President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

52%↑

48%↓

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
August 03, 2010 09:01 PM UTC

Romanoff Now Says He Would Take DSCC, PAC Help

  • 235 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #3: In an email just sent out by the Romanoff campaign, Romanoff repeats the same canard as earlier. Clearly this has become a huge problem for the campaign, and it didn’t need to be. If only Campaign Manager Bill Romjue had just kept quiet for a few more days…answering the question about DSCC support may very well prove fatal to the Romanoff campaign.

Here’s Romanoff’s newest statement:

I don’t take any PAC money now, I have not done so at any point in this campaign, and I will not do so in the general election.  I don’t know how to make my stand any clearer.

To set this matter to rest, I took one further step today.  I vowed to ask the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) to exclude any PAC dollars from contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

We don’t want to get too caught up in semantics here, but there’s an important phrase in this statement. Romanoff says “I vowed to ask” the DSCC to exclude PAC dollars. He didn’t vow “not to accept PAC dollars,” because that would be impossible. He knows the DSCC cannot separate PAC money out of its bank account and give Romanoff only the “PAC-free” funds, so he’s really just vowing to ask for something he can’t have.

And on that note, we vow to ask Santa Claus for a unicorn this Christmas!

—–

UPDATE #2: Romanoff has issued a statement in an attempt to clarify: “After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.”

This statement is, of course, absurd, because there is no way to separate PAC money from non-PAC money when it all goes into the same account. This would be like saying you want to only eat the healthy parts of a cookie after it has already been baked.

—–

UPDATE: Romanoff’s campaign told Politico that the Colorado Statesman article referenced below was “inaccurate.” In its own story today, the Statesman stands by its original reporting:

The Statesman’s editor and publisher said the newspaper stands by its story…

…Romanoff sat with a reporter from The Statesman for an interview immediately following a Jan. 19 press conference where he declared he was still running for the Senate – after rumors swirled he was instead considering a run for governor – and made his most uncompromising statement to date about his refusal to take money from political action committees, which he labeled part of an “incumbent protection racket.”

“Andrew said what he said in response to a direct question about the DSCC,” said Statesman editor Jody Hope Strogoff, who has covered Romanoff’s political career for more than a decade. “If he’d like to make a case he was answering a different question than the one he was asked, he can do that. But he’s had more than six months to correct the record.”

Strogoff pointed out the Romanoff campaign hasn’t been shy about challenging newspaper stories that have appeared in The Statesman or elsewhere.

—–

Original post after the jump.

As Politico reports today:

Though surging Colorado Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff has sold his own home in order to maintain his pledge to shun political action committee money, his campaign manager Bill Romjue told POLITICO Tuesday that the Democrat would accept funding from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in the general election, even though the organization takes money from PACs.

Romjue argued that the position is not inconsistent with Romanoff’s pledge to swear off all PAC money from corporations and other special interest groups because there’s no direct relationship between the Senate fundraising committee and the PACs…

…“You can always find an ivory tower person that’s completely pure. We’re not an ivory tower person. Andrew’s going to be funded by individuals, but of course we’ll accept money from the DSCC,” Romjue said. [Pols emphasis]

The problem with these statements from Romjue is that they are completely at odds with what Romanoff has previously said on the record, like to The Colorado Statesman in January:

Romanoff went even further after his speech, telling The Colorado Statesman he plans to give the cold shoulder to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, if he wins the primary in August.

“I don’t welcome the outside interference,” Romanoff said. “My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals,” he said, eschewing PACs and special-interest donors he labeled part of an “incumbent-protection racket” in his speech.

“When we win the primary,” Romanoff predicted, “we’ll find a lot of friends around the state and country we might not have now. But I’m not going to change my message to suit the interests of new-found friends.” [Pols emphasis]

According to the Politico story, the Romanoff campaign says the Statesman story is “inaccurate,” but Romanoff’s quotes are pretty clear.

This was always one of the fundamental problems with Romanoff relying on a “No PAC Money” campaign message — it’s a reckless, “all or nothing” message for a Primary that absolutely kills him in a General Election. Romanoff would have to have the help of the DSCC to have any chance at winning a General Election, but he’s backed himself into a corner.

Tweet
Share

Comments

235 thoughts on “Romanoff Now Says He Would Take DSCC, PAC Help”

  1. What’s wrong with that in a politician running for office?

    IF Romanoff wins – still a big if – he’ll face a choice of sticking to his purist ‘ideals’, or doing what it takes to be financially competitive in the general.

    As a Dem albeit a Bennet voter, I’d hate for Andrew to win and then self-destruct due to lack of money. I want the seat to stay D.

        1. Gave him 500 for the primary.

          Not voting in the Colo primary since I’m currrently in Florida and may have to vote for Charlie Crist of all people in November just to stop Rubio.

              1. this website’s editors promoted anything positive on Romanoff?

                or told the full quote from Romanoff?

                I am not taking PAC money now, and I will not take any PAC money in the general election.

                The DSCC is now supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own.

                After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

                2. When was the last time your candidate didn’t lie about Michael Bennet in his television and radio ads?

                  The answer is never.

                  The radio ad saying he voted against a COLA increase for seniors … even though he voted FOR that increase.

                  The television ad about “looting” … even though it is baseless, it comes from a lawsuit that got dismissed, and objective people said back then, now and in between that more people are employed by those entities now than ever.

                  I could go on …

                  1. Perhaps the “looting” ad resonates with many voters because Anschutz (and Bennet) walked away with around $700 million by simply pushing paper. Although it’s legal, is that not a very questionable act and something that some voters would greatly dislike in a public servant.

                    1. It’s a vibrant part of what makes our market economy go: the transition of poorly deployed capital to better, more productively, deployed capital.  In this case it wasn’t recklessly speculative – if it failed and AI lost big money, we would have never heard about it.

                      But like Berkshire (Warren Buffet)  and others, AI doesn’t miss a lot. And this ability is well compensated by the market.

                      Yes, people mistrust it.  Some people just hate the rich, some hate that there was no physical labor. Others, just want to spin and obfuscate because win at all costs is enough in politics.

                    2. Whenever $700 million is taken out of the system, who actually pays that money? What are wages like? Are there pensions for the employees? Health care benefits?

                      Why have ticket prices gone through the roof?

                      Do you really think that Anschutz and Bennet provided a service? If so, I think that it reflects badly on our society. Because pushing paper to make money and manipulating the system seems to me to be the very worst problem in our country.

                      This isn’t about physical labor by the way. Where was the creativity, the innovation, the care for the employees, and the care for the overall business and minority investors. Legally, there is no reason to take care of those things. I wouldn’t consider capital to be productively deployed. It’s the same reason I don’t like Target right now, the same reason I boycotted Whole Foods, the same reason we don’t like BP. Making money is not good in and of itself.

                      How is what Anschutz and Bennet did with Regal a good thing? How were lives improved across the board? I know that 2 lives were greatly improved (and probably a small handful of others).

                    3. 3 failing comapnies in or headed for BK were restructured, recapitalized and the new company has become the largest movie theater company in the world.

                      Jobs saved, jobs created, investors rewarded, customers served.

        3. will include this update to their story.

          reading my sig line from a bennet supporter, i doubt it.

          I am not taking PAC money now, and I will not take any PAC money in the general election.

          The DSCC is now supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own.

          After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

          1. And the unicorns and money fairies can make it all right

            Is Romanoff also going to ask the DSCC to only use money on his behalf from individual Colorado donors?

            The DSCC already said that it was improbable they could do what AR is suggesting.

            Let’s think aobut how that would work – DSCC has $100 and $24 is from PACs.  They give AR $10, but sassure him and there fore us that it was only from the non-PAC $76.  Uh-uh.

            see dictionary: fungible

      2. to CPol’s carefully elided excerpts, you’ll see the broader point Romanoff’s campaign makes about the relationship between DSCC money and PAC funding.

        In any case, I don’t expect purity in my political candidates, including Mike Bennet, so am not disappointed when I don’t get it…..

        1. I wasn’t going to comment on the flip-flop but now that I’ve read the full article:

          It seemed to me that the Romanoff campaign’s broader point was that there was a buffer between the evil PACs and the candidates. That’s how Romanoff is justifying this whole flip-flop. Then they go on to say it’s ok for Romanoff to take laundered PAC money cause he’s imperfect. Apparently, if you admit to being imperfect you can get away with all kinds of things:

          Accept PAC money for 8 years? It’s ok cause you were imperfect and “saw the light”.

          Member of the DLC? It’s ok cause you were imperfect and are progressive now.

          Accept laundered PAC money now? It’s ok cause you’re imperfect and…

          Promise to run an issue base campaign then break that promise? It’s ok cause you’re imperfect and just “want it more”.

          Neither candidate is perfect, not by a long shot. Only one of them is using that to excuse both past and future broken promises, lies, and bad behavior.

          1. fan in this cycle.

            In the same way that he spent so long ‘job shopping’ – so much so that you got the sense it almost didn’t matter to him WHERE he landed – he’s now happy to tack this way and that until he finds the most expedient philosophical approach.

            It’s that inauthenticity (as distinct from the Andrew I knew a decade ago) that makes me a Bennet supporter.

            That said, I think Bennet and Romanoff would cast the same vote 95%+ of the time in the Senate.

            And Andrew in the Senate would be a FAR better outcome than either Norton or Buck there.

            So am not terrified at the prospect of Andrew winning the primary – especially IF he’s smart enough to take DSCC monies. Yet another ‘tack to victory’.  

      3. Let’s not forget a recent boost from the 527 corporate PAC “New Leadership in Colorado” to dispense fact-free robocalls to all our Democrats. Romanoff pledged not to accept PAC money (yeah right) – but he didn’t say he wouldn’t accept PAC help – did he? Andrew Romanoff – just another career politician ready to lie and cheat his way to the top.  He can always find a way to justify his actions as being good for his constituents. How original and cutting edge.    

      4. I am not taking PAC money now, and I will not take any PAC money in the general election.

        The DSCC is now supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own.

        After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

        1. Is Romanoff also going to ask the DSCC to only use money on his behalf from individual Colorado donors?

          The DSCC already said that it was improbable they could do what AR is suggesting.

          Let’s think aobut how that would work – DSCC has $100 and $24 is from PACs.  They give AR $10, but sassure him and there fore us that it was only from the non-PAC $76.  Uh-uh.

          see dictionary: fungible  

    3. below in this very thread the campaign responded to this diary.

      I am not taking PAC money now, and I will not take any PAC money in the general election.

      The DSCC is now supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own.

      After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

      But nice try pols, this is a diary that is trying to attack when there is no there there.

      Romanoff takes no PAC money, will take none after the Primary per the quote above.

      2. Is Romanoff also going to ask the DSCC to only use money on his behalf from individual Colorado donors?

        The DSCC already said that it was improbable they could do what AR is suggesting.

        Let’s think aobut how that would work – DSCC has $100 and $24 is from PACs.  They give AR $10, but sassure him and there fore us that it was only from the non-PAC $76.  Uh-uh.

        see dictionary: fungible  

  4. I think a lot of the undecided holdouts are primarily worried about Romanoffs ability to raise money in the general.  By showing some pragmatism, it may help win some of these (read me) voters over.  

    But yeah, definitely sending mixed messages.  Obama did it in 08 when he promised to take public funding in the primary then backed away from it in the general, and we didn’t care too much then.  

    1. Romanoff is NOT Obama.

      Romanoff is NOT Obama.

      Romanoff is NOT Obama.

      The US Senate is not the White House.

      Running for the Senate is not like running for President.

      He knew he would accept DSCC support back in January. He knows that the DSCC is funded by PACs.  He knew all along- as did most of us- that his “no-PAC bs” was just campaign bs. Lies if you prefer, hype or spin if you don’t.

      1. It wasn’t hard!  I have no idea what point you’re trying to make.

        All I’m saying is that the timing of the announcement to accept DSCC money is probably to assuage concerns that he won’t raise any money. Because I know that it is a major concern for many people.  

        1. but a flip-flop on the one major plank of his primary campaign is an even bigger concern and spells DISASTER for the general. The ads would write themselves.

          In fact, Romanoff’s campaign has already written them.

  5. Seems stupid to me. Stick to the “we need to focus on the primary right now; we’ll focus on money after we win” message. He just set up the campaign for a clusterfuck flip flop messaging. Bennet can frame this any way he wants. Stupid.

      1. A manager of his caliber doesn’t make these kinds of mistakes … unless he knows he has it won and is already working the general against Norton (remember she’s my prediction along with Romanoff).

    2. Can’t promise 50mpg, 50mpg, 50 mpg and then when the paperwork comes out in 20 mintuts, it’s 22mpg.

      You gotta prep the deal, then sell the deal, and then close the deal.  You lie all through the prep- spin, if you prefer, it’s going to take a lot longer to sell and close that deal.  In CO the primary/general calendar does not allow you all that time.

    3. A lot of people were concerned that Romanoff couldn’t win the general without the DSCC. This addresses that concern and does so without Romanoff going back on the specific commitment he made.

      Of course the Bennet supporters have now flipped from Romanoff can’t win the general without the DSCC to how dare Romanoff say he would accept help from the DSCC. Hey, I’d flip my outrage too if I was in their position.

      1. I and other Bennet supporters always said that AR need more funding to be competitive in the general. (I am more and more convinced he cannot win the general anyway- but more on that later).

        None of us have flipped on that.  Instead, were saying- see, AR was lying all along and now agrees with Bennet and Bennet supporters.

        “It only takes one” Maybe, just not him.

      3. Momentum was completely on AR’s side. How’d he get it? By repeating the “no PAC money/Bennet is in corporate pockets” message. This confuses things and will confuse voters. Bennet’s already yelling that Romanoff is telling lies, but people have had to take his word for it. Now voters will see the message that Romanoff has decided to take (PAC) money. The “liar” campaign will now stick. Romanoff shot himself in the foot with this one.

  6. if he won the primary. I really don’t understand the timing. I’m not gonna get into the fact that it’s a total flip-flop.

    Wouldn’t it be better to win the primary then make this announcement? His whole campaign (outside of his website) has been primarily on the “individual contributions” platform.

    Bennet should absolutely take this reversal and nail Romanoff with it HARD.

    1. They were (rightly) concerned that voters and donors would not get him through the primary if they thought he was going to unilaterally disarm in the general.

      And you are right on the reversal. I predicted months ago that Romanoff would have a late-breaking change of heart on the DSCC/PAC thing. And here it is.

  7. I think you should remove “PAC”. Romanoff did not say he would take PAC help. Feel free to include the debate as to whether DSCC money = PAC money in the diary, but the headline is misleading.

      1. Romanoff says he’ll take DSCC help.  He did not say he’ll take direct PAC help.

        The DSCC is bound IIRC by some limits on campaign contributions; it frequently exceeds those limits on behalf of campaigns by doing issue ads or, in today’s climate, ‘independent expenditures’.

        Sure, it’s a distinction with little difference, but I’d rather see someone taking ‘laundered’ PAC money which comes with the obligation of listening to the DSCC, than in taking direct PAC money where there’s a kind of ‘look what I did for you’ expectation.

        1. But that goes to the heart of what I’ve been saying all along – that Romanoff’s newfound progressive stance is just that, a stance.

          This is just the first of many backpedals he’ll engage in. If he’s elected, you’ll see more. That energy plan that Wade’s been flogging madly will get tossed, because Andrew’s not an ivory tower person. The same thing will go for single payer, campaign finance reform, you name it.

          If he’s willing to go back on his PAC pledge, then he’s willing to go back on everything else.

          I’m not saying this to harsh on him; I’m saying this because it was all too predictable.

          1. No one with the positions he’s taken can get elected in Colorado, so he will have to walk them all back–or lose.

            What will be more painful to people who are in love with him–when they find out his newfound progressivism is lost as quickly as it was discovered, or when he loses because he has taken positions that the majority of Coloradans wouldn’t support in a Democratic wave year like single-payer healthcare and gay marriage?

            Politicians are politicians. We have a known quantity with Senator Bennet. He has experience in the senate, he has a staff, and he has a ton of money. With Romanoff we’d have his current reality versus his previous reality, the fact that he has no money (even given his presto-chango switcheroo on the DSCC/PAC thing), and if people think Brandon Schaffer’s boneheaded comment about Bennet’s kids was a veiled anti-gay attack on Romanoff, people have no idea the kind of smear campaign they’re going to get from James Dobson when Romanoff’s in his crosshairs.

        2. Phoenix Rising and jW are right — the headline is (in my view, grossly) misleading. Colorado Pols seems biased on the Bennet/Romanoff divide, to its discredit. I hope CP has a change of heart, to the extent of appreciating that even the appearance of such bias in headline selection/tolerance is counter-productive.

          If we cannot have a fair forum in which to discuss and/or learn about these issues, why should we continue to participate?

          The fact that PACs may donate to the DSCC, and that money find its way to Romanoff, is certainly relevant. It should be mentioned. However, the current headline implies something that on its face IS NOT TRUE.

          2. You haven’t backed up your claim that it isn’t true with an actual argument.

            The DSCC takes contributions from all the evil PACs that Romanoff has been railing against. The DSCC take contributions from many of the same PACs that Bennet has been taking and Romanoff has labeled corrupting.

            Romanoff has, in August, said that an article written 8 months ago was incorrect. Why didn’t he correct the article when it came out? Did the Romanoff campaign suddenly discover an article they sat down for 8 months ago?

            It’s total bullshit. The Romanoff campaign has figured out a way to take PAC money by spin. They are figuring if they blame it on being “imperfect” it’s good enough. Their supporters will buy it and vigorously defend it.

            No matter how you spin it, Romanoff has broken his NUMBER ONE campaign pledge and is spinning it with the excuse that it’s laundered.

            1. We use punctuation to modify the words that we write. If punctuation didn’t clarify or modify the precise meaning of our words, we wouldn’t need to use it.

              ColoradoPols is mis-using punctuation in this headline, and it creates (perhaps intentionally) a very false impression.

              It doesn’t matter if we stipulate that the DSCC is itself a PAC. The headline is still dishonest, and i’ll explain why.

              As i type this, the headline is:

              Romanoff Now Says He Would Take DSCC, PAC Help

              Here’s how the headline is grossly misleading: it STRONGLY IMPLIES that Romanoff will take money from PACs in general.

              Gee, money from a BP PAC? Donations from Massey Energy? Contributions directly to the campaign from Wal-Mart?

              But based upon the information that we have from the Romanoff campaign, all of that appears NOT TO BE THE CASE. (Sorry for the emphasis, i’m trying to make my point absolutely clear.)

              Mr. Romanoff has argued, and i agree, that taking money from corporate donors could represent (or create an expectation of) a quid pro quo.

              But Romanoff is a Democrat, and he’s running for the Senate. Doesn’t it seem somewhat within the realm of expectation that he might accept money from Democrats which is earmarked for senate campaigns?

              What change would make the statement accurate? Removing the comma:

              Romanoff Now Says He Would Take DSCC PAC Help

              That would be a precise statement that doesn’t imply false information. ColoradoPols should make the change. If they don’t, they’re being as sneaky and partisan as some of those that some here criticize.

              2. including that which you describe; however, it is also true that while a comma can denote, for instance, a list, meaning both this and that, at other times it can be used to indicate a subset, to explain the components of an entity.  Such as:  Shills seek to spin, confuse; or, Shills obfuscate, post highly nuanced arguments.

                The first instance being more, I assert, the former (a ‘list’), whereas in the latter, I maintain, the clause ‘post highly nuanced arguments’ is not a separate entity but rather, it seems to me, no grammarian, used to highlight a particular component thereof, to whit: a part of the obfuscation, being, I mean, the highly nuanced argument (i.e. a PAC is not a PAC because…).

                Thus, I believe, indeed maintain, that the title, comma and all, is accurate:  by taking DSCC money a candidate, even one as snowy white, morally speaking, not meant, my dearest Guvs, as a racial slur, as our dear former PAC-funded Speaker, is itself an action that constitutes taking PAC money, as it is known and shown that the DSCC receives much funding from such entities, including those that the purists deem the most odious of nature.  

                    2. None taken.  I’m fairly thick skinned.  It was meant as parody, but I don’t claim to bat 1000, or even .300 for that matter…

          3. The DSCC gets a ton of money from PACs, and everybody knows that. You can’t say “no PAC money” but accept money from an organization that gets major funding from PACs. Knowingly accepting money from the DSCC is knowingly accepting money from PACs.

      2. There’s a big difference between a special interest PAC – i.e., one that is run by an industry group or a public interest organization or coalition – and a party-building organization aimed at electing more senators or representatives in Congress from that particular party.

        The first is a direct means of financial influence exercised by special interests on a candidate. The second is a means of financial influence on a party, but not necessarily an individual candidate.

        When Mr. Romanoff said he wouldn’t take PAC money, he was referring to the first situation. I don’t think the public, or even many candidates for federal office, regard the political party fundraising operations related to the Senate and House as being the same kind of outfit, even if they work like a PAC and, technically, may even be deemed one.

        I certainly don’t. And I don’t think many Democratic voters will, either.

        1. AR 1.0 – PAC money is fine.

          AR 2.0 Sep 08- Jul 10 PAC money is never fine.

          AR 2.1 Aug 10- tbd  PAC money is ok only if it’s laundered through a 3rd party.

          Ok.

    2. DSCC money comes from individuals vs. PACs vs. other sources?

      As for CPols editing their headlines to make them bias-free, don’t hold your breath. Ain’t gonna happen.

        1. Oh sure the big givers this year are the “Citizens for Kent Conrad” losers or some hospital that GoldmanSachs took private.

          Come on, that opensecrets crap tells @1/10th of the story.

          If he wins the primary, Romanoff will be forced to take soft money funnell;ed through DSCC just to meet payroll. Romjue knows this.

          Again I ask is this a mistake by a veteran or does he know that AR hyas this thing wrapped up?

  8. This timing sucks, IMHO.

    If you’re going to say “we’ll take DSCC help”, the time to do that is after the primary is done.  Of course, the question is, is there something Romanoff gets for saying this now?  An endorsement or three?  Some kind of push from official Democratic groups?  Does his polling suggest holding out against the DSCC was a big negative on his campaign?

    I didn’t really expect Romanoff to hold out against an official party organ like the DSCC once the primary passed.  I did expect him to wait to make this limited exemption to his no-PAC policy.

    1. is to attract voters like me who are worried about his prospects in the general if he were to swear off all PAC and DSCC monies. It’s not working on me because now his PAC-pure stance just comes off as politically opportunistic bullshit.

      1. It was always opportunistic bullshit.

        It was never not.

        So now we have additioanl confirmation.We’ve had it before

        Healthcare:

        Oh noes! The process is flawed, the bill is imperfect and could be better, and it only would have taken one Senator for the rest of us to stand up and stop it.

        So you would have voted no and killed it?  No, I would have voted yes and gotten it passed.

        Financial reform

        Oh noes! The process is flawed, the bill is imperfect and could be better, and it only would have taken one Senator for the rest of us to stand up and stop it.

        So you would have voted no and killed it?  No, I would have voted yes and gotten it passed.

        Campanoff calls it  campaigning or misquoting.  I call it lying and bullshit.  YMMV

  10. Bennet and company need to get this on the airwaves tonight! Time is running out.

    This is why i’ve had a problem with AR, his “ivory tower” approach to a Senate race is careless. He’s been trying to survive this whole time and is making his moves without thinking two to three steps ahead. Reactionary campaigning is bound to make many mistakes and that’s what he’s done this entire campaign. No surprise there. BTW- It’s pretty easy for COPols to look biased since AR’s campaign can’t seem to take a step without stumbling.

    AR shills, how do you spin this? AR is such a great guy we should all just simply trust him. He has a nice smile after all…

    1. He’s been on his heels the entire race … Romanoff shouldn’t even be in this race, but he is.

      Bennet’s projection of elitism has crippled him with the insiders. His stutter steps from the get go on card check, bailout support, banking ties, etc… were in his mind required steps to appease the monied Democrats. He bet wrong and should have been grooming the party insiders.

      He’s just not liked or respected and local politics and that is a mother fucker under these conditions. AR saw a gap and drove a Mac truck through it…

      So botw, can you translate this into an impactful vote driving message and deploy it to the field in less then 1-2 days? If so, call the Bennet HQ. I’m sure they’ll take any free support now that he’s had to loan himself money.

  12. First of all Pols — shame on you for your headline that lies.  Nowhere in anything does it say Romanoff would take PAC money.  This is as bad as yesterday when you referred to a 3rd party doing Robocalls as Romanoff doing them.

    As far as this diary, there really isn’t a discrepancy between his prior comments and this.  He never said he would turn away the DSCC — the Statesman article has been quoted over and over again, but there is no quote from Romanoff saying so and I believe they ran a correction.

    Also, and I feel this point has to be explained over and over again: the DSCC runs their own campaign.  They run their own ads.  They do their own direct mail.  They don’t really give money to candidates.  So there isn’t an issue of “taking” money from them at all.  

        1. That is just painful. And despite all the dizzying spinning going on here, apparently it’s true. I need a flow chart to keep up with Andrew’s position on PAC’s at this point.

        3. To build your entire campaign around the notion that taking PAC money makes you corrupt, bought, and paid for, and then in the last week to say, nah, I’ll take PAC money raised by the DSCC is truly astounding.

          The premise of Andrew Romanoff’s campaign just completely collapsed.

    2. “We reject politics as usual,” he said. “We want a senator whose loyalties won’t be divided. A senator whose judgment won’t be clouded. A senator who won’t have to pick between doing what’s right for his constituents and what’s profitable for his contributors. That’s why our campaign does not accept contributions from political action committees. I am the only candidate in this race to make that commitment.”



      Romanoff went even further after his speech, telling The Colorado Statesman he plans to give the cold shoulder to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, if he wins the primary in August.



      “I don’t welcome the outside interference,” Romanoff said. “My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals,” he said, eschewing PACs and special-interest donors he labeled part of an “incumbent-protection racket” in his speech.

      “When we win the primary,” Romanoff predicted, “we’ll find a lot of friends around the state and country we might not have now. But I’m not going to change my message to suit the interests of new-found friends.”

      Colorado Statesman, 1/22/2010

      Beyond that cold shoulder to the outside interference AR committed to, the DSCC is funded by PACs. How do you refuse PAC money, but accept it when the it comes from the DSCC?  You backtrack and change your message to suit new-found support.

        1. I would assume that Automatic’s comment was intended as a reply to Stryker because Stryker’s comment is just wrong, pure and simple. The DSCC gives money to candidates in addition to funding their own projects in target states and offering expert help. But they DO give money to candidates.

        2. If what you claim was not just MUS then two things would be true

          1) The FEC would not show direct contributions to candidates and campaigns form the DSCC.  But it does.

          and

          2) Campanoff wouldn’t be spinning and qualifying and backtracking now to ssay that they will request the DSCC only contribute funds to the campaign that didn’t’ come from PACs.  Which the DSCC said is not possible.

          Wrong, wrong wrong.

          Please- stop lying. If the way we persuade one or two % of our D and U voters in this primary is by just making up whatever is handy and convenient right now, even though it’s bs and a big fat lie, we’re toast in the general. Which I think is your goal anyway.  

        3. You really know nothing about Senate races do you?

          The DSCC gives candidates money directly, and the DSCC also directly funds the campaign’s field operations, also known as the “coordinated campaign,” in addition to sending both coordinated and independent direct mail, in addition to paying for coordinated and independent polling and voter ID, all in addition to making independent TV and radio ad buys. In addition, the DSCC will send people to manage its operations, as well as people to work directly on the campaign in the final days and weeks.

            1. Festivus is for the rest of us – and I am really looking forward to the airing of grievances this time around.

              Feats of strength to be demonstrated by pint-curls.

  13. And I don’t see that Romanoff said he would not accept help from the DSCC. He trash talked them for being in the incumbent protection racket. He said he will continue to decline PAC contributions in the general. But he didn’t say he would refuse help from the DSCC.

    Am I missing something? We always knew there would be indirect PAC money through 527s, etc.

    1. “We reject politics as usual,” he said. “We want a senator whose loyalties won’t be divided. A senator whose judgment won’t be clouded. A senator who won’t have to pick between doing what’s right for his constituents and what’s profitable for his contributors. That’s why our campaign does not accept contributions from political action committees. I am the only candidate in this race to make that commitment.”



      Romanoff went even further after his speech, telling The Colorado Statesman he plans to give the cold shoulder to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, if he wins the primary in August.



      “I don’t welcome the outside interference,” Romanoff said. “My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals,” he said, eschewing PACs and special-interest donors he labeled part of an “incumbent-protection racket” in his speech.

      “When we win the primary,” Romanoff predicted, “we’ll find a lot of friends around the state and country we might not have now. But I’m not going to change my message to suit the interests of new-found friends.”

      Colorado Statesman, 1/22/2010

      Beyond that cold shoulder to the outside interference AR committed to, the DSCC is funded by PACs. How do you refuse PAC money, but accept it when the it comes from the DSCC?  You backtrack and change your message to suit new-found support.

      What he should have said, or what you are saying  what he really meant is that PAC money is necessary and fine- as long as it is given to those helping my campaign, not directly to me nor directly to my campaign.

      It was a bullshit distinction last winter- it’s a bullshit distinction now.

          1. http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…

            Beg to differ

            Shortly fter Romanoff’s press conference in January announcing he was still in the Senate race, he sat down with The Colorado Statesman for a brief interview. He had just made a point of saying he would reject PAC contributions in his campaign, so the natural question was whether this applied to the DSCC, which is a PAC. We asked whether he would also reject the help of the DSCC, a PAC, if he won the primary. His answer was unequivocal. Here is what he said:

            “I don’t welcome the outside interference. My campaign is going to continue to rely on contributions from individuals – we’re not taking money from political action committees. When we win the primary, we’ll find a lot of friends around the state and country we might not have now. But I’m not going to change my message to suit the interests of new-found friends.”

            But at least I understand now-

            Bennet – must be wrong when he catches AR MSU.

            Bennet supporter- must be wrong when we catche AR MSU.

            Colorado Public Radio – must be wrong when they catch AR MSU.

            The Statesman – must be wrong when they catch AR MSU.

            Everyone, everywhere is wrong when they catch AR MSU.

            It’s hard to put on a bumper sticker- and it sounds a lot like whining, but hey, YMMV.

          3. Even if the Statesman made the correction, although I think it’s bull. It doesn’t change the fact that AR’s campaign is open to receiving PAC money now and have been running a campaign saying otherwise.  

      2. Then: I took PAC money as of a couple years ago, including my own PAC.

        Now: PAC’s are evil they make a politician choose between his constituents and contributors.

        Right Now: PACs are still evil if they give to me directly, but when they are a major source of funds for the DSCC, well that is different… Give me! Give me! Give me.

        I haven’t seen dancing like this since Warren Sapp on that dancing show.

    2. I have sworn off any more discussion of the Bennet/Romanoff battle to the death, who did what for whom, to whom, who is the most or least digusting, dishonest etc. because it’s just the same tedious, totally predictable set of arguments we’ve all heard and voiced before except for newbies and they can take it from here. I don’t see the point anymore.  But in answer to your query Dave… oh yes. Yes indeed.  You are, have been and no doubt will continue to be missing quite a lot. And how.

        2. You know what I’ll say.  I know what you’ll say. You know my points.  I know yours. We could probably write each other’s comments by now, couldn’t we?  I just couldn’t resist a chance to needle you what with your slapping a “kick me” sign on your own back and being so easy.  I knew there would be a reply waiting for me when I came back. Sorry, Dave. I, for one, can’t wait until the 10th has come and gone and this whole thing is the rearview mirror.

    3. Seriously? Read the same article. The DCCC says it raised $75 million and $15 million of that comes from PACS–that’s 1/5 of their raised total. How is Romanoff going to “separate” that out from what he is willing to know accept?

      This is two faced bullshit at its worst.

      Come on, David. Your spinning is starting to make me dizzy. I thought you were better than this. I was clearly wrong.

      2. And what he said was he would not take direct PAC contributions. I think you have a point that direct vs indirect is not that different and therefore Romanoff is not PAC pure. But I don’t think you can say he lied.

        So yes ping him for the fact that the DSCC support will mean indirect PAC funding (unless the DSCC sets things up to clearly exclude the 1/5 of their funds that come from PACs from going to Romanoff). But I don’t think you can claim he’s lying.

        2. “We reject politics as usual,” he said. “We want a senator whose loyalties won’t be divided. A senator whose judgment won’t be clouded. A senator who won’t have to pick between doing what’s right for his constituents and what’s profitable for his contributors. That’s why our campaign does not accept contributions from political action committees. I am the only candidate in this race to make that commitment.”

          I don’t see that he qualified this statement by distinguishing between so-called “direct PAC contributions” and indirect ones.

          1. I read it as direct, but I can see you could read it as including indirect. So for you (and some others), it is a lie. For me (and different others) it’s not although it’s “being clever,” and I don’t mean that in a good way.

            Ok, so if DSCC money goes to New Era Colorado (not the group that did the robocall) and New Era Colorado then sends volunteers to help Romanoff, is that double indirect still PAC money?

            I think at some point you have to say it’s enough jumps that it doesn’t matter. I can see saying just one jump isn’t enough. And I do think Romanoff used ambiguity to his advantage.

            1. AR knew  how the DSCC was funded in January.

              He knows now.

              In january he wanted distance from the DSCC and freedom from outside help.

              Now he’s willing.

            2. David, you were making a point about reading Andrew’s words. He said what I copied and pasted. He made no distinction, so while I’m glad that you can see how I “read it as including indirect” PAC contributions, I can’t see how you read it as only direct ones.

              Is Andrew lying? I won’t go that far, but I will say that he’s being a typical politician, saying whatever he thinks voters want to hear.

  14. Andrew sent the following statement to the press earlier today to address any questions on this issue:

    I am not taking PAC money now, and I will not take any PAC money in the general election.

    The DSCC is now supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own.

    After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

    1. The DSCC already said that is probalby not possible.

      Which is it- PAC money is bad and to be avoiced? Or it’s ok if it comes through a 3rd party? Or it’s ok to force that new found support to contort reality ina  way that says hey, I have $100 to give to 25 candidaes, we’ll make sure the $8 we give to you came only from Colorado individual party activists.

      What a load of crapola.

    2. Romanoff is going to rely on fungible money to pretend he’s keeping his promise?

      There’s a reason why people call fungible money “funny money.”  You can’t tell one C-note from the next one.

      What a freakin’ joke.  This is an official response from RomanoffForColorado?  Thanks for insulting our intelligence.

    3. I doubt it, the guys been in the industry for a very long time.

      Romjue argued that the position is not inconsistent with Romanoff’s pledge to swear off all PAC money from corporations and other special interest groups because there’s no direct relationship between the Senate fundraising committee and the PACs

      Who are you guys trying to kid here. Hard to spin around things that already have been said.

    5. Does this mean he’ll also request the DSCC segregate all donations from other than individual Colorado donors and only give him money that came from local individuals?

      Hooey.

      1. That’s what an “ivory tower” guy would do, or something.

        This guy isn’t an ivory tower guy.  He’s just a flip-flopping, hypocritical liar.

    6. I mean Andrew is setting an example right? He is basically fighting dirty to lead Colorado, so is this the example he wants to set?

      Is drug money ok as long as it’s been laundered too?

      Oh and I like the complete bullshit of waiting 7 months to cry “foul!” regarding the Colorado Statesman article. You are quick to correct every little nuanced error in both local and national newspapers but left this one for 7 months?

  15. There is no inconsistency here.  Romanoff can easily explain that he previously meant he was refusing “Pack contributions,” not “PAC contributions, and, to this day, refuses to accept donations from supporters of Bret Favre’s former team in solidarity with the 1997-98 Broncos.  

    1. I don’t know how- but I’ve been conditioned to understand that everything Campanoff says in  this cycle is MUS.

      Though it was funny, so thanks for that.

    1. and when he wins, he’ll just keep on keepin’ on.

      And it’s the best chance to keep the seat D.  AR has painted himself so far left (single payer, C&T, etc) he cannot get back to even left of center.

      1. We’ll never effectively address the giant problems we face. I think this does come back to the fundamental choice we face. Bennet is moderate and may (I’m not so sure after the last 2 weeks) be more likely to win.

        But with Romanoff we might see more progressive leadership that might bring about significant needed change. But at the risk that he’s less likely to win.

        I’m willing to take that risk but I can understand others wanting to go the safer but less progressive route.

        1. “But with Romanoff we might see more progressive…”

          You mean AR2.0, right?

          Because even AR2.0 says that we should focus on actions more words.  I know, I know he doesn’t really mean AR1.0’s actions.

          But it still results in only one relevant question:  WWAR3.0D?

          (What would AR3.0 do?)

        2. I’ve obviously been a Bennet supporter for some time now.

          But for me the question has shifted from who is the better candidate and who has the best chance in November (I answer Bennet on both, I know you do not).  Now, the question is, how can the Romanoff supporters who liked the premise of his campaign — PAC money dirty and corrupting — support him now that the entire premise just got flushed down the toilet?

            2. Romanoff today

              I am not taking PAC money now, and I will not take any PAC money in the general election.

              The DSCC is now supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own.

              After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

              1. Is Romanoff also going to ask the DSCC to only use money on his behalf from individual Colorado donors?

                The DSCC already said that it was improbable they could do what AR is suggesting.

                Let’s think aobut how that would work – DSCC has $100 and $24 is from PACs.  They give AR $10, but sassure him and there fore us that it was only from the non-PAC $76.  Uh-uh.

                see dictionary: fungible  

                2. Spamming the diary with the same tripe over and over again is childish (in your case, in an “I know you are but what am I” kind of way).

                  If this were a one-room school, the schoolmarm would be all out of corners in which to put unruly children by now.

          2. I’d be really hurt and pissed that, in my idealism, I fell for all that “I’m purer than Norton’s Salt and Bennet’s a corrupt politics-as-usual bankster” horsestuff. Which was, unfortunately, Romanoff’s entire effing message. Now they have nothing left to fall back on except pretzling with reality.

            And now Romanoff resorts to that old “politics-as-usual” lie: The Media Made Me Do It? It’s actually sad.

        3. His record is that of an exceedingly cautious, safe, calculating politician.

          Bennet’s record has been one of boldness. Whether you like his policy or not, you can’t say his tenure at DPS was business as usual. He makes enemies.

          Romanoff is only bold when he’s running for a US Senate primary. His long record shows that. What makes you think he’ll keep it up past next week should he win the primary?

          1. what he wants to believe, all evidence to the contrary. He considers actions, not words, except when he wants to consider words, not actions. Go figure!

                1. Crickets are nice.  In some parts of the world they are considered lucky- and people even keep them as pets.

                  Fireflies are nice. I miss fireflies.

                    1. At my house crickets are food. For my two black felines. But the katydids are sure singing up a storm.

              2. must be up your own ass.  Perhaps you can see a Dr. now that “bold” health care reform has passed?

                Video 1.  A theoretical, which he chose to pass on by not introducing the public option as he said he would do in the now infamous letter.

                Video 2.  This is ass covering all the way. (See Video 1).

                Video 3.  Thanks for educating us on what deficits are vs. debt.  How bold!

                1. 1) He did everything a freshman senator could do to introduce the public option (which he supported as early as Jun 09 – before September 09). The leadership didn’t want it-because it didn’t have the votes.

                  2) Yeah. A noob senator stand up in the well and says his fellow senators are asshats (I’m paraphrasing, of course). And somehow you want to cal it cya?  It was a naked exposure- no cover.  BTW- what happened to Ben Nelson’s sweetheart deal for Nebraska?  Senator Nelson pulled it – and attributed that in part to his colleagues being right – ie, Bennet.

                  3) You gotta struggle through the whole thing and get to the part  where he engages them on the deficit reduction impact of the public option. (in Aug of 09 – still before Sep)

        4. Please take a deep breath and realize that winning the primary is not all that needs to happen before someone gets a chance to make changes in the Senate. That’s not news, right???

          If not, please sit down before you read on.

          Statewide, Democrats are at a disadvantage. Hugging the middle gets Dems elected here. And Dems can’t do s#@t from the outside looking in.

          1. This state is generally independent, yes.  But they want their government to be effective and efficient.  That means strong Wall Street reform.  It means taking on the broken Senate process.  And for an increasing number of voters, it means promoting a clean energy economy.

            It probably also means considering a responsible second stimulus plan, including the state and education aid package that has been blocked in the Senate.

    3. that we have been in high cotten with this primary.  I can’t remember such great writing and discussion of candidate qualifications since oh the Obama/Clinton primary.

      The Pols folks have done a great job setting it up so that Dems can go toe to toe over their candidates.

      Tip of a hat to the conservatives who hang out here to let this family feud run it’s course.  Thanks man.

      1. Romanoff (now) says supports single-payer healthcare, gay marriage, and every other left-wing dream position other than a clear stance on EFCA.

        He never supported those things before. How does that count as moderate?

        How does he walk that back? “Oh I was just pandering to the base?”

        1. He’ll have to think of a better way to say it.

          I’m thinking a Dallas-like dream sequence kind of thing….I never said that….. I never did that…. What I meant was something else completely…. sure, it only takes one to be for the restivus but I didn’t mean me….

          WWAR3.0D?

  17. Romanoff called PAC money part of an “incumbent protection racket.”

    The Statesman’s editor and publisher said the newspaper stands by its story…

    …Romanoff sat with a reporter from The Statesman for an interview immediately following a Jan. 19 press conference where he declared he was still running for the Senate – after rumors swirled he was instead considering a run for governor – and made his most uncompromising statement to date about his refusal to take money from political action committees, which he labeled part of an “incumbent protection racket.”

    Now, after trashing the so-called racket for 10 months, he decides to join it — again, like he did for so many years before early this year — thereby flushing the premise of his campaign down the toilet.

    1. but it is not the case

      Romanoff:

      I am not taking PAC money now, and I will not take any PAC money in the general election.

      The DSCC is now supporting my opponent, supplementing the $1.3 million he has taken from PACs with independent expenditures of its own.

      After I win the primary, I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

      2. But this is completely ludicrous. You can’t separate PAC dollars and non-PAC dollars from a fund that collects both. If he takes money from the DSCC, he is taking money from PACs. There’s no way around it. Saying this is like saying you only want to eat the healthy parts of a cookie after it is already baked.

        1. saying “Hey’ I’ll just  drive on the part that’s still

          round”

          It’s like only being a little pregnant.

          Actually, it’s most like lying or flipping.

          YMMV.

        1. I’m genuinely sorry that we’ve already lost some good folks here.  I think the govs are too, but rules are rules and I support those particular rules that have been recently enforced.

          This is a “free expression” site. I really don’t want to lose anyone else. Every one adds something valuable. Some just get on (some of) our nerves.

          How about putting the sig line first (i.e. “Wade says:”), or maybe in bold, or both, or make the blue darker, brighter, more visible, or (better suggestion?) so we can more easily see who’s posting and be warned to skip over it if they are fraying us a bit. So we can grab the remote, so to speak.

          I’m really sorry we’ve already lost some people, even … oh, never mind.

  18. It depends on the what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.

    Romanoff can use this rationale to the hilt.  

    “It depends on what the meaning of the word PAC is.  If you asked me if I took PAC money today the answer would be no and I strongly condemn PAC money for protecting incumbents but if you ask me Wednesday if I would take PAC money through a series of laundered organizations then the answer would be in a heartbeat if I could achieve my ultimate goal of being a permanent politician.”  

    1. I think the closer analysis should focus on what he actually said:

      I will ask the DSCC to honor my pledge by excluding PAC dollars from any contributions or expenditures it makes on my behalf.

      The key here is if he means “contributions [it makes to me] or expenditures it makes on my behalf” or if he means “contributions [it makes on my behalf] or expenditures it makes on my behalf.”

      If he means the latter, then I don’t think this is that big a deal.  Like, if his campaign isn’t taking DSCC money.  Then again, who else would they make contributions to on his behalf?  527s?  (Sorry, newb here.)  And what would be the purpose of asking them to split the money, and the purpose of making this announcement?  Too much of a fuss, I would think, unless he is backpedaling and that’s just going to be the new “what we meant” story.

      Or he meant the former, as I suspect.  And as a Romanoff supporter I would find that incredibly disheartening.

      1. Let’s make it easy

        AR1.0 PAC moeny is ok- even necessary.

        AR2.0 Sep2009 – July 2010

        AR2.1  Aug 2010 PAC money is ok, as long as it is first laundered through some 3rd party.

        WWAR3.0D

  19. This is a tempest in a teapot if I ever saw one.

    First of all, the question asked Romanoff by the Statesman reporter is ambiguous. At that time, Romanoff had much less familiarity than he does now with the ins-and-outs of federal campaign finance regulation. I highly doubt that he equated a PAC with the DSCC when he was asked the question.

    But even if I’m wrong, there is a distinction – if not technically, but certainly in practice – between a PAC that represents an industry or a particular special interest cause and a PAC that serves as the general fundraising mechanism for a major political party’s Senate caucus.

    I don’t think it’s splitting hairs to say that Romanoff’s PAC pledge, common sense-wise, applies to the first and not the second. After all, the DSCC is not an organization trying to obtain legislative favors for a profit-seeking entity or industry or a unique social or economic cause.

    Moreover, it is very difficult to take the Statesman’s militancy on this point particularly seriously. Any good reporter, if he or she was trying specifically to find out whether Romanoff was talking about DSCC money, would have followed up to make sure that the interview subject understood that was the focus of the question. That didn’t happen in this instance.

    As it turned out, Romanoff’s answer is ambiguous, too, and it stretches things to say that he is now changing his  mind or that he lied then.

    1. wonderfulest progressive ever.  He can say anything and it will be spun from dross to gold.

      Michael Bennet, however, lies even when he’s asleep and no amount of explaining the nuances and complicated details surrounding Senate legislation will be met with anything but a resounding “YOU LIE!  I hate you, you bankster, corporate lackey, looter, liar.  You’ve never done anything good in your whole life and how dare you say bad things about my wonderful, honest, pure, progressive, sweet, lovely AR.”

      And don’t any of you ARers dare do the “he started it” crap. On March 14th AR supporters were marching around in public with signs proclaiming Romanoff “the best senator money can’t buy.”  

      1. the problem with your argument is that I’m actually NOT a Romanoff supporter. I remain genuinely undecided in this race.

        I also have a great deal of respect for Sen. Bennet. I think he has done a good job.

        So my point of view isn’t about Romanoff supposedly being the better guy for the job.

        It’s about what I regard as sloppy journalism by the Statesman and a tendency by some on this blog to exaggerate the importance of the turn of events. That’s all.

  20. Organizing for America does not accept PAC money but it gives money to Bennet, who does.  Nobody had a problem with that.  And the intern sending specific details about access for donations…nobody had a problem with that.  But this sent the Bennet Groupthinkers to DEFCON 1.  There’s obviously a scrutiny double-standard in this race but we already knew that.

    Now the Post has found a hook to dig into Romanoff.  The headline still says, “Romanoff’s campaign manager: PAC money OK as long as it’s from the Dems” — which is not what Romjue said.  Basically, Romjue screwed up and the Bennet campaign is taking advantage of it.  Which is what happens, though Susan Daggett sent an email today in which she said their campaign is “focused on solving problems rather than playing politics.”  Yeah, right.

    Yes, Bennet won the day by playing politics.  The Bennet campaign’s spreading of the idea that Romanoff is too poor to win in November paid off — but only for today because tomorrow people will see the truth.  The fact is Romanoff will be able to get enough money if he is the nominee and people will vote for him because he is the best candidate in this race.  

      1. AR 2.1 has revealed that AR2.0 was a liar all along.

        Or a flip flopper.

        Or just confused.

        Nobody needs to pretend AR won’t have the budget to compete in the general and no one had to make it up.

        When he said he would not reverse course and didn’t want the PAC or outside “interference” from his new found supporters if he won the priamary, reasonably pragmatic D’s said- uh-oh, is there enough individual CO D donors to carry the day?

        Not to worry, though. AR2.1 says PAC money is ok as long as it is laundered through a 3rd party.  I see. But it’s no reflection on AR, it was just the campaign manager screwing up by telling the truth.  He should be fired – the dry marker board at AR2.1 HQ should say

        1) It’s whatever we say it is.

        2) It doesn’t have to be true for us to say it or benefit from it.

        3) see 1)

        4) It changes when we need it to. Pay attention- it can happen fast!!

  21. I read the Politco article earlier and shared it with a few people.  Now it’s been completely rewritten and the troublesome quotes from the campaign manager are no longer there.

    Reading the current article makes it look like a whole lotta nuthin.

    Disturbing.  

  23. They have unabashedly supported Bennet and unfairly trashed Romanoff at every opportunity. And they are going to look bad when Romanoff wins.

    Instead of conceding gracefully they are attempting to trash Andrew Romanoff one last time in a last ditch effort to give Bennet an edge. But psssst it’s not working.  Get over it Romanoff is going to win.  

    4. Your guy lied. Or flipped. Or it was all that damm comma’s fault. Or his campaign manager made a mistake. Or it was NLC. Or a bad quote. Or it was all RItter’s fault. The sun was in his eyes.  The dry cleaner lost his tux. A friend came in from out of town. His car wouldn’t start.

      Or we were right all along to suspect that the AR1.0 reinvent into AR2.0 was always going to give way to something else if and when.  So AR2.1 says PAC money is ok when it is laundered througha 3rd party.  Get over it.

      Just one question- WWAR3.0D?

  24. Wow, the list is getting long, if I have these right (I am sure Wade will correct me if I’m not):

    Denver Post

    Colorado Statesman

    Colorado Pols

    President Obama

    Governor Ritter

    Members of Congress:

    Diana DeGette

    Jared Polis

    Ed Perlmutter

    Betsy Markey

    John Salazar

    Mark Udall

    Mayor Hickenlooper

    Former Mayor Webb and Wilma Webb

    Secretary of State Bernie Beuscher

    Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll

    Sierra Club

    League of Conservation Voters

    (Whooh…. I think I am running out of bandwidth so I’ll stop here.)

    They’re all whacked, and they’re all wrong about Bennet, right Wade?

  25. At this point voters hear:

    Blah blah blah  PAC money blah blah Bennet $1M+ in PAC money blah blah blah Romanoff no PAC money blah blah blah.

    What is framing the last dance in this race is PAC or no PAC.. Bennet loses on this turf.

    Why Bennet’s camp takes the bait and keeps going back to it is amazing.

  26. Just yesterday, DavidThi808 frontpaged himself in a post asking for groupthink advice for Craig Hughes on how to successfully run the Bennet campaign.

    Oh if ONLY he had thought to ask for help for Bill Romjue instead!! This whole sad PAC/noPAC fiasco could have been avoided!

  27. The headline is extremely misleading and incorrect but it is more than obvious which candidate ColoradoPols favors, you’ve only been slamming on Bennet’s opponents, especially Andrew Romanoff, since the beginning of this race. Leaving the rest of the candidates tarnished and Bennet at the top of your Big Line for several months.

    I’ll do further research into this but from what I can tell, Bennet still deserves to lose re-election IN the Primary.

      1. Well, I wasn’t going for an original accusation, but the fact that it isn’t an original accusation should point out the problems with this site.

    2. Oh baby that is such an authoritarian statement.  How about “I’m going to get to the bottom of this and heads will roll.”

      Send the Pols folks to detention for not being as neutral as oh Square State or Rocky Mountain Right.

      Let’s rend us some garments and stamp our feet and pretend that anyone really cares whether the Pols folks are selective in their front page articles.

      Or you can get a grip and understand the house rules and make your points within the framework of the discussion.

      The folks who want to find free forums that correspond to their concept of a totally neutral site should diligently pursue such a quest.  No need to get aggravated by hanging out at the local writers club that isn’t up to your standards.

        1. If you don’t like the menu find another restaurant.

          I do have to say that complaining about the menu night after night while sitting in the same restaurant gets tediously repetitious.

          FYI jp: I had to pull over in Denver last night to participate in the Bennet town hall conference call and got to hear President Obama reiterate his support for the fine job that Senator Bennet is doing for Colorado.  Compared to our opponents, Democrats are fielding two fine candidates and should have no problems supporting them in the general.  Buck’s comments on abortion yesterday pretty much confirmed to me that he is further to the right of the middle than Romanoff is to the left.  If Bennet wins the primary then Democrats will be fielding two centrists in Hickenlooper and Bennet and if Romanoff wins then Democrats can portray him as less extreme than Buck.  I’m OK with Romanoff even though he is a little back stabbing prick who has conducted a totally classless primary campaign.

      2. A little harsh, wouldn’t you say?

        Anyways, it is obvious that Romanoff is changing his stance on things because the environment around his campaign is changing.

        That is disappointing but I do not believe it is why the majority of people backing him chose to do so.

        Even if it was, those people are obviously not going to vote for Bennet.

        Romanoff is making a huge mistake but Bennet is still worse and should be thrown out.

        A “lesser of the two evils” approach if anything.

        For having more readers here than the Denver Post’s political section, I would expect a more fair approach from a political site.

        If I really had something against this site, I wouldn’t have joined.

        On the other hand, the Post is head over heels for Bennet too.

        So, are you condemning me for wanting unbiased media? If I recall, that is the way things are supposed to be.

        There are house rules? Lol

        I am within the framework of the discussion, other people have called BS on Pols’ inaccurate headline and you’re responding to my comments, I’d say I’m definitely within the framework now.

        Local writer’s club? Ha! Talk about a spit take…

        Well, thanks for the warm welcome. 😉

         

  28. Are beyond Andrew’s or anyone else’s control. He can ask DSCC to spend clean money. They will do as they see fit most likely. If they are spedning the money and not him, it is not in his control.

    1. If he wins the primary, He can tell the DSCC to sod off. They’ll honor that request. They have more incumbents to protect than they have money to go around, so they’ll just cheerfully move along to the next one.

        1. Fun*gi*ble n., adj., Interchangeable — Something that is exchangeable or substitutable.

          Let’s use it in a sentence, shall we?

          The funds that the DSCC collects from individuals and PACs are fungible.

  29. on saying that he is now incorruptible, even though he was corruptible the rest of his political career. Now he’s corruptible again, I guess, but goal posts are always in motion for him, so there’s no surprise here.  

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

182 readers online now

Newsletter

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