U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez

(D) George Stern

(R) Sheri Davis

50%↑

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 04, 2010 03:22 PM UTC

Let Colorado Dems Decide..

  • 46 Comments
  • by: jpsandscl

A letter from Polly Baca and Ramona Martinez to Barack Obama, the DSCC and the DNC leadership. I think they nail this on the head. No Democrat in a position of leadership within the official party structure should be taking sides on the primary race between Bennet and Romanoff prior to its conclusion.

Open Letter to President Barack Obama, Democratic National Committee Officers and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee from Polly Baca and Ramona Martinez:

As former members of the Democratic National Committee (DNC), we, Polly Baca and Ramona Martinez, had the honor of serving as staff or DNC members for a collective total of 38 years between 1971 and 2010.  During our service on the DNC, no sitting Democratic President of the United States ever became involved in a Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate.  When Polly was Vice Chair of the National Democratic Party (1981-89), she pledged prior to her election that she would not be involved in any Democratic primary race, which was the norm for national Party Officers.

We are alarmed that this long standing tradition has been violated by the current National Democratic Party and our current President, whom we both supported for election.  It is inappropriate and unacceptable for national Democratic Party officials and the President of the United States, who is the titular head of the Democratic Party, to engage in Democratic primaries.  Colorado Democrats have the inalienable right and intelligence to select their own candidate for the highest political position in the state without interference from our Democratic leaders in D.C. who are supposed to be supportive of our local parties and candidates.

We are further distressed by the thousands of phone calls coming into our state from people hired by the DNC Organizing for America (OFA) group who have been given phone scripts telling Colorado Democrats how to vote.  Colorado Democrats have the knowledge and wisdom to think for ourselves and make our own decisions without someone who is not a Colorado voter telling us how to vote.  We resent the fact that money we have contributed to the National Democratic Party is being given to OFA organizers to interfere in our U.S. Senate primary.

The “Preamble” of the charter of the national Democratic Party, states, “that a political party which wishes to lead must listen to those it would lead, a party which asks for the people’s trust must prove that it trusts the people”.  We urge you to trust the people of Colorado, without influence from Washington, D.C., to select their nominee for the United States Senate.  We respectfully request that the President and other Democratic Party entities, specifically the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the DNC Organizing for America, cease their actions in the Colorado primary for the United States Senate.  

We agree with the former Vice Chair of the Colorado Democratic Party, Ms. Julia Hicks, an early supporter of President Obama and an Obama delegate to the 2008 National Democratic Convention, who said “I am stunned that our sitting Democratic President is getting involved in our (Colorado) primary process.  I want to know what the President will do if the person he supports doesn’t come out of our caucus, or better yet, gets on the ballot and loses the Primary election.  We support President Obama and we fought to get him nominated here in Colorado, but he should stay out of our Primary process.  We are not children and we don’t need the National Party, or the leader of our party, telling us how to vote”.

Another Democratic leader, Mr. Dick Barkey, former Chair of the Jefferson County Democratic Party, said that “As a Colorado Democrat I respect the President but I object to the interference of the President and the White House in our Colorado Democratic Primary Election for the U.S. Senate.  The Democratic Party is the people’s party and not the party of wealth, power and privilege.  As a party activist, I despise back room deals that select our party nominees and circumvent our Democratic Party processes.  I reject being told who I should vote for by anyone outside our state no matter how powerful or rich they might be.  In Colorado we have a well established process for selecting our own nominee for the U.S. Senate.  I have read the Colorado Democratic Party rules and the rules specifically prohibit party officers from endorsing any Democratic candidate in a primary election.  The President needs to follow our Colorado rules.”

Former Executive Director of the Colorado Democratic Party, Mr. Darryl Eskins, added that “When I was Executive Director, it was a firm principle that the State Democratic Party not endorse or support primary candidates participating in the party caucus process.  It seems that big money still talks louder than the grassroots in the Democratic Party.  If that doesn’t change, our current role as the preeminent party nationally and in Colorado will be short lived and the voters will toss us out like yesterday’s newspaper.”

-Polly Baca and Ramona Martinez

Ms. Polly Baca is a former Colorado State Senator (1978-1986), former Vice Chair of the Democratic National Committee (1981-1989), served as Special Assistant to the Chair of the Democratic National Committee (1971-1972) and served as a member of the DNC from 1973-1989.  Ms. Ramona Martinez served as a member of the Democratic National Committee for 16 years (1996-2010, Chair and Vice Chair of the DNC Hispanic Caucus (2001-2009) and Secretary of the DNC Women’s Caucus.

Tweet
Share

Comments

46 thoughts on “Let Colorado Dems Decide..”

  1. Not me- I don’t register in the parties, so CO says I have no vote in the primary process.

    But the CO D’s  do, if they want. They get to caucus and assemble and vote in the primary.  How is that not CO D’s deciding?

    1.  (stated within the text) in the headline:

      Let Colorado Dems decide…without the national or state party mechanisms playing favorites.

      This action by the OFA and the national Dems may backfire on the Bennet campaign.

  2. I have great respect for both Ms. Polly Baca and  Ms. Ramona Martinez but this stinks of desperation from camp Andrew.  Clearly the campaign is upset that Obama has made his choice and as the sitting commander and chief for our nation he is allowed to do so.

    Andrew has run an overall underfunded, weak and poorly messaged campaign which has turned off even folks like me who were excited to see him enter the race.  I am a fan of the primary process but in this case he is just damaging his once great image.

    No letter from Colorado party leaders is going to change the fact that Obama pushes DC support for the current sitting senator.  One who has stood with the President, voted the right way, is in the money lead and if you carry water for the party, the party helps you.

    Being the vocal outsider not allowed to play with the big boys is clear in this campaign. So by not getting invited to the big boys table they scream foul play.  They all should be doing over writing letters and spending countless hours on here is go raise the man as much money as you each can. Why… Money wins elections… shock I said it.  Now all decry me for saying PAC’s Can be a good thing… and I love how they do not highlight the progressive orgs supporting the Senator just the evil pacs.

    Many of the staff from his team and the Senator’s team should take note of is the failed Blog to Congress plan played out by Bill Winter. Go raise some damn money, wasting your time on here earns you little or no votes and you should go talk to a donor or a voter.

    Andy Szekeres – Works for none of them and is enjoying both campaigns wasting the time of their staffs trying to win the blog war on here with us hacks who have already made up our minds.  🙂  ( oh and brave enough to sign my name)

    1. .

      Gonna have to push back a little, Andy.  

      He’s not the Commander in Chief of the nation.  He’s the CINC of the military.  

      In a free country, nobody’s the boss of me.  Not even God Almighty arrogates such authority to Himself.

      .

  3. You were probably one of the throngs of irate people I dealt with on the phone because Superdelegate Mark Udall hadn’t come down for one presidential candidate or another prior to the caucuses.

    2. to assume I am anyone you may have spoken to ever before. Could it be that I am just a Romanoff supporter who would like to see the process work its way to conclusion in Colorado without undue external influence?

      Also, I really don’t see these points as equal anyway in that by the time the supers were being asked to come out and support the WINNER of the popular election for the Deomcratic nomination, the people had already spoken. The fear then was that the Clinton machine would convince enough supers to go against the party’s members expressed wishes. Quite different than what we’re talking about now.

      Although I’ll grant that Obama does seem to have taken another page from the Clinton handbook in that now HE wants to try to subvert the will of the people before they’ve even had a chance to express it!

      1. The state of Colorado is not, and should not attempt to be, some hermetically sealed bubble that cannot endure “external influence” entering into its internal political decision-making processes. Does that mean that I cannot, or should not, take into account any scientific evidence produced outside of Colorado, as it relates to a policy position stated by one of the candidates? After all, that’s an external influence. When evaluating each candidate’s position on global warming, for instance, I must consider only the scientific evidence produced by Colorado scientists working in Colorado, and not the evidence produced by foreign scientists (the heathens!)?

        Obviously, the “internal/external” distinction is meaningless and ridiculous. But is there some other distinction that is more rational, that is the real one being invoked here? For instance, many of us are uncomfortable with the idea that “money talks,” so why not be uncomfortable with the idea that “political influence talks”?

        One problem is that “political influence” (as distinct from money) is unquantifiable, and the task of line-drawing would be a very difficult one. You can state your opinion if you are a state legislator, but not a state governor, or if you are in the state government but not in the federal government, or…? Where do you draw the line, and what makes that line a rational one?

        But, most importantly, political parties are organizations that exist for an organizational purpose. For the leadership in that organization to try to impose organizational discipline through the mechanism of saying that they think that their membership should do X, while leaving intact the procedural mechanisms for accomplishing it through the express will of the membership, is perfectly appropriate. Members are free to follow or disregard the advice of their organization’s leadership. The leadership is not keeping anyone off the ballot, or refusing to acknowledge their right to run, or punishing office holders who endorse the candidate not of their choice; it’s only saying “we think that X better serves our organizational goals, and as those who are entrusted with the effective pursuit of those goals, we advise the membership to do X.”

        Not really so nefarious after all.

  4. I see, so I guess Rep. Kerr, Sen. Carroll and Cary Kennedy should withdraw their endorsements.

    This e-mail is the height of hypocrisy. One of Romanoff’s talking points is that he’s gotten the endorsement of the county chairs and nearly the entire legislature. If those people aren’t considered “official” party leadership, then I don’t know who else is.

    1. That may be the impression the Romanoff campaign tries to give, but it’s not true. Plenty of legislators have either endorsed Bennet or are staying neutral.

      But you’re right, if county chairs and legislators in leadership positions aren’t part of the official party leadership, then no one is.

    2. Actually, elected officials are not part and parcel the same as party officials, with the notable exception of the POTUS who is the de facto head of the national party.

      It is something else indeed for state and national party leaders to take a side this early in the nominating process. Why the great fear to let Colorado Democratic voters decide for themselves? What’s the big rish to judgement here?

      1. And would you be making these same complaints if it was Romanoff who got Hillary Clinton’s Barack Obama’s endorsement?

        I think that if it’s OK for people like Kerr, Carroll, and Kennedy to make endorsements (I had no problem with them doing so, in fact, I wrote a diary about Kennedy’s gracious non-shrill endorsement after she made it) then it should be OK for Obama or anyone else to do it.

        As RG says above you, if our elected leaders aren’t the leaders of their party, then who are the leaders? Pat Waak?

        I think that you’re arguing semantics, not anything substantial. Endorsements are standard fare for election years, and I can’t remember them ever causing this much turmoil, because I have never met anyone who said “Politician X’s endorsement of this candidate made my decision of who to vote for in the election.”

        1. In fact, whenever I have worked on any campaigns or elections, there is a very strong and clear demarcation between the party and the campaigns. There were very strong strictures against coordinating activities.

          Udall or anyone else can use their campaign funds and other resources to support candidates they want and they do this all the time. It is one of the major power plays of our system. But the party can’t use its funds or resources to support ANY candidate during primary season until they are the chosen candidate of the party for the general election.

          I don’t think that is a semantical difference at all.

        2. Party’s rules do NOT bar individual endorsements

          And several county party officials have endorsed one candidate or the other.  

          There is a somewhat academic debate about whether an individual, in announcing their own endorsement, can use the party title in that announcement.  But I don’t think any rule stops another person (i.e., a campaign) from mentioning that title as an identifying factor in a list of endorsements.

          (hattip to Dslater)

          There is an unprecedented use of DNC funds to pay for Organizing for America (OFA) to call people up via phonebanks and voter rolls (which are not cheap) to encourage people to caucus for Bennet.

          I find this all curious since you knew about this from dslater’s post at Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 11:27:07 AM MST and you just made this post at  Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 17:48:36 PM MST  

      1. Is that the difference is semantic. You say that “party” leaders shouldn’t get involved. I say that elected officials are far more influential and provide more leadership to the party than “party” leaders.

        Don’t turn into my editor, Wade, because I can guarantee you don’t want me turning into yours.

        1. and i do agree,

          you are a superior editor (i hope your sig line will not soon reflect that comment)

          and I look forward to a civil discourse between the both of us as we plot the democratic victory this fall.

  5. Who thinks that the ultimate effect of the Romanoff run may be to drive Bennet slightly to the left? It looks like that to me, and if you agree I think this is a good thing. For example, Sen. Bennet appeared on The Rachel Maddow Show recently. I think he gave a good account of himself. Contrast that to the situation in Arkansas. I think it is better for a candidate to stand for something rather than try to be all things to all people. Ultimately politics is about adjudicating competing interests. So, Romanoff may have done Sen. Bennet a big favor.

    1. I do believe Bennet has swung to the left because of Romanoff’s entry into the race, thus his late to the game support for the public option. I expect the counter swing to the right in the general as he tries to peel away votes from Norton or whoever else the Rs might nominate.

      I believe in his heart of hearts, Bennet is a rightist and a corporatist. I think his tenure with Anschutz, Hick and DPS all show this. Our society worships businessmen, especially apparently successful ones. Never mind if the success is illusory in fact (eg: DPS is still in terrible shape some five or six years after his Denver Plan has been in effect…)

      I also think Bennet got this appointment as a condolence prize for being passed over for Sec Ed. Now Obama feels he owes Bennet something, so he is pulling out all the stops. Why? Is the change we voted for last year so precarious?

      It may be, but not the way the machine politicians seem to think. This may be another change year as people vote out incumbents en masse, including Bennet if he is nominated.

      1. Clearly.

        I’ve only recently started posting to this web-site and it is clear to me that many people on it seem to know me so well because they are so clear in their presuppositions about me. For of course I don’t pay any attention to Bennet, how could I? For if I did, I must therefore fall under his spell and support him, right?

        Why do you think I don’t pay attention? Because I can’t hear how his positions shift over time and circumstance to suit the political winds of the day? If Andrew wasn’t running, I do not think Bennet would have come out so strongly for the public option today. If it such a good idea now, why wasn’t it last year when his support might have meant more than it does today? He obviously studied the issue well last year, but he waited until this year to declare his proud support of the public option why?

        I’ll tell you why- because he feels pressure from the left in the form of Andrew Romanoff.

          1. … I’m not affiliated, but sometimes the Romanoffskis just make me want to register as a Dem just so I can vote for Bennet in the primary.

        2. I’ll tell you why- because he feels pressure from the left in the form of Andrew Romanoff.

          Andrew is a solid DLC man, which is greatly to his credit, and was a solid centrist as Democratic minority leader and then Speaker of the House.

          If that is now suddenly leftist, then what, pray tell, constitutes the middle of the Democratic Party?

              1. The marginal income and capital gains tax rates at the end of his administration make me think he was at least a socialist, maybe a true Bolshevik.

          2. anymore, the spectrum has shifted so far to the right that people actually consider Nixon to have campaigned and governed  as a liberal!

            And I would say that Romanoff is certainly the far more progressive candidate of the two without arguing his history as a DLC Democrat.

            1. how anyone could think Romanoff is to the left of Bennet. Have you seriously studied their records?  

              Dream Act — Bennet

              Special session on Tuition Equity — Romanoff

              Public option, health reform — Bennet.

              Can’t come up with a plan on health care but to criticise Bennet’s and say he would have blocked it — Romanoff

              EFCA — have either one of them come out for it yet?  No, but Bennet voted to approve Craig Becker, a clear sign of his stand with labor.

              On everything else, they are identical as far as I can tell.  There are no true progressives here, but moderate Dems. I am okay with that — this state may be more red than blue these days anyway.

              1. Bennet has only come out for the public option because those of us on the left of the party supporting Andrew have given him enough pressure for him to realize he is really vulnerable in this primary. Where was this support last year when it counted? non-existent! And I have the e-mail chains from my attempts to encourage his support and his boilerplate responses.

                And Andrew has a plan for health care reform. In fact he is the only candidate on record supporting a single payer option and Medicare for all. Strange how you would ignore that because it doesn’t fit your desire to see Bennet win at all costs for what reason I can’t tell.

                And Bennet’s history is hardly one of being progressive on important issues. I am still waiting for someone to dig up the record from his days working for Anschutz and restructuring corporate debt for the benefit of Anschutz’ investment firm.

                It still amazes me how easily Bennet has sailed through life on the coat-tails of his fathers connections (reminds me of a recent President in that regard). Getting the job of DPS Superintendent with absolutely no record of experience in education at all and little public service experience. Then to use that as a stepping stone to be tapped for the plum job of US Senator! Amazing!

                But I keep forgetting- having experience for the job you are trying to get is only a hurdle working-class people, not for those whose connections trump their lack of required skills, experience and knowledge.

                1. You have a lot of anger toward Michael Bennet — that is obvious. Starting backward on your points for a minute, let me say that I understand the frustration that you think the Senator had advantages to getting where he is today. As someone who grew up in a lower socioeconomic family myself, I find economic privilege very frustrating and unfair at times. Unfortunately, that is our reality. For people who are born into poverty, or to parents who didn’t finish high school, or have disabilities, reality sucks. It just does. In the race for our share, we start out with weights on. Life isn’t fair.

                  Occasionally, someone makes it to Washington that has had no advantages in life, but that is rare. Even Barack Obama, who has one of the greatest stories I have ever read, admits in “Dreams of My Father” that the people he met at the private school his grandparents worked hard to send him to, influenced him in immeasurable ways. He was fortunate to have their influences, and that helped him believe he could make it to the top, as well. Life is a combination of the gifts you are given as well as what you make with those gifts, right?  

                  Yes, Senator Bennet knows a lot of people through his family’s public service, perhaps, and yes, he did work for Anschutz. In regard to Anschutz, incidentally, Anschutz is a staunch Republican and is donating to Norton’s campaign, I am told. My sources tell me that Anschutz respects Bennet for his intelligence and hard work, but never agreed with him politically on anything.

                  The points you make stop there, though, for accuracy, in my opinion. Senator Bennet may have had an opening — someone watching to see if he had any talent, but the fact that he is a great leader is the reason for his many successes in the Senate. I cannot speak to his days at DPS — I did not know him there. I can only speak to Senator Bennet and the job he is doing now.

                  I’ve said this elsewhere — during 2009, I have many opportunities to interact with Senator Bennet and/or his staff. In 30 years of paying attention politically, and writing and calling my members of Congress, I have never seen anyone who works harder, is more responsive, and genuinely cares about the people he is representing. Senator Bennet did not have to grow up where I did nor walk in my shoes to have empathy for my family. Each time I talked to him, it was clear he was not only listening, but also genuinely caring about what I had to say.

                  In regard to the public option, this fairy tale spread by the Romanoff campaign supporters has been disproven again and again and again. The main reason I got to know Senator Bennet is precisely that issue — I worked on health reform full-time most of last year. Bennet listened to us from January to June on this issue. That is his style — he listens carefully before making up his mind on anything. He listed to everyone on every issue.  Starting in June, he began to be more forceful and started slamming his fist down saying health reform was a moral obligation and the public option was a great part of the plan — one that he supported. Why? Because he listend first.

                  Those who keep spreading this untruth that somehow he was wishy-washy, continue to do so in the face of countless videos, photographs and eyewitness accounts that he was not. More than 100 people I know were at the Arapahoe County Young Dems picnic on June 27th when he told the crowd that he supported the public option. He did the same at numerous other places like it in the weeks to follow. I personally have his speech of June 27th documented with photos and narratives of what he said and how the crowd responded. The Romanoff camp spin is blatantly untrue.

                  What did happen all through 2009, is that every Senator in Washington that supported the public option added a qualifier like “that is fiscally responsible” or “along with a meaningful package” or something like that. Why? Because there were a lot of angry tea-party activists and fiscal conservatives watching, too, and they had to show they were listening to all sides, and were being thoughtful in their decision making. Udall did it, Bennet did it, Ried, Levin, Boxer, Pelosi, DeGette, Polis — everyone. For the Romanoff campaign now to say that any Senator who did not say, “I support the public option under any and all circumstances” was wishy-washy, seems not only disengenuous, but also desperate.

                  I don’t support Michael Bennet because he worked for Anschutz or because he was appointed Senator, or because he was head of DPS. I support him because of all of the members of Congress I have met in the past 30 years, there is something truly remarkable about him — he is smart, incredibly driven, works harder than anyone I know, cares about people, listens, has great common sense, is impressing everyone who gets to know him, and has a fresh approach and ability to get things done.  Most importantly, He has done an exceptionally fine job this past year.

                  Coloradans would be crazy not to elect Senator Michael Bennet. He is everything we could want in a Senator, and had some Coloradans not already decided Andrew Romanoff was entitled to the position, they would see it to.

                  JMHO.

                  1. Let’s review:

                    Grandfather: Doctor

                    Father: Judge

                    College: Yale (legacy), Harvard, DU

                    Just because Romanoff’s immigrant lineage is more recent than Bennet’s doesn’t mean he wasn’t privileged.

                    Michael Bennet got picked for the public policy jobs he got picked for because he’s always the smartest guy in the room. Like Andrew, he owes his platinum education to the privilege into which he was born. But in contrast to George W. Bush, neither Bennet nor Romanoff need Karl Rove to be their brains.

                    Let’s just not have any illusion that we’re dealing with a poor kid from Columbus versus a privileged frat boy. They are both privileged. And the only candidates that are in the pocket of big business and lobbyists are Jane Norton and Tom Wiens.

                    1. Bennet’s mother was an immigrant, and the times he’s told the story how she arrived on these shores it’s been easy to see he came by his political convictions as honestly as anyone:

                      His grandparents were both imprisoned in the Warsaw Ghetto in Poland and smuggled his mother, then a baby, out of the ghetto through an underground network. Bennet’s grandmother escaped with nuns and sought refuge in a convent. His grandfather hid in different parts of the ghetto until the liquidation and forced deportation of inhabitants to labor camps. His grandparents and mother arrived in New York in 1950.

                    2. But it’s also been bandied about that Bennet descends from Mayflower passengers, which is what I was getting at.

                    3. Dad’s family has been in the US since the Mayflower. Mom escaped the Nazis as an infant and has a harrowing story. At least that is what I read.  I would love to know more about his Mom. She speaks many languages and is an English-as-a-second-language teacher.  Her life story is fascinating, from the little I’ve read. I hope to meet her around the campaign events sometime.

                    4. to Andrew Romanoff’s family, the fact that his Mom is a social worker impresses me as well. Again, we couldn’t ask for Senatorial candidates with family stories that better prove their legacies of public service and loving this country, IMHO.  

                    5. Both had at least one immigrant Jewish parent. Both of their families embodied the American Dream. Both Bennet and Romanoff grew up comfortably in good eastern schools and parents who taught them to believe in public service.  Both went to Yale and then made Colorado their home. Both are smart, funny, and shrewd politically. Both are committed to helping the poor, getting health care reform, fixing schools, protecting the environment, and much more. Both were successful in their careers up to this point. Both are in their mid-forties, and have promising futures ahead of them in anything they set their minds to do.

                      The difference for me is, Senator Bennet has already been in the job a year, has done an AMAZING JOB. He’s earned another term. Andrew Romanoff has run a campaign during the same amount of time, and in my opinion, not very well. I am not uprooting a fantastic US Senator because the other candidate believes he earned the seat first.

                      I have children — I know whining when I hear it.  

                  2. for your thoughtful reply. And any bitterness I express about Bennet is less towards him personally (I think he seems like a pretty decent and likable guy whenever I have heard him speak), but rather towards our system and it’s inherent advantages for the already advantaged.

                    I guess I am still an FRD or RFK Democrat. His quote speaks volumes to what you say are the “realities” of life. “Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream thing that never were and ask why not.”

                    I absolutely agree Bennet is a very smart, articulate guy. I still think he gets a lot of credit for successes he simply hasn’t actually had. It is inherent in the mythology we build up around successful business people of all political persuasions that their business acumen is translatable into any endeavor they desire to pursue. Then they are able to use what I have found to be one of the most prolific skills among the business elite- the ability to spin their accomplishments out of all proportion to their actual facts.

                    Thus he is able to don the mantle of a reform educator as Superintendent of DPS regardless of the fact that his reforms have not had any meaningful, tangible benefit to the district or the many students who still fall through the cracks and fail to graduate on time or at all. But he can point to many, many changes he made in DPS policy regarding teacher incentive pay and magnet and charter school development. He just can’t say they have been very effective changes.

                    And as a final thought, the value of incumbency which seems to drive the majority of Bennet’s professed supporters- he has the job and hos done an either competent or extraordinary job, therefore he deserves to keep the job. I am quite sure that if there was ever a year for that to have less weight than it will this year, I don’t know when it might have been. There is an historic animus in the body politic of this country this year that will hurt all incumbents of all political parties, especially if the Dems can’t act like they can actually govern and drive there long held agendas through. This will be the year of turning out the Washington insiders, and in this Bennet has a major disadvantage in the general election against whomever the Rs throw at him. Thus the stronger showing for Romanoff against Bennet is so many polls recently.

  6. He knows it. He isn’t doing anything about it.

    It’s “if you are on my side, then I don’t care.” The ends justify the means in the AR camp.

  7. but to those for whom it is obviously applicable:

    An Ode to Simple Minds

    Blind ideologues on the left and right,

    (Or sometimes on one side but with a surplus of spite),

    All lined up opposed to fight the “good” fight,

    Folly so jolly, a quality sight!

    “It’s so simple, you see,” they each say with glee,

    “Don’t listen to them, just listen to me.

    When reason’s in season I’m out in the cold,

    But as long as wrong is the song, I’m sold!

    “And you should be too, so foolish and free

    Of knowledge and wisdom and, well, sanity!

    ‘Cause I know up is down and black must be white,

    While those who’re opposed invert the same tripe!”

    Take your demons and angels and silly refrains,

    Your wisdom gathered from the catches of drains,

    Disputes with no roots that tumble along,

    And leave them where they truly belong.

    Instead let’s discuss the ends and the means,

    Finding places where minds and interests convene,

    Arguing substance, not form, and seeking to grow,

    And leaving the hot air elsewhere to blow….

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

108 readers online now

Newsletter

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