Pat Caddell: Environmentalists purpose is “to deconstruct capitalism”

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)



MONDAY PM POLS UPDATE: In a statement from Andrew Romanoff’s campaign a few moments ago, it was announced that Pat Caddell has been fired.

Today, a video was posted on ColoradoPols, in which Pat expressed views that were completely at odds with Andrew’s campaign, his career and his commitment to the environment and to Colorado’s working families.  Andrew heard those comments for the first time this afternoon and ended Pat’s role in the campaign.

Only…well, take the number of days Caddell has been anywhere near the state of Colorado, and that’s how many days too late. Original post follows.

Appearing with David Horowitz, Andrew Romanoff’s senior advisor Pat Caddell said that environmentalists don’t actually care about the environment, but are out to destroy the free-market system. He vociferously agrees with David Horowitz that they are “communists.” He agrees with David Horowitz that the stimulus and the health care bill are only there to give power to SEIU and ACORN. He called union members “thugs.” This was a little over a month ago. Watch for yourself:



What advice is Andrew Romanoff actually paying for? Why does the UFCW and the Teamsters think that Andrew Romanoff would be a better representative when his senior advisor calls them “thugs?”

More perplexingly, why would anyone cling to the fantasy that Andrew Romanoff is at all progressive on the environment or labor or any other issue when his record says otherwise and the people he is paying to advise him make many Republicans in Congress look progressive by comparison?

229 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. redstateblues says:

    Shit like this can’t possibly outweigh whatever potential usefulness he brings.

  2. sxp151 says:

    That doesn’t seem normal.  

  3. Middle of the Road says:

    “You are known by the company you keep.” If Bennet is known by who he takes donations from, then I assume Romanoff is known by his closest paid advisers that he surrounds himself with, no?

  4. Middle of the Road says:

    of shite, listening to Horowitz paint anyone on the left as a Communist to mocking Bill Ayers, and finishing up with calling liberals “bigots” and “totalitarians”. Wow. And then a nice round of applause when he mentions Glenn Beck. And Pat Caddell laughing away merrily at Horowitz’s hate filled 9 minutes of vomit. Seriously, where the fuck are Sharon and Wade and JO on calling out this shit? You three have zero credibility on this site. Period. Any Romanoff supporter that sits quietly while Caddell continues to be employed by AR has zero credibility by silently tolerating this crap.

    • wade norris says:

      and my question to AR is, what is the role this guy plays – especially on the environment.

      Horowitz is bafoon – this is priceless

      btw:

      I am sending an email to the campaign now.

      • Middle of the Road says:

        and I do specifically hope that you asked AR if he endorses Pat Caddell’s thinking, including calling President Obama’s a “thug”, unions members “thugs” (seems to be one of his favorite words), liberals “bigots” and “totalitarians” and insulting the entire environmentalist movement in one fell swoop.

        For what it’s worth, I genuinely appreciate you at least questioning this appointment of Pat Caddell. To even appear in the same forum as Horowitz, let alone be a regular on FOX News and Glenn Beck just has me questioning pretty much everything about AR at this point, including his moral integrity.  

        • RedGreenRedGreen says:

          Romanoff has said before he doesn’t agree with everything his strategists say. He’s hired them, not the other way around. But that’s really not the incisive question.

          • Middle of the Road says:

            The fact that he hired him already tells me who Andrew Romanoff is, RG. And it isn’t someone I will vote for, not in the caucus, not in the primary and probably not ever. I don’t expect my candidate to be a saint but I would think folks had learned from the John Edwards campaign that when you set a candidate up as a progressive saint when he clearly isn’t one, be prepared to be disappointed and moreover, be prepared to hold him accountable.

            On this hire, I hold only one person accountable–Andrew Romanoff.

            And I give Wade huge kudos for at least trying to get an answer as to why he would even consider putting this man in the position of being one of his closest advisers.  

            • RedGreenRedGreen says:

              I’m just saying, be prepared for Wade to get an answer he considers satisfactory. It’s not like this video is the bombshell that finally reveals Caddell for who he is — that hasn’t been in doubt since Romanoff announced the hires.

              • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

                He’ll get spin that Romannff  can’t control his advisors and really doesn’t feel that way. The same Good cop/bad Cop that he puts about his staff members and core supporters.

                Wade will ahve to eat crow. As will his union supporters who Caddell called thugs.

                They will have to continue to suspend reality and believe that Andrew is a super liberal, when in fact he looks like Joe Lieberman more and more all the time

            • MADCO says:

              All those elected D’s and former office holder D’s?

              See- endorsements from all those is supposed to counter weight the endorsement of/by Caddell.

            • wade norris says:

              Edwards taught me a lesson about candidates – run on your issues, not on your candidate – or you will get let down.

              Lots of people here, (telling my age) can remember a young  Charismatic Democratic President who campaigned on Healthcare Reform but dropped it during his first year due to Republican blockades – and then went on to be a fairly conservative President – passing NAFTA and other bills like the FCC consolidation, GATT etc.

              I am seeing a lot of the same attributes in our current President – but there is at least some good news on the horizon

              http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02

              Basically my point is candidates let you down, and only through the pressure of a primary from within the party can you get some answers for your issues.

              (compare Edwards 04 to 08 for instance or sadly, Obama on the campaign to now)

              from a strictly political point of view, I can imagine that any candidate facing an election this year, when Tea Partiers are polling higher than both Democrats and Republicans

              http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/

              would be looking at getting some political advising on how to tap into that group’s anger at both established parties – IMHO.

              • sxp151 says:

                I thought Edwards would have taught the opposite lesson. Edwards sounded good on the issues, but if you were familiar with him as a person and with his record, it was clear he was being disingenuous.

                  • sxp151 says:

                    If I were to apply the Edwards lesson to Romanoff, I’d say it’s a bit strange that Romanoff sounds like such a progressive now considering that he wasn’t like that when he was in elected office. That raises flags for some people.

                    To be fair, Howard Dean became much more progressive when he was running for President than he was as Governor. And he’s maintained his progressiveness consistently since then despite no longer running for office. So it’s not like people can’t change.

                    But I’m really wondering what lesson you learned from Edwards. Could one have predicted that Edwards would end up lying to everyone about his personal life based on the fact that he seemed to be putting on a very fake persona to win the 2008 nomination? I did.

                    • wade norris says:

                      Could one have predicted that Edwards would end up lying to everyone about his personal life based on the fact that he seemed to be putting on a very fake persona to win the 2008 nomination? I did.

                      Well, that’s impressive, since it shocked just about every Edwards supporter I have known to great lengths.

                      I don’t want to turn this into an Edwards diary, but to be fair, how many people here thought, from day one, that Clinton had an affair with Lewinsky?

                      I thought combined with Whitewater and every other ‘throwing the kitchen sink’ attack the R’s did, that it was not for real.

                      We were all wrong.

                    • MADCO says:

                      when did Monica Lewinsky hie Pat Caddell and trash the party?  

                      these are examples of bad peopleor even good people doing bad things. Caddell is a whole other thing, yes?

                      What is his role in the campaign?  

                    • sxp151 says:

                      so the suggestion that he was cheating on his wife never seemed incongruous to me. Every time a new piece of the story came out, I was pretty certain it was true.

                      And Clinton was well-known for his affairs. There wasn’t really anything shocking about Lewinsky. Of course the Broaddrick story seemed unbelievable, but the fact that Clinton had sex with an intern was not really worth disputing. The issue was whether it was worth taking government action, which it clearly never was.

                      If Obama had an affair, that would be shocking. But Edwards and Clinton had demonstrated a propensity for that sort of thing.

                    • wade norris says:

                      just glad he did not win the primary, or we would be arguing about why McCain and Palin think bombing Iran is awesome.

                    • Sharon Hanson says:

                      Although I’m in a monogamous heterosexual relationship I could care less what others do in their relationships.  It’s simply not my business. Recently I knew a woman who was incredibly sick and her prognosis was unsure. She loved her husband and thought that she would leave him.  Not because of a lack of love but because she didn’t want him to have to live with an invalid the rest of his life.  Of course she has a daughter too so it was an option she considered but didn’t follow through on.  Many don’t understand what a couple is going through or what their reasons are so we really should follow the advice of this bible verse:


                      Judging Others

                      Lk. 6.3738, 4142

                      1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.

                      2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

                      3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

                      4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

                      5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

                      6. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Now, I’m hoping we can count on you to start taking it, and thus avoid the error of number 5 above. You have been extremely judgmental, on the basis of what I consider to be a very shallow analysis, of Senator Bennet, and of those who support him. Are you announcing an overdue and welcome change in attitude?

                      Just to be clear, I support both Andrew and Michael, am happy to let the primary process decide between them, and look forward to winning the general election with one or the other of two great democratic candidates.

                    • DevilishlyModerate says:

                      It’s is interesting to see so many people attack AR and then preface it by saying he’s a great guy, very smart, charismatic, etc… I’m even guilty of this because I too had a lot of respect for him. However, this feeling is quickly fading for me…  

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      I have never attacked, or even criticized, AR (that may not have been what you meant, but I just wanted to make sure there’s no misunderstanding). As far as I’m concerned, we’re all on the same team, period.

                    • DevilishlyModerate says:

                      I was speaking generally, sorry for lumping you in the mix.  

                    • Sharon Hanson says:

                      Bennet’s votes to protect the banks and screw the middleclass are my business and I am deeply concerned about his voting record. I don’t view him as a progressive and I did not support Ritter appointing him.  This is not judgment it is based on facts and if you have a problem with that then that’s your problem not mine.  

                      I’ve had it with DINOs like Ritter, Salazar and now Bennet. This is my business because it affects my life. Just because you don’t like it when someone comes down on an anointed official because for some reason you take it personally doesn’t make you right. Everyone has a choice and I choose Romanoff over Bennet.

                      Besides, Bennet won’t win in the general.

                       

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      you quote scripture about not judging, after making a career here villifying not only one of our United States senators (a person I happen to respect, in my own inferior way), but also everyone who participates here who ever disagrees with you, on the basis of an “analysis” that, to me at least, is certainly debatable. Of course, I’m at a disadvantage, lacking both your omniscience and your moral superiority.

                      The only thing I take “personally” is your insistence that everyone who isn’t you is by definition both wrong and evil. Guess what? It’s a complex and subtle world, and maybe, just maybe, you don’t understand every last stitch and link in the reverberating webs of iterated causation of which our lives are comprised. I know that’s a crazy thought, but you might want to mull it over some day.

                      Just for the record, it’s not your opinion that is at issue, just your incessantly obnoxious and antagonistic way of expressing it. And, here’s the part you really need to understand: I would feel exactly the same way even if I were 100% in agreement with you.

                      Learn to treat people with respect when you are having a discussion with them, and maybe they will return the favor.

                    • Sharon Hanson says:

                      You take things personally and I don’t understand. It’s not like I’m saying these things about you and yet you feel you have a right to attack me.  

                      If I’m so obnoxious and antagonistic perhaps you could ignore my posts, I ignore most of your posts because you ramble on about how great you are at analyzing every political statement made on BennetPols. Pleeeze give me a break. I’m just not into your opinions.

                      And Steve you put yourself on a pedestal and think by virtue of your boring posts and assumed moral high ground people will behave differently.  Not so, the rabid Bennet supporters are still going to be rabid.  Do yourself a favor and get a life and leave political bloggers alone. Ignore posts or posters that offend your holier than thou morals.  

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      Sorry to have intruded on your insanity.

                    • Sharon Hanson says:

                      It doesn’t bother me Steve. Like I said I’m just not that into your posts.  

                    • BICora says:

                      just gracious. (SH, TGO)

                      Thanks for that demonstration. I’ve always wanted to be more like that, I tend to be too abrupt. (Not here on CPols – in general)

                      Are you this way with opposition in real life too?  

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      But I think I could have, and should have, done better with Sharon. Confronting her with the obvious doesn’t work; there must be something that does. And the goal always is to improve the quality of our conversations, and the quality of our lives.

                      As for how I do with opposition in real life: Sometimes I get it right, and sometimes I don’t. I’ll just have to keep working on it.

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      (though I’ll bet it concerns the Romanoff campaign!). It’s the rabid antagonism toward everyone else, coupled with the constant complaints about everyone else’s antagonism toward her! Just unbelievable.

                    • DevilishlyModerate says:

                      you should move to a liberal state because if folks like Ritter, Salazar and Bennent aren’t in office you’ll be stuck with the likes of “Both Ways Bob”, Coors and Norton. You need to be realistic, Colorado is an independent state and will not elect the type of candidates that you support.  

                    • Steve Harvey says:

                      “Dane” rhymes with “sane,” if you know what I’m sayin’….

                      Even Danes and Norwegians live in the real world (and do so quite well, IMO). SH TCO is more at home in places that don’t- and can’t -exist.

                    • ClubTwitty says:

                      because it’s YOUR candidate and that would be judgmental?

                      Your post is truly priceless.

                    • Middle of the Road says:

                      investigation into John Edwards misuse of campaign funds to secretly fund his mistress and his love child, whom he denied for a year and a half, fall under, again?

                      Please do enlighten us, humanitarian extraordinaire.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Clinton had a long history of bimbo eruptions going back to his days as governor. Most of us liked Clinton because he was a successful Democratic President, we did great economically during his years in office, and the world thought he rocked, not because we had any illusions about his personal character.

                      It was very different with Edwards.  The fact that this very handsome pol was apparently still so in love with his wife, who was older than he was and getting  chunky, endeared him to a lot of people and caused many to want to overlook the dissonance between the unusual, even for a rich lawyer, level of ostentation in his personal life and his running on his blue collar roots and deep concern for the poor. I know I tried to ignore misgivings every time some new item featuring ridiculous levels of luxury popped up.  

                      With Clinton, I was surprised he would behave so foolishly and in such a blatant manner with a young nitwit, knowing that the Rs were searching high and low for anything more they could possibly use against him but the fact that he couldn’t keep his pants zipped shouldn’t have surprised anyone. Nobody ever thought of the Clintons as Albert Schweitzer and Mother Teresa.

              • BlueCat says:

                My grandma always said when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. Feeling itchy yet?

          • sxp151 says:

            Has he commented on Caddell explicitly?

            And by “explicitly,” I mean I expect Romanoff to call him “motherfucker” or something similar.

          • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

            What is his role? What possible value can this man bring to a progressive campaign? What is the nature of his advice to Romanoff, and how is that advice implemented?

            Some possible answers to these hypotheticals are disturbing.

      • MADCO says:

        I too would like to hear whatever you hear.

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        I understand that’s a particular concern of yours (and a particular target of Caddell in this piece), but there’s almost no issue where Caddell doesn’t do this same crap.

    • MADCO says:

      nothing to see here, move along, Andrew is awesome, move along

  5. Ralphie says:

    True progressivism at its best.

    I’ll be back in a few.  I’m headed over to Squarestate to see how they spin this.

  6. WesternSlopeThought says:

    And maybe try to lure Karl Rove away from Faux News?  So much of what Andy is doing now hurts the Democratic Party.  I’m with MOTR on this one.  And I’ll be discussing it with caucus participants in my precinct.

    • JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

      I want to know now than ever, and West Wing sycophantic evasion won’t do. He owes anyone who calls themselves a progressive a very good explanation for why Caddell is part of this campaign.

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        by any means. But he hired Caddell to figure out how to take advantage of the Tea Party-like anger present in both parties, because that’s what Caddell has specialized in for more than two decades. If you’re trying to oust a scandal-free incumbent who’s basically identical on most issues, that’s a sound strategy, or at least one of the few available. From what I understand, Caddell is doing basic message direction — highlight this, go after that, sharpen this, use these words. He’ll no doubt also help analyze polling, if the AR campaign does any before caucuses, and caucus results, to figure out how to bring over uncommitted or Benet supporters up to the state assembly.

        • Ralphie says:

          are going to vote in the Democratic caucuses?  In the Democratic primary?

          • RedGreenRedGreen says:

            Probably very few, as you know, but the number of disaffected Democrats with Tea Party-like anger shouldn’t be discounted. Those are the voters Caddell knows how to turn out, at least that’s his reputation.

            Government is broken, corporations drown out the little guy, all the deals are cut in smoke-filled rooms, we need a senator who ignores the monied interests and represents us — these are not fringe sentiments among Democrats, and, if spun right, they play to Romanoff’s perceived strengths. It would be a mistake for Bennet supporters to underestimate Caddell’s ability to appeal to people who feel this way.

            • ThillyWabbit says:

              I think you are putting words into his mouth. No, his arguments are about how liberals are communists and how Obama is pushing socialism because he hates America.

              • RedGreenRedGreen says:

                for decades. Anti-establishment populism is his field. And he’ll sling whatever is handy at the establishment (these days that’d be Obama, unions, big corporations) to soften things up.

                • sxp151 says:

                  That certainly used to be his strategy back when he was hired by Democratic politicians. But that was before he became a regular commentator, and his personal opinions really started to matter.

                  He seemed like a rather shallow and non-ideological sort of guy back when he worked for Carter and Brown and Biden. Now he’s extremely ideological, and very conservative. I don’t know if he’ll use the same tactics. Though I guess that’s what he’s being paid for.

                  I’d be very surprised if Romanoff’s campaign weren’t filled with angry bickering and infighting by next month. Expect leaks galore from Democrat with whom Caddell can’t work (i.e., all of them). Caddell was a petulant jerk even before he started making Glenn Beck look liberal.

    • MADCO says:

      Let’s put together a hit list of Caddell hit lists and take it to caucus. hell, maybe if we ask him he’ll give us one.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      and having a page ready with links to some of Cadddell’s “highlights” to my caucus. When the inevitable “AR’s the progressive, grassroots people’s choice” bullshit enters the conversation, I am going to turn on my computer and ask folks just who is he representing when he surrounds himself with scumbags like this.

    • BlueCat says:

      The question would still be what the hell was he thinking hiring this progressive hating anti-Dem in the first place.  It’s not as if Romanoff didn’t know exactly who this guy was before he hired him. It would just make him look even less principled and more cynical than he looks now.  

  7. Laughing Boy says:

    I couldn’t have envisioned anything more awsomer than this.

    I think I’m going to go donate to AR right now.  Heheheh,

  8. Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

    His dissembling campaign and hypocrisy know no bounds.

  9. peacemonger says:

    Can someone who is officially on the Romanoff campaign please explain this.  It is too crazy to believe.

  10. paulrosenthal says:

    I don’t understand–the tag line when this guy speaks is David Horowitz.  How is his name Pat Caddell?  Am I missing something?

    • paulrosenthal says:

      The guy who spoke before Horrible-witz is Caddell.  He’s an idiot of the tallest order.  He has the contageous disease so many commentators have, the Frothing-at-the-Mouth Syndrome.  If Caddell is truly employed by Romanoff, I seriously doubt Romanoff agrees with the garbage this guy is spewing.  I’m sure he’s only employing Caddell for his polling and organizing advice.  I wouldn’t keep the guy.

    • Middle of the Road says:

      isn’t to clean up the environment, it’s to deconstruct capitalism. They are AGAINST capitalism.”

      “Those guys are thugs…the SEIU…”

      That’s the opening quote straight out of the video and that’s Pat Caddell saying it. And that’s Pat Caddell laughing it up as Horowitz takes a giant piss for the next 8 minutes on the Democratic Party and those crazy Commie liberals, Bill Ayers, et al.

      http://mediamatters.org/resear

      http://mediamatters.org/resear

      • paulrosenthal says:

        He just taints Romanoff’s candidacy.  I wouldn’t keep the guy (if he truly is hired by the campaign).  He obviously doesn’t speak for Andrew.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          Romanoff, a Denver Democrat seeking to challenВ­ge current U.S. Sen. Michael BenВ­net in a primary, announced last week the addition of four consultants: Joe Trippi, who managed Howard Dean’s presidential campaign in 2004; Patrick Caddell, a former pollster for President Jimmy Carter and a frequent commentator on the Fox News Channel; Democratic Party strategist Celinda Lake, who recently worked on the unsuccessful, high-profile U.S. Senate campaign of Martha Coakley in Massachusetts; and direct-mail consultant Liz Chadderdon. Romanoff is scheduled to meet with the public at 1 p.m. Tuesday at the Artists’ Gallery of Steamboat at 1009 Lincoln Ave.

          He said Sunday that the four hires are “very talented and creative people who obviously have a great deal of expertise,…

          I don’t care if he speaks for Romanoff or not. At this point, it calls into question Romanoff’s judgment to hire this scumbag and to tout the hiring as a great catch. If Bennet hired someone like this guy, I would no longer be a supporter of his campaign.  

        • BICora says:

          as long as she didn’t “speak for AR”, that would be ok?

    • peacemonger says:

      It’s a discussion, but they are in agreement.

  11. DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

    (full disclosure – I’m a Bennet supporter)

    Does this reflect on Andrew Romanoff? I think that depends. If Caddell was the caterer for all Romanoff events, then I think it’s fair to say his politics are irrelevant. At the other end, if Caddell headed up his platform team, then his politics are central to his role.

    There is also value in a politician having some around them that takes a different political tack. A variety of viewpoints is a good thing. But the expectation in this case is while someone’s views may be known to be different, they aren’t out there shouting them. Dick Morris filled this role for Clinton well until he decided he liked being on camera.

    Here’s what we have with Caddell – Romanoff made a big deal of bringing him on in a leadership role in his campaign. And Caddell then very publicly sticks it to a wide swath of the Democratic party.

    Now Andrew Romanoff can publicly disassociate himself from what Caddell says. And depending on how he does it, it would then be unfair to hold hiring Caddell as anything more than bad (not horrible) judgement.

    But if Romanoff stays quiet on this, or makes some minor vague comment – then I think it is fair to hold Romanoff to account. Specifically to ask if Caddell’s statements reflect Romanoff’s views. And if not, to ask why he has someone on his staff who utterly disrespects the Democratic party.

    As to Caddell, after this I think it’s fair to say any Democratic candidate who hires him is clearly brain-dead.

    • redstateblues says:

      Are we to believe that Romanoff just never listens to Caddell? What the hell would be the point of hiring him if he didn’t?

      I think that you have to hold candidates responsible for the hires they make–if AR gets elected to the Senate, would you want someone like Pat Caddell working in his office? I wouldn’t.

      • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

        My point is that you sometimes make a mistake – the big questions now are:

        1) Does Romanoff even realize he made a mistake?

        2) How does he handle the mistake?

        • BlueCat says:

          Do I want to support anyone who proudly announces a campaign leadership role for someone I wouldn’t handle with tongs?  If Romanoff had no idea how this would strike  people like me, who were all for his getting the appointment in the first place, then he is too stupid to be allowed out without supervision, much less into the US Senate.

        • redstateblues says:

          but I don’t think there’s too much room for debate, or questions. Romanoff never should have hired him in the first place, and now he finds himself between a rock and a hard place–he can fire Caddell now, and be painted in whatever light people will paint that decision in, or he can let Caddell stay on and have to deal with this kind of thing for the rest of the campaign.

          If I were him, I would just fire him and try to put this all in the past, but then again I wouldn’t have hired him in the first place either.

          • BICora says:

            AR is going to run against the D party, Obama and “politics as usual.”  After he gets the nomination, he’ll make it clear he intends to switch parties after he’s sworn in.  Cadell is a perfect fit.

        • peacemonger says:

          I think Andrew wants to keep his image as boy darling, but he also wants hit men.  

      • Ray SpringfieldRay Springfield says:

        I’ve beens saying all along that AR is a DLC very conserbative Dem that is mesmerizing the left wing of the party into thinking he is something different.

        AR won’t have support of the leadership in  DC for calling them all corrupt for taking PAC money.

        After all, only AR’s pac money is “clean”, and Colorado’s legislature is clean only when Andrew is a member. Let’s discount the indictment of the Lakewood rep for bribery charges(though acquited, even with recordinga of his offer presented in court)

        The history of Colorado’s government is as dirty as any other state, and DC.Colorado was sued for gerrymandering by the Justice dept for violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the past. The list goes on and on, Stapleton airport named for Gov. Stapleton who was Grand Dragon of the Klan.

        It’s apparent that Andrew is the only honest politician in the country. Everyone else is bought and paid for and he will waltz into DC and save the nation from PAC’s and 527′s.

        He will bend the ear of the President and the majority leader, both of whom he attacks regularly. He will from his committee assignments (doled out by the leadership) have so much influence that it will carry him to challenge the President in an open primary in 2012 and handily defeat him.I”m being facetious.

        The man is an opportunist that will say anythng to get elected. I’m not facetious about that. He told the world, including key people in his spiritual community, in the spring that he had no interest in the US Senate race (after he apparently read the results of the 27k poll he personally paid for, I don’t know too many common people that throw out 27k for a poll).

        The man’s word is in question.

        I wouldn’t be going after him so hard if he wasn’t crying fire in a theatre and maligning the reputations of not only Democrats, but any candidate that ever took PAC money, including himself.

        Sen Bennet is an  honest man. He is not a professional politician like AR is, and he doesn’t realize the danger that negative campaigning brings to him in this primary.

        He has said nothing but kind words about the Speaker.

        AR told a group last week that he objects to being labled  a career politician.

        That’s an example of how he will tell anything to anybody to get elected.

        What else has he done? Perhaps his tax returns shows consulting for Political Action Committees or NGO’s. Who knows?

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      David, you’re missing the point. Caddell didn’t suddenly come up with this stuff. It’s been his schtick for years. He’s been saying the same thing since the Clinton administration.

  12. paulrosenthal says:

    I can only imagine that Romanoff was trying to look to the general election after his nomination to show that he can cross the aisle, and by tolerating a Fox News commentator, he can represent all Coloradoans.  He may have tried to show that like Pres. Obama, he solicits opinions from all points in the political spectrum.

    Listen, any candidate and campaign is bound to make a mistake.  In my 2 runs for office I know I made some, but none of them (thankfully) came to the attention of bloggers.  I think ultimately this will be a bump in the road for Romanoff, and I don’t think as some suggest that this somehow is a major judgment error on his part.

    • redstateblues says:

      It’s not like this is some hidden story that was broken in the blogosphere. This is just what this guy has been saying for years–including up to the month before Romanoff hired him.

      Let me put it to you this way: if Bennet had hired Caddell, would you be as kind in saying it wouldn’t have suggested some kind of major error on his part? Something tells me the spin would be moving counter clockwise.

      • paulrosenthal says:

        RedState, no, I wouldn’t have slammed Bennet had he hired Caddell.

        I actually think Bennet is doing very well for Coloradoans in DC, so his job performance isn’t the basis of the reason I support Andrew.  It’s just that now that we as Democrats are given a choice, we have to choose which sweater we like the most–the one with stripes or checkers, the blue one or the green one.  I treat Romanoff and Bennet equally–both are good and honorable men who have worked hard and sacrificed much.  I support Andrew based on the years I have seen his leadership in the legislature–I like his style and admire his accomplishments, and I feel these would make him a good and strong U.S. Senator.

        From personal experience, I know how a primary can get bitter and personal.  But the stakes here are much, much higher than what I went through.  I just hope that for all of our sakes that this bicker-fest between the campaigns and supporters pulls back from the brink, since this ugliness only helps Norton, who is to the right of Attilla the Hun.

  13. Steve Harvey says:

    Pat Caddell is clearly a first-class jerk. Hiring him exhibits poor judgment. Some disappointment by both Romanoff supporters, and those who simply like and respect him, is warranted.

    But the fact that the people who worked with Andrew Romanoff most closely, day after day, year after year, hold him in such high esteem, with both affection and respect, carries more weight, in my mind, than the fact that he somehow managed to hire a complete douchebag for an advisor. I’m not saying that the latter fact is irrelevant, just that it doesn’t suddenly erase everything else we know about Andrew Romanoff.

    Frankly, I think both Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff are huge assets to the Colorado Democratic Party, and I’m looking forward to working with both of them for many years to come, in whatever capacities they find themselves.

    • BlueCat says:

      We have all thought a lot of Andrew’s political skill but his district was a comfy hot house for Dems and he’s spent his political life in a small pond. Of course that’s where most pols start so that, in itself, is no problem.  

      Now he’s aiming for the big time and first he chooses to run as the grass roots progressive champion on a campaign based entirely on getting up on his high horse over Bennet being appointed and taking money from Pacs and corporations. Not that he had many other good options since he’s a DLC centrist and can’t very well run against Bennet on issues.

      Still the object has clearly been to somehow morph into a progressive champion.  So then he hires the most notorious, viciously  anti-liberal, anti-progressive tool of the right wing spin machine he could possibly find? How did he ever think that was going to compute?  

      This is one more head scratcher in a long series of head scratchers that tells me this guy is not ready for prime time. He’s all over the place.

      • Steve Harvey says:

        I don’t think there are many undecideds (among politically engaged people at least) in this primary race. Nor have there been for quite some time. And I don’t think there’s any need to try to change anyone’s mind, one way or the other.

        Politics is noisy and chaotic. I don’t trust appearances nearly as much as I trust evidence with deeper roots. No one commands as much respect and affection as Andrew has, among so many people (who I have come to respect, and whose judgment I trust), with whom he has had such close and continuous contact, without having laudable qualities that deserve to be honored and appreciated.

        I have always, quietly, supported Senator Bennet, for reasons that have nothing to do with Andrew. But I have never opposed Andrew in the process, and will not start now. Had I become involved in Colorado politics earlier, and gotten to know Andrew personally, none of these “head scratchers” would be enough to shake the personal loyalty I very probably would have had for him. With that in mind, I will not let them shake my respect for him now.

        Whichever of these two candidates is best qualified to be our Party’s candidate, and whichever one wins the primary, I’m not interested in deconstructing either one of them. I’m only interested in supporting them both, and hoping that both find the “right fit” in our collective effort to move our state and nation in the right direction.

        The rest is just politics.

        • BlueCat says:

          But Caddell is just a bridge too far for me and while I once would have joined you in preferring Bennet without being against Romanoff, I just can’t get over Caddell any more than I would be able to get over Bennet having Rush join his team. Of course you are a much nicer person than pretty much anyone here, certainly including me. I also don’t see Romanoff winning the primary so am not overly concerned about damage to potential candidate in the general.

          More concerned about any slight possibility of an Andrew primary win that I firmly believe would severely lower our chances of retaining the seat.  If his strategy is going to be both anti-incumbent and anti-Dem, why shouldn’t voters in the middle just go ahead and vote for the real thing, a non-incumbent Republican?    

          • Steve Harvey says:

            And, yes, I think it’s in the party’s interest, the state’s interest, and the nation’s interest for Bennet to win the primary (and the general), and so have come off the fence to say so. But I’m going to keep giving Andrew the benefit of the doubt, because people I trust and admire trust and admire him, and I will support him after this primary in whatever better timed and better executed moves he makes.

            I know how easy it is for the chaos of life (and particularly politics!) to spin out things that appear far worse than they really are if you knew every detail of how it happened, and I’m reluctant to place too much weight on these phantoms of our little opereta. Years of a strong and admirable reputation don’t just dissolve for me in the heat of this kind of noise.

            I don’t mean to criticize anyone, but I do think we need to strive to be less fickle, more forgiving, and more tolerant of our shared humanity. I’ve seen so many people thrown under the bus, so quickly and easily, that it’s just not something I’m ever eager to join in on. Even very talented people with a lot to offer screw up, and having screwed up shouldn’t mean that they must be discarded and reviled.

        • Middle of the Road says:

          just a quick weigh in on your first point–I’ve doing caucus calling for awhile now and you wouldn’t believe how many people are on the fence on this race. I really thought I’d find more people whose minds were made up but unlike Colorado Pols, it seems real world voters haven’t as firmly found their candidate yet and are waiting to be persuaded.  

  14. RomanoffForColorado says:

    The following is a statement from the Romanoff for Colorado campaign:

    “Pat Caddell has a long history in American politics.  He has advised Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart and Mario Cuomo, among other Democrats.  He was an unpaid consultant for the Romanoff campaign, and had no contractual relationship.

    Today, a video was posted on ColoradoPols, in which Pat expressed views that were completely at odds with Andrew’s campaign, his career and his commitment to the environment and to Colorado’s working families.  Andrew heard those comments for the first time this afternoon and ended Pat’s role in the campaign.”

    While this is a newly created account on CoPols, the editors of the site can confirm that this account was registered by the campaign. We do expect to post regularly on various blogs including CoPols and to keep readers updated on the campaign. Due to a very busy schedule we may not always be available to immediately respond to specific questions or comments but will do our best.

  15. peacemonger says:

    he’lll stop beating up on Jared Polis, too, or was that Trippi’s advice?

    • sxp151 says:

      love to beat up on Jared Polis. It’s a long-standing tradition. That’s a point in Romanoff’s favor for me.

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        But failing to show Polis the proper courtesy and having some cheap laughs at the expense of his role as Bennet’s surrogate … is hardly beating up. I agree with the thrust of what peacemonger wrote Sunday, but let’s not get carried away here.

    • RockyMtnModerate says:

      I don’t know the real background story of how Polis ended up standing in for Bennet – friends on the Bennet campaign say they never agreed to it, friends close to Romanoff’s people say they expected Bennet to be there until a few days before. Also still no idea where Bennet was Saturday night that he wasn’t available since he was apparently in Denver on Friday at events at Salida Sunday. But, peacemonger, your hysteria of the “beating up” on Polis is some creative interpretation of what was said. I just got to look at the video of the remarks you so adeptly excerpted that quote in your other diary from where Romanoff jabs Polis – what you left out was the big smile and laughter and more importantly the rest of the remark about Polis when he said “I came actually not to debate my friend Jared Polis but to praise him. I think the truth is I think the courage and leadership and talent that he has brought to the House of Representatives the same quaitiesl I think the President has brought to the white house, we need those qualities in the us senate today as well so thank you for your leadership on that front.” – See the video below at about 4:30 into the video

      • peacemonger says:

        I made the changes to my diary that were evidently inaccurate (but only a little, surprisingly). I acknowledged making the changes on the diary page.  Why are you posting this stuff all over miscellaneous blog diaries that have nothing to do with my diary?  Wait, I know, could it be…. you are seeking free publicity of an edited campaign video?

        By the way, how did you get these videos before anyone else did, and how is it they were edited to make Romanoff only look great?

        • RockyMtnModerate says:

          Sorry peacemonger, it’s not always a conspiracy and there are those who post who don’t actually have any connection to either campaign. I’ve just gotten annoyed with a handful of rabid supporters on both sides who won’t let go of their talking points and spin. It is funny that you rail about the post having nothing to do with the diary when your post about Romanoff beating up on Polis had nothing to do with this diary. As nonsensical and out of touch with reality as a couple of Romanoff’s supporters get here, the volume and repetitiveness of rants from a few of Bennet’s supporters make those two look minor in comparison at times.

          To your question or criticism of the video, yes, I was sent the link by a friend who has friends on the Romanoff campaign (I know people on both sides) but I have no idea who the person is who posted the videos and don’t think it was the campaign. If they’ve been edited, then I’d gladly post an unedited version.

          Let’s both look to talk about the debate tonight free of edits, hyperbole or spin. I’d expect the streaming video will be unedited and allow all of us to watch the two without the filter of their campaigns.

  16. peacemonger says:

    than got some from out of state. His campaign has been a circus. His office is like a revolving door. I don’t get it. Does he really even want this job? Seriously.

    • MADCO says:

      he really, really wants the job.

      He should focus on proving he’s qualified, why those who are not already in love with him should think he’d even be good at it.  That doesn’t include bashing Polis, Ritter, Hickenlooper, every elected D who ever got PAC/corp donations, every D who ever ran who got PAC/corp donations and Bennet – who’s done a good job to date.

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      Keep in mind, the pool hasn’t been that large. The Bennet campaign locked down most of the consultants and operatives who would have normally worked for Romanoff.

  17. Ann Molison says:

    The following is a statement from the Romanoff for Colorado campaign:

    “Pat Caddell has a long history in American politics.  He has advised Jimmy Carter, Joe Biden, Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart and Mario Cuomo, among other Democrats.  He was an unpaid consultant for the Romanoff campaign, and had no contractual relationship.

    Today, a video was posted on ColoradoPols, in which Pat expressed views that were completely at odds with Andrew’s campaign, his career and his commitment to the environment and to Colorado’s working families.  Andrew heard those comments for the first time this afternoon and ended Pat’s role in the campaign.”

    I think this statement speaks for itself and as Caddell was not in this state when he made the comment – Andrew only learned of this today.  And, acted quickly.  

  18. CaninesCanines says:

    George Soros is a communist? A billionaire communist?

  19. caroman says:

    Act 4, Scene 1:

    Inside Romanoff headquarters.  ”Romanoff for Governor”, “Romanoff for Mayor”, “Romanoff for Senator” signs scattered around the floor.  Campaign manager Ken Gordon.  Scratch that.  Campaign manager Bill Romjue, (or whoever is the current campaign manager) and Andrew Romanoff at a table.

    BJ: “We’re getting killed over at ColoradoPols.  They’ve posted video of Pat saying awful things about Democrats.”

    AR: “Really???  But, but, Pat was Jimmy Carter’s pollster.  How progressive can you get?”

    BJ: “That’s what I thought.  Not only that, we just got an invoice from Caddell for $500,000!”

    AR: “But, but that’s almost everything we raised last quarter!  And, we still have to pay Martha Coakley’s pollster that we hired.  Running this campaign is just like a real job.  It’s hard work. Hard.

    BJ: “Well, we’ve got to dump Caddell and replace him with another big name so it shows that we’ve got a real campaign.  Dick Morris was Bill Clinton’s advisor.  Has he done anything since?  Well, let’s just give him a call.  This will be big.  Big, I tell ya.”

    Cut to AR staring at headlights.

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      Mark Penn is looking for work.

    • RockyMtnModerate says:

      Caroman, you’re entertaining if not boringly repetitive in staying on talking points for Bennet. If it weren’t for you, peacemonger, MADCO, Ray S and occasionally MOTR, I’d almost have to do some research to know what message Bennet was trying to get across. I actually tried putting all of y’all on “ignore” here and found the discussions about this race shockingly civil – well when I added Sharon and JO to the ignore anyway.

      No clue why Romanoff brought Caddell on board or what he knew when about some of his comments. It’s just a good thing the Dems have never gotten strongly behind a candidate for federal office who once took PAC money before denouncing it or had to distance themselves from an advisor when controversial videos popped up that they said they were “shocked, shocked” to hear…

      Like say, when Obama welcomed PAC donations as a Senate candidate and then famously dismissed his primary opponent saying:

      “I believe that it’s not enough just to change political parties. We have to change the culture, and part of changing the culture is recognizing that the special interests, the lobbyists, the insurance companies, the banks, the drug companies, HMO’s, they have come to dictate the agenda in Washington. The only way you break out of that so that ordinary people’s voices are heard is if you stop taking money from PACs and lobbyists like I have- she (Hillary) still does- and you recognize that they’re a problem”

      Or that story we all like to forget about regarding a certain preacher that, after 20 years in the pews, Obama was “shocked, shocked” to learn had said some rather unflattering things.

      Was Obama wrong to denounce PACs in his Presidential Primary because he had once taken their money? Was he wrong to distance himself from a man he was undoubtedly far more familiar with than Romanoff was with Caddell?

      None of this justifies what Caddell said or suggests Romanoff doesn’t have a lot of explaining to do about why voters should fire Bennet and hire him, but if your standard of the perfect politician is Obama and his support (as several of your signature lines makes clear) is proof positive that Bennet is “the man” then you might want to reconsider some of your lines of attack else that word “hypocrisy” you’re found of throwing around might start looking more and more like a bit of protesting too much. I’m just sayin’

      • ardy39 says:

        And will the 3 of you that don’t know how to set me to “ignore” tell me if this is a real setting?

      • MADCO says:

        Bennet v. Romanoff primary is just like the Clinton v. Obama primary.

        Because the country was really leaning R and ready to elect the R just not to have a D in the office anymore.  Oh, well it is not similar like that.

        Well then, because after a campaign got in trouble in one place or on one issue (Iowa or PAC money), they could recover in another place on another issue (NH or labor support).   Oh, well it isn’t similar like that either.

        Oh, I know- once we have a nominee, then the R opposition in the general won’t be able to use the sounds and smells of the primary against the nominee. Oh wait.

        In every one of these ways, RockyMtnModerate you underscore exactly why this primary is helping the R win the general.

        BTW – you’ve added me in to your comments more than once recently, accusing me of not being civil.  Huh?

        You and the AR campaign come here to explain away AR’s hiring of Caddell  - you don’t know what he was thinking but, nothing to see here, just a simple mistake, move along. Well there is something to see. And there are some things that need explaining.

        I can’t speak for carman, but Obama is not perfect.

        He is the President, and I do support him.  I was initially willing to be neutral on Bennet because he said he did too.

        I am a Democrat and I want the seat to stay D.  

        And so, if AR gets the nomination, he’ll have my support.

        Can you say the same?

      • peacemonger says:

        I find it interesting that you are criticising some of us for consistently defending Bennet. Of your many diaries and comments over the last 6 months (starting in September when Romanoff became a candidate, only one jumps out that isn’t about Romanoff.  Is the (PAC-taking) pot calling the kettle (Pac-taking) black?

    • BICora says:

      If you could draw, you’ve got a future as a political cartoonist.

      But what about cut to Nov. AR is not a US Senator-elect.  Now what?

  20. sxp151 says:

    Hiring Caddell was a stupid thing, but Romanoff rightly fired him, in spite of the fact that this Caddell stuff never seemed to get traction beyond this one little blog.

    You’d figure we’d be happy that he explicitly said he did it based on our bitching. But the Bennet supporters are still really pissed off.

    It’s almost like they never cared about Caddell and just wanted another thing to complain about. And the fact that Romanoff listened to the complaining and did something about it just makes them smell blood and attack more.

    Weird.

    Anyway, I’m officially back to neutral until one of these guys gets naked.

    • Steve Harvey says:

      in favor of the one disrobed, or in favor of the one still clothed?

      Just asking….

    • redstateblues says:

      This is the first time I’ve felt positive about Romanoff in weeks. It’s the best thing he could have done other than not hiring Caddell in the first place.

    • DavidThi808DavidThi808 says:

      was that Romanoff needed to fire Caddell. I think you’re painting with way too broad a brush.

    • DevilishlyModerate says:

      The fact that Caddell said some “winger” statements doesn’t change the underline reason why he was hired, he’s great at attacking Dems. AR hired Caddell to attack Bennet and now because it turns out that Caddell is outspoken on particular issues doesn’t change this fact.

      AR- I would be very concerned with how things are playing out in this race. Not good…

    • peacemonger says:

      And I don’t care about Caddell. Never did.

      I do have a few pages on my desk called, “Concerns about Andrew Romanoff’s judgment”.  

    • MADCO says:

      I’m not pissed off.

      But, yes, it was a mistake to hire Caddell and it was the right start to correcting that mistake to fire him.

      But to suggest that now that Caddell’s gone, there’s nothing to see, we should just move on, is well, simplistic.

      I think it’s a perfectly reasonable question, for example, how the campaign missed Caddell’s history in the first place.  Likewise, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to ask if they missed that, what else have they missed.

      And, though time will tell, it’s reasonable to ask whether the general spirit of campaigning against the President, the D party and Bennet is going to continue.  This is a strategy that motivates the general to go R.

      So, I’m not pissed off that AR fired Caddell. Nor that he announced it here (and the DenPost and his own site still don’t have it).  I am a little pissed he hired Caddell in the first place and now I’m supposed to just forget that. (I’ll cite union and enviro creds later – along with combat creds, but my family are not thugs or communists.)

      It’s still reasonable to ask how the AR campaign is going to budget the big media in the general without big money, without the DSCC racket, without the President’s support – but instead by suggesting every D candidate who ever accepted a corp donation is corrupt, except of course, AR.

      And to top it off- here comes the AR surrogates in blog-space telling us we’re overreacting, it’s nothing and changing the subject.

      It would be funny if it wasn’t so important.

  21. Half Glass FullHalf Glass Full says:

    The only answer appears to be: because he knew that by doing so he might weaken the Dems’ chances.

    Caddell obviously didn’t respect Romanoff as a candidate. He saw him as (1) an easy couple of bucks and (2) a Useful Idiot.

    I like Andy Romanoff, but do have to question his fundamental judgment in ever hiring – indeed, even THINKING of hiring – such an obvious right-wing shill.

    Who’s he gonna hire next: Gunny Bob?

    • Sharon Hanson says:

      Try loving Bennet a little more with your insulting remarks.

      I heard a teaser promoting an interview with Bennet from the Mario show and Bennet spoke. I couldn’t believe how lame he sounded. I thought, he doesn’t stand a chance of winning that seat, I don’t care how much money he has.  

  22. ace41 says:

    getting hired or fired.  What is telling to me is that another week has gone by and the news out of the Romanoff campaign is about being a bit of a jerk to a congressman of his own Party at an event that was probably not attended by a single voter or caucus goer who had not already made up their mind – and a broohaha over a campaign consultant.  I’m sorry, folks, but these are not the ways of a winning campaign.

    Campaigns are tough business and we have seen them run well and run right by only a handful of politicians in this state.  Andrew should be doing 2 things and 2 things only: raising money and talking to undecided caucus voters.

    Controversies involving strange campaign consultants is not on that list and every single minute his campaign has spent dealing with this is a minute wasted.

    • MADCO says:

      If, while focusing on the necessary,  we can avoid the circular  destruction, all the better.

    • BICora says:

      And so reasonable.

      Though I’m pretty sure the AR campaign didn’t choose to get distracted by this now.  But if they hadn’t acted and commented a bunch of caucus goers would have showed up with a Caddell hit list.

      Which begs the question- why couldn’t the AR campaign realize this was exactly the kind of distraction they were getting with Caddell and not hire him in the first place?  Could it be because Andrew always had benefit of a safely D seat with little to no opposition and has never run a large competitive campaign before?  

      And I’d add a third task to that focus list- come up with a message and a way to deliver it that convinces D voters that AR would be a better Senator than Bennet. And I used to take PAC money but don’t now isn’t it.

       

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.