February 14, 2010 08:11 PM UTC
Romanoff to Polis: "Be the Chump Change"
160 Comments- by: peacemonger
( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Note: When I first published this diary, it was from memory, and with the help of some other attendees who were with me. Afterward, the Romanoff campaign shared some edited video clips of the event, and I made some changes. I stand by the corrected version.
**************************************************
I attended the “Be The Change” conference yesterday out of a deep respect for Dr. Irene Aguilar of Health Care for All Colorado, possibly the most well-known leader in the health reform movement in Colorado. Dr. Aguilar has managed to stay out of the US Senatorial primary debate and its’ accompanying drama. A few conference organizers assured me it was not a Romanoff campaign event, although former insiders say the group had been resurrected years after Mike Miles’ supporters founded it, to build up Andrew Romanoff’s bid for the Senate. The cost of the full-day conference was extremely affordable, so I decided to check it out.
The conference took place in southeast Denver, ground zero for the Romanoff-for-Senate campaign. Approximately 200 Denver-ites convened early to meet local and state candidates, discuss climate change, health care reform, campaign finance reform, and other issues. Registration was well-organized and the full slate of speakers appeared qualified. Dinner was seasoned with more campaign speeches from hopeful candidates from all over the front range, in addition to a performance by “The Raging Grannies”. The entire conference, from morning to evening was very impressive. Kudos to the planners.
The highlight of the event was the evening “Forum” between US Senate candidates, according to the flier. Two hundred more people joined conference attendees to fill the church sanctuary. According to the Bennet-for-Colorado campaign, Senator Michael Bennet had been invited to participate after the event was planned. Numerous times, BTC planners were told the campaign would not be participating; they chose to hold the event that day, regardless. Approximately a week before the event, Colorado Congressman Jared Polis stepped up to represent Senator Bennet’s views at the “forum”.
The event was moderated by former Senate candidate Mike Miles, with an introduction from radio host and columnist David Sirota. Sirota gave his usual, “Primaries are a good thing” speech. Mike Miles gave an update on his family and personal life since the 2004 election, ending with a strange story about being glad his daughter’s prom date burned his hands so he couldn’t put them all over his daughter. (Newly-elected Senator from Massachusetts’s Scott Brown’s daughter can now commiserate with Mike Mile’s daughter about inappropriate comments publicly shared by their fathers.) Miles then introduced the “candidates”.
Whether or not Romanoff’s camp informed Polis that the forum was actually going to be a debate is unknown. According to Merriam-Webster, a forum is defined as, “a public meeting place for open discussion”. A debate is a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides”. This event was clearly a debate with some additional time added for audience questions, although the sides were not well-matched. Romanoff was well-rehearsed and ready to draw blood; Polis was doing a huge favor for a friend whom he admired.
The event began with Congressman Polis honoring Romanoff’s work in the state legislature and introducing himself as a friend, supporter and colleague of Senator Michael Bennet who would do his best to answer questions about Senator Bennet’s views on the issues. Andrew Romanoff thanked individual planners of the event, speakers, and the Board of Directors. He honored Congressman Polis’ “courage, leadership and talent” in Congress, before starting a familiar autobiographical stump speech (He’s a Democrat because Mom was a social worker and Dad is a Republican…hahaha). Noticeably absent was an acknowledgement of Senator Bennet being a worthy primary opponent, decent human being, or effective Senator for the past year.
Romanoff threw the first punch at unsuspecting Polis when he said:
When I was a kid my folks always told me if you study hard and eat all your vegetables, someday you may grow up to be able to debate the Surrogate for a candidate for the United States Senate.
Jared Polis’ expression was priceless; I wish I had my camera ready. Images of a chorus of urban teenage girls waving their fingers, hands on their hips, saying, “Oh no, he di-in’t” filled the room. When it was his turn, Polis responded with:
First of all, I am not a professional surrogate, so I have Michael’s position statements and I will be looking at those. At times, I will be extrapolating what I know. You’ll have to bare with me. I am a big fan of Michael Bennet and I don’t have one about this, but I can tell you Michael Bennet was opposed to the War in Iraq from the very start. It was an unnecessary and costly expedition…
Numerous policy questions were asked. All the while, Congressman Polis held little slips of paper with notes from Senator Bennet’s position statements in his hand. With each question, Polis found the right piece of paper and thoughtfully addressed its content. Periodically, Andrew Romanoff muttered sarcastic comments like, “While my opponent is ‘channeling’ his inner US Senator…”.
I won’t bore Pols’ readers with the content of the policy answers, since you can read them on the “Be The Change” website under “Senate candidate questionnaire” at www.btc-USA.org. Suffice it to say, with a few exceptions for grand-standing by Romanoff (it’s easy to say that voting for Bernanke was wrong, for example, since he is not actually in Washington) there was very little difference in actual policy.
Romanoff scored huge points from the audience by answering where we should go now on health reform with the answer, “Lower the age of Medicare eligibility to zero”. When asked if he wanted to elaborate, he said, “Now”. At another point, he indicated that members of Congress should say they are not willing to consider either of the current health reform bills unless the public option is put back in them.
Romanoff garnered cheers and whistles from his base-filled audience when he said he was not taking PAC money in his campaign. No one in the audience asked Romanoff why he accepted PAC money in his last four elections while at the state level.
There were moments when I felt, as a progressive voter, I could understand the almost cult-like following of Andrew Romanoff in SE Denver. The attendees at “Be The Change” seemed to hold him in esteem at a level somewhere between Michael Jackson and John Elway. When he mentioned traveling to China last year to plead with officials to remedy the situation in Darfur, I was moved and inspired.
For a few moments, this was the old Andrew Romanoff we used to know — not the one who questioned the integrity of a respected sitting Democratic US Senator with a strong record, nor the one who refused to accept that Governor Bill Ritter had a right to appoint whomever he wanted to the position. This was the Andrew who was previously elected to office four times because he cared about people who had no voice, and was willing to fight hard on their behalf. This was the Andrew Romanoff we hadn’t seen in awhile.
That feeling quickly evaporated each time a pragmatic policy answer was expected of him, and each time he insulted Congressman Polis with his taunts about being a surrogate. I was hoping Congressman Polis would abandon his calm demeanor and say, “Listen up, Romanoff. The guy has a full time job on the east coast and a family here. All you have to do is campaign.”
The former House Speaker did answer the question I had been asking his campaign since last September, which was “If you were considering entering the Senate race, where were you when the entire Colorado delegation was fighting off crazy people wearing tea-bag hats in hot parking lots in 2009?” Apparently, Romanoff was traveling the globe to prove he was “Senate material”. The former Speaker’s work overseas was indeed admirable; unfortunately for everyone, toothless people waving signs reading, “Obama is a socialist” and “No more pubic option” took the media spotlight instead. Ironically, Romanoff’s current campaign staff member from Fox news, Pat Caddell, may have had something to do with that coverage.
The conference ended as it began, with Mike Miles relating the theme of the event to Ghandi’s quote reminding us all to “Be the change you wish to see in the world”. I left thinking Jared Polis must want change in the form of people being cooperative and respectful, listening to one another while engaged in productive civil debate. As for Andrew Romanoff — I wonder if he even remembers.
Other takes on the evening are welcome and encouraged.
I thought we knew ye. My (limited) memory of Romanoff in the Leg was as a leader who got things done and didn’t stoop to petty insults and fights with the Repubs. Unfortunately, like many progressives, he apparently finds it easy to turn around and pick on fellow Dems instead. This should be our slogan, the Democratic Party: We Eat Our Own.
I look forward to the Young Dems debate between Romanoff and Bennet, it should be interesting but does anyone know if it will be broadcast on the internet? I’d love to hear / watch it if possible.
thanks for attending and writing about it.
Unlike most of the audience last night, I found Andrew Romanoff’s performance to be glib, petty and undignified. His rudeness toward Congressman Jared Polis was unbelievable and unworthy of a senator-wannabe. Even if it hadn’t been so, Andrew Romanoff’s unwillingness to face moral accountability for the things he’s done as a politician is wrong, and is bad for all Democrats.
Based on his responses to questions about the military, the rights and dignity of immigrants, and the influence of corporate money in the political process, there are three critical issues Romanoff either avoided or whitewashed at the Be The Change forum:
1. His legislative support for the invasion of Iraq
2. His anti-immigrant actions and rhetoric as Speaker
3. His acceptance of corporate cash as a legislator
Does Andrew Romanoff regret supporting Bush’s war, considering Michael Bennet opposed it? Does he regret costing the state millions in dollars while denying citizens and undocumented humans of their dignity and personhood, when Michael Bennet fought for those things at DPS? Will Andrew Romanoff answer his own call and refund the PAC money he has taken throughout his career as a politician?
Can Mike Miles equivocally and honestly say that Andrew Romanoff is the most progressive candidate in this primary?
When Jared’s brother is a max contributor ($4,800) to Romanoff’s campaign.
Will Jorian ask for his money back?
and my take only.
When I confronted a particularly rabid Romanoff supporter afterward about Andrew’s behavior, she said, “Jared knows he was just being playful.”
I really want to know what Congressman Polis thought about how it went.
What kind of an answer is it to say “Lower the age of Medicare eligibility to zero” and to do it “now”? I don’t have health insurance and can’t get covered by Medicaid. I’m really not interested in these little games. At our county caucus and assembly I intend to vote for the Senate candidate who has worked to get something passed. Making defiant stands that doom any legislation will not get my vote. At this point I admit I am pretty firmly in the Bennet camp and a Romanoff admirer. I want to see Congress do its job and get something passed and could really care less about the purity of the legislation.
is becoming a turnoff. The one very hypocritical statement from the AR campaign is that , no one should be appointed to the office there should be a choice. Would AR feel the same way had he been the one appointed? I have been to several Bennett gatherings and ever time he has been asked about AR , he has never taken an immature swipe at him. At this point I feel Bennett has the maturity to be the better candidate.
you just created your account last sunday, so
at this point I will wait to see if your opinion matters
doesn’t every opinion matter?
Trig’s opinion not only matters, but you have to multiply its weight by a factor of about 10 to the 27th, due to all of the beings, past, present, future, and interdimensional, that that vaunted name encompasses….
I’d rather owe it to him than cheat him out of it….
(Though a pint is on me at the next gathering we both make it to. That ought to give me credit for close to a thousand invocations of “the dreaded name….”)
Only a couple of hundred invocations (I was thinking half-cent for some reason).
And I’m in for the same.
Let’s do that …. on St Paddy’s? or even after caucus?
I’m hanging with the Jeffco GLBT Caucus until 8:00 0r 8:30. On Caucus night, I’m doing a wirlwind visit to every caucus location in my district (five or six in all, I believe; we’re doubling up some captaincies). Can we do it some other night, and pretend it’s St. Paddy’s day? (As you might have noticed from Friday Jams, I’ve got a wee bit of Irish in my Eastern European Jewish heart…).
It’s insecure enough already.
If you don’t train your math, you can’t control where it goes. And we all know how dangerous it is to let math run wild….
Vague and intentionally obscured passing references still count.
😉
You could refute the validity of his opinion. You don’t seem to have the ability or courage to do so. Instead your petty reply reinforces the power of denverco’s opinion.
Actually, Wade is right.
He probably could have put it more gently, but newbies who make their first post an attempt at concern trolling (something Wade is admittedly guilty of all the time, but he’s been here for a while) need to cut their incisors a bit before they’ll be taken seriously.
Wade has issues being diplomatic sometimes, but his skepticism is valid. If denverco sticks around, more power to denverco. If he posts on a regular basis, then he has just as much a right to concern troll as Wade Norris or Libertad.
if a new poster says something true then it doesn’t matter whether or not they’re new. The whole you have to be an initiate before we’ll listen doesn’t hold that much water in relation to statements like that made by Denverco. Spreading noxious rumors is a different story cos it’s pathetically obvious when someone creates an account to talk smack. There are a lot of people on this site who agree with Denverco. It’s not invalid because she’s new.
And in Romanoff’s defense, I will say that I believe there is a self-validating narrative about the Romanoff campaign that exists on this site. It’s powerful enough to spill over into the race and effect it (chicken or egg?). I think it’s an impressive example of how capable new media is and I think it’s a statement on how media has always been.
justsaying it’s interesting 😉
I was at the event yesterday as well and I thought it was shitty that Bennet didn’t show up. I felt bad for Polis because he was standing in for someone who was the underdog in that audience. Polis would normally be supported by those in attendance but it was a part of the very left wing of the Democratic Party that is naive for a 2 party system (oof! I just burned a few bridges with that one).
Many of them think it’s viable for health care to be available to all right now, for us to get rid of most of our nukes right now (but no nukes for Iran), for good Dems to not take any PAC money and win, and any compromise on health care or PAC money = I won’t vote, donate, or volunteer for your campaign waah waah waah.
This is an ugly time for Dems because we are divided FOR NO GOOD REASON. If there was a good reason, it wouldn’t be ugly but anymore I feel there is a drain on our energy because we all secretly feel that there is no point, no inspiration, no positive outcome.
My question last night was why do Republicans get to be stupid and win while whenever we’re stupid, we’re just stupid? I think the answer is that the Democratic Party platform is inherently more in tune with reality and when we separate from that reality, we’re separated. When Rs are amassing support for their platform, they’re just a herd of morons who can vote. Their power is in their numbers and given that in November there are only 2 choices, people are voting against someone, not for someone. Dems better make sure there aren’t any reasons to vote against them or we lose.
Maybe that’s too simple but I just stole some delicious candy from an unborn baby and I’m really enjoying it.
But the only reason I chimed in to defend Wade was because of the concern trolling. If you don’t like the campaign’s tactic, that’s one thing, but the whole thing about being so worried about Romanoff’s maturity level is just BS.
But everything else you said is just 100% right. There’s no need for this primary to be so nasty, but people are making it that way. Are you going to the DYD candidate forum at St. Cajetan’s? I think after this, I can’t not go.
I’ll have to be on campus all day which makes me want to steal candy from an unborn baby but hey, that’s the way the unborn baby’s cookie crumbles.
they have no right of ownership.
Maybe just brilliant is enough.
when D’s are stupid, we’re just stupid.
I felt sorry for Polis, too. I do know that the Bennet campaign told them from DAY one that Michael couldn’t be there on the date they chose. BTC planners begged them to send a surrogate because they had already made fliers saying “candidate forum”. It wouldn’t have been much of a show if it were just Andrew talking to himself.
That sucks. Whatever.
Come on, Andrew totally crossed the line. You do not as someone running for U.S. Senate attack Congressman Polis. Who is oh I don’t know one of the more progressive members of Colorado’s Delegation.
He showed no respect to a man that deserves respect. I for one as an Andrew supporter think he should offer an apology to Congressman Polis.
thats OUR JOB on Pols !
Given the fact that there are literally millions upon millions who do not even have an account here, let alone one created just last Sunday, that you would dismiss their opinions as well?
I thought it sounded worthwhile, it sounds like it was.
I think someone else mentioned that the DYD event Tuesday may be be the first “debate” between D Senate candidates this cycel, though it’s not clear that is the intended format. DYD titles it “Senate Candidate Forum, Moderater Aaron Harber. “
BTC was billed the same way with a different moderator – so maybe forum and debate are the same thing.
Thanks for attending – thanks for writing it up.
I was thinking of live blogging Tue- not sure that’s going to work. I might try live audio that could become a podcast – we’ll see if anyone is interested.
and I am not implying ignorance or stupidity. From experience I know that in a campaign, and this is really AR’s first campaign, while you are trying to be just aggressive enough, while you are trying to differentiate yourself, it is pretty easy to lose sight of your self.
That said, I continue to support Bennet. Although I have never been one afraid of a primary AR needs to get a feeling for whether he is bloodying Bennet’s nose (OK in a campaign) or engaging in a scorched earth campaign which will harm himself for a long time and harm the Dems in this election cycle.
He needs to make people unhappy with the incumbent.
Nobody’s going to consider Plan B if they are comfortable with Plan A.
The risk, of course, is pissing people off. We’ll see how it goes for him.
But it appears that he is making people more uncomfortable with him. At least that is what he is doing to me.
This is NOT an imitation of the very honorable campaign that Mike Miles ran. I don’t recall him ever attacking Salazar in this fashion. I was a Miles supporter and my memory of both the campaign and my reasons for my support are Miles’ very extensive international background and the passion he exuded, particularly at the state convention when he made his speech and made himself first on the ballot.
down at the bottom of my points.
His campaign is making me a little uneasy right now too.
yes. He also must keep in mind that once the primary is over, should he win or anticipate ever seeking office again if he loses, he is going to need the incumbent’s supporters to support him.
Further, treating Polis as his opponent is dangerous. Polis is going to be around for a long, long time and is positioning himself to be the most powerful Democrat in the Colorado Party.
In a primary: Attack your opponent carefully. You want to beat him, but you don’t want to piss off those who are supporting him….you will need their votes in a general election.
Don’t attack your opponent’s elected supporters—especially ones that have recently been featured in articles as raising money at breakneck speed for democrats around the country (second only to the Speaker of the House).
I give him the benefit of the doubt that he was not trying to intenionally be disrespectful to Congressman Polis.
At the HD37 meeting a few weeks ago, I asked Andrew a question I’ve been asking since he began his campaign, “What specific policy differences do you have with Senator Bennet?” After evading the question for a while talking about his past, he finally mentioned cramdown and a concealed weapons bill. I started writing a couple of notes while he was talking and he makes a big point to everyone that I was doing that.
WTF?
I walked into that event with respect for him, and asked a respectful question, and that was his response. I won’t be so polite to him next time.
Remember how respectful Obama was to Joe the Plumber? That’s why serious pols know how to do. I’m not sure I could do it myself, mind you, but then again I’m not a senate candidate; AR is
It will make Michael Bennet a stronger Senate candidate. Duh.
I miss the old Andrew Romanoff, before he surrounded himself with such mean people.
When Michael Bennet was at the Arapahoe Dems central committee meeting last weekend, he said great things about Andrew Romanoff. In Michael Bennet, I see a desire to do what is right for the party and for winning in November. In Andrew Romanoff, I see a sense of desparately wanting the job, at the cost of damaging other Dems.
Remember when everyone was worried about could Jared handle the job of Congressman? And here you have him in a horribly difficult position – and he handles it superbly.
Funny to hear Bennet supporters continue to claim there is no policy difference between Bennet and Romanoff when it is so glaring on the issue of HCR.
1) It is difficult to find any recorded statement by Bennet showing support for a public option until Romanoff made clear his itent to enter the primary.
2) Romanoff’s position continues to be that the progressive democrats should have begun the negotiations by insisting on a single payer plan (like medicare for all) and then negotiating down, rather then starting by saying a public option was not critical.
It is clear to me that Bennet will join the block of moderate (cough conservative) democrats if he survives the primary and is elected in 2010 and Romanoff will join the block of progressives.
There is a difference.
Naah. Not even close.
Andrew was a great Speaker because he was a deal-maker, not an ideologue.
And no matter how many times you repeat talking point #1, it won’t become true. Ever.
Andrew has the understanding, relationships and pragmatism to make a great govenor of our state in very troubled times.
Unfortunately, the political calander and the unfortunate chain of events that followed left him on the outside looking in. He is now left running for an office he is ill suited for, running as something his years in the House showed he never was.
I’m just sitting here laughing that yet another person brings up this notion that Bennet didn’t show support for the public option until Romanoff jumped in. Do his supporters all live under rocks?
Alan, I will assume you live on another planet for a minute. Bennet has been recorded and photographed standing up for the public option since June 27th, when he announced at the Arapahoe County Young Dems/ Arpahope Community Team picnic, in front of 100 people, that he supported it. Romanoff jumped into the race on Labor Day weekend (you know, the one in September). The confusion may lie in the fact that a You-Tube of clips from THE ENTIRE SUMMER was posted on the internet on September 1st.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
The Romanoff campaign continues to spread this nonsense because they can. They told me, “He qualified it by adding the words “financially responsible”. Gee — I would feel so much better if he said, a “financially irresponsible public option”, wouldn’t you?
Every Senator and every Congressman on record for supporting the public option said something similar. It is how they have to couch words to not piss off the new fiscally conservative/socially progressive people who joined the Democratic party in ’08.
The public option stuff is Romanoff campaign b.s. but the idea that we should have started farther on the left on health reform is something I can get behind, too. I support and respect President Obama, but to many of us on the left, he may be a bit too “nice” to people who want to destroy him.
thus, my sig line.
Well, nobody knows when exactly he decided, but he called people to let them know a week or two before he officially announced. I would say those phone calls were when he made it clear. That official announcement was on September 15th, 2009.
showing support for a public option
when you’re not inclined to look for any!
What’s not difficult to find are Romanoff’s DLC credentials, his rich history using PAC funds to get elected to a safe seat, and his record running statewide (not so good).
But, hey, Romanoff is ready to be rude to Polis in front of a friendly crowd — that’s the kind of scrappy candidate that’ll play well statewide!
I mean a few weeks ago he was mulling jumping OUT to run for Guv.
so… kinda?
is they didn’t take video of it. There were photos and notes about it though, and 100 witnesses.
is not a policy difference.
It’s a political strategy difference.
An example of a policy difference would be
– one candidate saying we shouldn’t pass health care reform without single payer, and the other saying we should.
or
– one candidate saying we should leave Afghanistan immediately and the other saying we should follow the President’s plan
or
one candidate saying we should pass the Dream Act and the other saying we shouldn’t
or one candidate saying we should intervene in Iran now! to prevent acquisition or deployment of a nuclear weapon and one saying we should not intervene but continue to participate in the international efforts.
Commence banging the table.
A Dem candidate for a Colorado Senate seat cannot win statewide advocating for a single payer plan.
I agree with many of the benefits a single payer plan offers however independents are heavily opposed to it and as you all know, independents are crucial to any successful campaign in CO. Our big chance for the public option has all but vanished. For AR to say that he’ll fight for the public option and Medicare for all is a null point since it isn’t even in the cards at this juncture.
I’m increasing disappointed in AR. For AR and company to throw a solid progressive Congressman (Polis) under the proverbial bus to advance in the race is beyond me. Very bad move…
I especially liked, “Dinner was seasoned with more campaign speeches from hopeful candidates from all over the front range.”
Your account of the event was also informative and helpful to further my understanding of three key political players in CO, Polis, Romanoff and, to a lesser degree, Miles.
Thanks for a great report! I’m looking forward to more like it.
Too bad we didn’t hear more about those “hopeful” candidates and their speeches…. 😉
He is a much better speaker than he was last year. Powerful, convincing… succinct even!!! Too bad I can’t remember his name.
(And the one in the bar doesn’t count! Horrible venue…). 🙂
John Flerlage was first, and gave a clear and compelling speech in his now-familiar powerful style, outlining the qualities and experiences that make him a great candidate.
Chris Radeff, running in HD 22 (directly to my north, still in South Jeffco), demonstrated her qualities as a sharp, naturally gifted candidate who her constituents will find extremely accessible and sincerely empathetic. (Her background in family law, and her very warm and pleasant personality, come through in her speeches as well as in all of my interactions with her).
Evie Hudak gave a fantastic and rousing speech, in which she really brought home to the crowd the need for more civility, both within our own party, and between the parties.
Sara Gagliardi gave a short but effective speech at the end, deferring to time constraints rather than insisting on her chance to pontificate (to her credit).
The others I met for the first time last night. Crisanta Duran (candidate in HD5) gave a very good speech in which she impressed me as confident, authentic, and capable. Mark Mehringer (HD7) spoke easily and likeably about his young family and their own encounters with our health care system. J.J. Swiontek (HD5) did a good job as well.
That morning, at the Health Care for All Colorado candidate meet and greet held in the same location, Mark Ferrandino and Daniel Kagan both spoke knowledgeably and passionately about our fiscal situation (on which they both have been putting in extraordinary hours), Amber Tafoya talked about her own ordeals with our health care system, and several others spoke as well, though I would forget at least one or two, so I’ll just leave it there!
I saw Crisanta Duran speak for the first time, as well. She really knows her stuff, and is an inspiring speaker. Voters in District 5 are going to have a tough time — all great candidates.
I also talked to Russ Green awhile — great guy.
Crisanta Duran is highly competent and would be a wonderful legislator. She’s got my support.
A separate diary would be great.
I was a little surprised she didn’t address the UFCW withdrawing their endorsement especially since the AR campaign made such a big deal out of UFCW endorsing.
http://www.denverpost.com/sear…
I am sure the rank and file are behind her. Kim was just driving the knife into her back as she left. As messy as that fight was, she got to keep the funds and you cant tell me the rank and file wont support her.
I am honored.
See I liked Andrew but after this really. He acts like a little spoiled brat. You beat up on one of the progressive congressmen who you will need to rely on to elect your broke ass if you somehow win the primary. SMART MOVE.
Look, Be the Change is a great group but Mike Miles also was the caucus choice and had no money and lost. Hence the same thing will be said of Andrew R.
he was the state assembly choice. Big difference.
And Romanoff definitely has institutional backing Miles never had, so this could play out differently, if not with different ultimate results.
What do you mean that Romanoff has institutional backing Miles never had? Do you mean a couple of unions? I switched over to Salazar before the primary, so I wasn’t paying attention to Miles anymore in those days. Can you refresh our memories? Thanks for your help.
But the Colorado Teamsters Council and UFCW aren’t just “a couple of unions”. If SEIU had joined that would have basically been it.
I’m just trying to figure out what “institutional backing” means.
Apologies if my woding was inartful.
Elected and formerly elected Democrats, party officials, groups like Be the Change (which didn’t exist when Miles ran, he had to create it), and the unions for good measure (though Bennet has union support too). These aren’t folks who aren’t used to playing a big role in Democratic politics, including primaries. All I’m saying is, that differentiates Romanoff from Miles, who had the support of groups who were not as experienced playing insider Dem politics.
All I ever hear about is that he doesn’t have any–despite having very similar policy positions to Romanoff.
BTW, the first news article that pops up when you google “labor unions” is this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…
It seems like labor is a catch-22 for Bennet.
Airline Pilots Association ($1,000)
International Union of Operating Engineers ($10,000)
National Air Traffic Controllers Association ($2,000)
NEA ($2,000)
Transport Workers ($3,000)
UNITE HERE ($2,500)
United Auto Workers ($1,000)
United Mine Workers ($1,000)
Just based on PAC contributions (union endorsements involve evil PAC contributions, SHOCK)
for any D in Colorado.
Unions poll poorly here.
Union support is not typically the positive here statewide that it would be in other states.
Elected officials — current and former — including many of the Democrats who served with Romanoff in the legislature. It’s a good question whether Deanna Hannah still has a machine she can put to work backing Romanoff, but others do. Plus all the county chairs and house district chairs and so on. That counts for something, and can sustain Romanoff further into a primary than if he was just riling up the Be the Change folks.
This will come down to Money and Obama coming into Colorado time and time to make sure Andrew loses.
Andrew is raising very little money, not taking PAC money is cute but when you can’t run TV ad’s and be out there the general voting public will side with the dem with more money.
I’ve heard Gore is going to another swing state that is close on behalf of the D Senate candidate (no primary).
The big guns will flood this state to make sure beats Andrew.
they’re out until we have a nominee.
(in another lifetime, in another time and place, I had a chance to see the DSCC work up close and personal. It was a thing of beauty and just the kind of political wizardry that political geeks like us totally dig. The best of the best were the things no one would ever know or confirm who did what when to whom.)
but they’re not out.
Though I’m hard pressed to understand the “institutional backing” unless you are referring to the county chairs, elected endorsers and other D insiders.
Yeah, that’s what I’m referring to, and it gets Romanoff further than Miles got. I’m not saying it puts him over the top, or competes with Obama and Bennet’s TV commercials.
Miles top-lining at the assembly was such a shocker because he wasn’t leading coming out of the caucuses.
A blogger with a long history of pro-Bennet posts goes to an event featuring Romanoff and posts a diary highly critical of Romanoff. Other bloggers with a long history of bashing Romanoff jump in to bash Romanoff.
Wow! I mean, what are the odds?
I am all about primaries but we need a leader in Colorado… not a cry baby. All this will do is hand the R’s the seat here.
unless my favored candidate is facing one?
I was excited to see Andrew get in. Hell I even sent him some money. But he turned me off and I just matched what I gave to Andrew and gave the same amount to sen Bennet.
I’ve been thinking about buying a ticket for the Obama event for $75. That would be the mandatory $25 donation to Bennet and $50 to Romanoff, leaving AR a net $25. A bit of an expensive way to give AR $25 but I don’t make the rules.
pm mixed in some of both, as did others.
But the parts where AR looks worst are the factual descriptions.
Why did he have to beat up on Polis?
For one thing, we have only the word of avid Bennetistas that AR “beat up on Polis.” I suspect you would have called anything short of “Bennet is the son of God” as beating up on Bennet and handing the seat to the Rs.
Gee, Romanoff bashing on Pols. Like I asked before, What are the odds?
though that was only one example of how AR came off looking bad.
The Republicans are laughing all the way to the bank.
of my choosing makes me a “Nazi”?
Explain that one, PM, or feel the wrath of Godwins Law expelling you to Square State.
I’ve just heard the expression and thought it was crazy. Same with Bennetistas.
I am criticising the whole extremist/ black and white/ good vs. evil thinking.
Bennet is a great guy. Romanoff is a great guy. We are lucky to have them both. Our joyful chore is deciding which one is less likely to screw up in November.
Neither term is helpful whatsoever.
They are both horrible!!
it’s just a Bennet supporter in espanol. But if you and other Bennet fans find it offensive, I can drop it.
because the party unity label is normally not applied until after a candidate is chosen. I don’t think anyone would have called me a PUMA for backing Hillary Clinton before Obama was nominated. But I did proudly call myself a “Clintonista” Anything that ends in a d or t (including dropping the o in Sandino) can plausibly be turned into Bennetista, Clintonista, Sandinista (which is when most Ingles speakers saw the usage.) Obamista is pronouncable but perhaps a stretch. Bushista, just wouldn’t hack it. On the other hand, Bush didn’t hack it either, so why should his supporters?
I had the privilege of being in Nicaragua during the festival of La Purissima (literally, the “most pure” and meaning the Virgin Mary.) It’s bigger than Christmas.
You made an honest mistake in not making it clear that you were citing the terms only as examples of excess. You cuickly corrected it. You aren’t a moron. In fact, I think I love you…
err, belay that, I’m a happily married man. So I’ll just like you.
Happy Valentines Day!
Whatever happened to civil debate? Why the name calling from any side? Whatever happened to “Be the change”? I am calling out BOTH SIDES.
But looking down and shaking our heads while wondering why Polis got the brunt of AR’s stick (rather than Bennet) in front of a mostly pro-AR audience isn’t bashing. If you want to see what bashing looks like, I’d recommend starting here, and here.
“Lower the age of Medicare eligibility to zero”.
Which has precisely – 3.74% chance of passing. It plays well in a roomful of sympathetic D’s but it’s ultimately meaningless. It’s a great quip -until the NRSC plays the sound bite next October, just as ballots are going in the mail. Then it’s a tough one to redefine for the middle, esp without a $$ media campaign.
LIkewise, “Congress is immobilized” -which the NRSC will use to prove that D’s see all the socialism as just the beginning.
But AR definitely used him as a punching bag. (scratching post?)
There were 400 people there. I guess all of them except me are with their main sqeeze this Valentines Day, rather than hanging out on Pols. I feel like such a loser.
(Wait, there are a lot of other wonks here too…)
My impression is there were way more AR supporters there than MB. And they were pleased to see him beat up on MB, Polis and anyone else supporting Bennet.
I said some good stuff about his performance, as well. I just think Polis deserved better.
and while you are often exuberantly in praise of Bennet, you were seldom trashing Romanoff. That’s why I accurately called you
Nothing wrong with that, or you. It’s just good cause for me to doubt how objective your observations were.
As to your
that, PM, would have been an incredibly funny line had it not implied that I, moiself, have nothing better to do on a slow Sunday than mope around blogs instead of drinking wine and making love. But ROTFLMAO anyway;-)
I used to blog on the other political site under a different name. I had many run-ins with another blogger, to the point where I didn’t feel safe over there. So, I moved to Pols, where the moderators seem to enforce rules more consistently.
Those who knew me then know I started out really torn about how to support. I LOVED Andrew Romanoff. I have a photo of myself with him from two weeks before he entered the race, where I literally told him, I would do anything for him if he ever ran again. When I heard he was running for Senate in this race, I thought it was not a good idea, and told him so.
I’ve said pretty consistently Andrew Romanoff is a great guy/ inspired leader/ effective legislator, etc. Until last night, my criticisms have always been about specific over-zealous supporters (like the one who spit on me), and his recent campaign staff additions. I have always said he is a better candidate than his campaign suggests.
Likewise, I know and admire Bennet enough to separate him from the zealous “Support my candidate or I’ll beat you senseless” types who tend to revile anyone who dares to disagree with the notion that Bennet is entitled, simply by virtue of having been appointed by Bill Ritter, to a free ride to the November election.
I echo your view that Ds can choose between two good men. I’d go further and add that there is also a good woman running, on the R-ticket, and I respect her too. Now, on this blog, that will get me into even more trouble than being open to a Romanoff candidacy will, but if we’re going to get this civility thing going, so be it.
OK OK I am BRAND new so take this with whatever grain of salt you must with “newbies.” I am neutral in the senate race and frankly will favor whomever I think can win the general.
I like Andrew-smart, committed, funnier than hell, can quote Monty Python for any situation, and he used to be a real statesman. I am surprised more about AR’s voting record has not come out. AR worked hard to never be branded as a liberal or pro-union. He wanted to be seen as a “business friendly” moderate and was proud of that image. He was a consummate politician and a good speaker. Anyone who has been around the Cap for a while can tell you any of this: He killed the so called “Wall Mart” bill a couple of years ago that AFL was pushing (would have required large corporations to donate $ to a state fund if they didn’t provide health insurance for their employees). When more controversial Dem bills would reach over 33 votes on third reading-he would often switch his vote at the last second to keep his own powder dry for his political future. So support AR for all the good things he truly is, but if you are supporting him bc you think he is a liberal-you haven’t done your homework.
I’m hoping last night taught him to keep it under wraps when it may be misperceived as disrespectful to someone in public office.
Norton, Buck, Wiens?
or the Basket Bowl, or whatever they’re playing nowadays.
I was starting to feel guilty that I may have been too rough on Andrew Romanoff. I am not trying to smear him as a human being. I just don’t think he is ready to be a statesman in the US Senate in 2010. Michael Bennet is not only ready, he is doing a fine job of it now.
I was there and think your diary is fair. Clearly the Speaker thought that his act was funny but it was not funny to suggest that it was beneath him to share a stage with Congressman Polis. It was disrespectfully and no way to act if he want to be a colleague and work together in the future.
I also felt like his stance on health care was not helpful and at one point I found myself of hoping that Congressman Polis who has long stood up for public finance for campaigns would hold his feet to the fire on PAC $ but i guess it’s not really his fight. Frankly I had hoped for more from Andrew Romanoff but my only take away from last night is that Congressman Polis is a class act.
Just when I had been thinking I might have been too hard on Andrew and BTC, I checked the BTC website. They posted this on their main page:
Baloney. I personally spoke with both the campaign and with BTC planners and they were told from “day one” Michael Bennet had a previous commitment. Who is BTC to judge if Michael Bennet’s plans for the day were important enough to cancel for them? Senator Bennet has a family and a full time job — halfway across the country, and he is campaigning on top of it all. Doesn’t he have a right to decide how he wants to spend what little time he has in Denver between flights to Washington?
Unbelievable. BTC just lost all credibility with me.
AR didn’t come to the Arapahoe Dems cntral committee meeting even though he and Bennet were at the same event prior. Bennet did. Ooooh…this must mean something.
Yeah- it means that AR’s campaign schedule put him somewhere else.
BTC is being slimey. They invited both. one confirmed, one did not. They advertise both, then advertise a forum, then imply some mysterious wrong doing on one’s part for not being there. pffft
It shocks me BTC still is around to be honest. What they did was slimey, I totally agree.
Any word what he thought about the event? I talked to him for a minute afterward and he just showed CLASS about the whole thing. Good guy.
LOL at those who took this “account” at face value. It was obviously penned by a Bennet supporter and it conveniently leaves out a number of facts.
First, Romanoff was OBVIOUSLY (at least, to the rational observer) not being mean-spirited to Polis when making his remarks about the fact that Bennet YET AGAIN avoided debating him. Polis took it in stride. Why? Because Romanoff and Polis respect one another and, if you paid any attention at all to their interaction before, during and after this event, you know that the two were on good terms.
Second, Romanoff “jabs” were not directed at Polis and Polis understands this. Romanoff’s remarks were intended for the man who threw Polis into this mess in the first place – Bennet. If Bennet would actually show up to a debate, Romanoff wouldn’t be left having to toss out humorous one-liners in lieu of back-and-forth between the two candidates.
Polis did as well as anyone possibly could have in such a difficult situation and I commend him. The problem with the “surrogate” debate tactics that Bennet has chosen to employ is that the surrogate in question spends the majority of the time talking about his own views rather than allowing the audience the chance to see what the guy who is actually running against Romanoff to shed some light on his views.
For those who weren’t in attendance, let it be known that Romanoff’s answers and remarks went over EXTREMELY well, as evidenced by the number of times he had to stop to allow the crowd time to complete its standing ovations. If you weren’t in attendance, you look rather foolish accusing Romanoff of issuing “petty insults”. He did nothing of the sort. If you honestly believe that such was the case, why don’t you ask Jared Polis?
That’s crazy. There was one time when about 50 of the 400 people stood up.
Also, until and unless Jared Polis comes on Pols and tells us what he thought about Andrew’s childish antics, we will never know. What I do know is that I was sitting with about ten other people in my row, a mix of Bennet and Romanoff supporters, and the ROMANOFF supporters said they were embarrassed by his comments to Jared. One of them said, “He forgets that this is a mixed crowd. He really should have been more respectful to a US Congressman.”
These links were sent to me tonight and watching them gives a much different take on the forum then peacemonger’s take:
I get the impression it was a mostly Romanoff crowd. That accounts for something.
As for Bennet avoiding.
This is a ridiculous charge. Senato Bennet has been invited to thousands of events all over the place, some of which fit the campaign/day job schedule, many of which do not.
He’s appeared with AR before- and will again. The way I’ve heard the Senator discuss the calendar in a living room full of people, was that some events announced he would be attending when in fact he was unable to accept. It’s a tried and true, but ultimately dumb, campaign move.
And I will speak for someone that was there- I’m sure Congressman Polis would be classy no matter what he was feeling on the spot.
he never accepted. He told them from day one they didn’t think he could do the gig. They printed the fliers anyway.
n/t
If you know him personally, please ask him to chime in.
Thank-you for adding these videos. It is unfortunate they have been edited, and do not include every question, the other person’s reactions, and the reactions of the audience. They are missing the part where Andrew muttered Congressman Polis was channeling a Senator. They do contain Speaker Romanoff’s best moments, and even those parts reinforce most of what I said above.
I stand corrected on this: Andrew did honor Jared for his courage, leadership and talent in the US House of Representatives. I WISH TO APOLOGIZE TO EVERYONE FOR FORGETTING THAT PART. I will edit the original diary to reflect that change (above). I am also reminded of a couple additional points I did not mention above.
First, at the 4:45 mark on part, Andrew said,
It is actually worse than I remembered because he called him a candidate for Senate, rather than a US Senator. Even if a US Senator took the seat you thought you had in the bag, isn’t it still customary to refer to him by his title, out of respect to not only the Senator, but to the country?
It is unfortunate there was no camera on Jared Polis when Andrew said this. I was sitting near the front of the room, and I assure you Congressman Polis was not laughing like Andrew Romanoff was.
Second, when Senator Bennet appeared before the Arapahoe County Central Committee a week or two ago, he deliberately called only on people with “Romanoff” stickers. He has done this at many events. He welcomes the hard questions. At this event, the questions asked by Mike Miles were pre-selected, and the people in the audience asking questions were all Romanoff supporters. At the 4:47 mark on Part 4, a Romanoff supporter taunted Congressman Polis with the line,
Check out Congressman Polis’s expression and body language immediately afterward, which was caught on tape. Listen to the audience’s reaction. I don’t see him rolling on the floor laughing — I see him looking irritated. Only he can tell us for sure.
Thank-you again for sharing these videos. I’m thrilled tomorrow’s debate will be televised, hopefully in it’s entirety.
Peacmonger, I wasn’t at the debate so didn’t know and couldn’t really tell they’d been edited. The links were sent to me by a friend who has friends on Romanoff’s campaign but I thought they were just the full debate. I agree with you that the Young Dems Debate will be a great chance to see them both and expect it will be streamed without editing.
Thanks for putting this whole thing into perspective too, RMM.
First off, Thank you Peacemonger for the diary! And yes, I’ve been watching this blog for two days and just signed up minutes ago so that I could comment. The core of the crowd that was there was made up of people who spent all day listening and asking questions about healthcare reform (Dr. Aguilar was wonderful), the environment (weakest presentation), the legislative process (very informative), and corporate personhood (inspiring, motivational, the crowd was INTO IT!) to a great dinner where candidates came up from districts all over the state, people I’d never heard of, but that were so impressive and made me proud of Democrats fighting the good fight. Then the Forum.
The sanctuary became packed from obviously more people showing up, just for the forum. I like Jared Polis and I’ve met him in DC. I believe he was in a most unfortunate position, but he did agree to it. And I’m not sure what he was expecting, especially since the BTC website had a poll with at least 70% going to Romanoff. From my point of view it was just an unbearably impossible position to be in. You could tell when his answers came directly from Bennet’s cards, when his answers for Bennet actually melded into his own stance on an issue. It made me uncomfortable to watch.
But that being said, Romanoff supporters are historical supporters. They remember when Ritter appointed Bennet. I was in Washington at the Colorado Inaugural Ball and my two friends and I pressed Ritter on the “why???” of his decision. Why an unknown, a “silver spooner” with not a lot of experience (only 2 years with DPS), and with pretty strong ties to huge money, why not Andrew, with his 8 years of elected legislative experience? And Ritter, to his credit, was good natured and thoughtful in his response (my friend had sent a letter to residence, no less, and he remembered it!). He said, “Michael’s a good man. Give him a chance.” So we did. I met him in the Russell Building the day after the Inauguration. It was quick but I didn’t get a good vibe. He seemed bored and disconnected. But I figured it was a fluke so we waited, we gave him a chance. But for MONTHS he took no position on ANYTHING. Remember when he was asked about Employee Free Choice Act? No brainer, but no opinion from him. Everyone is saying he came out in support of the public option in July. Okay fine. What about those crucial months before? That’s when we needed some sign, something, and we didn’t get it. We did not get an opinion on much of anything for a long while.
But aside from all that you just…can’t…get..around the corporate money that Bennet is keeping: Financial institutions (26), like JP Morgan, GE, Visa, all the insurance companies(14), Pharmaceuticals(12), and all the energy companies(16). Yeah, Romanoff took money during his legislative runs, but he doesn’t now and that’s the point. Is he going to win? Probably not. But I’ll caucus for him and I’ll vote for him because I still believe many votes (should) trump obscene amounts of money, and that my vote is best used in support of the democratic process. I still think Bennet is a good man, I do. And I support President Obama wholeheartedly. I even think Barack Obama would support my right to vote for someone I believe in as opposed to someone because they went to school with my President or because there’s no way the “little guy” is going to win against big money. Heck, if Bennet wins the primary I’ll be voting for him. But here’s a crazy idea: I guarantee he’d win if he gave the money back. Maybe that’s a bit Capra-esque, but don’t we need that more than ever right now?
Thanks for bearing with me on this…
the poll was notat least 70% going to Romanoff.
It was 61.1% to 37.1%.
Welcome aboard.
I should have done a bit more homework and checked it as I was writing the post. But I do know at one time that it was 71% because it was surprising to me.
I need to be fiercely on my toes with you guys! Thanks!
But here’s a crazy idea: I guarantee he’d win if he gave the money back.
Aside from knowing how anyone could guarantee any such thing, I’ll assume you are being rhetorical, not literal.
And so the question is this- without big money (10-12 million), what would the D’s do come September- October when the R’s and R leaning 527’s put out some ridculous D bashing tv/radio barrage?
They would own the airwaves. If they timed it right, say the tail end of Sep or the first week in Oct just as ballots are going in the mail, there would be no meaningful way to counter anything.
The R candidate wins, and we get to complain for 6 years about how campaign finance reform is so necessary (Bennet agrees). We, however, would know we are right and they are just wrong, those foolish, foolish R’s.
I’m not being rhetorical. I’m really asking- how do you propose to run a competitive modern Senate campaign without big money?
With lots of little money, the internet, and face time.
Look, after Obama won, there was a lot of talk about how conventional media completely underestimated the power of the internet and how that played into building the grass roots movement that exists now. (I think the movement exists, but I also think there is burnout) And I’ve worked in print publishing for a long time, so I know that conventional media is powerful, yes, but they tend to put every decision through old models. And the old models, although they might work for a while, they won’t work forever. In my experience, people’s interests become specialized. That means they aren’t sheep. The only reason why you hear comments like, “the public is stupid, they’ll believe all the crap on FOX” is because the alternatives are apparent enough. Or powerful enough. And I suppose there will always be a group that feeds on hate and fear but eventually some people in those groups drift away because human beings simply don’t thrive on it. And then luckily there’s everyone else, people like us. You are contributing in a positive way by being on this forum, by asking a thoughtful question, and I assume you are a person who does the homework.
But let’s take the example of the barrage of negative TV ads droning away during the dinner hour. What do most people do? They get sick of them. And I know there are still people who vote based on TV ads, but not as many as there used to be, proportionately. Now there are avenues to find the answers and people start to develop their own sources. Sure, there are birthers who got all their “facts” from the internet but they are crazy and they are still the minority (only 600 people showed up at that TP convention). So our job, as progressives is to keep talking, keep dialoging, encourage people to vote and talk about the people we believe they should vote for and why.
Also, there are active bloggers that only blog. So we have to keep asking ourselves, what are we prepared to do? Sign up, show up, encourage voter turnout, talk to your neighbors, as well as blogging.
Finally, face time. The only reason why I’ve gotten to know what I think Romanoff is about is because he was so damned accessible. If I have a choice between paying a $250 ticket to get in to see a candidate, or just showing up, because another candidate drove through a snowstorm to be at a community college in Longmont, what does that say? That alone makes me want to contribute my personal money.(and I’m not saying all of Bennet’s appearances were contribution based, but some of them were)
There will be sacrificial races in the pursuit of clean campaigns until there is public financing of campaigns, but your vote has never been for sale. And more votes will always win over even astronomical money, every time. So we have remind everyone how valuable that vote is.
in the second paragraph of my response:
is because the alternatives aren’t apparent enough.
Ok- I’ll assume you are serious.
1) lotsa little money
+
2) internet
+
3) face time
1) If lotsa little money was available this would be great! I’m not saying the candidate with the most money always wins. I’m agreeing with others here who have said that you need enough to be viable.
Udall: no primary, long coattails – spent approx $15 million.
Salazar: primary, no coat tails – spent approx $12 million.
Are there enough individual Colorado donors to raise that kind of money? There never has been before.
But Obama did it
Oh, well, I didn’t realize Romanoff was going to fundraise nationwide and would be the kind of candidate who can motivate the millions and millions of small donors like Obama.
2) Barrage of negative ads have a time and place. And people say they get sick of it and turn them off- but do you know why we get them every cycle? Because they work. Are they optimum? no
Are there better ways? Sometimes.
But if negative advertising didn’t work, people would stop wasting money on it.
But even worse – I wasn’t even alluding to a barrage of over the top negative ads. I’m talking about by owning the airwaves the R nominee being able to frame the debate, inundate the electorate with their choice of messaging and move the middle where this election will be won or lost.
Quick- without looking:
How many American taxpayers got a tax cut last year?
How many American taxpayers think they got a tax increase?
True or False: the 2000 Clinton White House removed all the “w” keys from keyboards.
I could go on and on about it- but just go read Snopes for 15 minutes. People believe whatever they want for whatever reason.
Someone else here used the phrase “unilateral disarmament” and that is just about right.
I’m going to campaign a new way, with no big outside donors and leaner lower budget and better ideas and a kinder gentler message, and no negative advertising etc
I’m not going to go look it up- it’s your argument you make the case – but when or where has that ever worked? I would expect that where it’s worked it was because the opposition was weak, or the candidate doing it had a superior electoral advantage or some other factor (s) that had nothing to do with media messaging drove the election.
Do you think that the in a close race for a Senate seat the opposition might just run some tv with shocking! even if verfiably untrue, claims ?
Some of us will go online, or know to be suspicious. Far too many voters will be moved by the claims, even if unfair and untrue, and by the time the low budget, warm and fuzzy neighborhood activists correct the story- it’s December and we’re celebrating the wrong candidate’s victory.
If it wasn’t important, I’d say take the noble road and be right. At least the winter will be warmer knowing we’re right. Wait- no it wouldn’t. It would be just as cold and dark and we’d have the wrong candidate in office.
3) Face time is always good and almost always required. And no, it doesn’t have to require the big $ budget. But it’s not enough for this kind of race. School board? usually. City council? mostly. State House – could be. US Senate? get real.
As for the cheap shot at Bennet and Obama – Bennet has been in all 64 counties, most more than once, and no one was required to write a check or make a donation to meet him.
Your real implication with this face time story (campaigning is hard) is that by doing face time, a candidate will inspire the individual donors. If that gets Romanoff into the low eight figures so he can realistically budget for media, great. No other Colorado candidate has ever done it, but hey, don’t let that stop you.
If I sound a little condescending and angry it’s because of this:
Great! Let’s lose one for the cause. But let’s let it be Romanoff in the primary and not the D nominee in the general.
Meanwhile, I don’t need reminding how important my vote is. I’ve canvassed lots of doors and phones and it’s the rare voter who undervalues their vote. So I’m not sure we all feel as you do that we need reminding how important our votes are. Not in a Senate race where one candidate talks about making the right decisions that will impact us for the next fifty years and one is looking for a more positive focus than trying to figure out whether or not Obama was born in the US.
I guess I made you angry with my comment and yeah, you’re right, you do sound condescending. But I guess you thought I was condescending too. That was not my intention, so I apologize for that.
Remember when I said this?:
You are contributing in a positive way by being on this forum, by asking a thoughtful question, and I assume you are a person who does the homework.
Maybe that came off as condescending but it was my way of saying that I really believe we are on the same side.
I did not take a cheap shot at Bennet and Obama. I support President Obama and believe in him very much. If Bennet wins the primary I will vote for him and will support him as my senator. I just really believe in the primary process because it reinforces the value of the vote. (That is, if people actually turn out to vote…)
My post was getting so long, that my “sacrificial races” comment was a way to say that the fight is a long one. When viewed in the perspective that it’s an ongoing process you would naturally assume there would be losses along the way to the best desired goal.
I guess with any problem people are trying to solve there are (at least) two ways to approach it and both are valid. One is to be vigilant in understanding all the possible negative ramifications of a situation. Another is to aspire to what you believe is the positive ideal of that same situation.
So yes, I was serious. Maybe naive, I’m willing to accept that.
And I know you were asking a serious question, it’s just that, through all of your complaints with what I was proposing, I didn’t hear any solutions from you. And maybe you don’t have one right now, I understand that.
As long as there is action from both points of view to pursue a positive, proactive solution that is in support of democracy then we are working toward the same goal, and our country will be better for it.
The condescending part I read in your comment was that there would have to be sacrificial races and that I somehow don’t know the value of my vote, or my neighbors votes.
“sacrificial races”
You mean lost races, right?
Well run, by good candidates, with right intentions and noble methods and means but ultimately lost.
Great – let’s have your candidate lose the sacrificial race when it’s not important to me.
Oddly, though I agree with you that there are plenty of voters who don’t know really know the value of their vote, I don’t think it’s your place to exapalin it to them in the middle of an important campaign.
There’s another poster here who has argued that electing the candidate she opposes is the same as electing the opposition party. I understand the passion for one’s candidate but to say
Hey. we could vote for Kucinich but if he doesn’t win we might as well elect McCain.
is insane.
Solutions??
You want solutions? Well – to be clear I’d much rather have victory, but
– publicly financed campaigns, with strict limitations;
– shorter primaries
– responsible, informed citizens
– honest and fair minded citizens
And you’re not wrong about face time and the importance of an engaged electorate. And candidates who value both.
But until we figure out a way to re-think the 1st Amendment I don’t see how we keep the big money out.
I never said YOU needed to be reminded of the value of your vote, more like, we ALL have to remember. I took it as a given that your presence on this blog and your thoughtful comments indicate that you don’t need reminding in such a basic sense. I guess I was trying to drive home the concept of, along with all the work we will need to do to have public financing of campaigns, as well as other issues, voter turnout, especially during the primary or participating in caucus, is vital. Our one vote is the one thing we own. There were lots of people fired up by the fall of 2008, but at least in my town the next big election was for city council and some county measures, there was low voter turnout and it proved disastrous for progressives. I was trying to say that as discouraged as we might be by things like insurmountable money in campaigns, we should never allow that frustration to make us stay home and not vote.
This last part from you:
– publicly financed campaigns, with strict limitations;
– shorter primaries
– responsible, informed citizens
– honest and fair minded citizens
EXCELLENT! And Thanks.
jk
Yeah- the turnouts in 09 were bad for progressives in Aurora and Douglas County too.
DougCo school Board- the D candidates got just as many votes as the last election and all got creamed because the R turnout was so much higer. Not sure if that’s what happened in Aurora – but it felt like it.
It’s why I believe 2010 is not giong tobe like 08 and the D noninee for Senate is going to have to way better than Udall in ArapCo and JeffCo to win.