August 04, 2010 06:05 PM UTC

Zombies for Bennet: Must. Vote. For. Incumbent.

•  
• by: oldbenkenobi

Does Bennet have any core principles or is he inventing himself as he veers toward November?  On 8/3/10, Susan Daggett sent out an email in which she said their campaign is “focused on solving problems rather than playing politics” and she went on to quote her husband as saying “his job as Senator is not to protect his own job by doing what’s politically expedient; rather, his job is to do what’s right for Colorado.”  Yes, that is his job — but is he doing it?

Let’s look at Bennet’s votes on gun control.

2/26/09.  A bill that coerces Wash DC into gutting its gun laws in exchange for a vote in the House of Representatives.  Bennet votes yes, passes 61-37.

5/12/09.  An amendment to allow loaded guns in national parks.  Bennet votes yes, amendment rejected 58-39.  

7/22/09.  An amendment to allow concealed weapons across state lines. Bennet votes yes, amendment rejected 58-39.

Bennet, under Udall’s tutelage, boosts his NRA rating without worrying two of the three would pass. The one that passed has been tabled indefinitely.  But he pisses off gun control advocates so what to do?  

In April 2009, a bill to close the gun show loophole was introduced.  A year later, in April 2010, and after getting reamed for his previous gun votes, Bennet signed on as a co-sponser.

I agree with the Second Bennet but not with the First Bennet.  But wherever you stand on gun control you can’t be too impressed with this voting record.  I guess his principled position here is that he wants to make it hard for people to get guns but once they get them he wants them to be able to take them everywhere?  I’m glad he doesn’t play politics and doesn’t just do what’s politically expedient! What a joke.  (If you look up “politically expedient” and “playing politics” in wikipedia you should find a paragraph about Bennet and the public option.)

Bennet supporters will not see any inconsistency to these votes.  That’s because they are no longer sentient beings.  They are zombies for Bennet.  Ritter made his choice and something clicked in their head.  Must. Vote. For. Incumbent.  Never mind that he is a special class of incumbent, an incumbent who has never received a single vote.  Michael Bennet — All the advantages of incumbency without the hassle of having to get elected first.

So the core of Bennet’s campaign became his incumbency, illegitimate though it was.  Incumbency was Bennet’s entitlement, even as he and his supporters launched a whisper campaign against Romanoff over entitlement.  “Romanoff thinks it’s his seat,” they said.  Meanwhile, they quietly believed it was their seat — when in fact it’s nobody’s seat.  Ritter and Obama don’t decide who sits there.  As Romanoff has always said, “Let the people decide.”

But the Bennet campaign pushed their entitlement and fed their zombies. In the debate, Bennet said to Romanoff, “I love you, and I just wish you were running a primary against one of the people causing the problems.”  This is my seat!  Bennet was saying.  Why are you trying to take my seat?  And the campaign pushed the “fireable offense” talking point.  The idea was that Bennet has not committed a fireable offense.  But we are deciding whether to hire Bennet, not whether to fire him.  Big difference.

Bennet’s campaign thrives on two big myths.  First, the presumption that this is his seat.  Second, the idea that he has stayed above the fray and on the issues while Romanoff has gone negative.  The truth is that Bennet has been attacking Romanoff from day one.  First, the whisper campaign about Romanoff thinking this is his seat, the whisper campaign denigrating Romanoff supporters as “Mike Miles dead-enders” and other insults, and the whole career politician line of attack.

As I go through this, keep in mind Michael Bennet has had one (1) job in the private sector during the course of his life.  And that job was helping a rich guy shuffle his money around.  He’s had about five public sector jobs, most highly political.  Romanoff has also had one private sector job but he has devoted zero (0) years of his life to helping a rich guy shuffle his money around.

Emails sent by the Bennet campaign.  On 2/17/10, “…unlike most of his colleagues, he’s not a career politician.”  They must have felt that was too indirect.  Susan Daggett (who later tells us she’s diasppointed by negative attacks) says on 2/20/10, “I think Michael has another important advantage in this race too: he’s not a career politician. This means Michael doesn’t owe any favors to the entrenched special interests that stand in the way of real progress.”

Another email from a week later, 2/27/10:  “Because Michael Bennet isn’t a career politician he can’t sit back and rely on a political machine to ensure his success at the caucuses — he needs your grassroots support to get on the ballot.”  Again, on 3/13/10, “Unlike his opponent, Michael isn’t a career politician. He doesn’t have a political machine built up over the years.”  

Romanoff has no “political machine.”  His supporters are the people he has talked to and worked with across the state of Colorado for the past 15+ years.  Ironically, Bennet really did have a political machine working for him in the caucuses, Organizing for America.  Later, in a moment of high unintentional comedy after they lost the caucuses, the Bennet campaign spun their loss by saying they were fighting Romanoff on his “home turf.”  Exactly.

I noticed the email from Vicki Kennedy did not call Romanoff a “career politician.”  Because her husband was the biggest career politician of them all and yet he was greatly respected, wasn’t he? Daggett is playing politics by saying they don’t play politics and by pushing the career politician line of attack.  And by the way, Daggett seems to be fighting all Bennet’s battles.  Why isn’t she the candidate?  

This idea that Bennet has been all about the issues is utter bullsh*t.  The idea that Bennet should be granted deference as the incumbent is also utter bullsh*t.  But the zombies won’t see it.  Must. Vote. For. Incumbent.

After the Ritter appointment, Obama said, “Michael Bennet perfectly reflects the qualities of the ruggedly independent state he has been chosen to serve.”  More unintentional comedy.  Ruggedly independent?  Our Michael Bennet?  The guy who follows Mark Udall around the Senate like a puppy dog?  Ritter said Bennet has a “bold new approach to problem-solving.”  So far that approach seems to be to ask Mark Udall how to vote and panic at the first sign of trouble.

Connected parents, connected brother, Bill Ritter, the President, Organizing for America, Washington Post columnists, East Coast elite money, the Denver Post, ColoPols, his wife, his three daughters, is this guy going to ever earn anything based on his own merits?  We aspire to a meritocracy, right?

All that help, and he’s still on the verge of losing.  It’s gotten so bad the President had to do a virtual town hall last night to beg us to vote for his pet project.  Everybody else has carried the ball 99 yards for Michael Bennet.  He just has to get one more yard and he’s having trouble doing it.

Romanoff, in contrast, has had to run the whole length of the field, fighting for every yard, with only the people on his side. He’s almost there.  Help Andrew get that last yard.  Convert a zombie today.

&nbsp

Bennet should not have been appointed: Ritter’s Gamble

He’s run a lousy campaign: Bennet’s Cliche Cavalcade

Romanoff is the proven leader: Leadership, Romanoff v. Bennet