Your Chance to Replace a Conservadem in the Senate

In case you hadn’t noticed, there is a Senate primary in Colorado pitting a Conservadem,Michael Bennet, against a people powered candidate, Andrew Romanoff, who has taken the Obama pledge to take no PAC money. (Conservadem is not my label, Rachel Maddow gave Senator Bennet that name for joining Evan Bayh’s coalition of conservative democrats).

Despite millions of corporate dollars being spent by Michael Bennet, Andrew Romanoff has taken the lead in polls with the Primary on August 10th. Pundits have written that Romanoff’s win will send a message throughout politics that we, the grassroots voters, can reverse the corporate stranglehold on Congress .

(crossposted at Huffington Post, Square State, and Firedoglake )

First, let me say this, I have been a volunteer for Andrew Romanoff in this campaign, but that’s not all. I worked in Colorado on Democratic Campaigns in 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008. With the exception of 2000, when Andrew Romanoff was running for his first election (therefore campaigning himself) Andrew Romanoff was with us, the Democratic activists, on every election, knocking on doors, making phone calls, and growing the party. I don’t have anything against Senator Bennet personally, but prior to being appointed, no one in the Colorado Democratic party had ever heard of him or seen him doing anything for Democrats. That being said, let’s get on to the facts.

Here are 10 Reasons to Support Andrew Romanoff:

Some people have said there is no difference between the two candidates. Even if that were true, which it isn’t, letting an incumbent who worked against progressive values go without a primary challenge sends a message to other Senators that we, the democratic base, can be ignored.

What has Senator Bennet’s done that was not progressive?

1. Senator Bennet joined with Republicans to vote against the Sanders amendment which would have closed a 35 billion tax loophole for Big Oil and invested the money in clean energy investments — something President Obama supported.

2. Senator Bennet has written letters in support of tax subsidies for  natural gas at a time when people of Colorado have flammable tap water from unsafe natural gas drilling practices.  

3. Senator Bennet has sought  exemptions for  dirty fossil fuels  in any Climate Change legislation.

4. Senator Bennet voted to stop Senator Dodd’s legislation to create a regulatory agency to protect consumers from predatory practices on Wall Street.  

5. Senator Bennet voted against the bill to Break up the Big Banks that were too big to fail, allowing these banks to continue controlling how home mortgages are valued.

6. Senator Bennet was one of the few Democratic Senators to join with the GOP to  oppose Cramdown  which would have helped Colorado families renegotiate their mortgages and prevent foreclosures.

Other people have said that Andrew Romanoff, if elected, will be no different in the Senate and is no more Progressive than Senator Bennet.

That’s simply not true.

Andrew Romanoff is more progressive on at least 4 very important issues,

1. Renewable Energy and the Environment: Andrew Romanoff has proposed some of the most progressive proposals on the  Environment. On June 10th he announced his proposal for 50% Renewable Energy in the United States by 2030.

“We have focused most of our attention on cleaning up the spill and holding British Petroleum responsible…

To that end, we should also seize the moment to revolutionize our energy policy… Today, I am proposing that we set a national renewable energy standard. I propose a national renewable standard of 50 percent by 2030.”

2. LGBT rights: From the Romanoff Campaign’s LGBT Outreach director:


   Andrew Romanoff vs. Michael Bennet on LGBT issues and legislation: Andrew Romanoff Supports full, federal marriage equality. But Michael Bennet Believes it’s a states’ rights issue.

Andrew Romanoff Would co-sponsor Military Readiness Enhancement Act (would effectively repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell”).  But Michael Bennet has not co-sponsored the Military Readiness Enhancement Act.

3. Andrew Romanoff fully supports Net Neutrality, even writing on article fighting for it, and will join Senator Franken in introducing legislation. Senator Bennet has not stated a position.

4. Employee Free Choice: Andrew Romanoff has stated support for Employee Free Choice and will vote for it when it is brought to the floor of the Senate. Michael Bennet won’t answer what his position is on it.

From fellow Progressive Darcy Burner on Bennet unwillingness to “make a decision” on Employee Free Choice:

And here was Senator Bennet’s response to the Denver Post’s questionnaire on the Employee Free Choice Act: (yes or no boxes)


Congress should pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

Michael Bennet:

The candidate chose not to mark a box

Andrew Romanoff:

Supports

Maybe that’s why Andrew Romanoff has the support of the 2 largest Unions in the state.

There are clear differences between these two candidates.

Andrew Romanoff has proposed some of the most progressive standards for renewable energy, will support full marriage equality and will support the Employee Free Choice Act.

And, Andrew Romanoff will get elected with individual donations only, without corporate PAC money, just like President Obama did.

Send a message that we the people still have the power to elect people over corporate funded candidates.

Support him here on this ACTBLUE page

24 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. denverco says:

    has 8,219 donors that have given 72,660.25 to Bennet and nothing to Romanoff. I think it is clear to everyone that Romanoff is not progressive.

    He is the true DLC conservadem, who has tried to portray himself as progressive, but his past keeps catching up with him. Talk is cheap and he is promising everything.  

    There are clear differences between the two candidates and Bennet is by far the better choice.

  2. ColoDem Di says:

    (this is a portion of what I posted on the CPols “Greed” ad is untrue thread)

    The cramdown might have helped a few homeowners in the short term, but it would have hurt us all in the long term.  Banks originate mortgage loans with the intent to sell or securitize them.  If they sell them to some other entity, that entity will most likely securitize them.  The cramdown would throw in a whole new layer of uncertainly and, most likely, force ratings downgrades of MBS.  What do you think happens to the price of the security after a downgrade?  Who do you think holds those MBS?  Teachers Pension Funds, among others.  So the cramdown might help a few struggling homeowners, but it would hose all current MBS holders.  Is that what you want??

    Banks originate residential conforming mortgages at razor thin margins, hence the narrow interest rate spread over treasuries.  Limiting the banks’ ability to sell/securitze these loans will, out of necessity, increase interest rates on all loans.

    Is this starting to make sense?  There is not a one to one correlation that what is good for banks is bad for consumers, nor vice versa.  This argument is getting tiresome.

    I want more, not fewer, US Senators who understand, or at least have the capacity to understand the moving parts here.  Andrew Romanoff is clearly not one of them.

    Wade, you should stop commenting on anything related to finance or banking.  You obviously have zero undertanding of any of it.

    Andrew’s take on the Regal Cinemas deal leads me to believe that he too is completely clueless on matters of finance.

  3. ColoDem Di says:

    Or do I need to remind you again why it makes you look like an idiot?

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.