U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 13, 2010 03:35 AM UTC

Ritter's Gamble

  • 39 Comments
  • by: oldbenkenobi

Bill Ritter had three choices when he filled the Senate vacancy:

A. Pick a place-holder, then let the voters fill an open seat in the next election.  

B. Pick an established Colorado Democrat, someone tested and reliable who has a base.  

C. Gamble on an unknown.

Group B makes the most sense if you have a deep bench and want to give one of those people a head start.  And the bench was deep — four outstanding candidates spring to mind: Romanoff, Hickenlooper, Kennedy and Perlmutter.  But Ritter gambled.  The elephant in the room is: Why?  Why pick an unknown when there were several excellent knowns?    

With Bennet, Ritter and the Democratic establishment have attempted to disenfranchise Democratic Primary Voters by:

1. Picking a guy who had never been elected to anything, a guy without a base.  

2. Trying to keep Romanoff out of the race and seeking for Bennet a free pass-through to the general election.

3. Using Organizing for America, which should be out fighting for progressive causes, to fight for one side in a Democratic primary.

A political base is more than just a political asset, it is evidence of earned loyalty, paid for in blood, sweat and tears.  Like political capital it is built on votes and years in the trenches.  The Bennet appointment was an end-around, a shortcut, the elevation of a person to the highest political position in the state without making him go through all the hard work most people have to put in before they make it to the U.S. Senate.  This was an unearned appointment.

Some accuse Romanoff of thinking he is entitled to the seat, yet all Romanoff has ever said is, “Let the voters decide.”  Ironically, it is Bennet who brandishes entitlement.  Remember Bennet’s line from the debate, “I love you, and I just wish you were running a primary against one of the people causing the problems.”  That’s a line spoken from entitlement.  This is my seat, why are you running against me?  But it is not Bennet’s seat.  He has never been elected.  One of the Bennet campaign’s favorite lines is that we should elect him because “he has not committed a fireable offense.”  Another line of entitlement.  You have to be hired — elected — before you can be fired.  We are deciding whether to hire Bennet, not whether to fire him.  There is a big difference.

When Ritter appointed him, Bennet acquired the only political base he has ever had, people who are inclined to support the Democrat appointed to the seat.  I understand their inclination but I urge them to rethink their support.  Bennet’s new base increased as more people moved toward him before Romanoff entered the race.  Bennet did not sway the bulk of his supporters after years of hard work. Only the people in Group B have earned that kind of loyalty.  On an even playing field, Romanoff beats Bennet.  On an even playing field, Bennet would not even be in this race.  He is only in the race because he was appointed.

We know Obama loved Bennet for Education Secretary.  Then out of left field he gets appointed to the vacant Senate seat.  What a coincidence!  We know Ritter solicited suggestions from the public…and nobody suggested Bennet.  There was a rumor going around, a positive rumor, that Ritter consulted all the Democratic party elders and asked them, “Who best embodies the qualities we need in a U.S. Senator?”  The only named party elder in the rumor was Senator Harry Reid.  This alleged polling of party elders came up with the highly improbable result: Michael Bennet.  So according to the party elders, Romanoff, Hickenlooper, Kennedy and Perlmutter don’t have the magical qualities? Ridiculous.  Obviously this rumor is good for Bennet and Ritter so it stands to reason that one of them (or one of their supporters) started it.  Then it raced around town like wildfire in the vacuum created by the lack of any honest explanation from Ritter.  

But let’s assume it’s true for a moment.  If Ritter consulted with party elders, including Senator Reid, then he surely consulted with the White House too, didn’t he?  You don’t consult all the party elders and skip the biggest elder of them all, do you?  Was there any contact between Ritter and the White House regarding the Bennet appointment?  It is a very simple question.  Would some reporter, if there are any left, please ask it?  I’m an Obama fan and supporter but WE choose our Senators, not the White House.  Hubris is the most likely explanation for why the White House seems to have treated Colorado’s Senate seat like a cabinet position.  Ritter and the White House both need to come clean.  Voters have the right to know the truth, and better now than in October.  

Why is Bennet getting a free ride from the press on this and other issues?  Maybe because Post owner/publisher Dean Singleton decided in February that Romanoff had not gained enough “traction.” He made this decision three months before Romanoff crushed Bennet at the Colorado Democratic Assembly.  Or maybe the Post can’t find time to apply a critical eye to Bennet because they are too busy dissecting Betsy Markey’s t-shirt designs and Romanoff’s website header.  In the recent intern scandal, the Post simply accepted the Bennet campaign’s explanation as fact and asked no more questions.

That elephant remains in the room.  Every voter in Colorado knows the Bennet appointment doesn’t pass the smell test.  You think that won’t manifest itself at the polls in November?  The mystery is why Bennet, Ritter and Obama were and continue to be oblivious to all this.  The Republicans have one argument this election season, the anti-incumbency, anti-Obama argument.  Romanoff as nominee vaporizes their argument and then co-opts it.  Bennet, on the other hand, enhances it — he is perceived as Obama’s pet project.

Bennet talks a big game, about all the things he’s going to do if we elect him.  He’s been in office for a year and a half.  Remember the fierce urgency of now?  Bennet’s motto is more like: “The timid complacency of a strongly worded letter.”  Bennet’s “message” is vacuous (see my diary Bennet’s Cliche Cavalcade) and his “leadership” on the public option was a joke (see my diary Leadership, Romanoff v. Bennet).  

Romanoff, in contrast, is about the fierce urgency of now.  He attacked TABOR, championed Colorado schools, and ran for Senate despite the establishment’s attempt to keep him down. Romanoff said “No” to the establishment. That’s what we need.  Bennet says “Yes” — to Wall Street, the health care industry, and an emphatic yes to the current campaign finance system.  

Ritter gambled and we got a dud.  We are not obligated to keep him.  Ritter owes us an honest explanation but we are not prisoners of Ritter’s decision, not yet.  We can still make our own.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

39 thoughts on “Ritter’s Gamble”

  2. If only the governor had nominated your guy – or one of your guys  – then the appointment process would be fine and anyone who said otherwise would be outcast.

    But, we all know how that turned out.

    Meanwhile- you want the oters to decide, well, sit down, because in just a few minnutesvoters will have ballots and (gasp!) they will get to decide.

    If (when) Bennet gets the nomination,  you’ll come back and explain how as the people’s choice, he deserves all our support, right?

    hooey.

    1. I love that word. It’s so… so… old-fashioned? Thanks MADCO.

      And the power of incumbency and the massive dollars that brings will have bought the election long before the first vote is ever cast.

      Lots of “ink” spilled in CP about Bennet’s fundraising prowess and how AR can’t compete in the big money game. And therein lies the heart of the problem with politics in America today.

      1. all I gotta do is picture my grandfather reacting to anything strongly.

        As for the heart of the problem with politics in America today I disagree.

        The problem is that the two parties dominate in such a way that it suppresses the will of the people.  In CO this is especially so- only two competitive candidates will make the ballot.  Rarely will either exactly represent my preferences.  And I realize the insanity of all 3.5 million CO adults being on the ballot- I have lived places where there were routinely 5-7 viable candidates. (and voting was open and and and)

        1. and the issue I have with that is the disproportionate weight more extrememe points ov view can have when a winning party did not quite make a majority and so must compromise with one or more losing parties to form a government. As often seems to be the case (witness Israel), this can skew the actions of th egovernment to favor minority and extremist views against the more moderate majority’s wishes.

          Our two party system usually can have a moderating effect on that extremism by making the candidates hew more decidedly to the center in a general election. Doesn’t always work (GWB…), but often does.

          I read this somewhere recently and it was good. If I could remember where, I’d properly credit it, lest I be accused of plagiarism… maybe it was even on Pols!

          🙂

          And I love those less profane curses too. I just never remember to use them!

          LOL!

    2. If (when) Bennet gets the nomination,  you’ll come back and explain how as the people’s choice, he deserves all our support, right?

      Not likely.

  3. This diary seems to assume, without any analysis at all, that Senator Bennet was plucked from nowhere and has no business being in this position.

    Among the many things that are missing is any recognition or acknowledgment (even grudging) that Senator Bennet has any relevant skills or experience whatsoever. There is no mention at all that some (such as Governor Ritter, whose appointment it was to make) see significant value in a combination of substantial public and private sector experience. Governor Ritter has publicly said this was a major motivating factor for him in making the selection.  And when we face the range of problems we face (some like the Great Recession and the financial crisis are historic), why is a combination of skills, jobs, and public and private sector experience, not an appropriate consideration for an important job?

    The factors we are told simply must apply – did the candidate have “a base,” had he/she ever been “elected to anything,” number of years spent in the [political] trenches – all assume that a politician is the only possible person who could or should fill this job, or at least has “earned” this job (to use the writer’s own word). The best among us may include some who have spent their entire careers in politics, but I don’t know any smart or thoughtful person who would ever say that to be among the best you must spend your career in politics.

    The stated criteria — and what the stated criteria omit — represent a very narrow view about what qualifies a person for public service or what could make a person effective in this very important job.

    1. Is a big issue. Having served one’s party, served one’s community, served one’s State, then there is a reason to bestow our gratitude upon that person for all that service. And the diary above talks about how that hard-earned support is won, not bought.

      Whereas votes in a primary or a general CAN be bought by better media exposure, advertisements, etc. This is the strongest argument in favor of public campaign financing and overturning the hideous concept of corporate personhood and entitlement to Constitutional rights and protections like a natural person is.

      Let all things be equal to the degree possible and then let candidates win or lose on the merits (or lack thereof) of their respective campaigns.

    3. …Hick was the obvious choice.  He started a successful business from scratch, helped revitalize Denver’s Lower Downtown, and then started a political career from scratch that culminated in his becoming a popular Mayor.  Bennet (somehow) got a plum job helping a rich guy shuffle his money around.  And that is the only private sector job he has ever had.  Forget Romanoff, how do you pick Bennet over Hickenlooper?  More evidence that Ritter is full of sh*t.  

      1. That will come as a surprise to Terrance Carroll.   If you don’t like the Miles comparison, can we agree on Gil Romero?  He got top line at the assembly over Dottie Lamm.  I’m sure he’s still in the Senate.  Uhh, this just in, he lost that primary too.

        It seems the “crushing” effect (your shills’ term) of winning top line is to mostly crush the poor schmuck who gets it.

          And, without googling, can you name me the two people who were speaker before Romanoff — thus atoning for the fact that you forgot the current speaker?

        1. And Romanoff is not Mike Miles, as you also know.  Harping on the Mike Miles comparison only makes your side look delusional.  

          And Romanoff beat Bennet 60-40.  I call that a crushing.  If you prefer, we could call it a thrashing or a pummeling or an alley beatdown.

          But let me ask you, Voyageur, if you’re not afraid to talk about the other 99% of my diary.  Do you think Ritter owes us the full truth about the Bennet appointment?  Do you think Bennet was the best choice?  Do you think the appointment passes the smell test?

          1. Do you think Ritter owes us the full truth about the Bennet appointment?  

            Yes and I think he gave it to us.

            Do you think Bennet was the best choice?  

            Yes- exactly what Ritter said.

            Do you think the appointment passes the smell test?

            Yes.

            Next- Hey!! Should those kids really get off your damn lawn?

            1. on CP for unattributed MSU muck, can you link the Ritter explanation please? I haven’t heard the one which so satisfies you and I’d really like to.

              Thanks!

              1. I suspect you have not heard an explanation that satisfies you because you don’t want to hear it or because you have set a bar that Bennet can’t clear.  I know people who will not vote for Senate or Presidential/VP candidates who don’t have military experience.  Of course, there are good candidates who can’t meet that  – including all the candidates in this Senate race.

                http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Sat…

                http://www.rockymountainnews.c…

                http://www.denverpost.com/poli…

                http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Sat…

                1. Here’s what I heard — a lot of vague bullcrap from our Governor. Maybe he’s the one who is writing Bennet’s campaign emails.  I heard about Bennet’s “bold new approach to problem-solving.” Which is to write letters and give up the fight before it begins???  That is a new approach!

                2. Thanks for the links.

                  It is pretty generic pablum. If it suits you, that’s fine. I just think it definitely skims over what influenced Ritter’s decision making process. I have no doubt Ritter spoke with hundreds of people as he mentioned, but I do question who those were and what they brought to the table by way of lobbying for Bennet or anyone else.

                  It was Ritter’s decision to make then. It is ours to make now. Thinking Ritter used his best judgment does not preclude us from deciding there might be a better candidate than Bennet. And I believe there is in Andrew Romanoff.

                  1. “It is ours to make now. Thinking Ritter used his best judgment does not preclude us from deciding there might be a better candidate than Bennet.   ”

                    Decide away.

                    I feel hugely confident if Ritter had appointed your guy, we would be having a very different conversation about the appointment process. So what.

                    You are exactly right- it’s up to us now.  Whichever candidate wins the nomination is the people’s choice.

            2. …between the White House and Ritter regarding this appointment?

              Because if there was, that would have to be part of the full truth right?

                1. Voters have a right to know the nature of the contact and decide for ourselves whether it was appropriate.  And we should not have to wait until someone displays proof, as we did with the Romanoff job dangle, to hear the truth.  

                  1.  And neither do you.

                    Pat Cadelll knows a lot of people in the administration – ask him.

                    You know what else- I can’t say for sure that Bennet was consulting with the grays or the Bilderburgers.  Why won’t he disclose this?

                    And don’t even get me started on the trilateralists…my dr says I should stop even thinking of them.

            1.  What does that have to do with Voyageur’s inane comment? Are you and he really each other’s sock puppets Ray?

              Speaker Carroll and I disagree on many things, but I still call him my friend.

  6. I think this

    Ironically, it is Bennet who brandishes entitlement.

    is a particularly good point.

    I heard his interview on NPR this AM. He seemed smug and a bit presumptuous. His comments seemed to follow the talking points his shills continue to put out.

    I am biased, of course, but I was not particularly impressed with his responses. I think he betrayed a distinct peevishness toward AR when the subject of campaign contributions came up.

    It may be bothering him that he has spent millions and he can’t make Romanoff go away.

    By the way…I completely believe that the real reason Michael Bennet was selected to hold the seat until Coloradoans elect their senator, was the fact that Arne Duncan was chosen to be Secretary of Education. Bennet didn’t get the prize he wanted, so he was selected for the seat as a consolation prize. No…I can’t prove it…it is just what I believe.

    If he wins the primary, he will be the peoples’ choice. I will support him. For now…he is Bill Ritters’ choice. But I know a guy who will be a better senator for Colorado.

  7. That is a few people wrote Ritter asking him NOT to pick Michael Bennet after they saw how he screwed DPS, and almost no one wanted the guy.  More people actively disliking the guy than liking him at all…sounds like polling regarding Bennet too.

    But I guess we all see how well things have turned out for Ritter.  I mean his reelection campaign is going along grea…oh wait what?  Oh yeah.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

260 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!