President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

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
September 10, 2010 12:25 AM UTC

In a Quandry Over Michael Bennet

  • 302 Comments
  • by: madmike

( – promoted by DavidThi808)

I’m really struggling with what to do about Sen. Michael Bennet.  Nine months ago, before I learned where he was getting his money and how that was influencing his votes, I was a Bennet supporter.  I even attended a caucus training session for Bennet.  Then, when I came to the realization that he was a corporate sellout and that his call for a public healthcare option was a nothing more than a cheap political ploy, I switched my allegiance to Andrew Romanoff.  Then came the primary and Bennet won.  “OK,” I said to myself, “I won’t work for Bennet and won’t give him any money (he gets enough from the banks and the oil companies anyway), but I’ll hold my nose and vote for him in November.

Then yesterday Sen. Bennet announced that he would not support President Obama’s plan for more stimulus spending on infrastructure improvements.  But he would support the myriad of business tax breaks contained in the plan.  In other words, forget about putting people back to work, but make sure your corporate donors get their share of the pie.  And I thought to myself, “That’s it.  I’m not voting for this schmuck!”  That’s where I was when I went to bed last night.

Then this morning I thought about it some more and decided that I am really in a quandry about what to do about Michael Bennet.  As I see it, right now I have three choices: a) hold my nose and vote for Bennet; b) write in Andrew Romanoff or somebody else, or: c) not vote for anybody (since there’s no way in hell I would ever vote for Buck).

I consider myself a progressive, but I’m not sure that I consider myself a Democrat any longer.  I’m thinking seriously about changing my party affiliation to Independent.  And I am of the belief that Sen. Bennet is assuming that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is going to vote for him no matter what because they really don’t have any other choice.  And I really hate to think that my vote is being taken for granted.

So right now I am undecided about what I am going to do come November.  And I am hoping that somebody out there will offer me some bit of wisdom that will help me make  a decision about what to do.  I’m really fed up!

What are you going to do in November?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Comments

302 thoughts on “In a Quandry Over Michael Bennet

  1. I cannot express how awful a person Ken Buck is (IMHO, since I don’t want him to arrest me for criminal libel, as he has done to one of my friends).

    I implore you to hold your nose and vote for Senator Bennet.  I understand the quandry, though I think that a lot of the “Andrew is more progressive” meme is kinda BS.  I’m uncomfortable with a few of Sen. Bennet’s votes, too.

    But, a write-in or a skipped line on the ballot is essentially a half-vote for Buck.  Colorado cannot elect the race-baiting, hate-mongering, job-not-doing, Ken Buck.  Please, hold your nose and vote for the better of the two candidates.

    1. the “paint the opposition as so extreme that they’ll hold their nose and vote for the other guy” strategy has already been tried and it failed miserably. McCain lost.

    2. But some people personalize different points of view and only operate in a me good, you bad world.

      Perhaps hanging out with people who commit crime in Weld county has had an effect on your view. As to those people, an effective DA is generally not very popular.  As to the non-criminal Weld county population, his 76% Weld county primary vote probably tells you what they think of him.

      1. I’ve met Buck on several occasions, and he is, you are correct, charming.  That, however, is not the same as him being a nice and decent person.  Nice implies compassionate, empathetic, charitable.  Ken Buck is none of these things (IMO).

        No one who spends the past 3 years race baiting as Buck has done is a decent person.  Whether we are talking about forums about the violent crimes of illegals, conspiring to move a ICE office from Ft. Lupton (on I-76, a major route of human trafficers) to Greeley, raiding a hispanic-oriented tax service, etc.  He is not a decent man.  He is a hate-filled racist (IMO).

        So, 76% of the people in Weld Co, like him.  That’s you’re hypothesis?  Are you stupid?  How many people live in Weld Co?  How many people from Weld actually cared enough to vote in the GOP primary?  Maybe 10%.  So, really, he got about 7.6% of the approval of people in Weld Co.

        Nice work lying with statistics.  76% of Weld approves of him.  Muwahahahaha.  I suppose you can rationalize the fact that running unopposed, he didn’t get more than 65% of the vote in 2008?  

        I’m not sure what you mean about personalizing opposing views.  I think a couple days, I, in very decent spirit, offered to sit down and argue politics with you over dinner and drinks (as a bet, given).  I happily will argue politics with people who disagree with me.  I am reasonably sure that I have a history on this blog of (mostly) respectful disagreement, even with extremely naive points of view, like those held by StrykerK2 and BJWilson.  So, I am pretty sure, you owe an apology for your comment’s baseless ad hominem attacks.

  2. Call Senator Bennet’s office and let him know what you think about his lack of support for the new stimulus package.  Tell him that workers are hurting and that stimulus spending is better than corporate tax breaks in stimulating the economy.

    Mail him (snail mail).  If possible, go to town halls where he’s showing up and try to pressure him with thoughtful questions and statements.  Talk to his campaign.  In other words, be an activist for yourself.

    Then, come November, go to the polls and vote.  It’s not just your right as a citizen, but your duty to your country to elect the best representatives you can get elected.  It’s up to you to decide if a vote for Bennet is a more effective vote than a vote for Buck, or a vote for a third party or write-in candidate.  But vote.

    (My vote is with my head, not my heart – I know a third party or write-in vote will be wasted, and might result in the election of someone worse than the best practically possible outcome…)

    1. Betsy Markey is also leery of this plan so does that make her a bad Democrat?

      Democrats have ridiculed Republicans for never straying far from the herd so is it a bad thing for a Democratic politician to exhibit some independence?  You can bet that Ken Buck is no maverick and will vote with the herd at every opportunity.

      The question for me isn’t about the individual but the issues.  A Democratic senator will vote for progressive issues a lot more often than a Republican senator will.  If you like what happened to this country before 2008 then you should vote back in the creeps who created our national quandary.  I’m voting for Michael Bennet because I think he is the better candidate for our state even with his shortcomings as a politician.  Politics the about who is the better candidate and for me that is Michael Bennet.

      1. Namely, the same reasons he didn’t really like the first stimulus plan – it isn’t big enough, and by putting so much emphasis on corporate tax breaks and not into “immediate” stimulus like infrastructure jobs it isn’t as effective with the money it spends as it could be.

        I think others have pointed out the bad points of Bennet’s decision; I have no problem being the activist and calling his offices to tell him my own opinion, but like you I’ll be voting Bennet in the election because there is a difference between Bennet and Buck.

      2. Betsy’s an awful, awful Dem.  But I’ll hold my nose and vote for her because she can’t do that much harm.  

        But with Bennet, it’s looking like he might single-handedly derail the whole thing in the Senate, so that’s a little bit of a different situation.  Can I in good conscience vote for him?  Can I vote for the Green candidate, a better candidate imho, knowing Buck may be elected?  I think I can.  Buck doesn’t scare me that much, and he’s probably going to win anyway.  I just want Bennet to know that he didn’t get this citizen’s vote not because I’m a batshit crazy tea-partier (-bagger still acceptable?), but because he took his base for granted.

        But I don’t know.  I’ll see how I feel in November.

        1. If Buck wins, the conclusion will be that former Obama supporters are now batshit crazy tea-partiers.

          The base is not going to win this year. If the Republicans take over, they will view it as a mandate for teabagging. If the Democrats maintain their seats, it will be viewed as a victory for liberals. How do you want to be seen?

    2. I went to one of his open houses, and he was a very pleasant person who would not answer a single question on important policy.  I asked him about his views on: stimulus, immigration (important to me), gay rights (don’t ask…) and the answers that I got were all NON-ANSWERS !!.   In writing to his office, both snail & electronic, and in phone calls, I’ve never gotten an answer.  He will blow with the corporate wind.  HE DOES NOT REPRESENT US

      1. He does represent you now, as others have pointed out.  Whether you agree with your Senators or not, they are in DC to represent you and they are your elected representatives to the Senate.

        If you want someone who will agree with you 100% of the time, get yourself elected to the Senate.  In the meantime, your duty as a citizen is to vote for the candidate who you believe will best represent your interests.  Going off to pout in a corner is certainly your right, but IMHO not the most mature thing to do.

        Keep advocating to his offices.  Conservatives have learned this – the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

      2. I couldn’t have said it better, lonchair…and phoenix, since when are we COMMANDED and ORDERED that we MUST vote for Bennet?

        I don’t THINK so!  How DARE you-take your denunciations of Romanoff supporters and go off in your corner – because YOUR hero has already shown his clay feet…with his past votes, and now with his saying he won’t support President Obama’s recent stimulus proposal.  

        Please do not TELL us we HAVE to vote for him…even holding my nose is not an option anymore…

        1. I supported him in the primary, was elected as a county delegate for him…  I’d still rather see him elected to the Senate.

          I take my voting as part of societal duty.  If I decide not to vote, then as an informed voter I have failed to do my best for my country.  It is, obviously, your decision as to how or whether you vote; there is (unlike in some countries) no law that says you must vote.  If you believe electing Ken Buck (and possibly as a result a Republican Senate majority) to office in a time of national turmoil, if you feel that is best for this country, then go for it.  It’s your conscience, just as it was the conscience of all of those Nader voters back in 2000.

    3. Trust me, Bennet listens only to what he wants to hear…you write him or call his office, and he will ‘explain’ all over again, the topic you are calling him about…he will no more help you than it is obvious he will help President Obama…

      Too bad he didn’t come out in his DINO costume BEFORE the primary.  He is a Republican’t…nothing more…except for a shill…that’s true!

  3. DLC Andy didn’t win the primary!  He would have saved us from those evil corporate fatcats!  Who had openly and specifically trained him to be their lapdog (that’s what a DLC Fellowship is for).  In either case, you were going to get a corporatist Democrat as the nominee.

      1. I hate Bennets’ corporate connections. I think Ken Buck is very smart and articulate, but I find his views to be right out of the 1800’s.  I can’t stand Bennet but I probably will vote for him anyway.

      1. I am suitably chastened by your articulate and comprehensive demolition of my position.

        Wait, that’s not what I meant.  I meant “I’m rubber, you’re glue, what bounces off me sticks to you.”

        See, I can play this politics game, too!

  4. As we would say to Republicans who weren’t thrilled with Buck. If you’re waiting for the candidate who is perfectly aligned with your views, then you had better grab a soft blanket. You’re going to be here awhile.

    1. Of course no candidate is ever going to be perfect.  The problems with Bennet go much deeper than marginal policy disagreements.

      I’ve held my nose and voted for many Dems.  I won’t do it for this one.

      1. Anyone who believes women should be wards of the state has to consider them second class citizens.  Women can’t be trusted with their own bodies so the government needs to make their most personal decisions for them.  That is what the man believes and that’s no lie.  

  5. I believe it because I was engaged in correspondence with him, still am, from the time he took office when I argued with him for public option, and more. He was then opposed. Over months, as many folks, not just myself, communicated with him, he changed his mind.

    I believe the business tax credit will be job producing. The stimulus has also been job producing/preserving. But, the original stimulus has not all been spent so there really is no necessity for another at this time.

    I enjoy working towards the election of someone who has shown the willingness to learn and to change his mind.

  6. No one will be surprised to read that I am in precisely your position, madmike, only more so.

    Bottom line: there is no Democrat in the Senate race in Colorado this year. We now know that even more clearly than we did on Tuesday. IF you consider yourself a Democrat–and if that has any meaning whatsoever in terms of ideology–then you have no one to vote for in 2010. Rather, you have a far-right Republican and a less-far-right Republican, the latter moving as far right as he dare in an effort to capture as many self-proclaimed “independents” as he can. I might be talking about Nelson of Nebraska, but I’m not; I’m talking about his shadow, Bennet of Colorado.

    However, IF Bennet wins, we will have his flavor of Republican in office for six years, PLUS he will be the “Democratic” candidate in 2016–and possibly in 2022, maybe even 2028…the guy is only in his 40s. Such is the way of “parties” and their loyalty to incumbents, no matter what. IF the other Republican wins, by virtue of “low turnout” for the Senate race, Democrats will have an “open” seat in 2016 and we can have, and there will be, a spirited competition for the nomination. Hopefully, some credible candidate will begin sooner than you-know-who to get started.

    Not nice to contemplate, not nice at all. BUT as things go, how much real difference does it make if Democrats have 52 or 48, 51 or 49? The Republicans have shown the way in blocking the majority party, even with just 40 (then 41, except that didn’t count Nelson and Lieberman as 42 and 43, etc).

    To repeat: Whether it’s Bennet or Buck who goes to Washington in January will make no meaningful difference in what federal legislation passes or does not pass. Democrats will have even fewer “nominal” Democratic votes than they have now. One or two, a slim majority or slim majority, will not make a difference. Little or no forward progress is possible. We will depend on Obama’s vetoes (and here’s praying that he exercises them!).

    It WILL make a difference, maybe, in who “Democrats” from Colorado (what few there seem to be) nominate in 2016. That is the contest at hand, and the time to start is now.

    1. plus he will be the Republican candidate in 2016–and possibly 2022, maybe even 2028.  Coloradans tend to re-elect their Senators (Allard).  I would never help send Ken Buck to Washington.  It makes a huge difference.

      1. by the purity police…

        For violating Ralphie’s Rule #1

        All JO cares about is people reading what he/she types.

        Which I try not to do.  –Ralphie, one day recently, e.g. yesterday.

        Tsk, tsk.

    2. If Democratic Senators get together to reform the filibuster at the beginning of the next session, having 51 Democratic Senators is very important, because the “Constitutional Option” requires a majority vote to change the Senate rules.

        1. If the proposed reform is the Schumer “cascade toward a majority vote” proposal, I think you’re right.  If instead they just change the cloture vote requirements from 3/5 of Senators sworn to 3/5 of Senators present, then I think they could get all of the Democrats and Independents on board.

      1. 1. I’ve heard zero indication that will happen; and

        2. I’ve never heard any Republiban object to the current system.

        A 51-49 margin, either way, would make the Constitutional option even less likely.

        1. I mean, it’s not perfect, so if it’s not perfect by one more vote, then it will never make a difference when it comes to floor votes…  Not for confirmation votes, not for rules changes, not for reconciliation votes.  The country will forever be dominated by Republicans, so what’s one more in the Senate…

            1. Votes that would not have been “YEA” if Buck had been in the seat.  In that respect, and in having a Democrat in the Majority Leader’s seat (and in control of the various committees), Bennet is invaluable.

              Republicans have stated exactly what they’ll do if they gain control of either the House or the Senate – endless investigations, gutting social programs, and no more reform no matter how tepid.

              Your choice – which do you want?

              1. Buck would not have voted for Colorado to pick up the tab for Nebraska’s health care costs.  Bennet should not have, but did.

                Buck also would not have helped block the banking reforms from reinstating Glass-Steagal, because he has not been bought off by the banking industry, but Bennet did.

                  1. that the Mayor of NYC Michael Bloomberg is hosting a fundraiser for him in a couple weeks with his fellow wall street tycoons, just to say thanks.  They knew they could count on Mikey.

                    1. so that there was no financial reform at all.

                      The financial industry didn’t want this bill. Bennet voted for it anyway. Buck would have filibustered the bill–like almost all Senate Republicans did–because he opposes the very idea of financial reform–like almost all Senate Republicans do.

                      Hey, quick quiz: which party held a secret, closed-door fundraising meeting with bankers and financial executives just before voting to filibuster the financial reform bill.

                      Give up?

                      I’ll give you a hint.

                      Republicans.

                      Bennet voted for an imperfect financial reform package. Republicans voted to filibuster it. The difference is pretty stark. Buck has never given the slightest hint that he would have opposed that filibuster, and you’re lying when you suggest any different.

  7. because I think it’s tougher for some folks that weren’t fans of his to start with to vote for him now that he’s the candidate. I mean, you described how you felt about him this way:

    Then, when I came to the realization that he was a corporate sellout and that his call for a public healthcare option was a nothing more than a cheap political ploy, I switched my allegiance to Andrew Romanoff.

    So, I don’t think I’m being presumptuous by suggesting that it isn’t going to take much from Bennet to turn you off for voting for him altogether. And with that in mind, all the usual reasons for voting for him seem obvious to me but perhaps not to you.

  8. 3rd party or write-in.  Bennet has taken too many stances I simply can’t support.  As it’s not likely that he will be primaried again were he to win (which I don’t believe he will), our best shot at a real progressive in that seat is running someone in six years against Senator Buck.

    That’s the practical side of it.  The ideological is simply that I can’t support Bennet given so many of his votes.

      1. But, if Buck wins, you will not be able to post on this blog without me immediately posting response to your comment, mentioning that you (and people like) you, are the reason Buck was elected.

        You have to be totally out of touch with reality to believe that the choice between Buck and Bennet doesn’t matter.  Abortion, Racism, Education, e.g.

        I know you’re butt-hurt that your “superior” candidate didn’t win, but if you help get Buck elected, I truly hope that no liberal ever takes your opinion seriously again.

        1. did I say it didn’t matter?  No — I didn’t.

          I’ll use my vote as I see it will be served best.  Since Bennet isn’t a progressive I’ll vote for a progressive — either by write-in or 3rd party.  Then, in 6 years, I’ll vote for a progressive to replace Buck.

          And for the record, the reason Buck will be elected is because Bennet is a really, really bad candidate, supported by Ritter and Obama.  Want to blame someone?  Blame them.

          We may draw the line in a different place dlof, but I’m sure we both draw lines on who we would support.  Would you always vote dem no matter who the candidate is?

          1. it will not even be counted. A write in rather than a vote for Bennet is a vote for Buck. Bennet is a very bright progressive. Flawed yes. In CO we haven’t had the perfect Senator for some time. Wirth? Hart?

          2. Everyone will look at your write-in vote as a vote for Buck, and Democrats will conclude Michael Bennet lost because he supported the public option and voted for the stimulus and was too liberal for this purple state.

            If Buck wins this year, the Democratic candidate in 2016 will be to the right of Ben Nelson. And you’ll wonder why your strategy doesn’t work.

            It’s because as a progressive you are supposed to care about something larger than your own ego. It’s the sacrifice we all make by being progressives. If all we gave a shit about was ourselves, we’d be fucking Republicans.

            And if that’s all you give a shit about, why not just be open about it and become a Republican?  

      2. We got the Iraq War, tax cuts for the wealthy, a huge deficit, and a broken economy.  I have a friend who thought it wouldn’t matter if he cast that protest vote.  He was very sorry when he found out how much it really mattered.  

    1. I really no longer have patience for people to whom politics is a game, or for overacting Hamlet-schtick ego-stroking.

      You think it can’t get worse with Buck in office? It can get a lot fucking worse. Maybe not for you, but possibly for someone you care about, and definitely for a lot of people you should care about, as someone who claims to be a progressive.

      You have NO SHOT at a real progressive in this state. Even Boulder Liberal Mark Udall joined the Conservadems.

      You take the best of what you can get, because some things matter more than masturbation.

  9. I voted for Ross Perot.  Many like me did the same and as a consequence Clinton was elected president.  I have not regretted my vote for Perot and trust me at the time I was no Clinton fan.

    The republicans and dems both have a similar problem.  There is an entrenched corporate interest, albeit different ones, that run each party.  Norton and Bennet were the candidates chosen by the party leadership.  The republicans managed to overthrow the party choice.  Romanoff had a tougher job because of incumbancy and the Presidential interference and was not successful in doing the same. If elected, Bennet will vote to protect the corporations to which he owes his office, in the same way Norton would have.

    I would look to see if there are third party candidates that you feel more comfortable with and then make a decision. Personally, telling both parties to take a hike would not be the worst thing.  But, then again, there goes the touch of libertarian in me.

    1. whether republicans and other conservatives will tow the official line and support Maes or go with their heart and support Tancredo (how he is in their heart is beyond me, but hey — I’m a progressive).

      1. and those are the places with “None of the above”.

        What I think folks who express this sentiment honestly are wanting to do is to express dissatisfaction overall. But, that is not what you are doing. You’re unhappy that AR wasn’t picked so you’re willing to burn down the house. AR was also flawed. CO will be better off, as will the US, with Bennet than with Buck. Had AR prevailed I’d be supporting him because he is also far superior to BUCK.

        1. But only in a primary race where if “none of the above” gets a majority, they have to re-do with different candidates.  In a general election, “none of the above” is simply an affirmative substitute for an under-vote.

        2. I wasn’t terribly dissatisfied that Romanoff wasn’t selected (although honestly, I would have preferred him).  Maybe it’s time you Bennet folks get beyond the meme that all dissatisfaction with Bennet is the result of vindictiveness from Romanoff supporters, and recognize that some of the dissatisfaction with Bennet actually lies with Bennet.  Gasp.

          I personally don’t care what Bennet supporters think, I’m not yet willing to vote for Colorado’s version of Ben Nelson.

          Buck doesn’t deserve my vote, but Goddamnit Bennet’s not doing a lot to earn it, capice?

            1. If I’m not going to be represented, then I’m not convinced that it really matters who’s not representing me.

              And I don’t see this a just another game of horseshoes.  It isn’t just about who gets it closest to the peg.  I’m not expecting a ringer, but for my vote it is going to have to be inside of a scoring ring.

              I’ll say it again, I’m not willing to vote for Colorado’s version of Ben Nelson.

              1. or even the center of the state.

                Nobody’s going to represent you except you. Otherwise you compromise like a grownup.

                What kind of game DO you see this election as? Because clearly to you actual distinctions between candidates don’t matter. You’ll be OK, I guess, no matter who wins the election. So will I, personally.

                But it’s not about me, and it’s not about you. It’s about the people on the margins who will get fucked by Republican policies.

                You think your protest vote will push Obama to the left? You think it will get more progressives running for office? Yeah, how did losing the 1994 elections work? As I recall it was 12 years before a national progressive campaign could even get off the ground afterwards.

                That’s what you’re offering everyone else in exchange for your peace of mind. It’s a crappy deal.

                1. that last post looks like it came straight out of the Wade Norris book of How to Win Supporters and Influence Voters.

                  (PS.  That think-you’re-the-center-of-the-universe shit? — it doesn’t work for my wife either, and she’s a fucking knockout.)  

              2. By whomever is the elected Senator from Colorado.  You will be represented by Buck if it’s him. You will be represented by Bennet if it’s him.

                Even if neither are politically just like you, it doesn’t destroy that representation.  

        3. “also flawed…but you would vote for him…”

          Why is it you Bennet Boosters can’t see that while yes, we are disappointed Andrew lost, that does NOT automatically make Bennet Palatable.

          I have NEVER liked Bennet.  I have followed him on CSPAN and followed his voting record…he is not good for Colorado OR for the President…he AND UDall BOTH join Bayh’s ConservaDems…and you cannot get Bennet to state his stand on ANY topic…take Card Check, and the Public Option…

          Well, I take that back…he certainly gave Obama a big ‘thanks’ by saying he’ll vote against this new proposal that will HELP the citizens of Colorado!

          Now, as far as no candidate being perfect, we saw this with both Ritter AND Salazar…but I would still have voted for Salazar again…

    1. “Diogenesdemar supported the Republican because he wanted less help for the poor and more tax cuts for the rich.”

      Sorry to break it to you, but that’s how your heartfelt decision will be interpreted by every single person in the media, and hence by all our politicians as well.  

  10. Let me give you how I’m approaching it.

    First off, Buck’s stand on abortion is not relevant to the seat because the Supreme Court decides this. (It is useful for the campaign though.)

    Second, the big issue we face is the economy and if the deficit hawks hold sway, then we’re going to stay in this recession. Bennet’s latest move puts him squarely in this camp so not a lot of difference with Buck there.

    But there is one major and one pretty big reason to vote for Bennet. The major reason is he could be the vote that decides if it’s Reid or McConnell as the majority leader. That’s gigantic. Bennet may otherwise have a voting record pretty similar to what Buck would have, but on that first vote you have a gigantic difference.

    Also, this year is when Congress will address education. Bennet has a lot of experience from DPS. You can argue about how effective he was, but he was there day by day and brings a very useful perspective to that issue.

    So yes he’s a squish. But he’s our squish. And all things being equal, that’s a giant difference. So my suggestion is hold your nose and vote for Bennet.

    1. ..although I can’t really say Reid was any great shakes. However just the thought of seeing McConnell at the podium dictating the agenda is more than I could take.

      But re education, I thought Bennet’s role was in finance, and rather questionable (maybe a whole lot questionable). Does he know something about how to motivate unmotivated students, as might be reflected in graduation rates? I don’t know..I’m asking.

      1. Does anyone really want to hold up Harry Reid as a reason to vote for Bennet.  I personally think Democrats would be way better off if Reid loses to Angle, but the Democrats still retain 51 seats.

        IMHO the absolute worst reason to vote for Bennet has to do with Reid retaining the majority leader’s post.

        (Which now causes me to realize that if Bennet would promise not to vote for Reid, I would vote for Bennet.)

        1. Is Sen. Majority Leader McConnell enough reason for voting for Bennet?  How about Judiciary Committee Chairman Sessions?  Or Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Inhofe?

          I think the best we could hope for is that Reid is replaced as Majority Leader while still remaining in office, but that’s doubtful.

        2. The guy has been honest and tried to work with Republicans to solve our mutual problems.  What’s wrong with that?

          I know that Republicans are douche bags who only care about power and promoting wealthy welfare (tax cuts) but Democrats had to make the effort to get along.  We can’t stay divided for ever and expect to move forward.  

          Democracy is about the art of the practical and some pretty amazing things have been passed in the last two years even with complete Republican obstruction tactics.  Giving Republicans the agenda to launch continuous investigations of the Obama administration isn’t going to help our country.

            1. Reid could be much stronger as a Majority Leader; he had for some time a 60 vote majority, and we still have too many unconfirmed nominees from that time.  I don’t think he (or some of the other Senate leaders) really did all they could to get things through in a timely fashion.  For example, they could have combined nominees into a single block vote for floor consideration to reduce the idiotic Republican stalling tactics and holds.

              I’m not sure I like possible replacement Schumer much more than I like Reid, but Reid’s proven quite well that playing nice with the minority doesn’t get you very far.

            2. And, IMHO Reid’s (lack of) leadership goes far beyond just  run of the mill incompetence, to the point of being singularly detrimental.  He’s the weakest of all possible links in the chain of Progressive accomplishment.

              He’s not a benign tumor, he’s malignant and needs to be removed.  The body will heal stronger and healthier after a Reid-ectomy.

              1. Or Angle as NV-Sen and Mitch McConnell as Senate Majority Leader?  It doesn’t do much good to take out a tumor only to replace it with a more virulent tumor and its metastasising brethren.

                And that’s assuming Reid is really malignant.

      2. I thought I heard Bennet say, in his latest ad, “I’m a businessman.”

        One of those very telling lines, whether it was meant to be or not.

        Don’t recall him saying: “I’m an educator and I’ll work to fix our obviously broken education system, in which I spent 36 months (!) learning how.”

        [Poor Harry Reid, one of those politicos devoid of charisma–there are plenty of others–who somehow managed to count heads one fine day, after which displacing him was an act of revolution or somesuch. The rules of the Senate require close scrutiny; indeed, the existence of the Senate needs to be examined!]

    2. That is complete BULLSHIT! You are aware that the Senate votes to confirm Supreme Court nominees, right?  If you haven’t noticed, most of our our reliably pro-choice judges are really old.  Do you honestly believe that the pro-life zealots won’t jump at the first opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade with the next conservative SCOTUS appointment?  You do realize, right, that come January, the Dems will not have nearly the majority they do now.  That’ll kinda put the clamps on the next SCOTUS nomination.

      1. I think the Roberts and Alito activist judges would overturn Roe v. Wade if they got the chance.  Look at their extreme votes on corporate money in elections.  

      2. Obama is the one who nominates justices.

        Not a comfortable situation altogether, but not as if voting for Buck is going to result in RvW being overturned sometime in the third week of January 2011.

          1. Women have a right to

            Abortions

            Jobs

            Sufficient income

            Vote

            Lexus SC (new)

            Health Care

            Housing

            16 years of public education

            Low taxes

            Secure retirement

            Equal wages

            Practice religion as they see fit

            Burn Korans

            Marry anyone they love, gender notwithstanding

            Of course, the top three are most relevant to this discussion.  

                1. … that the ability to govern their own reproduction helps women succeed economically.  

                  Remember, it was within the lifetime of many people still living that numerous states restricted the availability of contraception as well as abortion.  Don’t think that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that’s where they will stop.

                  Shit, two serious posts in one day.  I gotta get out of here.

                  1. Ditto white men.

                    Dunno ’bout no one else.

                    And, yeah, JO obviously thinks that puttin’ food on the table is solely a white man‘s problem. Isn’t that obvious from what JO wrote? Only a reactionary would think economic issues aren’t also of interest to women, or that feeding the family means favoring repeal of Roe v. Wade.

                    Still a shade early to be hittin’ the Dream Sauce, isn’t it? No? Well, then, let’s unscrew the corks, put ’em in a row, and wade right in, White Boys.

                    1. but you display a fallacy that I am very familiar with, because I was called on it when I was younger. That is, no historically oppressed group has any special issues since we’re all in this together, and economics is the only thing that really matters in the end.

                      That’s not true, and people who actually face these issues would never even consider making that mistake. It’s really common among white men too. I’ve never seen it in anyone else.

                      We know abortion doesn’t matter to you for some reason. Fine. What else doesn’t matter to you? We all want to be as progressive as you. Teach us how. Tell us who and what doesn’t politically matter, as long as we teach somebody somewhere a lesson.

          1. Not for “correcting” me. But for not getting the point out loud, the point being that “for the next two years Obama will still be president,” and therefore anti-Roe v Wade SC nominees are more than just unlikely, population of the Senate notwithstanding. Moreover, if 40 Republicans can block scores of nominees, let’s not imagine that 49, or 50, or 51 Dems can’t be just as successful.

            Point: Roe v. Wade is not an issue in the Colorado Senate race, however much Ken Buck would like people to think it is.

            News item: The FTC today again declined to require computer manufacturers to put a warning label, “Think Before You Type,” on computers, saying such labels would do little to curb abuses and might discourage people who couldn’t think in the first place from contributing to the recovery by buying a new computer. End of news item.

            1. I’m actually not especially worried about new Supreme Court nominations. The Court is quite bad enough as it is.

              The problem is that the current Senate is not trying to get the Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. Wade. A Senate with 51 Bucks in it probably would, just like they did for partial birth abortion three times.

              P.S. 6 minus 2 equals 4. (You’re welcome for that too!)

              You say you’re not worried about the next two years of a potential Buck Senate term. Yay. I’m glad you’re so fortunate. But what about the four years that follow that? No guarantee Obama will get re-elected, you know.

        1. When Sandra Day O’Connor left, her replacement voted to restrict abortion via the partial birth abortion ban, in 2007. O’Connor would definitely not have voted that way.

          We don’t need to worry about more conservative Supreme Court Justices. We already have enough!

          What we need to worry about is the Senate passing another abortion ban just to provoke a Supreme Court decision, which is the plan of anti-abortion activists at all levels of government.  

    3. Abortion is irrelevant to the Senate?

      Should US military servicewomen be able to access their constitutional right to abortion at overseas military hospitals using their own dollars?  Such legislation is currently pending in the Senate

      Do you think Buck might vote differently from Bennet?  Does this not matter to you?  Are you buying the bullshit H-Man is selling?

        1. To quote your favorite source, you:

          However, if legislators did control who could have an abortion and when, suddenly their stance on this issue becomes very important to a very large segment of the electorate.

          I’ve linked to a story about precisiely that.

          Do you want to revisit my questions above?  

            1. which is actually the exact opposite of the rule of law. The rights of a political minority have to be enshrined in law and protected by the courts, since they won’t necessarily be protected by politicians in a democracy.

              Also your notion that the courts didn’t play a big role in the civil rights movement, or that race relations were less contentious than the abortion debate, is so completely uninformed as to extinguish whatever credibility your argument might have otherwise had.

              Somehow you always come up with dumb arguments for why, as a liberal Democrat, your principles compel you to support the most extreme right-wing positions.

              1. But they should not be created by the courts. When the courts step up to enforce civil rights, that is one of their finest moments.

                But making rights up – that is not. And Roe v Wade was making rights up. Keep in mind that if 9 judges can find a right to abortion in the constitution, they can just as easily find that abortion is never allowed according to the constitution.

                Also, I’ve never said:

                Also your notion that the courts didn’t play a big role in the civil rights movement, or that race relations were less contentious than the abortion debate, is so completely uninformed as to extinguish whatever credibility your argument might have otherwise had.

                So please stop making stuff up.

                1. Here I read this quote as the courts did not play a big role in the civil rights struggle. You can tell me how you really meant it.

                  Compare this to the civil rights struggle. That struggle was fought primarily in the legislature. The courts were used to enforce existing laws, not to create new laws or rights. And with that long political struggle, came closure. Race is still an issue in this country, but as a country we have come to the conclusion that racism is wrong and we are moving forward.

                  Brown vs. Board of Education was not enforcing an existing law. And as demonstrated by some Buck supporters, it was an unfair decision. What is your view on Brown vs. Board of Education?

                  1. That is part of why it was strongly supported 9-0 by the court. My point in the above quote (nice to know you’re such a fan you save all my quotes) was that the civil rights struggle was fought in the legislatures with the courts then enforcing those laws.

    4. On your blog, the closest you come to endorsing a Majority Leader is the claim that the economy was better in the 90s because we had a Republican House/Senate and a Democratic President.

      You can understand why any intelligent person would see this as a mixed message from you.

      And yes, as everyone else said, your view of Buck’s abortion position is moronic. The point of having an extremely conservative Supreme Court and an extremely conservative Senate is that the Senate will pass something that repeals Roe v. Wade, then it will be challenged in Court, then the Court will overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court can’t do anything until extreme right-wingers make a case necessary.

      This is the anti-abortion plan. They’re very open about it. You’d have to be a complete fucking idiot to not notice.

  11. Cheerleading and voting for Nader over Gore is one of my life’s regrets. I did this when I was young, “pure” and politically lazy.

    Sure Bennet is somewhat of a corporate whore, but I don’t think there are many Senators who aren’t. I supported Romanoff, but the thought of Buck representing me is depressing. I live on the western slope and get my daily fill of the crazy tea party. I plan on voting for the imperfect Bennet and being all up in his business when necessary. If he is absolutely terrible I will support a primary challenge.    

  12. A politician can be many things, but must always be consistent.  You can be as wacky as Schultheis or Lundberg and survive quite nicely – as long as you are predictable.  You can be a weeping neurotic liberal (too many to list), but must always be consistent.

    People need predictablility, politicians who thing that they have found Jesus and have been transformed cannot be trusted by anyone.

    Bennet would have been better saying nothing at this point and if asked defering until he saw an actual proposal.  Jumping out as he did against the White House was really, really stupid.  He loses on both sides of the spectrum plus he took himself out of being a player on the next round of activity.

    It is now my considered opinion that the man can never succeed as a public official.  He has no center, and no overarching value system.  He can elected because that is marketing.  He just can never be taken seriously – he will always flake.

    Looks like I am not casting a vote in that race.

  13. I don’t have the specific numbers but even someone like Joe Lieberman voted overwhelmingly with the Democratic caucus so I have no doubt Bennett will too. Buck would vote overwhelmingly with the Republican caucus. What the two individuals think is pretty irrelevant. Either you do what helps the Democrats hold the seat (vote Bennett) or you do what helps the Republicans gain the seat (vote Buck, vote someone else other than Bennett, don’t vote). But rest assured, anything other than a vote for Bennett is a vote for Buck and the Republican party policies. Don’t try to convince yourself that you are somehow being principled by not voting for Bennett.

    1. You vote to retain control of the Senate or you chose to let Republicans waste the countries time with the equivalent of the Clinton impeachment proceedings that will go on for years.  They have already said that if they regain the majority status they will spend their time launching as many investigations as they can.  They will also ignore or do nothing about critical issues like climate change and be even bigger corporate whores who extend the tax cuts for the wealthy.  Your choice vote to retain control of the Senate or vote for continuous investigations.

      1. after an eloquent post from Barron X about Tancredo picking up the guidon )(regimental standard) of the fight for freedom:

         

        I don’t know who Guidon is.  Nor do I care.

        BJWilson83

          Ahh, Beej, you whole life is a sig line!

    2. Assumption: President is the leader of his party.

      Assumption: the economy, and specifically unemployment, is the leading issue hurting Democrats in 2010.

      News: President proposes new stimulus for infrastructure.

      Newer news: Bennet announces he will oppose President’s proposal, aired at the start of the serious campaign season (post Labor Day).

      Ergo: a dilemma. Bennet is a sorta, sometime, “Democrat,” sometimes a kinda, sorta Republican, but always an opportunist standing behind One Big Idea: “I Like Mike.”

      Solution: Move to Wisconsin–quick!–and vote for Feingold! You can always move back.

      There, I knew there was a solution to this dilemma. Anyone wanna share a U-Haul?

      1. Multiple economists have said that it is too little but it looks like another fat give away like the Banking Bailout which really pissed off people last year.

        Bennet is trying to win a tough election in a year when voters are sour on more give aways.  

        It makes sense to me for Bennet to back away from another underfunded half hearted solution, keep the 527’s from hammering him on the economy, win the seat and continue to work with the president to develop meaningful policies that have a realistic chance of working.

        1. “continue to work… develop meaningful policies … chance of working.”

          Continue from whence? Working on what policies? Working to do what?

          Doesn’t Bennet’s opposition to the infrastructure proposal, under-funded as it may well be (not that I believe for a nano-second that “underfunded” was the reason Bennet objected–do you?), add to the notion that “government cannot/should not do anything besides cut taxes” to stimulate demand?

          Doesn’t Bennet’s announced opposition, before the proposal even had some flesh on its bones, contribute to the sense among some that Obama’s presidency has failed, that he cannot accomplish anything?

          And last, do you really think Bennet’s announcement will cause some fence-sitters to come on over? IF Bennet made his announcement to appeal to right-leaning disenchanted Republicans, should left-leaning Democrats assume they are chopped liver?

  14. Though I supported Romanoff, I had been warming to Michael Bennet since the primary.  But his approach to this issue has me feeling the same struggle you write of so eloquently.  I could handle him taking a “fiscal responsibility” approach, though in the current economy I think we need to worry more about getting people back to work than about the deficit.  But playing deficit hawk on infrastructure spending while supporting business tax breaks doesn’t fly and reminds me of those arguments that he would serve the corporate interests that financed his campaign.  At the end of the day, though, I plan to vote Bennet for a few main reasons – see if any work for you.  

    First:  advise & consent – Bennet will support confirmation of Supreme Court justices that are more progressive than would Buck – and as we are learning the hard way with the Roberts Court that makes a huge difference for many years.  

    Second:  imagine Majority Leader McConnell – if the GOP takes the House or Senate, the BS they put us through over Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s will pale by comparison to how they try to kill the Obama presidency.  If Bennet is the possible “swing” seat for control of the Senate, that’s a big deal.  

    Third – he will be more persuadable by progressives (and by the President and party leadership who at least sometimes push for progressive goals).  With the right pressure points we can hope to swing a Sen. Bennet on key issues; we’d have near-zero influence on a Sen. Buck.

    Fourth and finally – he will be better on some of the issues.  While Bennet isn’t a labor champion, he won’t be as hostile as Buck would be.  On the environment, Bennet will be much better (thanks in part to the good advice he’ll get from his wife Susan).  Bennet will be more likely to support comprehensive immigration reform.  On issues like stimulus and taxes, Bennet may be reducing the differences between himself and Buck – but there still are major differences in the policies they’d support.

    I wish Bennet were a better progressive candidate, but he is the best choice we’ve got this November.

    1. I’m still deciding what to do too, but you have helped sway me with your thoughtful reasoning.  I’d like to believe all that is true, and if I can decide to believe that it is by November, I may actually vote for him.  We’ll see.  

  15. Democracy is about choices. Voters have choices as do candidates. That’s probably why ballots look much more like menus than bibles. We are all free to choose based on our political appetites combined with our best best judgement. Given that we should not hold our candidates to uphold any rigid dogma, any more than they should expect us to, once they are elected. Our system is built on that principle, or at least should be. Senator Bennet has made enough very good political choices that most Democrats and Independents would choose also. That’s quite enough for me to give him a seat at the table.

  16. Unless you describe all elections thus when you have no strong affinity for one candidate or one side of an issue.

    It my experience it is atypical to find a candidate I am drawn to support.  Just as often I want to vote against someone else.

    Can you get behind voting against Buck?

    In my experience it has also been uncommon to have a candidate who agrees with my view on everything or even most things.  They agree with me on some things and more to the point, more than the other guy.

    Which candidate agrees with you more?

    Do you want to have an issues debate?  Most people don’t – but if you do, I’m happy to engage.

    I agree with the pragmatic points others have made about Senate leadership, SCOTUS and other appointments.  

    Are  you a single issue voter?

    I do not agree with your assessment of Bennet’s approach to the public option.  But is there another candidate in this race who would support a public option?  

    Neither do I agree with your assessment of Bennet’s support of the President.  But is there another candidate who would support the president more consistently?

    I also do not agree with you that “… Bennet believing the Sen. Bennet is assuming that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is going to vote for him no matter what because they really don’t have any other choice.”

    He is a moderate.  He is not a Dennis Kucinich progressive.  He’s not as far left as you, (and JO, SK2, oldben, Sharon Hanson, JeffcoTrueBlue, protest in the street and others) would prefer.  I assure you he does not take your vote for granted – but he’s not the kind of candidate who will pander to you now and pretend he is  a far left progressive (whatever that is)  just to get your vote.

    He is what he is. I’m lucky in this election – I like him. And if I was a Senator I think I would think like he does.  ANd I wish more candidates would be as honest and forthright about who they are.  But you perhaps have a more difficult choice.

      1. from a long long time ago.

        So take heed, Senators Udall and Bennet.  It’s time for you, in the vernacular of the sports world, to “step up.”  I truly believe that the next couple of months will decide your political destinies.  I want to puke at the notion of saying, “Senator Norton” or “Senator Buck” but I would rather have a Republican in that seat and know who I am dealing with than someone who calls himself a Democrat but doesn’t act or vote like one.

  17. 1.  Vote for Bennet because you like him better than Buck.

    2.  Vote for Buck because you like him better than Bennet.

    3.  Let somebody else decide because you don’t care whether Bennet or Buck wins.

    Any choice other than (1) or (2), whether you do it with a write in vote, an undervote, not bothering to cast a ballot at all, or voting for a third party candidate in this race, are all morally identical to (3) given the facts as they are.  

    Also, in a world of secret ballots, any symbolic actions you take in carrying out option (3) fall on deaf ears.  Your symbolic acts are trees falling in the forest that nobody hears.

    If you honestly don’t care, then more power to you.  Take option three and be as symbolic as you like.  But, given your post, and the candidate you supported before, I don’t really believe that you don’t care, and if you do care, option (3) is dishonest.  

    Only you know your own heart, and ultimately, it is your choice to make.  Best of luck.

  18. is to withhold active support from a candidate you don’t like (don’t contribute, don’t knock on doors, don’t call voters) but still obviously vote for the Democrat over the Republican.

    Your vote doesn’t mean you love the candidate, or even like the candidate, or even that you don’t hate the candidate. It’s for keeping the worst assholes out of office.

    Maybe it won’t affect you personally if Buck votes to eliminate abortion, because you’re not a woman. Maybe it won’t affect you personally if Buck votes to go to war, because you’re not draftable. Maybe it won’t affect you personally if Buck votes to privatize Social Security, because you’re not old enough.

    But it will affect lots of people. And as a progressive, you owe other people something. Preening like David Thielen may make you feel important, and that’s nice once in a while, but your vote ultimately is a sacrifice you make for the greater good, even if it makes you feel icky.

    Where you really matter is in the actions you take above and beyond voting. Democracy is really much more than just filling in the box and mailing back the form. Campaign for the candidates you love, but vote for the ones who are going to make life less awful for the people who are struggling. And that means voting for Democrats.

    Threatening to write in someone else or leave the ballot blank is the ego-stroking of the elite for whom politics is all a game and nothing really matters, and I have no fucking patience for it. Grow some stones, hold your nose, and do what you have to in order to keep things from sucking.

    And I say this as someone who is just as pissed at Bennet, who voted for Romanoff in the primary, and who in his youth worked on the Nader campaign. I’m voting for Bennet.

    1. Surely voters and candidates will realize that Buck’s victory was in part because important voters wanted a candidate even further left than Bennet. And so they sent a message that Buck is better than Bennet because we couldn’t elect Bernie Sanders in Colorado.

  19. We can’t forget that it took a long time and a lot of work and compromise to tug the political ox of Colorado politics to where we have it now. To me it seems unreasonable  expect that we can elect a Kucinich type progressive to the senate in the current state of the state. We have a LOT more groundwork to do as dems and progressives. Maybe it could happen in 2022.

    The worst thing to do now is to get impatient, self-righteous and greedy and hand over a senate seat to the repubs. It would take far more work to make up that lost ground than to make sure Bennet doesn’t stray to far from center.  

  20. but I will vote for Bennet, and I may send him a few bucks.

    I think the best thing to do after that is to work on amending the Colorado constitution to provide for instant runoff voting for all elections at every level, including federal, state, county, and local offices. That’s the only way I can see that we’ll ever have an opportunity to express our true opinion of the candidates without feeling like we’ve “wasted” our vote.

    1. Just get a law passed.  And I’d leave the choice up to county and local officials as to whether they use IRV or some other ranked choice voting system, so long as it meets certain minimum criteria.  There are some races that would do better with systems other than IRV; one of the Condorcet methods, for example, is good for multiple-choice elections like school boards and city councils where IRV doesn’t work so well.

      1. gets much more clarity than A or B votes when there are more then two options and can get much better results in actually decoding the “will of the people”.

        1. Weighted multiple voting is skewed in favor of extremist voters who are willing to vote 100% for their own candidate and 0% for all others.

          In a world with voters willing to honestly rate each candidate (and by this I mean, not many 100%s and not many 0%s), weighted multiple voting is good.  The two more realistic scenarios are not so good.  The next best outcome with weighted voting systems is to devolve it into the current plurality voting system – everyone votes 100% or 0% on all candidates because someone else is doing the same, and this is the only effective counter to such a strategy.  The worst outcome is that one side votes “extremist” – 100% or 0% – and the other side (your side, since you are willing to express your dislike of your party candidates) votes less than 100% for their own candidate and more than 0% for the other candidates.

          In the end, ranked voting systems prove more reliable in elections because weighted voting systems can be skewed too easily.

          1. shows some of my blind spots and hidden naivete. I never put the thought into it that others might rig the system by voting 100% for one candidate to disproportionately weight to that candidate.

            But I think I may be mis-using the term and maybe I mean ranked voting? So my first choice gets say five points, my second gets three and my third gets one. If anyone only votes for one choice, they deny others any points to be sure, but then they also deny themselves the potential of getting their second best choice and avoiding their worst choice. This seems to have the advantages of binary voting with the addition of getting a ranking of who we really do and more importantly DON’T want elected.

            1. A system that assigns multiple points to the top and no points to the bottom, regardless of whether you voted 1,2,3 and had the results assigned as 5, 3, 1 or voted 100, 20, 10 and had those numbers assigned “raw” is subject to the same basic abuse, though perhaps to a lesser extent.  (What you describe is called the “Borda count” system, BTW.)

              To be clear, there is no perfect voting system.  No system can meet all of the criteria considered desirable for all voting situations.  Some systems do not always elect a candidate who has a majority of voters’ support (including pretty much all weighted systems); some can downgrade the voter’s top preference for a candidate if they vote for other candidates on the ballot; others have problems if two or more similar candidates are on the ballot.

              The goal in choosing a voting system is to choose one that is acceptable to voters and is an improvement on the current system – preferably the best system you can get the voters to understand.  IRV is popular because it is easy to understand and in most cases elects the voters’ choice.  It is also perhaps preferable if we wish to maintain the possibility of electing a wider range (on the political spectrum) of candidates.  A Condorcet method like Ranked Pairs is preferable if we wish to elect “less objectionable” candidates – i.e. more moderate candidates that are acceptable to a broader range of voters.

  21. Vote for Michael Bennet, with whom I only agree 93 percent of the time, or for Genghis Buck, the best mind of the 19th Century, dedicated to keeping women barefoot and pregnant, kicking student loans back to the private sector (at huge rate increases, with all risk underwritten by the taxpayer and all profit going to the big banks) privatizing Social Security and taking 500,000 Coloradans off of health insurance.

      What to do, what to do…?

    1. I have been a lifelong Dem and I have worked a lot of campaigns, called a lot of people, walked precincts, and given a lot of money and time to Democratic causes and candidates.

      The sole problem I have with Bennet is all the money he has taken from major corporations.  I feel as if I am a dupe if I support him.  I hate the disproportionate influence corporations have over our government, and the power they lord over us as people.  It sickens me that my vote for Bennet may just further this broken system.

      I don’t want to see Ken Buck as our next Senator. The man is a wolf in sheeps’ clothing.

      I think purity tests are obnoxious, and I vote for those I agree with most of the time, but certainly not all the time.

      I didn’t campaign for Romanoff or support him beyond voting for him.  I certainly had no problem dealing with it when he lost.

      It’s just a tough pill to swallow with Michael Bennet.  That is as best I can explain it.

      I will not vote none of the above or any other sort of cute crap like that.  It is too important to me.

      But I hate it.  I really wish we had a better candidate, but we don’t.  It bothers the shit out of me.

      (rant over)

      1. between Humphrey and Nixon.  I hated the war and blamed it (rightly) on Johnson.  I swore I’d write in a peace candidate (Dr. spock, not to be confused with the vulcan guy.)

         But in the final days of the campaign — which I watched from basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri — HHH began to move.  In the end, I voted for him, over Nixon.  We would have had a far better country if Humphrey won.

          Take your time getting there.  But Michael Bennet is a very good man, corporate contributions notwithstanding.  In the end, I think you’ll not only vote for him but, years from now, be glad that you did, as I now am glad I voted for Humphrey.

        1. Maybe Bennet could prove me wrong, who knows.  Guess I have to give him the chance to do so first.

          And SXP below is right, he isn’t the only Dem taking money in from the big guns. I’m not naive about the system, I just hope it will get better some day.

          And, MOST IMPORTANTLY, your response goes a hell of long way further in convincing someone to vote for Bennet other than calling them a butt hurt purist !

          Have a great weekend.

          1. Thank GOD we don’t have Baucus to fret about how much HE takes from the insurance and pharmaceuticals…HE is the MAIN reason we have NO Single Payer of Public Option…

            I won’t address Bennet’s role with the P O…we all know why he did what he did…

            But I too despise the amount of money that was shoveled to Bennet by Out of State Corps the minute he took his seat in the Senate.  That amount of money actually sickens me to think that our elections are purchased…and I now understand the feeling of “my vote doesn’t count.”  

            Its true there are several other older Senators who have been on the take for years, but still are re-elected…

            It just isn’t fair…that’s all…

      2. So did Obama, and so do lots of otherwise progressive Senators.

        I understand not being happy with Bennet, but I don’t really get this complaint. Even Paul Wellstone took money from Goldman Sachs. What seems more important is how they end up voting.

  22. I don’t really know Bennet and stayed neutral in the primary.  I do know Andrew however and through his deeds (not words) know he is a moderate who worked hard to be seen as “business friendly” while Speaker.  I still find it amazing he convinced so may people he would vote as a liberal voice.  From what I have seen, I truly believe their votes would have been significantly the same. I am completely disgusted that the US Senate cannot pass a decent energy bill but voting for Bennet is not a tough choice for me.  The alternatives are far far worse and the stakes are too high.

  23. If you’re not happy with the direction of the party or a position, I would urge you to get directly involved in a party.  More than working on campaigns, get involved.  Become precinct captain or get involved in a leadership position.  Don’t assume that your opinion doesn’t matter, sometimes it will take years to sway a majority over to you.  Our county organization had committees several years ago.  They were issues committees and it was a great way to get and keep people involved.  They can also be shadow committees (a county clerk party would follow the actions of the county clerk and formulate better positions, budgets, etc.).  You can probably identify some like-minded people who will work with you on an issue.  If you’re not happy with the direction this is how to change it.  But, please, vote.  Voting is your duty as a citizen of a democratic republic.  Don’t complain how anyone else is irresponsible if you can’t even vote.

    1. …is that party officials and committees are primarily there to instruct newcomers on how to genuflect upon the appearance of the Elected Official, whatever he/she may have to say or however he/she may vote. If you have a ticket to a party meeting where Michael Bennet will be challenged for his statement on the infrastructure stimulus, (a) lock it in a safe place; and (b) put it up for bid on Ebay, ’cause it’ll be a one-time occasion.

      Do you seriously believe that delegates to, say, county conventions have actually read the party platform, fuggedabout the hours and sincere thought that went into them? And that elected reps and sens are referring to those platforms when they’re on the floor of whatever legislative body wheeling and dealing?

      Good theory, and I am also a believer in the theory of parties. But for a whole set of reasons, parties in this country have been ushered out the back door and into the recycling bin (organic fertilizer), replaced by (a) television advertising paid for by (b) cash contributions, all welcome. Parties can’ really deliver the votes anymore; TV can. Maybe we should revert to voting in pubs, free beer for those who have filled out their ballot under watchful eyes.

      1. Do you seriously believe that county party officials were nominated by God?  They owe their position to a majority of Dems.

        The individual cannot make the party follow one’s will.  If you represent the majority, the majority will follow good leadership that it agrees with.  There is more to politics than issue positions.  People of like minds in any organization can change that organization.  If one person can do it, but that requires proportionally more time, effort, and persistence.

          1. some cogent points on the decline of the power of party bosses to deliver votes as in the old days and of the Party in general and the rise of other means of getting to voters.

            You may disagree with them (as I know you do…) but there were reasonable and fairly well reasoned.

          2. “I can’t help responding to JO even though I’d have you believe I didn’t read what s/he wrote.” Not so easy, given the layout of the site! (“Ooops, careful there, gotta read the by-line before I read the contents–even if the headline contains my name!”)

            Do I detect a bit of a North Joisey accent in this thought?

            You do raise another version of the old “does a tree falling in an empty forest make a noise” question, viz.: “If the target of an insult [like this one] doesn’t hear/read the insult, was it an insult?” I’ll go with ‘no,’ and feel free….

          3. “I can’t help responding to JO even though I’d have you believe I didn’t read what s/he wrote.” Not so easy, given the layout of the site! (“Ooops, careful there, gotta read the by-line before I read the contents–even if the headline contains my name!”)

            Do I detect a bit of a North Joisey accent in this thought?

            You do raise another version of the old “does a tree falling in an empty forest make a noise” question, viz.: “If the target of an insult [like this one] doesn’t hear/read the insult, was it an insult?” I’ll go with ‘no,’ and feel free….

      2. Maybe your party experience is from some other state.  In this state, our party nominated Andrew Romanoff, and part of that nomination process was challenging Bennet’s positions.

        In my time as Chair of a county party committee, we voted on several official “letters” to then-Congressman Mark Udall, expressing our discontent with his decisions.

        And, contrary to your statement, it is at county conventions that platform planks get the most scrutiny.  At the state level it varies, but my experience has been that there is a core group of state convention goers that also are very involved in platform issues (and I’ve seen several planks added that the state platform committee was less than happy to see added…)  Whether or not individual elected officials adhere to that platform or not is up to them by party rules, but since a representative sample of the party did vote for that platform…

        Finally, the party may not be able to deliver the votes, but a disheartened party is certainly sufficient to not deliver the votes.  The lack of party enthusiasm is a good part of the reason why Democrats across the country are going to be facing hard re-election campaigns this year.

        1. “In this state, our party nominated Andrew Romanoff…”

          Hmmm, I thought Michael Bennet was the Democratic Party’s nominee, despite the fact that Romanoff got a majority of votes at the party’s state convention.

          OK, The People had their say. Not arguing that point (although a certain imbalance in advertising dollars delivered in The Townhouse in the Capital could help me argue the role of The Party in The Process), but The Party, to whatever extent the state convention represents The Party, was overruled. AND, as we have just seen, The Nominee feels quite free to ignore the President (aka as The Leader of The Party? Evidently not) on The Issue of The Election–economic recovery–presumably to take a stand he thinks will stand him in better stead among The People in The Election. Rather than try to persuade The People of the wisdom of The Leader of The Party, The Nominee chooses to adopt The Position of The Opposition, i.e. run as a Republican on The Issue.

          Pardon me for The Confusion.

          The End.

          1. are a tiny subset of The Party, not The Party.  It is appropriate that every Democrat be allowed to vote for the nominee, not a tiny subset that has an evening available for a caucus, a Saturday available for a county assembly, and another Saturday available for a State assembly with maybe an overnight or two if they live a ways away.  Candidates do need to meet a threshold at the assembly to be on the ballot, so it does have the purpose of keeping a candidate with few votes off of the ballot.

            1. My point was that the primary opens the contest to a third group: contributors, including, in Mr. Bennet’s case, various corporate entities and a fair number of individuals with home addresses on the Upper East Side. Their contributions open the gates to the influence of advertising which, as I opined elsewhere, has largely replaced a main function of parties in days  of yore, viz., GOTV.  

              1. I pointed out that Romanoff was going to run without PAC money and asked if they were going to give the maximum to his campaign.  They were all silent, and these are people who do better than most financially.  The point is that someone needed to step up with the money, and it wouldn’t have taken a huge number of people to step up with their maximum donation.  

          2. You were griping about the party process, so I informed you what the party process really does here in Colorado – it put Romanoff at the top of the Dem primary ballot as its preferred nominee among other things you apparently thought it didn’t do.

            The party membership at-large defeated Romanoff, not the party bosses you seem interested in piling on.

            1. Would you kindly correct my test answer, which I know to be filled with erroneous assumptions & thoughts:

              “Party officials, e.g. Pat Waak, county chairs, are obliged to be neutral in primary elections. In 2010 many of the most senior elected officials, e.g. federal office holders, endorsed Bennet; some state office holders, e.g. state reps & county officials, endorsed Romanoff.

              “A third leg, “party activists” (defined as: people who turn out for precinct caucuses, county assemblies, state assembly) voted for Romanoff by increasing margins at three levels, but under state law, Bennet got eough votes each time to stay on the ballot and force a primary, which he won convincingly.”

              So, professor, my question is: ‘What role did The Party play, and when did it play it?’ When caucuses and assemblies vote one way and the primary goes the other way, what role do these party meetings play in choosing a candidate? OR, was the choice in face a function of advertising, which in turn is a function of contributions from whomever is willing to fork over dough? You can see how I am wandering (and wondering as I wander) into the belief that monied interests, some local, some not-so-local, were able, and in fact did, buy the nomination by financing advertising.

              Water under the bridge, no doubt, and we should feel obliged to support whomever acquired the nomination, regardless of his positions on the key issue facing the country. Money talks, and everyone else walks (behind).

              1. Again, I was just responding to your gripe about the party “machine”.  I don’t have a single disagreement with you that money certainly helped get Bennet in, and I highly disagree with Obama’s choice of using OFA to support Bennet.  (In fact, I highly disapprove of the use of OFA as a de-facto replacement for the DNC at all; it smacks of a personal takeover of the party…)

                However, elected representatives at all levels are free to endorse at will; there is nothing in the party rules to prevent that.  Only party officials are supposed to remain neutral.

                If I were king (or at least in charge of changes I’d like to see to the current system), I’d want full public financing of elections as a Constitutional Amendment, with some kind of appropriate restriction in outside expenditures and a mandated shortened campaign season.  Since I’m not, I have to work with what we have until we get something better.

                1. over exactly this. It should have kept its nose out of our primary process until we Coloradans decided who we wanted. I think maybe we need to stop allowing people from outside states interfere in local and state political issues that have minimal at best impact on them. Just thinking out loud. Tell me why this is wrong…

                  1. There’s too much of the attitude that it’s my party and not yours.  I’ve tried to get involved, and people have actually come along and tried to push me out of the way (I resigned from a position, because my opinion was not welcome, and there was an attempt to shut me out.)  

                    In contrast, my local OFA rep lives a few miles away, and I first met her on a campaign in 2006.  The OFA people are from the local Colorado neighborhoods, not from outside the state.  In my area, it’s a more productive group than the local house districts.  I see a real need for OFA, and so did the Obama campaign, which is why they originally set it up.

                    Whether you like one or the other is a viewpoint, an opinion, and personal experience.  

                    1. I think that a party’s internecine politics can get pretty rough most times. it seems that a lot of people who tend to get involved in that kind of an organization tend ot be a little opinionated and driven. They want their agenda to sway the day, not yours. It can definitely get to the point of seeming exclusionary and off-putting.

                      This is excellent feedback Bud. have you ever shared it with anyone above your precint or house district level? I think it might go a long way to help improve the party tpo hear things like this.

                    2. I came in to my local party at a time when it was a bit down, and was quickly accepted and got into a position within the party.  My experience is not universal; there are some party orgs that are so established that you essentially encounter “the machine”; apparently it’s really bad in some places, e.g. PA where you’ve got to go through all kinds of hoops to have even precinct level involvement.

                      And I remember working with OFA during the election – they were great, energetic people.  But with Obama’s win, OFA has now been semi-officially attached to the DNC.  They are now an organization of Democrats completely outside of the local party structure, tied pretty much directly to Obama and his organization.  That IMHO is not healthy for the party, having so much of its energy tied up in a personal org.

                    3. I can see why some might find the OFA a problem; but if it were disbanded, I feel that many of the people would just stop being involved rather than move their efforts to the local party, which they weren’t involved with previously.

                      I haven’t expressed my concerns about the local party up the ladder.  Knowing the people in charge at the moment, I’m not sure it would help.  It’s more likely I’d be seen as a troublemaker.  When you go to an event though, there’s many who have been around for 20 years or so, and not much new blood.

              2. That’s all it’s for.  Many of the people who go to the caucuses and assemblies are long-time party regulars who knew Romanoff personally. They also tend to be in the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The vast majority of people who voted in the primary did not know Romanoff personally and probably tend to be more moderate than the party activists.  They are probably more likely to vote for the incumbent.  

                If you did not know Romanoff personally, there was no way to tell from the campaign he ran what type of a person he was, although he was known to be a moderate and a compromiser when in the State House. I don’t see any big mystery here.

  24. If we want Honest elections we need to realize that the important issue here IS that Honest Primaries come first, rather than electing Bennet or not electing Buck.

    Obama, the DNC, the DSCC and OFA Stole our primary nomination.

    Presidents should not endorse until after the primary, period. And Obama did a lot more than endorse in “killing” Romanoff’s candidacy and crushing the hopes of Colorado’s grassroots for change.

    We would probably all be united behind Romanoff or Bennet

    if Obama had not endorsed Bennet until after the primary, If Obama had not caused millions to flow into Bennet’s coffers. If Obama had not used OFA to crush Romanoff.

    WRITING-IN “Romanoff” or leave the space “Blank” is a Protest Vote.

    I do not expect that Romanoff could win as a write in

    BUT I Do Know That a Large Write-In for him and/or a large “underVote”(leaving the space blank) will send a message to Obama and our State Dem Leaders Not To Try To Steal Our Primary Again.

    This is a vote to Stop The Corruption In Our Own Democratic Party.

    If we cannot be guaranteed honest primaries by our own Democratic Party Leaders, what is the point of bothering to vote in the general?

    It would save time from now on if Obama would just tell us whom we will have to accept as our Senators and Congressmen and just directly appoint them himself.

    1. Write-ins are not counted.  No protest there, unless you count shouting at your irror alone int he bathroom every morning.

      How is it that the President, OFA, DNC and DSCC had no impact on any other primary but in Colorado?  Could it be that the voters here just happened to agree?  Or is it your contention that the voters here are just stoopd?     I can go either way- plenty of evidence for both.

      1. Blanche Lincoln/Bill Halter in Arkansas, and they tried with the Specter/Sestak race in Penn. too, but it didn’t work out the way Obama/OFA/DNC/DSCC wanted.  That’s not the point of this thread, so I won’t start, but I could go on and on about how this “protect the incumbent at all costs, even if he/she sucks” mentality bothers me.  

        1. Yes, Obama DID too affect Lincoln in Ark.  The mentality of all those millions of dollars being spent on an election sickens me!  As does the incumbent sthick!

        1. in the political world.  Andrew got 46% of the vote.  If he were someone YOU supported, you would say he got almost 1/2 of the electorate.  Since he IS someone I support, I’ll say it.  He got almost 1/2 the vote in the entire state, and MORE than 1/2 in Denver.  I’m so sick of Bennet supporters saying that Bennet won by some kind of landslide.  He didn’t.  He barely won.  Especially when you consider the amount of money he spent as compared to Romanoff.  Bennet should actually be ashamed that his millions didn’t buy him a better victory.  

          1. 8 points is a squeker?

            Mr new-guy, never elected to anything in his life, virtually unknown to voters prior to this primary.?  That Bennet?

            Ok.

            Perhaps we should rewrite the CO D nominating procedure whereby 54% is only enough to win if the right guy wins, but if the guy with 46% has supporters that really, really know he would be better, then 46% can be enough to win.

            I like Andrew. I always have. As far as I can tell, he’s been right far more often than not and I’d be inclined to agree with him on most things, though I think he’s a smarter political mind than I by far so he might have to explain more to me than some.

            I also believe Bennet will be better than Buck.

  25. I’ve disliked Bennet since he was appointed.  I didn’t want him as our Senator then, and I don’t want him now.  He aligned himself with the Blue Dogs almost the second after he was sworn in.  He’s much too conservative for my tastes, and I can’t think of any prominent democrat in Colorado that I wouldn’t have rather voted for than him.  The fact that it was Romanoff who stepped up and ran against him was just a bonus, as I’ve long been a fan of Andrew’s.  However, Andrew didn’t win and now we are stuck with the quandry.  I really can’t stand Bennet, and honestly wouldn’t be one bit surprised if he pulled a Nighthorse-Campbell on us in a couple of years and became a republican.  It seems a natural progression for him.  

    As a general rule, I view my role as an active democrat to steer my party in the direction I think it should go – a direction that is better not just for me, but for the country as a whole.  Moving farther to the right is not the direction I have tried to lead the party.  I don’t think it’s what any of us true democrats have in mind for our party.  In a sense, my duties as a member of the “party faithful” can be equated to the duties of a parent.  If I had a child who I knew was drinking and I not only ignored that problem, but also went out and bought my child beer, then I am condoning his behavior, am I not?  The same is true for the party.  A parent’s job is to help their child to grow up to be a better person than the child would have been without the parents intervention and influence.  Well, it is also our jobs to help our party grow up to be a better “person” too.  If I vote for Bennet, am I not condoning my party’s move to the right?  Am I not, in a sense, “buying it a beer?”  I think so, and I think that is also how it will be viewed by the DNC, Bennet himself, and the media.  I can’t, in good conscience, do that.  That is, to me, shirking my responsibilities as a member of the party.  

    On the other hand, there is one reason, and one only in my opinion, to cast my vote for Bennet.  If Buck wins it will be viewed by the media, and therefore by the public, as a rejection of democrats and democratic policies.  It won’t be viewed as I view it – as a rejection of right-wing conservadems.  Nope, it will go out across the airwaves as, “America hates democrats and their liberal policies such as health care reform.”  Sad, but true.  That is the only reason I see to vote Bennet, but it is a BIG one.  It is the one that keeps me up at night.  

    So, do I leave my conscience and my “duties” as a democrat at the door and vote for Bennet just to keep the media from bashing Democrats?  I honestly still don’t know.  So, in conclusion, MadMike, I’m no help at all because I haven’t decided yet either.  Thankfully, I have another 6 weeks or so to decide what I think is the right thing to do.  I look forward to hearing what you decide in the end too.  

    1. and your child is driving on one too many beers, do you tell him to get out of the driver’s seat and let the guy slugging down vodka by the bottle drive instead?

      Do you correct your child, who has just said a bad word, by telling him to go stand in the corner so that the kid previously in the corner for beating up on half the class can be your surrogate child instead?

      This isn’t about the media bashing Democrats, and now, when we’ve just managed to reclaim some semblance of control of Congress back from corporate wastrel Republicans, is not the time to be the party purist that kicks out sitting Senators in favor of opposition party Senators just to prove a point.

      1. It’s not about the media bashing democrats, it’s about the fallout of that bashing.  Leading the American public to believe that we have rejected democrats and their policies is the problem.  Americans are sheep, unfortunately to a large degree, and if they hear the faces on the news saying that “America hates democrats”, then they will too.  I’m not afraid of a little name calling – it’s bigger than that.  That’s why it is the one reason I have.

        I like your analogy of letting the guy drinking vodka drive instead – that’s a good one.  

        1. If’s never fun to lose a vote.  Anger at everyone has to be there.  Just know that other Dems who voted for Bennet have been there, too.  At some point, we all have to rebuild our belief in others.  This can take a long time, longer than the time until the election.  I think AR has already realized that he would prefer to see Bennet elected than Buck.  I can see his point of view.

          1. but I’ve been doing it most of my voting life.  I was a Kucinich and Mike Miles delegate back in ’04 after all!  🙂  I hardly ever back a winner, it seems, so I guess I’m used to it.  True, this one hurts more than most because I really had hope this time, but I’ll get over it.  Thanks for the condolences dmindgo.  I know Andrew has asked us supporters to vote for Bennet and not let the seat go Republican, so it’s true that is one more reason to do it.  I do things I don’t like doing for the people I love all the time, maybe I can do this for Andrew.  Hopefully I will be able to see that it is the best thing for the entire country before voting time comes around though.  A vote isn’t quite like one’s virginity – you don’t give it away just because one person asked you to, no matter how much you like the guy!  🙂

        2. Americans ARE sheep…did any of you watch the interviews with all the people who ‘flocked’ to DC to see Beck?  

          NONE of them could give an intelligent explanation of WHY they were there…they would utter a phrase, one they no doubt heard on Faux, and inevitably they could not back it up…after being asked 2-3 times for an explanation…they only repeated the same phrase, over and over…

          And look at the nonsense with the crazy ‘pastor’ in Florida?  The entire WORLD was watching this man…much like our infamous “Balloon Boy” fiasco…

          How do we reach those sheep, get their attention, and help them to listen, read, learn about the things they profess to believe in…

          I have never liked Bennet either…I did not trust the way he was suddenly appointed…he appeared out of nowhere…and I am in that same quandry…but reading these posts has given me food for thought…now if only we could get all the sheeple to read and learn like we have…I’ve learned, but I still do not like Bennet…that’s a fact no one can change.

          And by the way, the Balloon People have moved to Florida!

  26. It appears that this post has stirred a lot of passionate thought on the part of a many people.  I think that’s great.  It makes us all a little bit smarter.  I, too, am going to wait and watch what transpires over the next six weeks.  Lots can happen in that time, and I don’t plan on voting early.  I want to observe what goes on right up to election day.  For example, I’ll be interested to see if Bennet gets behind the latest conservadem push to extend the Bush tax cuts.  If he does, I think he’ll be cutting his own throat since he opposes the new stimulus on the premise that it increases the deficit.  Can he then turn around and show his hypocrisy by supporting the tax cut extension?  We’ll see.  Thanks to all of you who offered helpful comments.  It’s a tough decision.  I’ll be back with another post once I decide what I’m going to do and why.

    1. If you want Buck as your next senator, don’t vote for Bennet. Undervote, write-in, vote Green, whatever turns your crank.

      You’ll have the satisfaction, however, of helping to elect Buck, if he’s the winner.

      If Bennet wins, you can smugly say you didn’t vote for him.

      Vote for whoever you believe would do best for the country, not for you and your interests.

      As voters, I think we tend to forget that our vote should go toward what’s best for the country instead of what’s in it for me.

      If you believe Bennet would be better than Buck FOR THE COUNTRY, vote for him. If you believe Buck would be better, then vote for him.

      But please, quit whining about your alleged quandry. It really is tiresome.

        1. In response to a fake post about a “quandry” (sic)?

          madmike has decided- he made it cleat a year ago.

          Meanwhile, he posts his fake concern trolling as if.  Hooey.

          Gertiie is spot on.

          1. Okay, then, she’s not being mean.  I guess that must mean she’s being dumb?  I’m trying to be nice here, but, come on.  Telling someone they are “a self-centered little creature” for bringing up legitimate concerns about our Senator isn’t mean?  Complaining about his “tiresome” whining when nobody is forcing her to be here reading it isn’t mean?  If you’re tired of it, and you think it’s whiny, leave.  There are billions of things to read on the internet. I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand complaining about someone here when you can just go elsewhere.  You all obviously know each other and each others positions, but I’m new here (I’ve read but never commented before today) and I don’t see why you would even read what madmike writes if you already know you disagree with him and think he’s a whiner.  Again, just my opinion.  

            I, for one, am going to go do something else for a while.  Have a nice weekend everyone!  

            1. I know hardly anyone here. And hardly any of them know me.

              They aren’t legitimate concerns for madmike- he already decided more than a year ago.

              As for her taking the time to comment – that’s what CoPols is all about.

              1. so you’re calling madmike a liar because a year ago he supported Romanoff? Wait, Romanoff wasn’t even running yet a year ago, so that wasn’t it. It must be something else. ‘

                And of course the fact that mere mortals do sometimes even change over the course of a year doesn’t compute with you even if he held a strong view then. No, his diary must be pure bullshit despite how reasonable he seem when sharing his dilemma.

                1. His tone is reasonable, I said that too.

                  But it’s disingenuous.  It’s a good rhetorical tool, and it’s not even bad prose.  But when I clicked on his name to read his prior posts and I found this one from Sep 09.

                  http://coloradopols.com/diary/

                  So take heed, Senators Udall and Bennet.  It’s time for you, in the vernacular of the sports world, to “step up.”  I truly believe that the next couple of months will decide your political destinies.  I want to puke at the notion of saying, “Senator Norton” or “Senator Buck” but I would rather have a Republican in that seat and know who I am dealing with than someone who calls himself a Democrat but doesn’t act or vote like one.

                  madmike’s words, not mine.  Perhaps I”m reading too much into it, though he has not denied it.   Perhaps in the intervening 12 months he did change on this score. Though he hasn’t said that.

                  I didn’t say it was bullshit- that’s your word.   I acknowledged that the concerns raised in his diary are  real and legitimate.  They are just not new concerns for madmike.  He was quite clear on that a year ago.

                  1. madmike says he’s in a quandary. It’s the title of his diary.

                    you said :

                    They aren’t legitimate concerns for madmike- he already decided more than a year ago.

                    That is tantamount to calling him a liar. You disputed his claim to actually be in a quandary today based on something he posted about a year ago.

                    So you didn’t directly use the word “liar” or “bullshit”, but you challenge his concerns, and concerns that are shared by not a small numbers of readers and posters here on CP.

                    Now you may disagree with him and everyone else who shares these concerns, but that does not give you the right to impugn his or their character because you can’t believe he or they might actually in truth be in a quandary over Michael Bennet and his conservative leanings.

                    1. I said they were legitimate concerns.

                      I just don;t think they are his concerns.  I could be wrong- believe it or not it’s happened before.

                      I would point out that he didn’t deny – preferring instead to  call me a name.

                      But let’s assume for the moment I have it wrong.  That while a year ago madmike was frustrated with the perceived lack of leftiness or progressiveness  of Senators Udall & Bennet.  Somehow that frustration mitigated, but then came back so strong madmike now finds himself in a quandry.  Ok.  Doesn’t sound as likely to me, but he raises legitimate concerns.

                    2. you said they AREN’T legitimate concerns. You’re changing your quote (I copied/pasted it above) to make it sound better for you.

              2. Therefore, you all know each other.  Maybe you don’t know his real name and he doesn’t know yours, and maybe you’ve never been to each others houses, but that’s not what matters here. You know each other in this context.    

                1. I don’t know you.

                  But- I left click on your user name, and open slc’s page in another browser.

                  Now what do I find out:

                  – you created this user name on Sep 10 2010

                  – you have posted  10 comments all in one diary

                  – you have decided not to share an email

                  – you agree with madmike

                  It’s not that hard, but you’re new, so perhaps you didn’t know.

                  Now, what else do I think I find out about you?

                  – you were quick to judge gertie as mean

                  – you propagated the misspelling of quandary

                  – you were very quick to leap to the conclusion that “you all know each other”

                  – you feel you have been on the “losing” side in many elections

                  – Based on your support for Kucinich in the 08 POTUS primary I think you are fairly far left, and if you thought he could win you are politically unrealistic

                  I like Andrew. And I can understand that Colorado D’s were surprised by Bennet’s appointment.  If Andrew had won, I would have had no trouble getting behind him.  And I don’t care that Bennet was appointed.

                  A good friend use to say “It’s like driving in Rome- what’s in the rear view doesn’t matter.”  Right now the choice is Bennet or Buck.  Pretty clear choice to me.

                  1. You are right – because I’m new here I did not know about being able to click on someone’s name and see everything they ever posted.  I think you can see how I would have thought that you all are just on here so much that you already know each others stances on everything.  Now I understand.  You all DO seem to be on here a lot, but now I understand how you keep track of who’s who.  Thanks for the tip.

                    Now let me clarify some things for you that you DON’T already know, since you’ve taken such an interest in me:

                    – I did have to put in an e-mail address to open this account.  The fact that COPols doesn’t display it publicly is appreciated by me.  

                    – I agree that the middle part of gertie’s comment was fine, but if you don’t think the first and last lines of it were pretty snide and uncalled for, then your Momma didn’t raise you right.  

                    – Thanks for pointing out my one misspelling.  You did the same in a post just above here.  I think we can all be forgiven one here and there.

                    – I simply stated that I’m used to my candidates not winning.  I wasn’t complaining about it.  I tend to back underdogs and I know it.

                    – Yes, if you look me up on VAN, where it says Democrat for most people, next to my name it says “flaming liberal”.  🙂  I was a Kucinich delegate in ’04, not ’08 (in ’08 I was all about Obama) and no, I didn’t think he would win.  I backed him because he is the one I believed in the most.  Sure, in the end I voted for Kerry, but I am an idealistic democrat, NOT unrealistic.  I stated my position on what I think my duties are as a part of the party in my original comment.  

                    Thanks for taking such an interest in me.  I’m flattered.  (I’m also kidding – I know you’re not that interested but I like to get the facts straight.)  

                    1. Well then, let’s.

                      I know you had to provide an email to register here. I also know CoPols is serious about protecting our anonymity if we choose.

                      You shouldn’t be talkin’ about my momma.

                      I misspell frequently.  I wasn’t point it to be mean, or condescending, just to illustrate what I could notice about you  that might give another ananymous poster the mistaken impression that I know you.

                      I didn’t think you were complaining.

                      Idealistic vs. realistic: potato / potahto

    2. http://coloradopols.com/diary/

      You posted this comment, also posted above, Sep 2009.

      So take heed, Senators Udall and Bennet.  It’s time for you, in the vernacular of the sports world, to “step up.”  I truly believe that the next couple of months will decide your political destinies.  I want to puke at the notion of saying, “Senator Norton” or “Senator Buck” but I would rather have a Republican in that seat and know who I am dealing with than someone who calls himself a Democrat but doesn’t act or vote like one

      So- you think Bennet and Udall have not been progressive enough.  You thought so a year ago, and implied then you would not support either if they didn’t step up.

      Post all the updates you want, but it appears you have decided.

  27. As has been pointed out, the author made up his mind a year ago. The answer to this “quandry” isn’t complex. It doesn’t require angst-y soul searching. It simply requires asking yourself oft repeated questions:

    Would you rather have Senator Buck or Senator Bennet? Would you rather have Senate Majority Leader Reid or Senate Majority Leader McConnell?

    It’s just that simple. This is what your vote or non-vote means. There is no confusion or dilemma about this. Just answer the questions and let that be a guide.  

    1. Because I didn’t buy in to your bullshit premise?

      I gave you the best advice I could. I won’t apologize if you feel it wasn’t helpful.

      Through this whole diary, the only comments you seemed to find helpful or insightful are from others who agree with you. How very progressive…

      Those two questions are the only two that matter in this election, in my opinion.

      Good luck with your dilemma and I hope you cast your vote with those questions in mind. My time is better spent reading other diaries…

      1. and toss in a meaningless rant to attack the diarist. Hmmm, I’ve seen better from you EK.

        Oh, but I forgot, MADCO tossed the bomb first, you just jumped into the amen corner for him/her.

        1. Isn’t it strange, that only those who are positively FOR Bennet, can’t stand to hear any of the rest of us express our “quandry”?  And who is to say MadMike isn’t really in a quandry?  I know, I AM…and I doubt I will come here and tell anyone who I vote for or against.

          Sounds like Gertie needed her nap!

          1. Because for me the quandary itn’t “Bennett or Buck” — in a very practical sense, that’s a no branier.

            The quandary for folks like me — who quite honestly have a long time ago cast the last vote they are ever going to cast as an “against” vote, and now will only vote “for” someone they can feel proud to vote for — is “why Bennett?”

            For me, “he’s not as bad, or even nearly as bad, as Buck” isn’t enough to push that particular button.  (Charley Miller doesn’t appear to be as bad as Buck, but I’m not moved to make that selection either.)

            I’m not a protest voter, I’m not going to vote “Bennett” as a protest against Buck.  And, I’m not undecided about Bennet as a protest against Bennett.

        2. I was frustrated at the thought of progressives giving us 6 years of an uber-conservative like Buck because Bennet didn’t pass some purity test. I lashed out. Not one of my better moments.

          I do stand by my two questions we all must ask ourselves though.

          Progressives really need to ask themselves if they want to go down the path of the Tea Party and require all Democrats to live up to a purity standard. If the Dem doesn’t, will they throw the seat away and let the rest of the state suffer under Buck for 6 years? Progressives need to look beyond Colorado also. With Buck in the Senate seat for the next 6 years, he will be part of the larger Republican Party, voting right along with them for the next 6 years.

          He will have the benefit of incumbency and all that comes with it when it comes time to try to get a “real” progressive as a replacement for him in 6 years. If you can find a viable one in a moderate state like ours.

          There is no way to predict what the state of politics will be in 6 years. Will the progressive movement be stronger or weaker?  There may not be a supposed “anti-incumbancy wave” that is happening now. Buck will have the NRSC and the RNC on his side as well as all the special interest groups and corporations. Colorado could have slipped back to be less purple and more red.

          Anyone who thinks that 6 years isn’t very long and is willing to just grin and bear it, in order to “send a message” or “protest” needs to remember that Bush was only in office for 8 years.

          With all of this I get frustrated when I hear people talk about not voting or “protest” voting. It still doesn’t excuse my behavior. To anyone I offended, I apologize. I do hope you give serious thought to the ramifications your vote can have for our state. 6 years is a long time.

          1. I have come to appreciate in you EK. Thank you for this thoughtful post. And I basically agree with this line of reasoning too.

            I volunteered to get Gore elected in 2000. I walked blocks knocking on doors in my precinct and did a bit of phone banking. I know many who blame Nader and all those who voted for Nader for handing the election Bush, but the truth is actually that Gore handed the election to Bush. He ran away from his own progressive record and listened to managers who told him to campaign as a centrist and distance himself from his environmental positions. He also ran away from the wildly successful and very popular Clinton administration of which he was a part because of the Lewinski scandal and the impeachment hearings. He was emotionally flat and wooden (ok he IS Al Gore after all…) on the campaign trail because he was being over-handled. And his performances in the debates were juvenile at best (making obvious faces at his opponent?)

            So I know how it feels to have my guy lose (and regular readers here may have figured I am too familiar with this feeling of late) and the ramifications that can have. Granted a Presidential election of such consequence as the post-9/11 years have given us couldn’t have been easily foreseen when we all were deciding in 2000 whom to support. And even without that horrible attack on our soil, any Presidential election is inherently of more consequence than any Senatorial election. But that isn’t to say there are no consequences at all.

            I have posted elsewhere on this site that I believe party trumps the individual candidate and that a bad Democrat is better than a good Republican (are there any any more?) because it will directly lead to the leadership of that Party holding significant power in the agenda that gets driven in DC. And even as weak as many of us think Reid has shown himself to be, think what it would be like/will be like if McConnell is the leader. I dread the thought.

            So I will vote for Michael, not because I like his politics or priorities or his stances from day to day, but because I know what the consequence might be of letting the Republicans back into power in either the House or Senate (God forbid both!).

            But in order for Michael to have a reasonable chance of beating Buck, he will have to keep his base (such as it is) intact while he tries the political maneuverings to get the Colorado independent vote. I just hope he doesn’t get so far over to the right now that he loses those of us on the left whom he also needs to win.

            Whew! I’m glad I got that off my chest!

            🙂

              1. as an Easterner, I would like to see more representation from my native block. But that tired saw of liberal east-coast elite is a pretty high hurdle to overcome.

            1. I would actually vote for a good Republican over a bad Democrat. It depends on the state of the Union. There are many factors to take into consideration. Will my voting for this one good Republican mean the Dems lose control of the Senate? I am more than willing to hold my nose and vote for the less than desirable Dem if it means retaining control of the Senate.

              If you take that out of the equation though, and if there was truly a good Republican left in this country, I would (and have) vote for them. I am, and always have been, proud to be a moderate Democrat who leans progressive at times.

  28. Maybe the best way to look at it is to think what’s more important – long term or short term.  Short term, there’s no doubt that Bennet’s the best choice.  But continuing to elect right wing democrats will hurt the long term goal.  The left was much more mobilized prior to Obama’s election.  Centrist democrats neutralize progressive movements and govern as Eisenhower republicans (with a little Reaganism thrown in).  I think the better strategy is to never vote for a candidate unless he/she will clearly move the progressive cause forward.  A candidate that will bring us backwards but at a slower rate than the republican alternative should not get our vote.  The advantages would be 2 fold: the progressive movement would become stronger under a neanderthal republican and future democratic candidates would realize they better listen to the left.

    That’s my 2 cents.

    Jim

    http://commentsongpe.wordpress

    1. Does the country have the time and luxury of having 2+ years of a Republican-controlled majority when it’s struggling to come out of a Republican-caused recession that is the largest since the Great Depression?

      Sure, the Republicans can be ideological right now; they don’t care, because the goal of their party has become power for power’s sake.  All they have to do is get Democrats to lose their majority.

      We as a country, however, have something we need to rebuild, and now.

  29. I have to admit, I am awed by the stupidity of this post, and many of the comments on it. This is bigger than whether the Senator sufficiently answered your letter! It is bigger than your petty progressive pet issue! This is about being able to confirm supreme court justices, overcome filibusters, move the ENTIRE country and hence the world in the right direction. The idea that any of you would supposedly claim progressive values and yet in this instance cut of your own nose(all of our noses) to spite your face is just ludicrous. Anyone who does not soldier up and vote Democrat in this election has the emotional maturity of either a child or, well – a Republican!

    You make me sick

    1. Many of us witnessed a supposedly filibuster-proof 60 vote majority of Democratic votes in the Senate go to absolute waste because of the number of Blue-Dog Dems willing to cross lines and vote with the Republicans against cloture on many important issues this year. So this is not as absolute as you make it out to be either.

      1. In no particular order, and cobbled together from several sources

        Healthcare reform

        Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

        Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women – after the Senate passed Lilly Leadbetter

        Began the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, ended combat ops.

        Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB

        Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full

        information

        The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act

        Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible

        Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House

        Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration

        Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date

        Phased out the expensive F-22 and other outdated weapons systems,

        Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research and instead created Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research and other new federal funding for science and research lab

        Allowed states  to enact federal fuel efficiency standards tighter than  federal standards

        Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect

        Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools and  new funds for school construction

        US Auto industry rescue plan

        Housing rescue plan

        $789 billion economic stimulus plan

        The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed

        Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with theGeneva Convention standards

        Better body armor is now being provided to our troops

        Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols

        Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic

        Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions

        Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office

        Successful release of US captain held bySomali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job

        US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast

        Created  tax incentives for those who buy electric and hybrid automobiles

        Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales

        Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government

        Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children

        Signed national service legislation; expandednational youth service program

        Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones

        Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions

        Expanding vaccination programs

        Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters

        Closed offshore tax safe havens

        Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals

        Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back

        Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry’s predatory practices

        Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources

        Lower drug costs for seniors

        Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings

        Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel

        Improved housing for military personnel

        Improved conditions at Walter Reed Army Med Center and other military hospitals

        Increased access to  student loans and saved gov’t 3% + by making the guarantor the lender.

        Established a new cyber security office

        Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.

        Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts

        Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness

        Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient

        Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced

        Improving benefits for veterans

        More press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration

        Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports

        Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons

        Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive

        Making more loans available to small businesses

        Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare

        Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans

        Limited salaries of senior White House aides

        Renewed loan guarantees for Israel

        Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan

        Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans

        Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production

        Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters

        Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket

        Held first Seder in White House

        And a few hundred more.

        http://www.whitehouse.gov/

        Sure, the list of couldda or even shoulda is ever longer – as always.

        The only question that matters now is Buck or Bennet?

        For those who prefer AR would have been nominated, it’s pretty clear which is closer to AR on the issues. For those who would have preferred Bernie Sanders – well you are going to have to move, Bernie doesn’t live in Colorado. And wouldn’t be electable here.

          1. I said we had a filibuster-proof majority that went to waste.

            And for all those accomplishments, which I readily acknowledge, the party of no still had more significant sway with 39 votes than we should have ever let them. And if you doubt me, look at how many of Obama’s nominations are languishing in the Senate with filibusters and blind holds.

                  1. I believe so. One thing our opponents seem very good at is caucus discipline. Much more effective in either opposition or when they are in the majority.

                    I know this is endemic to a degree to our party’s beliefs and practices (diversity and independent thought and all that), but there has to come a time when we can stand up a show some spine for some really important things, and yes I am including the public option in that if not single payer.

                    1. then change the conservative atmosphere of republican leaning areas to blue and elect progressives. After all that work, we too can have the caucus discipline the Republicans have. It will take years if not decades. Is this the path we really want to take?

                      It’s easier for Republicans to do this because it doesn’t take much inertia to fall back. It is much more difficult to move forward. It’s hard and requires sacrifices and set-backs. It means truly being a big tent Party pushing and pulling and working together towards the progressive goals.

                      I wish that progressives could/would appreciate moderates and ConservaDems and the role they play in the Party. As a moderate, I certainly appreciate what progressives do for the Dems. They are the ones who make sure we, as a party, are moving forward towards progressive goals. ConservaDems allow us to hold seats in otherwise conservative areas. And moderates attempt to hold it all together. 😉  This is what makes our Party strong. This is what makes me so proud to be a Dem.

                    2. I am a utopian idealist, but I understand and accept pragmatic outcomes if the ideal is out of reach. I just think we set the bar pretty low on a lot of items on MADCOs list so thatyes, we got over the bar, but what if we had started higher and then fell back? I guess we’ll never know…

                    3. Just with more division and more time wasted. Again, just my opinion but do you think the Republicans or Conservative wing of our Party was going to cave on Health Care? Did you see how divisive it got on the “reasonable” things we were already asking for? Could the country have taken worse?

                      In my opinion, it’s time to stop looking at what could have been and start pushing progressive lawmakers to improve on the flawed bills that passed. We have the groundwork laid, let’s build on it. Let’s move forward now.

                    4. was more than half the problem. They have been the party of “NO!” since Obama was elected. It was and is in their interests to obstruct to the greatest degree possible and then blame our side for our inability to get things done and to govern. Heads they win, tails we lose kind of deal.

                      And there are ways to bring your own party members along that aren’t so horrendous that we couldn’t have tried harder at least…

                    5. We didn’t. There isn’t much we can do about what happened in the past. The question is what are we going to do going forward?

                      I have to say the thing that worries me most about what is happening in the Democratic Party is this watching what the Tea Party is doing/has done and wanting to emulate it.

                      First it was a lot of chatter about DINOs and ConservaDems and how horrible they are. Then it was putting Democrats to purity tests. Next we’ll start cannibalizing our Party. If the Teabaggers get the balls to form their own Party will progressives splinter our Party (and power) too? Has the TP set that good an example?

                    6. that it feels to me like there are very large disaffected groups within each party who have the power to split those parties into pieces. How big those pieces will be and whether either can survive long without their less centrist wings remains to be seen.

                      Obama tapped into the energy of a great many of the disaffected and got them to participate in meaningful ways maybe for the first time in their lives. And now many of them seem to be disappointed in what they got, a little buyer’s remorse maybe. If the Republicans do win big in November (which I still doubt), I believe it will have a lot to do with the many who will stay home this time because they just don’t like the options any more in the narrow choices we have. In truth, there is little difference between a conservative Democrat and a moderate Republican.

                      Remember when a strange little man from Texas with a strange personality ran for President (no, not Bush, about a decade before him…) and he created a whole new party out of the blue by pulling those people in. The Tea Party crowd are their direct descendants.  

                    7. The “tea party” has been around for a long long time under many different names. The latest incarnation may have been started by Ron Paul, but he certainly didn’t create it. I go back and forth between being surprised or cynical about the press not catching on to this.

                      “Tea Party” is just the new name for Conservatives. You can tell because originally they were all about fiscal discipline but as time went by the real agenda started to emerge. The Tea Party is as socially conservative as they are fiscally. They are now more than happy to discuss their uber-conservative stances on abortion, gay rights, etc. All the favorite conservative “culture war” talking points. Tea Party candidates and organizers are even guest speakers at the ridiculously named Values Voters Summit.

                      As to multiple parties:

                      Before people get too enamored of this multiple party system they should decide if their party wants to be the one to splinter it’s power first.

                      I’ve made this point before but in order to change our two party system, both parties would need to agree to splinter at the same time. If the Dems split first, without the Repubs doing it, we will never have enough seats in either party to hold the majority against the Republicans. Never.

                    8. if the Ds will then be able to govern as progressively as many would hope. Or will we continue the cetrist/rightist drift that Clinton inaugurated and ever Democratic leader since (possibly excluding Pelosi) has embraced.

                    9. Until the laws change to allow for some kind of ranked voting system where voters can rank the candidates rather than voting on a single candidate, no party, no matter how fractured, should want to split its vote.

                      The current plurality system simply doesn’t favor multi-party representation.  Eventually coalitions will form to reduce the ballot to two major choices; anything else is suicide unless the parties somehow magically splinter into three equal parties instead of two.  The Reform Party is the closest we ever came to that, and Pat Buchanan’s Presidential run effectively killed that attempt.

  30. It answers the Rove attack ads. Indpendent votes will win this race. It makes sense politically to appeal to them.

    The left of the Dem party should realize that Colorado elects moderates.

  31. Just imagine if all of Romanoff’s supporters did this. What an incredible statement it would make. It would tell those phonies in Washington that they can’t get away with their ploys anymore, that they are accountable to us and can’t continue to use their corporate connections to steal our elections. It’s the only choice that will make a real difference to this country! Otherwise, it’s business as usual. And the only place that’s going to take us is further down the steepening slope towards oligarchy.  

    1. There’s a process.  90% of all voters could do it and a) Romanoff still wouldn’t be elected and b) we would never know because the votes wouldn’t be counted as being for him.  And they shouldn’t be.  I’m not paying for the extra time just to prove some point about primaries.

      So it’s not throwing away your vote in the way that voting for the Green guy (totally legitimate if you support him), but in the way that writing “Batman’s the greatest super hero evah!” is.  You know someone has, but have you ever seen it in the results?  Do you understand why now?

      1. Friend, I understood before and I still understand now. I do hear what you are saying, and yes, such votes can’t be counted. But if everyone did as I still think we should, I am certain it would not go unnoticed, especially if Obama’s fat-cat Bennet didn’t win because of it. And it would make a big statement that voting for an eligible candidate wouldn’t. Revolution does not happen by following all the rules, and following the rules in this case, I still believe, won’t change anything for real.  

            1. I can always elect someone better next term.  What I can’t do is make up for the damage that could be caused by a Republican Senate bent on stagnating a Democratic administration’s agenda.  Things left undone are more expensive to fix later on; can we wait 6 years for a better candidate to address climate change?  earmark reform?  infrastructure repairs?  health care reform?

              And how much easier do you think it will be to oust a Republican incumbent Senator than a Democratic incumbent Senator?  This is not a blue state; we do not have the luxury of being able to reliably replace Republican incumbent Senators in the next election.  Yes, we might get a better Democrat as a candidate next term, but we’ll also be faced with a Republican incumbent with all the advantages of incumbency.  At least if we start with an open seat we don’t have to worry about incumbency once we’re past the primary.

              1. Wayne Allard was re-elected, and he wasn’t up to the job the first time.  Writing in Romanoff is going to mean nothing except a win for Ken Buck who is to the far right of a right-wing party.  I can’t imagine why anyone would believe that this is a real strategy.

                1. I suppose I just don’t have the faith in the current political system or current administration that you do. I used to, but not anymore. I’m pretty sure we’ve being duped. Just like everyone else. Besides, Democrats v. Republicans has left our nation at a standstill and there’s no end in sight. Romanoff was someone who gave us a chance to break that standstill (I could tell you stories about how many Republicans I met that supported him!) and wouldn’t be completely beholden to the man like everyone else, and by fighting to get him elected, we were working for that “change” that Obama promised and then actively fought off when the the status quo was truly threatened. So yeah, I’m willing to throw a spoke in the wheel in order to give our nation a real chance at something better than money rules. Let’s just call it a difference of opinion that we have going on here. But since you and your side are going to win the battle, let’s also be sure to update in six years to see where we are in addressing those issues you mentioned ;).  

                  1. Romanoff was always a consensus-builder in the State Legislature.  That meant he was willing to be a moderate and listen to compromises from the Republican side of the aisle.

                    He would be about as much change as the Obama Administration, which you’ve apparently decided isn’t going the right direction.

                    In 6 years, let’s be willing to look at the political reality of our government’s composition during that time and our Senator’s role in it.

              2. Of the things you listed:

                Can we wait 6 years for a better candidate to address climate change?  earmark reform?  infrastructure repairs?  health care reform?

                (all of which I believe are supremely important, by the way)

                I’ve yet to see any evidence that Bennett would be willing to buck (pun not intended) the prevailing corporate position.  So, how is Bennett quantitatively or qualitatively better than Buck in the areas you mentioned?  Either way, Buck or Bennett, it seems like a long, long six-year wait on these issues.

                This is why I’m not yet convinced I’ll vote for Bennett.  (I know I’ll never vote for Buck.)  

                1. And he did it early, long before he had a primary challenge.  He’s also been seen with Sen. Udall on climate change issues, so I think he’ll be with us on climate change, too.  On health care reform he did not vote against stronger reform, nor did he express a desire to weaken it; he hasn’t pushed the public option beyond the letter that never went anywhere, but he wasn’t against what we got and he could be in favor of more.  On infrastructure, I think Bennet needs some cajoling – or maybe he just needs something presented in a manner other than “stimulus package”.

                  If Bennet is weak, I see it more on two fronts: (1) too timid on corporate reforms, and (2) too fiscally timid to embrace sweeping programs.  In both cases, I think he sees broad change to be too risky; he is in the (annoying) camp that Republicans have created for ConservaDems, thinking that tipping the spoiled apple cart will ruin the apples.

                2. Buck would have voted to filibuster it. Many people are going to get health care now who wouldn’t have gotten it before. That’s quantitatively better than it was before.

                  Bennet voted for the stimulus package. Buck would have voted to filibuster it. The stimulus package has made things quantitatively better for people.

                  No, Bennet isn’t a strong progressive, but he’s fairly liberal. He put a lot on the line to support the public option (which health care companies didn’t support). His positions are substantially better than Buck’s in ways that really matter.

                  With Bennet you get support for Obama’s centrist agenda, which is something. With Buck you get extreme right-wing obstructionism, which is nothing. I don’t know how any rational person can say they’re indistinguishable.

                3. Food for thought from you both (even with the “rational person” dig from SXP).

                  As a personal aside, I found myself more than a little annoyed that, while working in my yard last Saturday, I was spending time on that glorious late-summer afternoon thinking about Bennett (when I should have been much more attentive to the squirrels, finches, hummingbirds, banded doves, the clownish robins stripping the chokecherries, and all the other little animals gathering their summer’s harvest.)  This race has started to take a personal toll.

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

165 readers online now

Newsletter

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