Romanoff picks up key labor endorsements

(These are big endorsements because they come with boots-no flaming, I’m neutral – promoted by Danny the Red (hair))



Well, this is making things interesting:

U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff has won the support of two of Colorado’s largest labor organizations.

The United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents 23,000 members statewide, and the Colorado Council of Teamsters, with 16,000 members, endorsed Romanoff’s primary bid.

it seems these two groups have decided to endorse early as a statement of their choice for the Senate Race.

more:


“Local 7 of the United Food and Commercial Workers is proud to endorse Andrew Romanoff,” said Kim Cordova, the union’s president. “Andrew has always stood by Colorado working families and the 23,000 members we represent.”

Steve Vairma, president of the Teamsters, praised Romanoff’s dedication to Colorado and all of its citizens. “Andrew Romanoff was always straight with us,” Vairma said. “We didn’t see eye to eye on every issue, but his door was always open, and we could trust him to tell us the truth.”

Romanoff said he was proud to have earned the organizations’ support. “Millions of Coloradans are working hard just to make ends meet,” he said. “Now, more than ever, they deserve a champion in Congress. Yet too many senators seem more interested in their own job security than in ours. That’s unacceptable. Washington’s pay-to-play politics is costing us the jobs we need and the health care we literally can’t afford to live without.”

111 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. wade norris says:

    Romanoff’s campaign manager, Bill Romjue, said, “Andrew Romanoff has spent eight years fighting for the people of Colorado, protecting families from fraud and abuse. He’ll stand up to the financial titans on Wall Street, the giant health insurance companies and the big pharmaceutical conglomerates. His opponent, on the other hand, seems content to accept enormous amounts of campaign cash from the very same industries.  For working Coloradans, the choice is clear.”

  2. redstateblues says:

    I guess they’ve accepted the fact that EFCA isn’t going to contain card check, but the whole “We didn’t see eye to eye on every issue, but his door was always open, and we could trust him to tell us the truth” bit is just strange.

    Bennet lied to them? I don’t think saying he’d like to see the bill before he’d state a position on it is lying. But if they want to hitch their wagon to the man with the exact same policy position on their most important legislative goals, I guess that’s their right.

    And Romanoff’s “we need health care” line at the end is just insulting. If he really cared about health care, why wasn’t he working his butt off for it in 2009 like everybody else? And I don’t count rallying support for a US Senate campaign as working for health care reform.

    • wade norris says:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

      Bennet votes correctly on Becker but still is less trusted than Romanoff in the primary as seen by his endorsement by UFCW and the Teamsters

      and as someone who worked with, marched, knocked and called with SEIU this is an important election year to find out how Labor is going to be treated by this administration.

      A friend of mine in the MA senate race said Union voters voted over 50% for Scott Brown because of Labor’s disappointment with Obama’s lack of follow through on Labor and Healthcare issues.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/

      The unions, which spent more than $300 million in the 2008 elections on Democrats’ behalf, wanted a vote on EFCA last year, but Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asked them to wait until health reform had passed. (Their requests for confirmation votes on NLRB appointees were similarly delayed.)

      By my count, this marks the fourth time in the past half-century that labor’s efforts to strengthen workers’ ability to organize have been deferred by the Democratic presidents and the heavily Democratic Congresses they supported. In 1965, about the only piece of Great Society legislation not enacted was the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act provision that gave states the power to block unions from claiming as members all the employees in workplaces where they had won contracts. In 1979, as American management was beginning to invest heavily in union-busting endeavors, the first effort to reform labor law failed to win cloture in the Senate by one vote as President Jimmy Carter stood idly by. In 1994, President Bill Clinton responded to a similar labor-backed effort by appointing a commission to recommend changes in labor law to the next Congress — which turned out to be run by Newt Gingrich. And last year, by asking his labor supporters to wait, Obama ensured — unintentionally, of course — that the next effort to revive organizing must wait until the next overwhelmingly Democratic Congress.

      Seems the Unions are fed up with being taken for granted and are applying the same measures in the Colorado Senate Primary for Bennet (an Obama supported incumbent appointee) vs. Romanoff (challenger)

      • indipol says:

        ok, sorry, have to call bullshit on that.  What are you smoking?  I can’t imagine more political capital having been paid by BO on healthcare, and right now he’s having to fight major for his NLRB nominee because the nominee is so entrenched with SEIU.  If Labor really thinks BO hasn’t been trying on healthcare they’re fucking stupid.  He’s put everything aside in order to do healthcare, and that makes a big difference for those of us trying to do other business and advance other policies that aren’t healthcare.

        • wade norris says:

          and, not to turn this into a ‘what have you done for me lately’ Obama diary, but let’s look at what where we are at:

          The Senate has  been overly timid to mention Reconciliation for Healthcare – but for Bernanke’s confirmation – a Bush appointee who even some Republicans run from  - only 50 votes needed.

          http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

          When it comes to progressive priorities in the Senate,(aka a public option on healthcare) there’s one standard: 60 votes are needed. But for Ben Bernanke, there’s a second standard: 50 will be just fine

          let’s look at Reconciliation:

          http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/b

          Bush used Reconciliation for:


          Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001  -

          First Bush 43 tax cuts

          deficit created:

          $552 billion; 2001-2006

          Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003

          Second Bush 43 tax cuts

          deficit created:

          $342.9 billion; 2003-2008

          Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

          Reduced Medicare and Medicaid spending, changed student loan formulas, and reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.



          deficit created:

          $39 billion

          2006-2010

          Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

          Extended several of the earlier Bush tax cuts, including the reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividends and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) tax reduction.

          deficit created:

          $70.0 billion; 2006-2010

          College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007

          $20 billion student aid reform package. Included grant increases, loan rate reductions, and created public service loan forgiveness program.


          deficit created:

          $752 million; 2007-2012

          In those times, democrats in the Senate were unable to muster enough Cajones to investigate Blackwater, Secret Prisons, Guantanamo, Halliburton etc.

          TORTURE WAS LEGALIZED AS WELL AS BLACKSITE RENDITIONS!

          And now, when we have had the best chance at change since LBJ or FDR to fix our union, we have a President who has not delivered a clear message to the Senate or the House on what he wants on Healthcare?

          What would Bush be doing right now, or McCain or Palin (OMG!) with a majority in both Houses?

          Bombing Iran?

          And let’s look at Obama’s support for what I walked,knocked, and called for: Healthcare:

          from a recent Bennet co-sponsor -

          Russ Feingold on why the Public Option was on life support:

          http://www.coloradopols.com/sh

          Unfortunately, the lack of support from the administration made keeping the public option in the bill an uphill struggle. Removing the public option from the Senate bill is the wrong move, and eliminates $25 billion in savings. I will be urging members of the House and Senate who draft the final bill to make sure this essential provision is included.

          After the creation of Guantanamo Bay, the legal use of torture,  the ‘let go’ of Osama Bin Laden in 2001, the illegal declaration of War in Iraq,, the first Bailout of the Banks, and the worldwide embarrassment that was Katrina, I want a President, Senate and Congress that does something for us.

          if that means calling out Obama, so be it.if it means demanding a primary for Reid,Pelosi et al. then so be it.

          if that means fomenting a primary here in Colorado, so be it. if that means writing when this comment when i could be do anything else, so.be.it.

          But do not, if you are a progressive, sit here and tell me Obama and the current Democratic leadership has delivered on the campaign promises made all throughout 2008.

          Close Guantanamo, Universal Healthcare, end the Wars, jobs, Buy American, Jobs, CLIMATE LEGISLATION for the real people in real places who will no longer have a home, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

          • DevilishlyModerate says:

            WN, the world has changed dramatically since the 2008 elections. You need to be realistic here, things are never as easy as it seems.

            The reason why Obama struggled to get things accomplished was a result of obstructionist Republicans as well as some impatient Dems who have expectations that are out of this world.

            You act as if we have a lot of options, the fact is we don’t. It’s all or nothing this election season, if Dems don’t rally around a core group of candidates we’re all going to be hurting. This isn’t an election year where we have the luxury of cleansing the party.

             

            • wade norris says:

              Oh really, what has changed?


              the world has changed dramatically since the 2008 elections. You need to be realistic here, things are never as easy as it seems.

              The reason why Obama struggled to get things accomplished was a result of obstructionist Republicans as well as some impatient Dems who have expectations that are out of this world.

              Really? You mean the Senate was kneecapped by the White House’s agenda to try to ‘reach’ for bipartisanship, when it has been obvious since Newt Gingrich’s ‘revolution’ in 94′ that the days of bipartisanship have been ended?

              I appreciate our President putting out the olive branch and trying over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again to get Republicans to go along with his agenda, but enough is enough. It is time for Democrats to stand strong and the President to lead.

              And by the way, where were the obstructionist Democrats during the ramp up to the Iraq invasion?

              oh, that’s right, polling for the Iraq war was over 60%, yet, the Public Option, which is over 60% as well, has no Democratic cavalry to shore it up.

              So, Wars, torture, destroyed planet, ok,

              healthcare, peace, and yes, harmony – dems can’t support it?

              come on dude!

            • Sharon Hanson says:

              This is something that should have been used like the Republicans used to push through the tax cuts for the wealthy that increased our already bloated national debt. Instead the Democrats run like cowards or are they just marching to the tunes of their paymasters? I don’t know all I know is they can but won’t and this inertia is what is going to lose us elections in November with Bennet being at the top of the list of candidates who will lose the seat for the Democrats.  

          • indipol says:

            tell Harry to grow a pair.  BO is in charge of the goddamned Executive Branch, ok?  Harry is in charge of the Thunderdome.  BO does not control reconciliation or any of the other 13 parliamentary maneuvers you could have mentioned, Harry controls them.  So how does this in any way tell me that Barack friggin’ Obama has not been following through on HC and labor issues?  What’s he going to take a gun to the Senate floor and threaten anybody that pulls a filibuster on his nominees?  Wake the F up.

            • wade norris says:

              he has Senators pleading with him to take the lead and make public statements of support for the Public Option.

              Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized Axelrod for the administration’s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact.

              The sources said Franken was the most outspoken senator in the meeting, which followed President Barack Obama’s question-and-answer session with Senate Democrats at the Newseum on Wednesday. But they also said the Minnesotan wasn’t the only angry Democrat in the room.

              “There was a lot of frustration in there,” said a Democratic senator who declined to be identified.

              “People were hot,” another Democratic senator said.

              Democratic senators are frustrated that the White House hasn’t done more to win over the public on health care reform and other aspects of its ambitious agenda – and angry that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s win in the Massachusetts Senate race, the White House hasn’t done more to chart a course for getting a health care bill to the president’s desk.

              In his public session with the senators Wednesday, Obama urged them to “finish the job” on health care but did not lay out a path for doing so. That uncertainty appeared to trigger Franken’s anger, and the sources in the room said he laid out his concerns much more directly than any senator did

              http://www.politico.com/news/s

              • indipol says:

                BO lives in the reality-based world called politics in the US of A.  Maybe he realizes that taking a big public stand on a public option makes any chance of HC reform DOA?  Maybe, unlike diehard holdouts on this site, he realizes that most people in the US actually don’t want a public option right now and that if the D’s ram one through you can say buh-bye to a D majority for a long time to come?  Maybe, just maybe, since Barack some how got himself elected POTUS after a very short political career, maybe we should just give him a wee little bit of credit for being smart and realistic?   No, no, keep trashing him.  He sucks.  He hasn’t won the Super Bowl yet, he’s worthless.

                • wade norris says:

                  maybe…he realizes that most people in the US actually don’t want a public option right now and that if the D’s ram one through you can say buh-bye to a D majority for a long time to come?

                  http://www.reuters.com/article


                  Most in U.S. want public health option: poll

                  Just under 60 percent of those surveyed said they would like a public option as part of any final healthcare reform legislation, which Republicans and a few Democrats oppose.

                  Here are some of the results of the telephone survey of 2,999 households called from November 9-17 as part of the Thomson Reuters PULSE Healthcare Survey:

                  * Believe in public option: 59.9 percent yes, 40.1 percent no.

                  * 86 percent of Democrats support the public option versus 57 percent of Independents and 33 percent of Republicans.

                  That’s overwhelming support with the Base and over 50% of independents – clearly the public option is a winning strategy – if Obama would quit trying to please Republicans whose only goals are to make him fail to pass anything.

                  http://www.tnr.com/article/pol

                  “Nice Guys finish last”

                  Everyone remembers that George W. Bush’s first tax cut was contentious when Congress considered it back in 2001. So contentious, in fact, that the Bushies didn’t even try passing it under normal Senate procedures. The GOP leadership, worried that it couldn’t collect 60 votes to overcome a Democratic filibuster, relied on reconciliation, the Senate rule that allows budget-related measures to pass with a simple majority.

                  What fewer people remember is the margin by which Bush’s tax cut finally passed the Senate. As it happens, the number of yeas was 62-including 12 Democrats. That would qualify as a bipartisan love-fest by contemporary standards….

                  The reason all this worked is that, by casting his lot with reconciliation and ginning up support in the provinces, Bush made his tax cut seem inevitable. And once Democrats assumed they couldn’t stop it, many decided to take any deal they could get (however skimpy). By contrast, had Bush renounced reconciliation and tried to pass his bill in truly bipartisan fashion, Democrats would have had no incentive to engage. They would have known they could stuff him with a mere 40 votes.

                  …as Bush showed, these tactics aren’t just a way to enact an agenda that the opposition is bent on blocking. They’re the most effective way to achieve bipartisanship in the process.

                  • Middle of the Road says:

                    than one from early November last year?

                    • wade norris says:

                      closest so far is december (3 months ago)

                      http://www.digitaljournal.com/


                      The poll, finds that a wide majority are opposed to a Health Care Bill that does not have either a Public Option, or a Medicare buy-in, but does require everyone to buy health insurance.

                      Among all respondents 56 percent oppose such a bill, compared to just 33 percent who support it. Just 37 percent of Democrats support the bill in it’s current form, compared to 30 percent of Republicans and 31 percent of Independents.

                      However, if the bill does have a Public Option, or Medicare buy-in, the number of Democrats (88 percent) and Independents (57 percent) rises considerably. Not surprisingly, support among Republicans actually falls, to 22 percent.

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      before I weigh in here so I’ll hold off giving my uneducated opinion. :) Personally, I’d love to see a public option in the final bill but I don’t believe you will be able to get 51 Senators on board with that, even if we go the reconciliation route. I can’t remember the count currently but at one point there were 11 Senators ardently opposed to the public option so I’m doing the math and it still doesn’t add up that we have enough votes to get it through the Senate with the public option included.

        • Sharon Hanson says:

          You’re wicked retarded, indipol. And just plain wrong. Heathcare could of and should of been done last year through reconciliation and approximately 44K Americans would still be alive because they HAD health insurance.

          It’s time for the Democrats to stand up and fight for Americans and not worry about the Republicans and what they want.  Who cares what they want we elected a majority of Democrats so do your job.  

        • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

          That’s how Bush got legislation through; he scared people

      • DevilishlyModerate says:

        You line of thinking is truly mind-boggling. Essentially, you are saying labor would rather have Republicans in power, who will not blink in dismantling any ground labor has gained over the past two decades, because the president and moderate Democrats don’t vote your way on every issue. Bogus!

        I’m a big supporter of labor but they need to wake up to the fact that politics isn’t black and white, all or nothing. In order to get things done, elected officials need to work the system.  

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        has gotten any key labor endorsements? Would it change your opinion that he “is still less trusted” if he had?

    • gaf says:

      It seems the unions prefer someone (Romanoff) who is generally with them and gave a straight answer when he was not, rather than Bennet who is also going to vote against card check but will not say so.

      I talked with Bennet directly when he gave his stock “depends on the bill” answer. It was clear to me–he ain’t going to vote for it. He says he is willing to risk his election on health care (and I applaud him for that), but then he won’t even risk a position on card check.

      I think both Romanoff and Bennet are wrong on this, by the way, but if you are not going to get a guy to vote your way, you want one who will tell you up front. It’s not about lying. Romanoff told them the truth; Bennet didn’t answer the question.

      • sxp151 says:

        What a tale my thoughts would tell.

        Just like a paperback novel,

        The kind the drugstores sell.

      • peacemonger says:

        Isn’t voting to appoint him expressing that opinion pretty clearly?

      • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

        Your post is just more good cop (andrew)/Bad cop (his staff and supporters) smearing.

        • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

          Romanoff still says that DC is different than Colorado. He impugns any DC candidate taht takes PAC moeny. He says that Colorado has a clean history. I wouldn’t say that to the minority communities. Sand Creek was not  clean.Ludlow was not clean. Gov.Stapleton of the klan was not clean.

          Bill McNichols ran machine poltics.

          Other recent examples exist. Apparenly, only Andrew’s pac money acceptance is cloean, and everyone else’s is dirty.

          The question to Andrew becomes which member of the Colorado delegation is he saying is corrupt? Sec.Salazar? Sen Udall? Sen. Bennet? Rep, Degette? Rep.Perlmutter? Rep. Polis? Rep.Markey? Rep Salaar? Former Sec Pena?Former Sen Hart? Former Sen. Wirth?

          The answer is none of them are corrupt, and this is a vacuous argument at best.

        • gaf says:

          It’s “smearing” to point out the fact that Bennet has not given the unions an answer–and that may be why they hesitate to support him? That seems to me to be (a) a fact, and (b) an unsurprising political consequence of that fact.

  3. Laughing Boy says:

    Just awesome.  Go Andrew!

    • JO says:

      like 24 minutes ago? Or was it even earlier today?

      Per Michael Riley of the Denver Post, February 10, 2010, 5:43 pm http://blogs.denverpost.com/th

      … with the announcement today by two of the state’s largest unions that they would endorse Andrew Romanoff….

      Bennet has yet to take a position on the Employee Free Choice Act, the unions’ biggest legislative priority under the Obama administration, and that has angered some labor advocates…

      Romanoff spokesman Dean Toda said his boss supports EFCA minus one of its key provisions, which would allow the elimination of the secret ballot in many cases for union elections. That was apparently enough to win him the nod.

      No need for facts when we already have opinions.

  4. peacemonger says:

    Appointed Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) stood with organized labor Tuesday on a tough vote over the Obama administration’s nominee for the National Labor Relations Board – a vote that could have significant repercussions for his election campaign.

    Unlike Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) – the two precariously positioned Democrats who broke with the party on the vote – Bennet voted to approve Craig Becker, who Republicans assert is too supportive of union interests, including the controversial Employee Free Choice Act.

    While the vote was 52-33 to move ahead with Becker’s appointment, 60 votes were necessary to break a filibuster.

    Republicans were quick to zero in on the vote, since Colorado is a state with a lower percentage of unionized workers than the national average.

    Former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, the Republican front-runner, said that while other Democrats were willing to buck President Obama’s choice, Bennet’s vote demonstrates he would provide “a rubber stamp” for legislation commonly referred to as “card check.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s

    http://www.politico.com/news/s

    • ohwilleke says:

      for a Democrat.  Apparently, 2 Democrats (both among the most conservative in the Senate) voted no, and 52 Democrats voted yes, while 31 Republicans voted no.

      What about that vote is tough?  This was very nearly a straight party line vote.

      Do I disagree with how Bennet voted?  No.  But, save the drama for genuinely tough votes.  

    • Sharon Hanson says:

      You’ll do anything to make Bennet look good but it isn’t working. Bennet is not going to get elected. He is in the pockets of special interests while millions of Americans are out of work or underemployed.  Except for his 10 trusted servants on Bennet Pols no one trusts him.  And this is a pathetic attempt to make Bennet look like a hero because he did his job.  Next you’ll be telling us we should vote for him because his heart beats or he blinks his eyes.  

      • peacemonger says:

        an election outside of his safe seat in Denver.  What’s your point Sharon?

        • Sharon Hanson says:

          Bennet is tarnished for many reasons but here are a few.

          He takes lots of money from special interests and then votes in favor of Wall Street.

          He weakly supported the public option before Andrew Romanoff got into the race and even now he is not pushing for health care reform except for minimal lip service and doing what he has to do to stay competitive in the primary.

          He is viewed by voters as smug, arrogant and out of touch with Main Street.

          He is loathed by Republicans and progressives alike.

          He has the endorsement of the POTUS. A president who said in a recent interview with Bloomberg: “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free-market system.” And Paul Krugman and others are saying Oh. My. God. He’s clueless. Anointed Senator Bennet or President Obama does not understand the gravity of the precarious situation our economy is in. And for these two to not only ignore the rage of the American people who have been forced to bail out the greedy bankers who caused our collapse but truly believe we live in a free-market society is startling. Most are wondering if there is any hope or if we even should have the audacity to hope after this President and Congress’ lack of accomplishments and inertia have not given us anything to hope for in the next three years.  

          He voted no on the cram-down; which showed he naively thought he was supporting the bankers but turned out to be a bad decision for everyone and especially bad for our economy.  

          • indipol says:

            you do begrudge people success and wealth?  And AR is your boy because he’s going to take success and wealth away and redistribute it around to everybody?  Good luck with that

            • Sharon Hanson says:

              But we don’t live in a free-market society. When was the last time economic talking points made sense or actually predicted a financial collapse? I’ll give you a hint, never.  They know they are being deceitful and spreading propaganda but they continue to do so because they are in bed with corporations and banks. By using mathematical models to explain what is happening economically they always ignore reality. Economics is not a science it’s a profession based on ideological propaganda.  

              Like I said we DO NOT live in a free-market society period.  We live in a society that protects corporations but leaves the middleclass and poor to rot in the streets; homeless and without food.  

            • Arvadonian says:

              if the government bails you out when, by all outward appearances, you have failed.

              Begs the question, how do you define “success”?

          • DevilishlyModerate says:

            I’m beginning to think you never approved of Obama, you’re likely a bitter Hillary supporter. You’ve truly drunken the AR Kool-Aid.

            Per your Obama quote, try this one for size:

            My parents shared not only an improbable love, they shared an abiding faith in the possibilities of this nation. They would give me an African name, Barack, or blessed, believing that in a tolerant America your name is no barrier to success. They imagined me going to the best schools in the land, even though they weren’t rich, because in a generous America you don’t have to be rich to achieve your potential.

            But you’re right SH, Obama doesn’t appreciate what the American people are going through, give me a break.

            I’m not involved with the Bennet campaign, but i’m sure they have dirt on AR. It’s a shame you don’t have the same respect.  

            • Sharon Hanson says:

              Bennet will not win in the general. You can name call all you want but you are deluding yourself if you think he has a chance in this politically explosive election cycle. Things are not going well for middleclass Americans and they will change the political landscape because anything is better than the inertia we have now in Washington.  

            • peacemonger says:

              He hasn’t said a negative thing about AR and won’t let his staff, either. I wish that were true for some of the Romanoff zealots. I realize Andrew cannot control all of his supporters, but I have not heard him call them out for saying crazy things about Bennet, either. Accusing someone of being “bought” or not having enough integrity to stick to principles, is quite an accusation. AR’s video is proof he is willing to play dirty politics, which is a shame. Michael Bennet is not like that at all and would not hire people like that.

              I miss the old Andrew Romanoff.

          • MADCO says:

            so you oppose Bennet.

            Why are you for Romanoff?

      • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

        Romanoff still says that DC is different than Colorado. He impugns any DC candidate that takes PAC moeny. He says that Colorado has a clean history. I wouldn’t say that to the minority communities. Sand Creek was not  clean. Ludlow was not clean. Gov.Stapleton of the klan was not clean. They were bloody.

        Bill McNichols ran machine poltics.

        Other recent examples exist.

        Apparenly, only Andrew’s pac money acceptance is clean, and everyone else’s is dirty.

        The question to Andrew becomes which member of the Colorado delegation is he saying is corrupt? Sec.Salazar? Sen Udall? Sen. Bennet? Rep, Degette? Rep.Perlmutter? Rep. Polis? Rep.Markey? Rep Salaar? Former Sec Pena?Former Sen Hart? Former Sen. Wirth?

        The answer is none of them are corrupt, and this is a vacuous argument at best.

        • RedGreenRedGreen says:

          What in hell do the Ludlow and Sand Creek Massacre have to do with Romanoff’s point? Nothing. And politics in general were entirely different 40 years ago. You can’t just throw out historic examples and then say “Other recent examples exist” and expect that to cover it.

          You’re arguing both sides — that Romanoff is wrong to say Colorado politics are clean, compared with D.C., and that, never mind that point, modern Colorado Democrats are clean.

          Romanoff’s video also explicitly calls out his Democratic primary opponent in his corruption ad. So it’s a fair question to ask whether he thinks Bennet only listens to big-money contributors, like the ad implies.

          • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

            That’s the point. Seriously, who is Andrew stating is corrupt?

            Peole that live in glass huoses should not throw stones.

            The majority of both parties in the legislature accept pac money.

            The real point, and you should make Andrew answer, is who in the Democratic party is bought?

            He’s suggesting that people have been. He should name names.  If he doesn’t, then he’s shouting fire in a theatre  

            • MADCO says:

              It’s a loser for D’s and only helps the R nominee.

              Seriously- the R argument can be subtle implication and innuendo or broad, over stated, exaggerated hyperbole.  Either way it damages the D nominee.  And either way the R’s can distance from it because it was AR, a D leader, who said it.

              AR, a D insider who would know, says the D nominee is corrupted by corp America…Obama sux, Pelosi Reid and the rest or this new and improved,  bright, shiney R?

              or

              AR, a D insider who would know, used to take PAC/corp donations when he was in a safely D seat in Denver and to help the shadowy vast liberal conspiracy CODA, but now claims those donations should be returned because they taint politicians- he should know

              • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

                His good Cop/Bad cop routine falls to pieces when confronted.

                The point is that he’s making it up because he wasn’t  getting offers.  

                My house district meetting responded well for sticking up for our officals verses Andrew’s mudslinging.

  5. Ralphie says:

    Where’s their money?

    Oh, I forgot, Andrew doesn’t want PAC money.  That’s his only issue.

    Hard to see how this is going to help without causing him to ratchet back on his sole issue.

    But hey–go Andrew go.  I’m for whoever wins.

  6. Sharon Hanson says:

    And even though he isn’t accepting PAC money individuals can still contribute to his campaign.  

    I’m glad the unions are backing him.  They made an excellent choice.  

    • Ralphie says:

      You could have spun it even better.

        • Ralphie says:

          Do you have anything to add, or are you just another crack from the peanut gallery?

          • heartbreaker says:

            I think it is kind of dumb to focus on the contribution a labor union can give to a candidate. Their contribution limit is $5K for the primary and $5K for the general.

            The real question is, how much do they end up doing for him on their own? If I remember, unions formed a 527 to advocate for JFG in ’08? Not that it ultimately helped, but the impact will be felt more from the independent expenditures than in AR’s campaign account.

            • Ralphie says:

              But if Andrew eschews PAC money in public, but tolerates 527 money in private (and we all know that coordination is illegal, so don’t start with me on that), then his one and only issue (“I don’t owe anything to anybody”) goes away.

              It’s “inside baseball” stuff, but not so complicated that an average voter couldn’t be made to understand.

              He might be walking a line that’s too fine to be walked successfully.

              • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                He really can’t say anything about it, whether it’s to welcome their help or reject it, so I don’t think it’s a problem for Romanoff the way you frame it. As i recall, the 527 involvement in the CD2 primary probably didn’t bother very many voters one way or the other, but the truly enormous Polis spending might have swamped it regardless. Of course, that could be the case with Bennet’s spending this time too.

                • Ralphie says:

                  But I still think it puts him between a rock and a hard place, as far as trying to claim the high ground.  He’s running a very risky strategy.  Any involvement of big-money interests could cause him to be perceived as a hypocrite.  That’s the risk.

                  (sorry for the mixed metaphor)

                  • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                    Though I’m not getting the sense his rejection of big money is the decisive reason he’s getting support, so if events muddle that a bit, I don’t think it harms him (except here! there’ll be no end of discussion about it here!).

      • Sharon Hanson says:

        Endorsement or not Andrew Romanoff is a better choice for Senator.  

    • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

      I don’t thnk so. When will you quit playng this game?

      • heartbreaker says:

        Where did the hell did that number come from?

        • MADCO says:

          Sources:

          http://www.elections.colorado….

          http://tracer.sos.colorado.gov

          You sound surprised, heartbreaker.

          I was too- not that Romanoff would raise money to run for office, help others run for office and to build the party.

          I was surprised that he wanted to make taking PAC/corp and special interest donations a negative issue now, in this race.  I mean he was in one of the safes CO House seats there was and he took outside money then, but now he says it’s corrupting?  He built a D leadership group to help other D”s get elected – and counseled them how to seek and get outside donation, but now he says you can connect the dots and see how corrupting it is? Though apparently he didn’t mean to apply that to himself.

          He even said everyone who has taken such donations should give them back- though that clearly doesn’t apply to himself.

          I was surprised when he eschewed even the DSCC support after the primary- describing them as “outside influence”  and an “incumbent protection racquet.”

          I suppose insisting on financial purity is ok. I suppose spitting on outside support is ok too. But the question then, a question he hasn’t even attempted to answer, is how do you run a competitive campaign in the general without $12-$15million ?

          If you can do it for less – how?

          If the funds are available from somewhere else -where?

          I am a Democrat.

          I want the seat to stay D.

          I like Senator Bennet and think he’s done a fine job. I think Speaker Romanoff did a fine job and I like him too.

          But Bennet  appears to be doing everything right to run a competitive campaign in the general. Romanoff isn’t instead he’s creating a circular event where neither is electable -not himself because he wouldn’t be able to compete on media, and not his opponent because Romanoff will have alienated enough voters who will stay home in Nov.

        • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

          It comes from both his house district and the Colorado Majority Project. He does not deny it.

          I was at a meeting last might for HD42. He still says that DC is different than Colorado. He says that Colorado has a clean history. I wouldn’t say that to the minority communities. Sand Creek was not  clean.Ludlow was not clean. Gov.Stapleton f the klan was not clean.

          Bill McNichols ran machine poltics.

          Other recent examples exist.

          The question to Andrew becomes which member of the Colorado delegation  is he saying is corrupt? Sec.Salazar?Sen Udall? Se Bennet? Re.Degette? Rep.perlmutter? REp.polis?Ep.Markey? REp Salaar? Former Sec Pena?Former Sen Hart? Former Sen. Wirth?

          The answer is none of them are corrupt, and this is a vacuous argument at best.  

  7. WashParkPoet says:

    these unions will be spending heavily against the Senator and for Andrew.

  8. ClubTwitty says:

    I’ll support him.   Until then, I await him convincing me I should support him in that effort.  I remain open and officially undecided, although I admit time is waning.  

    Personally, I’d like to see Bennet pick up his game a bit too.  He has a low-key personality, which I think works well in small groups and one-on-one, but it doesn’t always translate to enthusiasm on the stump.

    Still I have yet to be contacted by the AR campaign, have contacted them and heard nothing.  I have been called twice by Bennet’s trying to get me to the caucuses.  Granted, I don’t live in a high priority area, and I think AR will do well that day.  But Bennet remains favored to get the bid, methinks.  

    I remain seriously concerned that AR has embraced a self-defeating strategy and failed to define his purpose.  Neither would serve him well in the General, should he prevail in the primary.

    Hating on Bennet isn’t working for me, although I have to admit AR’s supporters are a spirited bunch (and several of them do considerable more damage to their cause than good).

    • Arvadonian says:

      in the same boat.  I like them both.

      I’d been leaning toward Bennet as I saw him as the best chance to retain the seat and I still don’t see a dimes worth of difference between the two on issues.

      Now I’m not so sure…Romanoff’s campaign has not impressed me in the slightest and at this point the best thing I see that he has going for him is that he is not as closely tied to Obama as is Bennet.  (If Obama’s endorsement didn’t work in Massachussetts or New Jersey, it sure as hell isn’t going to do much here).

      Bottom line, I’m not sure who I’ll be caucusing for….

  9. keephopealive says:

    I have not been watching this race as long or as closely as all of you seem to have been.  I would guess that puts me in the same category as most primary voters.  So let me give you the nonprofessional’s opinion on the race.  I am not in Romanoff’s district, but I had a generally positive view of the work that he did in the State House.  My impression of him was that he was a good fit for Colorado — someone who is progressive but also practical who worked to actually get things done for the good of the state.  I thought Bennet was a strange appointment and have never really warmed to him.  I watched Romanoff’s speech in response to Ritter’s announcement and was intrigued.  His speech after Citizen’s United made me a fan.  I assume their positions on policies are somewhat similar.  But this is going to be a tough year for Democratic incumbents, particularly appointed ones.  Martha Coakley lost because of anger at Congress and her failure to inspire Democrats and Independents.  I would worry that Bennet would have the same problems.  If Romanoff can tap into the public’s anger but also inspire Democrats and Independents then he deserves the nomination and stands a chance of winning.  

    • ClubTwitty says:

      and leaners should argue, rather than the vitriol sometimes spewed here.  I have always though well of Andrew, although I have found his campaign confusing.  I want a senator who will fight against over-sweeping legislating by the Regal Five, but I also prefer candidates who are practical, which Andrew may be but many of his supporters definitely are not.  

      They imagine him to be some anti-corporate crusader, willing to stop (potential) healthcare reform for the sake of purity, shun all ‘corporate’ money (as if that is easily disentangled–short of public financing–from elections, and now even more so), and portray him as an outsider that his record as a longtime politician belies.  

      Meanwhile they subject Bennet to an acid test that virtually none of the 100 sitting senators could survive, and while it may–in fact–be a den of thieves, I am not sure how that strategy fits in with the old maxim, that politics is the art of the possible.

      I’ll vigorously support whomever wins the Primary, because a Sen. Norton is unpalatable to me.  

      • wade norris says:

        and for the casual reader here, the vitriol towards Bennet early on, may have seemed a bit out of place, yet it was based on a ‘gut feeling’ that his appointment was ‘inside baseball’ and a game was being played by people in DC with whom Coloradoans have no contact.

        (at least for the people I was talking to on the ground here across the state)

        Now, a year later, that feeling of ‘inside the beltway politics as usual’ is solidifying among the voters as they see the ‘Change’ they voted for being co-opted by weak kneed capitulation to the Republicans and Democratic Senators who are out of touch with people in their own state.

        This endorsement from labor is big, primarily because Labor and Romanoff were never ‘bosom buddies’, and now Labor is willing to put 39,000 people to work for his campaign, (not to mention their family members and donations) mostly, I would guess, because of the lack of trust of the current senator and ultimately, lack of progress of the administration.

        • MADCO says:

          is to run against the President, you shouldn’t trust his guy”, there hasn’t been enough progress ?

          And then to elect someone who will have run against the President’s agenda in the hope that he’d be able to turn the tide in the Senate?

          It sounds pretty on paper. But it sounds more like a welcome mat to Senator Norton. If the President hasn’t done a good job, and Bennet is his guy so can’t be trusted idea catches on- why would the middle (where CO elections are won and lost) swing left in the general?

          Hmm, says the general voter, I guess Obama hasn’t done enough for me and Colorado and now that I think about it, I can vote the President’s party or I can vote the opposition… I don’t trust D”s, I want opposition, cheers for Senator Norton, she’s not great but she’s not a D

          • keephopealive says:

            I don’t think it is a good strategy to run against the President.  I continue to support the President even though I don’t agree with a lot that he has done.  Obama was elected on a platform of change.  The voters still want change.  I think Romanoff can present the change argument better than Bennet.  I don’t see supporting Romanoff as a rejection of Obama.

            • BICora says:

              “…lack of trust of the current senator and ultimately, lack of progress of the administration.”

              Senator Bennet said he would be a strong supporter of the President and his agenda – and he has been as far as I can tell.

              I’m not suggesting suuporting Romanoff is opposing the President, the post above indicated that as a winning strategy or AR.

              When did AR endorse the President or say he would be a strong supporter of his agenda?

              • wade norris says:

                Romanoff can and is running as a candidate that is not an incumbent, and can still attack Norton for some of her less than common sense tea party pleasing comments.

                Bennet is in the unfortunate position of being associated with the leadership of the Democrats (in this case the Senate)

                who have been slow to enact the changes that Obama campaigned on (and yes, some of the blame lies with Obama, because he could have used Reconciliation a long time ago, if he really, really wanted a public option)

                the end result is poor polling for incumbents in general and specifically for Bennet against challengers from both sides.

                  • BICora says:

                    You suggested that running against the President could benefit AR because, for example, labor is disappointed in Obama so far.

                    MADCO suggested that might be a good way to elect Norton.

                    kha said that supporting Romanoff isn’t necessarily opposing the President.

                    But that’s not what you said. You said it could be a good electoral strategy “… because of the lack of trust of the current senator and ultimately, lack of progress of the administration.”

                    You went further: “Bennet is in the unfortunate position of being associated with the leadership of the Democrats (in this case the Senate)

                    who have been slow to enact the changes that Obama campaigned on (and yes, some of the blame lies with Obama, because he could have used Reconciliation a long time ago, if he really, really wanted a public option)

                    the end result is poor polling for incumbents in general and specifically for Bennet against challengers from both sides.”

                    By “both sides” you mean from AR in the primary and from the R nominee in the general, right?

                    So, I’ll say again, it sounds like you think AR would benefit by running against the administration in the primary, Mr. Outsider and all.  But that appears to risk actually swinging the middle more to the R than to the D in the general.

                    And then you link to a The New Republic piece that concludes of the administration’s approach, particulalrly Emmanuel, “But that was exactly the right idea. ”

                    What? Was the adminsitration “right” but too slow? Are you advocating that AR run against the admin now, but then tack back in the general? Speaking of which, has AR ever indicated he would support the Obama agenda?

                  • DevilishlyModerate says:

                    If you’re blaming Bennet for the Senate dragging their feet you really need to be focusing on states such as Nebraska because Bennet wasn’t the problem. Then again, please don’t start stirring the pot in Nebraska because whatever candidate you come up with won’t win in a conservative state. The Senate is inherently conservative due to all states being represented by 2 Senators which means states like Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma get the same power as NY and Cali. This simply isn’t AR time, although I do hope he gets a chance at Congress or Senate one day…

                • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                  You do realize Obama isn’t in the Senate anymore, right? There is nothing in Obama’s power that allows him to “use reconciliation.”

              • keephopealive says:

                I would expect that Romanoff would support Obama’s agenda, but is it better politics in this environment to make supporting the President’s agenda or supporting change to the status quo the centerpiece of your campaign?

                Who beats Norton, the candidate saying that they are supporting the President or the one who says they are supporting the change he campaigned on in 2008 and would help him deliver on that?

                • BICora says:

                  I would expect AR to support the President too- except that I don’t think he’s ever said that and Wade is suggesting that supporting the President weakens Bennet from both sides.

                  As for electability in the general I think the more electable D in Colorado 2010 is Bennet.  You and Wade can try to paint him as an inside baseball appointment but no D in any race in Colorado is more “inside” than AR.  I think these labor endorsements are a good thing, and they help AR in the primary. But I’m less sure they help in the general.

                    • MADCO says:

                      In order to win the general a candidate has to win the primary.

                      Then the candidate has to beat the opponent in the general.

                      Sure, your guy can run against Obama now and score some cheap points at caucus. That doesn’t help him in the general. Then, all those voters persuadable by running against the President are just as likely to vote R.  Colorado 2010 – lose the middle- and you lose.  

                      But your guy doesn’t even appear to be running to be viable in the general. I know, I know- all us pragmatists focused on his inability to fund a $10 or $12  million media campaign just don’t get it – money is evil, the DSCC are just outsiders, blah, blah, might as well  elect an R yada, yada yada

          • Arvadonian says:

            left/right issue.  Bennet and Romanoff have virtually identical issue positons.

            The issue is leadership.

    • MADCO says:

      Not in Romanoff’s district – but have a favorable impression of his work in the House.  That puts you in a different category from most primary voters- who aren’t that familiar with AR.

      Or were you saying that your not watching as long or closely is what equates you with most primary voters?  That sounds right to me.

      “strange appointment”

      How so?

      To which Romanoff speech are you referring? After Ritter announced Bennet – or after Ritter announced he was not running for re-election?

      I’d guess that most primary voters didn’t see AR’s speech after Citizen’s United.

      I think rather than a “tough year on D incumbents,”  it’s going to be a tough year on D insiders, and perceived D insiders and career politicians and perceived career politicians.  Yes, Bennet has been in the seat for 13 months and counting and he had to vote on things that were not popular with everyone in CO – healthcare, the bailout continuation, the stimulus, and more.  But I don’t think he gets tagged as hard as a D insider.

      Coakley had all kinds of problems- and I don’t see a real good comparison to Colorado.

      If Romanoff taps public anger like Brown did – CO will elect the R nominee no matter who it is, barring Appalachian hikes or girls/boys.

      If, instead, Romanoff can differentiate himself from Bennet and by so doing motivate and inspire the D voters while proving that he can be viable or competitive in the general, then he stands a chance of winning the nomination.

      I’ll support him if he does- because I want the seat to stay D.

  10. Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

    Sen. Bennet supports labor, as well.

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      whether Bennet’s key labor endorsements count for anything. Let’s face it — neither Bennet nor Romanoff is Joan FitzGerald, and neither one is Bill Ritter. The endorsements are a plum get for Romanoff, but then so are the labor endorsements Bennet has gotten.  

      • MADCO says:

        when they are for AR and then only when AR announces them.

        • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

          If he’ll shut up about pac money (which he raised over a million for if you count the huose majority project), then I’ll remaiin civil.

          I’ll beat  HD42 tonight.I’ll keep my mouth shut unless directly prompted.

          Sen Bennet having class and not going after his good cop/bad cop opponent runs agaisnt every instinct that I was raised with.

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.