April 19, 2009 11:27 PM UTC

My Dinner with Michael

• 3 Comments
• by: DavidThi808

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

It was pure happenstance but the same day I had my interview with Senator Bennet I also had an ok to blog the Boulder Girls Gone Liberal (AKA Democratic Women of Boulder County) event for Senator Bennet. So I got to see him at both ends of the day.

Here are a few of my impressions after watching him up close in an interview, and then in front of a crowd:  

First off, this guy is tireless. I met with him at 8:00 a.m. and this event ended at 8:00 p.m. and he was every bit as personable and quick witted as in the morning. A couple of times he stumbled in finding the right phrase or figuring out what to say, but that was on issues he clearly was not up-to-speed on and so that could be unfamiliarity with the subject rather than 12 hours of go, go go.

Second, he is personable. He does a good job of coming across as familiar, approachable, one of us.Yet at the same time he retains the aura of someone who is eminently qualified to be a U.S Senator. The other personal attribute is one that you only are aware of if you realize it’s absence – he comes across as ego-less.

He got some hard questioning, but while questioners did not like some of his answers, they appeared to find his response acceptable. And I think in those exchanges he won pretty much everyone over. Because people found his responses respectful, thoughtful, and reasonable.

On the issues:

Bennet strongly and vocally supports President Obama. In the ’10 election the sole focus at the federal level will be 60 votes in the Senate. Bennet could come out in favor of unicorn research, call Obama a socialist, and trash talk Harry Reid and he’d still have the strong active support of the party. And this support comes at the strategic level. He supports Obama’s priorities and the basic outlines as set out by Obama. Furthermore he always states this as he agrees with Obama on each item. Not that he is supporting it because Obama is the president or it’s the party platform, but because he agrees with the proposals.

On Darfur, Bennet was asked what he is going to do about it and he replied, essentially: absolutely nothing. He said he knew that Senator Kerry is going to Darfur and that he would provide any support that he could to Kerry. He also spoke about some of the specifics, so it was clear he is up to speed on it. And he finished with asking the questioner that if she had any suggestions for what actions he could take, he is very interested in them. (This answer impressed me. Bennet could have spun out a bunch of trite generalizations. He could have claimed that he was involved with Kerry. He could have gone into a long discussion about how the situation there is horrible. Instead he was up-front saying that he is not working on that – and explained why. It was refreshing.)

On Education funding, I think Bennet demonstrated that he is being honest with his constituents. At the end of his answer on this, when there was absolutely no need to add anything more, in front of a very liberal group in Boulder, he said that you could double the funding for education and if you don’t fix the system first, it will make no difference.

EFCA – He said that he has talked to numerous workers who are convinced that without EFCA unionization is dead. And he has talked to numerous business owners who are convinced that if it passes American business is dead. (News alert to both – it’s actually not that big a deal either way.) What was very interesting in Bennet’s answer was his statement that because he has just joined the Senate, he’s one of the very few with no set of previous statements on this issue. And as such it lets him work with both sides with no one seeing him as leaning one way or the other. The impression he gave is he is using that as a means of reaching some kind of compromise between the parties. It will be interesting to see how this plays out but based on Michael’s willingness to speak plainly, even where it hurts him, I’m willing to take him at his word that he is trying to find a solution here, and he hates neither unions or business.

Cap & Trade vs. Carbon Tax – I loved his answer on this. He said that numerous people who’s judgment he highly respects and are very knowledgeable on this have told him that cap & trade is the only sensible answer and a carbon tax would be a mess. And that numerous other people who’s judgment he highly respects and are very knowledgeable on this have told him that a carbon tax is the only sensible answer and cap & trade would be a mess. Based on what he said he clearly is trying to determine exactly what the trade-offs are between the two approaches. He was clear, however, that if one is brought forward and it’s that or nothing, it’s got his vote.

Health Insurance – Boy do the people of Boulder love Single Payer, possibly even more than they love prairie dogs. And if Bennet wasn’t clear on that, he had several questioners making sure he knows. On this he took the Obama line that we must fix this, that there are major criteria the fix must meet. But outside of that he’s open to whatever is brought forward if it meets those guidelines. And he did say that if a single-payer plan was brought forward, he would vote for it. A Senator can’t do everything, especially one running for election for the first time next year. I’d say on health insurance that if we get a solution that is a true fix, Michael will vote for it but won’t put a lot of time in on this issue. But if bringing a solution forward hits a roadblock, then I think he clearly will get very involved moving that proposal forward.

What it means:

Michael Bennet is clearly a very smart guy. Take his answer on education funding: He knew that group, if anything, would want more money and less accountability in the schools. He didn’t need to say anything to directly confront the audience in Boulder, and yet he came right out and said that major reform is needed first.

I think I learned a couple of things from that, and other similar answers:

First Michael Bennet is going to tell us what he’s thinking on issues, even where we’re not asking. Yes he’s a politician, yes he’ll shade things at times, yes he’ll select what to talk about. But he is by and large going to be straight-up with us. On education, on Darfur, on Obama’s proposals he’s giving us honest answers. And I think that is a gigantic plus in his favor.

Second, it tells us that with education he sees the real problems we face, and that solving these problems are important to him. He is clearly willing to risk votes, risk his chance of winning in 2010, so that he can do it the way that he thinks it should be done.

So color me even more impressed. He can sell it, and he does so while being honest with people. He gives the voters clear specific answers to their questions. He is listening to the voters and taking that into account, but is also true to his inner voice. Michael Bennet was not Ritter’s only good option, but he definitely was a superb choice.

note: I had someone graciously offer to edit the above and for those that are interested this file has my original article and the article with all edits. The above is the final article where I kept most edits.