because no one in the base knows

            ‘who the hell’ he is.

            While Democrats like Rep. Ed Perlmutter and former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff were warmly received on Saturday, others didn’t even know who Bennet was. And these are Democrats. Active Democrats. If they don’t know who Bennet is, and if he doesn’t have the natural charisma to carry a small room, then how is he going to win a statewide election in 2010? Remember – this is a problem Democrats didn’t have to face if Ritter had appointed someone that Democrats had actually heard of as Senator.

            And that was written by the editors from this very site

            And that argument is still the best reason why Democrats need to back someone who the base and Independents have actually heard of.

            You know, 8 years in the house of reps and 4 as the speaker who brokered deals with the republicans in such a way that they could not bad mouth him?

            You actually think Bennet can make up that name id deficit in 1 year?

            • Middle of the Road says:

              Do you ever get tired of shading the truth? You have absolutely zero credibility on this site. Stick to Daily Kos until they discover you are another David Sirota.

              • wade norris says:

                then you wouldn’t have someone to call you out for the crap you dish.

                • Middle of the Road says:

                  I LOVE having you here. You do my candidate a world of good every single time you open your mouth.

                  Hey that reminds me–you forgot to answer my question that I posed to you TWICE–will you support Bennet in the general election if he wins the primary?

                  And speaking of avoiding at all costs, did you want to actually comment on the Politico article, Wade, or just continue to spin until you make your wee self dizzy?

                  • wade norris says:

                    poor journalism by citing ‘unnamed’ sources.

                    and the last time I voted Republican was 1988, and I don’t see that changing this year.

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      Quite the rousing endorsement of support. You’re quite the progressive Democrat, Wade.

                      Did you want to comment on the actual content of the diary or go strictly with your whine about the unnamed sources?  

                    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                      and I don’t see that changing this year

                      I’m surprised your interlocutors didn’t notice you evaded the question, Wade. No one asked whether you were voting Republican. The question was

                      will you support Bennet in the general election if he wins the primary?

                      Announcing you won’t vote against Bennet isn’t the same as saying whether you’ll support him.

            • BlueCat says:

              I wasn’t presenting that as anything other than a personal observation.  I go to events quite regularly and that is the sea change I’m seeing in my county.  But I don’t ask you to take my word for it.  We’ll see who is the delusional one soon enough, won’t we.

        • MADCO says:

          more electable in the general- no mater who the R nominee is- unless the primary  damages the party.

          The U’s will do what they always do –  vote if they have a reason, stay home if not.

          In Arapahoe County they mostly vote R.

          In 2008 Udall won here- barely- with long coat tails and a sleeping R organization  - neither of which will be true in 2010. To the degree AR is known in the suburban reaches of Arapahoe County outside the D party, he will be known as a D insider from Denver. Bennet is known as a finance guy who is not a career politician.   Bad in Denver- good everywhere else.

    • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

      He never was opposed to PAC money before.

      Honestly, if some of his supporters weren’t so virulently angry, then I think he would have a better chance.

      At least one believes that the Senator tried to get her fired from her political job, when I doubt seriously that he would even put the name to the face.  

      • indipol says:

        because of the appointment thing.  same reason the t-baggers are virulently angry about Norton and McI.  totally understandable from where I sit.  A common thread we see on this issue is “AR needs to show a reason to push out the incumbent.”  That just fuels the fire because it furthers the perception that having somebody shoved down your throat is ok as long as they do a tolerable job.  I am fully sympathetic.  I think Senator-by-appointment is bullshit.  

        • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

          In the case of Bennet the law says the Governor will select the replacement. There is no option for an election. And the law makes it clear that it is the Governor’s individual decision.

          In the case of Norton and McInnis there is a primary.

        • MADCO says:

          The current AR supporters would have been fine with the appointment if it was him.

          So go boo-hoo somewhere else about how horrible the appointment process is.

          • foconocoPeterFisk says:

            The problem was the governor’s choice, not the process itself. The process is fine.  The governor should have picked a known person with broad support: e.g. Romanoff, Perlmutter, J. Salazar, etc. Picking an unknown insider crony was a huge mistake, and it’s the reason why we’re having to go through this primary right now.  Legitimacy matters.  Sure —  technically, the governor can pick whoever he wants. But as a practical matter, he has to choose someone with broad support within the  party.

            And when Mr. Bennet came charging out of the gate as a Blue Dog “ConservaDem” as soon as he was sworn in, that certainly didn’t provide any kind of reassurance to the base.  

            • RedGreenRedGreen says:

              No it isn’t. The reason we’re having to go through this primary is that Barbara O’Brien didn’t step aside quietly and let the insider crony deal go through, leaving Romanoff without a clear shot at elective office for the foreseeable future. If the Bennet pick was such an outrage, it was an outrage all winter, spring and summer while Romanoff schemed, but it wasn’t until he figured he had nothing left to lose he finally joined the fray.

              • BlueCat says:

                Although I don’t think its quite as simple as that because I don’t think Romanoff is quite that cynical.  I do think he really does want to serve and believes in his ability to do so.  I just think he’s in the wrong and has fallen and won’t be able to get up at this point.  

                He can’t compete on the funding front, too many are losing faith in his campaign’s chances, and Bennet is making the right moves to get people on board.  Even many who would prefer Romanoff are at least willing to say that since it doesn’t look like Romanoff can pull this off, base Dems can support Bennet and had better start doing so.  

            • MADCO says:

              Everyone who are claims that Bennet is somehow less than legitimate because he is not AR, or Perlmutter or someone else they already know and like.

              Everyone rejects RItter’s choice because it’s not the choice they would have made.

              Everyone who has said that Bennet deserves a primary because he was never elected before and is unknown. (Deserve’s got nothin to do with it)

              And RG is right (below) about why we’re doing this primary now.  And your point is that if Ritter had chosen as you think he should have, we wouldn’t be having a primary.  Riiiight no one is questioning the technical process, just questioning the process as it actually went.

      • sxp151 says:

        on this blog. People get angry because they care about things. It’s hardly fair to trash the other side’s supporters for incivility when you’ve said some arguably uncivil things about Romanoff and his supporters.

        People will tolerate all sorts of anger and hostility when it comes from the side they support.

        • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

          Romanoff people are making flat lies and have since Romanoff announced. I haven’t said anything uncivil about Romanoff. I guess the fact that he has taken PAC money and has been a member of the DLC is uncivil?

          I’ve stated that the falsehoods about Sen Bennet have come from people very close to the Speaker and it has happneed too often to be a coincidence.

          Some people can’t handle the truth. I suppose in your mind calling the man what he has been, a pretty conservative Democrat is an insult. I don’t think that it is. It’s simply the truth.

          I listened this evening to a State Senator say how much she liked Romanoff for working with the Republicans. His supporters derisively call Sen.Bennet a Blue Dog, or Conservadem for that.  

  9. JO says:

    Bennet is whose man?

    American Bankers Association, $6,000 to our friend Mike.

    Colorado Bankers Association, $2,000 more.

    Financial Services Roundtable, $3,000.

    Investment Company Institute PAC, $2,000.

    JPMorgan Chase & Co., $1,000.

    Mortgage Bankers Association PAC, $3,000.

    National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisers, $2,500.

    National Venture Capital Association, $4,000.

    Sallie Mae Inc. PAC $2,000.

    Security Traders Association, $2,000.

    US Bankcorp, $2,000.

    Visa Inc., $2,000.

    Of course, when the candidate spends those bucks, it’s in order to persuade voters to vote for him to represent their interests in the wake of the Great Recession and the need to regulate the finance industry. Right. That motivation never occurred to his friends spending their bucks for his campaign! No way!

    Yep. Mike sure can raise the bucks, sure can inspire the confidence of the buckaroos. Or should we say, sure does raise the bucks. But when you, dear voter, call, rest assured that you’ll be at the head of the list to call back.

    Advance notice: A new opinion poll to be published soon found that in Colorado this year, the most important issue in the minds of most Colorado voters in next year’s Senate campaign is: “Who are the campaign managers of the respective campaigns?” Let’s get our priorities straight!

     

  10. thestaffer says:

    I was wondering if you could tell me what percentage $31,500 is of 3.5 million. Or maybe you could tell me why AR took an equal percentage of corporate contributions while he was in the state house?

    http://www.denverpost.com/poli

    • MADCO says:

      There is no way , absolutely no fucking way it can be appropriate to go injecting actual facts and simple logic into this debate.

      I mean really- at least use a fake quote as a signature line.  Or say something incoherent and bizarre. At a minimum, use the f word.

      • JO says:

        Such as: Who contributes to the Bennet campaign?

        Such as: The Bennet campaign takes money from corporate PACS.

        Such as: Contributors expect recipients to remember them when the time rolls round.

        Sorry if the “actual facts” of those contributions are embarrassing in light of the “simple logic” of their implications.

        • MADCO says:

          HEY JO AND WADE

          I was wondering if you could tell me what percentage $31,500 is of 3.5 million. Or maybe you could tell me why AR took an equal percentage of corporate contributions while he was in the state house?

          • JO says:

            The $31.5k figure you cite is the total PAC contributions I listed above. Your logic, I take it, is that this is a small percentage of Bennet’s total intake and therefore…what? It’s okay to take bribes from companies he may be responsible for regulating so long as those bribes don’t exceed some unknown percentage of total contributions? By focusing on the percentage of a partial list, may we assume that you accept the underlying principle and want to argue instead that it’s okay, no big deal, really, just a small percentage, etc.?

            As you may not know, having repeated this question, the $31.5k listed above was only a readily-available subset of his PAC contributions–the contributions that fell easily from the list of PACs associated with financial institutions–institutions that might be hoping to avoid corrective regulatory action and might be hoping for former investment banker Mike to be of help along those lines. Watch that space.

            Good of you to raise the point, although it’s unclear whether you’re entirely aware of it, that there are other corporate interests also contributing to Bennet. Not exactly a characteristic that distinguishes him from the Other Party’s candidate whose thinking is so much in line that she used the same townhouse in D.C. for the same purpose! Small world and all that, no doubt. Gives us something to look forward to discussing again, and again, and again, in the future. After all, there’s nothing wrong with any of that, is there?

            • ec says:

              Hyperbole much? To have a quid pro quo you have to have the quo. Bennet may accept corporate donations but you still haven’t shown where that makes him corrupt. What exactly have (past tense) the bankers gotten from Bennet? Anyone can speculate about what “financial institutions might be hoping for.” Anyone that gives money is hoping for some something. Please tell us what Bennet has given them that is outside of the public’s interest. That is the difference.

              And now all of a sudden Bennet = Norton? How far you gonna stretch this?

            • MADCO says:

              How about we only vote for candidates who take no PAC money, take no money from donors who may have an interest in anything the candidate may have to act on.

              How about we only vote for candidates who take no money at all?

              We could hold the election in  my grandmother’s barn and my uncle goober could be the certifying official.

              OTOH- you may be a bitter old man, bitching here about politicians and money and the gubbmint, dammit, because the kids in your neighborhood have all learned to get off your proppity.

              • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

                Candidates that take no money, and spend known of their own. A brillint idea!

              • JO says:

                First, yeah, we could vote for a candidate who isn’t taking money from PACs. Name is Romanoff. And I’m perfectly happy to have Bennet’s supporters crowing over and over, “Our guy is the one who gets his big bucks from corporations, delivered in Washington townhouses also used for the same purpose by Republicans, from people who may or may not ever have set foot in the State of Colorado!

                “Our guy is the one who gets his big bucks from corporations, delivered in Washington townhouses also used for the same purpose by Republicans, from people who may or may not ever have set foot in the State of Colorado!

                “Our guy is the one who takes money from corporations, delivered in Washington townhouses also used for the same purpose by Republicans, from people who may or may not ever have set foot in the State of Colorado!”

                Catchy, isn’t it? Maybe we’ll hear Bennet himself start bragging about it one day soon. Some people call it “realism.” Others have different words for it.

                Second, why do PACs give money to some candidates and not others?

                Third, did I use the word bribes? Well, pardon me! I meant “contributions,” of course! “Excuse me, officer, may I contribute to the Patrolman’s Benevolent Fund?”

                And as far as making personal attacks on people on this site and/or using crude language, etc., sure we can do that if we have nothing else. I take it that the temptation to do so is especially great when you can’t argue the facts. QED.

            • Sharon Hanson says:

              I think we should explore this issue by starting a new thread titled, Is Bill Ritter the new Blagojevich?

  11. thestaffer says:

    I don’t have a horse in this race, but reason seems to be on one side of this debate. It seems that there is a host of rational people in this thread, and JO and Wade. “If you want to depose the king, you better have a damn good reason”

  12. Thorntondem says:

    but, I am fairly certain that AR has a solid majority of dems who will be voting for him at the caucus. In fact, a week does not go by without an AR supporter contacting me and asking me who I am supporting. Is the caucus March 16th this year? Some folks may be missing it this year because that is the same week as National League of Cities in Washington DC.

    My guess right now would be AR 60%- MB 40% at the caucus ( maybe even 70 – 30 ).

    However, as Pols and others have pointed out, the caucus is mainly insiders. The primary in August would probably be 55-45 favoring Bennet because of the fundraising capabilities of the Bennet campaign.

    That’s my take right now. But, there is alot of time between now and August.

    • MADCO says:

      Really really well in Adams and Denver.

      So?

      • wade norris says:

        the Fremont County Dems asked Romanoff to be their Annual Dinner speaker

        after Bennet turned them down…

        guess all is well, because Romanoff was their first choice to begin with…

        • MADCO says:

          I stand corrected if not humbled.

        • RedGreenRedGreen says:

          Then why’d they ask Bennet first, if Romanoff was their first choice (“to begin with,” though that’s redundant)?

          The way you’re portraying it, Wade, a bunch of party insiders who can’t make up their mind about a dinner speaker are going to pick Romanoff for the Senate. Doesn’t sound like a recipe for statewide election.

          • wade norris says:

            been appointed the new Senator.

            they had thought the appointment was going to be AR.

            So, out of courtesy to the new Senator, they invited Bennet.

            Too bad Bennet was too busy to accept their invite, because as you can see 8 months later, it means that Romanoff has a group of people outside of “Arapahoe and Denver” who think highly of him.

            and that’s just one illustration of Bennet’s mistakes.

            • RedGreenRedGreen says:

              Sounds more like an illustration of the Fremont County Dems’ petty concerns, that a newly appointed senator couldn’t make their dinner — because he had to, you know, be a senator and hit the ground running. But if that’s what they want to base their caucus votes on, more power to ‘em.

              • wade norris says:

                I couldn’t frame this any better


                Sounds more like an illustration of the Fremont County Dems’ petty concerns

                yes, that’s right, it’s those pesky democratic base voters who decide the primary.

                i hope Bennet thinks the way you do, that will make the primary much easier to win.

                • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                  You’re right, if the Fremont Dems are basing their choice entirely on whether a sitting U.S. senator could make it to their dinner on short notice, then it’s a petty decision. Thankfully, voters are free to repudiate that kind of nonsense.

    • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

      It’s much more logical than most the other posts favoring Romanoff.

      I obviously think Sen Bennet would win the primary because he is simply the better candidate.

       

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      I.e., what is the last date to switch parties and declare Democrat if you want a voice in the Bennet-Romanoff showdown?  

      • redstateblues says:

        In 2008, I registered D to vote for Obama. I did it at the last second, but it was in December to vote in the caucus in January.

        According to the state Democratic Party, you have top have been affiliated with the Democratic Party for at least 2 months and have lived in your precinct for at least 25 days prior to the caucus.

        That’s from a 2006 PDF though, so it might be different now. If someone knows better, please correct me.

      • MADCO says:

        I was thinking several friends and I would register R so we could have a say in that showdown.

        But apparently we’re going to be busy at the D caucus.

  13. MADCO says:

    A) How dare Politico take a “how dare he approach? Why do they hate democracy? Or hard left liberals?

    B) Politico clearly has no respect for the electoral process. Why, they actually implied that AR has no compelling message and no serious money.  Why can’t they see he is an awesome guy? ANd that he’s entitled to run a primary

    C) I know who the “well-connected” D could have been- almost any of them. Why castigate either the source or the writee who points out that the emperor has no clothes?  I think AR is on to something with eschewing PAC and other big, evil money sources.  Make your weakness your strength. By the same token he should make his nakedness a strength. When someone points out that the emperor has no clothes, the emperor should strut his …stuff.

     

  14. Sharon Hanson says:

    Is this website run by the DLC? You know the arm of the Democratic Party that is in bed with corporations?

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      You know Romanoff is the DLC candidate but you make an ironic joke about it anyway! Funny!

      • MADCO says:

        And my gues is SH won’t find that funny or ironic

        • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

          a very long time.

          Nothing wring with being DLC in my opinion.

          It’s just that it’s to the right of Sen Bennet.

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:

            Moderate Democrats are the best.  They brought us Clinton and Gore, not a bad duo in my judgment.  

            • Middle of the Road says:

              JO and Sharon think the DLC is the equivalent of the Great Satan (just not progressive enough and all DLCers should be damned to the fiery depths of hell sort of philosophy for these folks) and seem to have some difficulty in reconciling that fact with Romanoff being a 2009 DLC Fellow.

              • Ralphie says:

                Until someone points out that their candidate is a member.

                Andrew’s a great guy.  But he’s no progressive ideologue.  He’s a pragmatist deal-maker, and his record in the Colorado House shows that.

                As far as having statewide voter support, that’s yet to be proven.  Andrew was able to make deals because he ran from a safe district.

                None of that is a deal-breaker for me; I like pragmatists.  But I think that Andrew’s supporters are supporting an imaginary candidate–someone of their own invention.

                Andrew got things done.  A progressive ideologue wouldn’t have gotten shit done.

                He is what he is.

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                As Ralphie says, Andrew is a definite pragmatist, which I like in a man.  Assuredly, there are no great ideological gaps between Romanoff and Bennet.  Andrew has much more experience in elected office, because Bennet has never actually run for an office.  But their differences have to do with background, experience and style, not litmus tests.

    • indipol says:

      grow the F up.  Pols is doing AR a big, big favor by exposing what political insiders who aren’t yesmen for AR think about his prospects, his campaign, his strategy, etc.  If this kind of pushing and prodding doesn’t strengthen AR, then he’s further lost than most people here think.  If I were you and other AR diehards, I’d be thankful for this kind of attention.  Consider it free coaching.

    • redstateblues says:

      Andrew Romanoff was a class of 2009 DLC fellow. He received the award before he announced his US Senate candidacy.

      Andrew Romanoff, former House Speaker, Colorado

      Andrew is the former speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives. He was elected to that position in 2005, becoming the first Democrat to hold the post since 1975 and the youngest speaker in the history of the state. He represented Colorado’s 6th district covering east Denver and Glendale.

      http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        with the facts. Don’t point out to her, for instance, that Romanoff slurped up PAC money at the same rate Bennet is throughout his political career. Until, that is, he challenged an incumbent senator and the PAC money dried up, so he took a principled stand against doing what he’d been doing all along. That would only bewilder her.

        • JO says:

          ..that Bennet is Mr. PACman 2009; AR isn’t.

        • and another thing says:

          This is just too funny.  Thanks RSB, this made my day.  I love Romanoff and Bennet, but Romanoff’s shills are doing him no favors.

          • MADCO says:

            Worse than doing him no favors, they embarrass him.

            - Bennet took PAC money!  Uh–so did AR.

            - Bennet was not born raised in Colorado. Uh…neither was AR.

            - Bennet never had to win a contested election.  Uh….

            - Bennet is apparantly rich. Yeah….

            - Bennet never went to DU Law.  Ok. And neither of them ever passed the bar.

            - Bennet knows Phil Anschutz.  What?! You mean to tell me Senator Bennet had an actual private sector paying job? With a real American company with paychecks and jobs and everything?  

            - Bennet’s wife is an awesome environmental lawyer, but she’s not the candiate and therefore magically irrelevant.

            - Ritter appointed Bennet thus proving Bennet is …bad? something negative.  Riiiight. And didn’t AR really want to get appointed? I mean really, really.

            And this doesn’t even get to the rest of the crazy baloney  

      • Sharon Hanson says:

        And I have never posted on here that I do support AR.  My beef is with Bennet. He is owned and operated by the banks and if you want more of the same of an economy on the brink of a depression by all means elect Bennet.  And support the DLC because they are also in bed with the banks and corporations who have taken us down this path to disaster.  It’s time for a new game and I’m ready for one as long as the players are going to represent their constituents and not special interests.  For me that is not Bennet.  

  15. oldbenkenobi says:

    “If you’re going to depose the King you better have a damn good reason.”  The problem with this sentiment is the premise.  Bennet is not the King in this metaphor.  He’s the pimply teenaged prince who has been handed the lordship of an outlying province by King Obama (via his surrogate the Duke of Drab, Bill Ritter).  And many of us don’t like Kings, don’t like having our leaders picked for us, and believe the people of the province get to decide.  So no, we will not dutifully “fall in line” and rally to the flag of the little prince.

    I’m a big fan of President Obama.  Every time he speaks, as with his Nobel Prize acceptance speech today, I’m proud he’s my President.  But he does not get to pick our Senator. I would agree that AR needs to get his ass in gear but I’m glad he’s running.

    And I would remind you MB supporters that your guy ALSO needs to make a case for himself.  Showing up for some votes, participating in some lame compromises and showing you have lots of friends on the East Coast is not making a case that you are the best person to represent Colorado in the U.S. Senate.

    • Sharon Hanson says:

      My sentiments as well however I am definitely in the camp against having Bennet represent me in any shape or form so I too am grateful for AR being in the race.  Thank you AR.      

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        Whether I support Andrew Romanoff or not is not anyone’s business.

        And I have never posted on here that I do support AR

        .

        – Sharon Hanson

        http://www.coloradopols.com/sh

        I too am grateful for AR being in the race.  Thank you AR.

        – Sharon Hanson, the same day

        • Sharon Hanson says:

          Do you support Bennet’s vote on the cram-down? Do you support his cozy relationship with the banks and lastly are you happy and content that he will be voting against legislation that would regulate the banks and perhaps prevent another severe recession? These are ominous issues we face and I am curious why you don’t think these issues are important. You are idolizing a man that doesn’t deserve your trust or are you a sock puppets getting paid to post your diatribes on here.  

          • Rainidog says:

            And, who the *^%$!$&* is the idolizer?  I don’t “idolize” anyone.  I like AR a lot, personally, and like a great a deal of what he did in the state house (but not all) but I think he’s made too many mistakes to make even a viable primary run.  I like a lot of what I’ve seen and heard from Bennet, and yes, have met and spoken with him couple times.  And again, I would like to hear more than just your allegations and “diatribes” against him.

            If this stance makes me an idolizer or a sock puppet in your view . . .well, I reserve my right to tell you that you’re full of it.

        • MADCO says:

          same hour…approx 30 minutes apart.

      • redstateblues says:

        You might be interested to know Andrew Romanoff was a DLC fellow from the class of 2009.

  16. Chef says:

    Not sure what Romanoff’s deal is or was. Great speaker, nice enough guy in person, pearly teeth..He had a great brand: outsider running against Establishment guy with zero charisma, bought and sold many times over. Could have had a steamroller campaign. Shot to hell.

    He should not have entered the race so late in the game. That was the big tip-off we were looking at another Titanic. Nobody leading the campaign machine except (mostly) hangers-on and wannabe party hacks. He should be meeting the public, not party insiders, at this point, and he isn’t.

    Never had a chance because he never took running the campaign seriously. You can’t run a campaign with nobody in charge of it, especially one like Romanoff’s attempt that needed someone at the helm – not the candidate trying to do everything by himself and with fans.  

  17. ec says:

    For those throwing out the “investment banker Mike” tag, your buddy Andy seems pretty proud of his award from the Independent Bankers of Colorado – a branch of the national ICBA, as cited on his campaign facebook http://www.facebook.com/andrew… and application for SOS http://facethestate.com/downlo… Say “independent bankers” are your nice neighborhood bankers if you want, but the organization supports policies like the Minnick Amendment that eliminates the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA).

    Using JO’s line of thinking: Andy must be corrupt for accepting this bribe/award from an organization that seeks to cut consumer protections. No? Seems pretty Wall Streetyish to me. Further, was the ICBA “hoping for corrective regulatory action and might be hoping for [career politician Andy] to be of help along those lines” when they gave him the award back in 2003? hmmmm.

    Some of you hate on the measly banker contributions to Bennet but your boy Andy seems pretty tight with bankers as well – proud to accept and tout their award.

    • JO says:

      Thanks, ec, for making my point for me.

      Did Romanoff accept PAC contributions from banks in order to win the Democratic primary election? No.

      Did Bennet? Yes.

      Do the organizations handing out PAC contributions imagine they will get something in return? I think they do.

      Given this distinction between Romanoff and Bennet, what’s poor ec to do? How about cooking up a batch of fudge, something like:

      Andy must be corrupt for accepting this bribe/award….

      Except, of course, that a PAC contribution is money flowing. The award you cite is not. Are you alleging that Romanoff accepted money? No, I didn’t think so, even though you would like to try to fudge the facts, distort the truth, and otherwise obscure what is happening. Is that the best way Bennet’s supporters can support him? Evidently so.

      Does the PACman label sting much?

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        backed Romanoff before you make such sweeping, hysterical statements. You’re not doing your candidate any favors, JO.

      • ec says:

        Given this distinction between Romanoff and Bennet, what’s poor ec to do? How about cooking up a batch of fudge, something like: Andy must be corrupt for accepting this bribe/award….

        ha. that just was your batch of fudge turned around on you from http://coloradopols.com/showCo… if it was a wee bit cleaver “PACman” might sting. but it’s not, nor is it representative.

        you still haven’t shown one example of a quid pro quo. http://coloradopols.com/showCo… or http://coloradopols.com/showCo… you’re hysterical over the quid but you haven’t proven one bit of quo. therefore, your PAC argument is moot. show us evidence specific to bennet as to how the few thousand he got from those evil bankers has (past tense) influenced any policy decisions he has made in this campaign. further, as “former investment banker mike” you’d think he woulda thrown his “investment banker buddies” a bone this last year right? let us know what he has done for them that gets your panties in a bunch. all you’ve done thus far is fear monger via speculation.    

        no big deal, really, just a small [award]…

        ttp://coloradopols.com/showComment.do?commentId=265640  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.