Say it ain't so, Andrew, say it ain't so!

11 Comments

by: Zappatero

So which is it? Are Dems tacking left or veering right? The answer isn’t clear yet. But Isenstadt offers some worrisome anecdotes. He points to several Democratic candidates who are recycling Republican rhetoric, even in districts that went for Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

Isenstadt highlights, for example, a campaign video and accompanying material from Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff. Romanoff’s video is indistinguishable from a Republican’s, complete with a Paul Ryan-style graph of “soaring” federal debt and admonitions that “you don’t buy things you can’t pay for.”

Andrew Romanoff was one of the few candidates I've given money to the last few years. D's just can't seem to quit this congenital need to pretend they are Republican, or to pretend that some kind of High-Minded Bipartisanship will be met with the same by our Tea Party counterparts.

RJ Eskow is really an excellent writer, and here's a bit more of his analysis regarding our good friend Andrew:

The game plan for candidates like Romanoff appears to be: Adopt your competition’s failed economic agenda, make yourself your opponent’s pallid shadow, and base your campaign on issues, positions and priorities that have little or no support among voters.

That’s not just a bad strategy. It will also be very difficult to execute. As will inevitably happen in many Democratic races, the National Republican Congressional Committee pointed to Romanoff’s past support for the stimulus and said, “It’s dishonest for Andrew Romanoff to criticize the mountain of government debt he helped create.”

The “government debt” canard is a silly critique, one that Romanoff could easily refute – if he hadn’t already abandoned his ideological post by running away from much-needed government investment. The stimulus didn’t create debt. It helped reduce long-term debt by spurring modest growth and offsetting the job losses caused by the financial crisis. What’s more, its objectives were consistent with the electorate’s priorities. Its only problem, as any good economist will tell you, is that it wasn’t large enough.

Candidates like Andrew Romanoff could choose to campaign on jobs and growth. That would be a winning approach, even in red districts, with voters who are fearful of the economic future. But when they choose to echo Republican messaging instead, they leave themselves defenseless against attacks like the one Romanoff is facing.

It won't work. He might get elected, as Salazar and Markey did, but if he carries it through a bland and unproductive first term, he'll end up exactly as they did.

Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time.”

– Harry S. Truman, 33rd President of the United States and Homespun Political Genius

11 thoughts on “Say it ain’t so, Andrew, say it ain’t so!”

Andrew Carnegie says:

August 12, 2014 at 5:15 pm

Zap, Romanoff's commercial paints himself policy-wise as a member of the Tea Party. I thought I remembered him as the single payer guy four years ago.

He runs to the left of Bennet and loses so now he runs to the right of Coffman. There is something to be said about being genuine.

The thought was that this race was one of a handful that the Dems had a chance to pick up. Seems like Romanoff is throwing a Hail Mary pass and you usually don't do that unless you are behind.

Log in to Reply
mamajama55 says:

August 12, 2014 at 5:34 pm
Andrew Romanoff is clearly being "campaign consulted" to death. What makes Andrew appealing:
- Outstanding communication skills – the man knows how to make a speech. He's funny, bright, handsome, and well-spoken.
- He's got a great biography – even the parts not on his campaign website. He came to my Unitarian church and demonstrated a pedal-powered water pump that his NGO, International Development Enterprises, promoted in the third world as part of the Greenhouse Project.
- He's a solid Progressive – if you look at "issues" on his campaign website, he's left of center on immigration, women's issues, and more.
I do notice that Romanoff, or his consultant(s) are being very cagey about which words to use – He's advocating comprehensive immigration reform without mentioning "amnesty" or a "path to citizenship". He's advocating for women's reproductive choice without ever mentioning the word "abortion". He's got a great environmental platform that never mentions "climate change" or "fracking".

I'm not actually that concerned about the "fiscal responsibility" thing – when I read this issue on the campaign site, it was pretty clear that Romanoff was talking about paying the US government debts and not shutting down the government. And the balanced budget claim for his years as Speaker in the Colorado Senate – that's true, even if they had to balance it because of TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights).

I just wish we weren't all so dependent on buzzwords as shortcuts for meaning.
Log in to Reply
1. Davie says:
  
  August 12, 2014 at 5:54 pm
  
  MJ — just a point or two. Failing to use hotbutton words strikes me as part of Romanoff's personality strength of working towards productive compromise, not inflaming partisan passions on either side of the aisle.
  
  The TABOR amendment that came along in the early '90's purpose was to limit overall spending, not balance the budget. The constitution already had the balanced budget mandate, as do virtually all other states' constitutions.
  
  Rather than a federal balanced budget amendment, I'd like to see a law restraining deficit spending when the economy is in an upswing, and loosening the belt on spending when the economy is in recession.
  
  Log in to Reply
  1. mamajama55 says:
    
    August 12, 2014 at 6:19 pm
    
    Yup, TABOR = spending restrictions, not balanced budget. Thx.
    
    Log in to Reply
    1. Zappatero says:
      
      August 12, 2014 at 9:15 pm
      
      = Strangle Govt so it can't function = R's run on "Govt doesn't work" = ….
      
      Log in to Reply
      1. DaninDen says:
        
        August 13, 2014 at 5:47 am
        
        4Gs=Govt God,Guns&Groin
        
        Log in to Reply
  2. mamajama55 says:
    
    August 12, 2014 at 9:21 pm
    
    Davie said:
    
    Rather than a federal balanced budget amendment, I'd like to see a law restraining deficit spending when the economy is in an upswing, and loosening the belt on spending when the economy is in recession.
    
    Is anyone at the Federal level proposing this? It sounds so much more sensible than the current mode: Democrats pay down the deficit, and Republicans run it up again.
    
    Log in to Reply
2. DaninDen says:
  
  August 13, 2014 at 5:52 am
  
  4Hs+Hair,Height, Hormones, Heridity- traits of sucessful pols elected for "other than" "issues"
  
  Log in to Reply
3. Conserv. Head Banger says:
  
  August 13, 2014 at 1:17 pm
  
  To MJ: how can one be "left of center" on women's issues; or "right of center" for that matter. One is either right or wrong. One either supports individual rights, freedom of conscience, and religious liberty…..or one is a bedroom cop.
  
  Quote from the late Barry Goldwater about abortion that is still relevant today: "it's not a conservative issue, it's a matter between a woman and her doctor." In my mind, can't get any more common sense conservative than that.
  
  Regards, C.H.B.
  
  Log in to Reply
Zappatero says:

August 12, 2014 at 6:18 pm

Appreciaete the comments.

Maybe CO Dems need to use an overall strategy of speaking up for solid D issues in every race and let the individual races fall where they may. Then after a few years of solid D messaging we might see a wave of solid D policy wins.

D's are on the defensive way too much, around the nation, and especially here, even when solid majorities support a specific progressive policy that has caught the voters' attention.

Log in to Reply
BlueCat says:

August 12, 2014 at 11:53 pm

Well, one thing we all know. We don't do amendments to the federal constitution anymore. We're too fractured for any amendment to actually make it through the process. So calling for this or that federal amendment is a way of making statements without any possibility of the damn things making it into the constitution.

Guess Romanoff's message is supposed to be directed at the middle, telling them that he isn't a "tax and spend liberal". Pretty lame way to do that since a balanced budget amendment would be highly irresponsible.

So…. not Andrew's best moment but it's not as if any R, certainly not Coffman, can credibly oppose it as a bad idea. They're supposed to be all about balancing the budget even though they always run up the deficits and Dems always reduce them. Maybe one day some Dem will have the balls to quit being afraid of being labeled liberal and make that the message… Dem economic policy works better. Period. Meanwhile Dem voters can take Andrew's suggestion of a balanced budget amendment with the grain of salt it deserves. I see that part of the ad as a wash.

Log in to Reply