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*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

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 01, 2009 07:45 PM UTC

Romanoff vs. Bennet Tuesday Debate Thread

  • 62 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

235 comments in the first thread and 170 in the second, we’re just trying to keep things from getting too scrolly like the good hosts we are.

And, action! Remember, this whole thing is riding on you (sockpuppets take note).

Tweet
Share

Comments

62 thoughts on “Romanoff vs. Bennet Tuesday Debate Thread”

  1. Romanoff supports single payer and public option

    Bennett supports some cost cutting, better access, and ah (bumbling for handwritten notes from lobbyist fundraiser meeting), ah, ah ……….

          1. do you think the Bennet communications team would post this today

            http://coloradopols.com/diary/…

            “Bennet is proud to support a public option”

            after he had previously said this

            http://www.denverpost.com/comm…

            Bennet said that he favored a so-called public option, which would provide an alternative insurance source for those who can’t get private insurance. “But as I stand here today, I think it’s very unlikely that the public option part of this will pass.”

            quite a shift there by Bennet…

            already the political pandering starts – and I am very happy because of that. This means that we the voters, have some ability to get our Senator to take some type of stand on the issues so that we can hold them accountable.

            Romanoff will obviously try to be even more in favor of a public option. (publickier option?)

            Now for the big hurdle, which of these two guys will tackle the money of oil and coal and natural gas and give us real Climate Change legislation?

              1. with the meme that ‘social security has been great, but it’s going to fail soon anyway’

                by putting it out there that something is already dead, the righties tried to get people to help kill social security.

                by saying that something is what you prefer, but “I think it’s very unlikely that the public option part of this will pass”

                in a public forum, you are making it easier to not have to make it pass.

                I like the sound of:

                “Supporting a public option” but i like the sound of these more :“will vote for a public option” and “will fight for the public option”

                as someone at square state points out, he did join Bayh’s caucus of centrists and if their goal is bipartisanship, then we all know the legislation will not have a public option.

                politically, Bennet has a couple of weeks to really define this position, before Romanoff can outflank him publicly.

            2. to deliver a lecture on logic. First of all, giving a political assessment of where the US Senate currently is at is a lot different from one’s own policy position. Too bad for you that you can’t distinguish the two. But it’s your problem, not Bennet’s.

              Second, one of the reasons the Bennet team is putting together these kinds of videos (and this isn’t the first) is to counter the disinformation people like you consciously distribute, such as your recent recycling of the “conservadem” smear from months ago after Bennet has been building a voting record that should earn the respect of any Democrat.  

              1. Bennet. it’s against the very appointment process which bypassed the voters to begin with, which has earned Ritter the ire of the people.

                Bennet is making a great record as a democrat.

                Answer me this,

                why is he having his campaign edit a video of him supporting the public option and releasing that on this site and others?

                1. your response to my comment was a good one – it would be nice if he sounded more assertive about it. Of course, he may be playing the “rope a dope” game too, trying to convince the GOP that he’s easy pickings. Or (most likely) he’s trying not to sound too liberal which is a danger in a purple state.

                  As far as this comment, about hating the appointment process which bypassed the voters… are you suggesting that there should have been an election to fill the seat once it was vacated?

                  1. Aristotle

                    yes, in many comments I have made here, i believe that each state should scrap the appointment process in favor of a special election – an election where the candidates are only from the party of the vacated Senator.

                    this way the party retains the seat, the governor has no undue influence (in case of differing parties – or as in our case here or Blago’s in Illinois)

                    and our legislatures will not be tempted to change the statutes every time it is politically expedient as we are seeing in the flip flopping by the MA legislature who voted to block Romney from seating an appointment (if Kerry had won in 2004) to now trying to reverse that so that Patrick (a democrat) can appoint another Dem to Kennedy’s seat.

                    all of these shenanigans waste time and money.

                    What should happen –

                    Salazar gets appointed.

                    a special election within 90 days between candidates of Salazar’s party

                    the Party holding the seat retains it, the people of that party get their votes counted and voices heard.

                    think of that primary!

                    Perlmutter, Degette, Romanoff

                    that is the fairest and most democratic way to replace a vacated seat.

                    2. Change it. Let voters decide if we want to change the constitution.

                      Nothing is stopping Andrew Romanoff from running, some of us just think it’s a really bad idea.

                      But I just don’t understand how you can think that a Senatorial primary (or special election) could be so amazingly beneficial, but a gubernatorial primary would destroy the party.

                    3. it would be detrimental, but this is a special case.

                      Do you think Joe Sestak challenging the newly turned democrat Specter is destroying the party, as Ed Rendell has stated?

                      (btw – want to take in the thursday rockies game? i will buy the tix)

                    4. If that’s the only reason, then it’s not really an explanation of why he would be any better. If the only argument is that he hasn’t been tested electorally, then why wait this long to put in his hat?

                      The reasons for the candidates running are by far the most important at this stage in the game, IMHO. A primary election is no different from the general election in that regard.

                      If Romanoff does end up throwing his hat in there and announcing officially sometime soon as you’ve said he will, then he had better do a better job of explaining why he’s running than “I don’t like the system under which vacancies are picked”, because people are going to respond the same way I did to you.

                      (RE: Rockies Game: can’t this week. Too much work to do.)

                    5. strategy Romanoff will use. it won’t be because of vacancy – but the use of the vacancy appointment itself by Ritter.

                      Romanoff can run just on

                      “the one you know and who you trust”

                      without any issues and win.

                      let’s go over to the new diary

                      which is up

                      http://coloradopols.com/diary/…

                      congrats on getting a job!

                      what r u doing now – (hit me back on facebook about the rockies)  

                2. because if the “protesting the process” was actually the reason, it would be the stupidest reason I’ve ever heard for putting a US Senate seat in jeopardy.

                  The vacancy process is a legal process. So protest the statute! Start a movement to get a special election put into law. It’s not Ritter’s or Bennet’s fault.

                  But why argue the point, since in the first place that’s a phony and unbelievable reason?  

          2. I had looked on his sites and couldn’t find that. I still couldn’t find it from browsing. It looks like the link you posted isn’t easily accessible from the main site. I had gone to his health care issues page and I didn’t see it there.

            2. Does it put an end to double-digit cost increases in health care?

              Does it reduce the amount of the economy devoted to health care without rationing or denying care?

              Will it be a drain on the tax payer or a drain on the debt level for the country?

              1. Who would deny curing someone of cancer for a penny?

                Who would recommend curing a cold for $1 Billion?

                If you agree with this logic, you support rationing.  Any system of risk-pooling, be it socialized single-payer or private insurance pays for your treatment with someone else’s money, be it taxes or premiums.  

                This is why the abortion funding debate is a canard.  Since >90% of private plans cover abortion, taxpayer money (in the form of premiums) is already being spent on abortions, to be logical and consistent, “pro-life” people should withdraw from any employer based plans that cover abortion.

                A rational discussion of ideal allocation of health care dollars would acknowledge that there are treatments which provide too little bang for the buck to be paid for with pooled dollars that could have greater impact for more patients.  Nothing should prevent people from being able to spend their own money on low yield therapies, or the creation of supplemental isurance to cover such things.

                But if we’re serious about reducing costs we need to acknowledge that medical science, while amazingly advanced, has passed the point of diminishing returns, and in most cases the technology of 30 years ago could deliver 99% of the results for 50% of the cost.

                1. Any public option (and I support that) would need to consider reparations for those who’s investments are taken from them.  Well, that is unless you deploy the GM model for the public option.

                  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, any reform needs to come with a multi generational transition.  When a kid craps the pool the manager needs to ‘shock’ the water and no one can swim for 3 hours — it looks like Obama is hunkering down for a rather large healthcare crap.  Just my opinion.

                  Oh abortion.  Go call the catholics.  From my perspective the death chamber down at planned parenthood has denied America nearly 40 years of human capital.  Pissing away cash for clunkers, loading up on Chinese debt, growing more government teets and destroying viable working Americans — the macro economics don’t work my friend.

    2. That’s an excellent post that Nancy wrote. As a matter of fact, I linked and posted it in yet another diary distorting Bennet’s position on the public option over at Dkos.

      I swear to God, if people are trying to force folks like me, the average Unaffiliated, to choose who to back in a primary, all they have to do is keep posting bullshit assertions that have nothing to do with the reality of Bennet’s positions.  

      1. Nancy posts on Squarestate.

        I spoke to her and she feels obligated to support Sen.Bennet at this point.Many prominent Democrats have been working with Sen. Bennet, such as the Boignons. throughout the summer.

        I’m coming to the conclusion that I’ll have to honor my word and support him, also.

        I hustled for the Speaker at the Jeffereson-Jackson, but felt that the Speaker waited too long to enter.

        I can see divisons forming which may well cause problems in a general election.

        The Democrats have the labor problem. I’m hearing that we will avoid a grocery strike, which is good. I hope that we do avoid it.

        I’m completely committed to Gov. Ritter.

        I’ve posted my reasons for doing so previously, so I won’t go ino them here.  

        1. your word of honor was based on false information given to you by R.F. – not saying it was false when it was delivered, but that in time it has become false.

          I’d say that clears you of any obligation to your word of support.

  3. On the Dem side we all discuss if we personally think Romanoff should run, is it good or bad for the party, and who we will support. But not a single word about saying the party should tell Romanoff to not run.

    On the GOP side the field was going to be cleared with no discussion by anyone outside of 3 or 4 people – most of them in D.C. And it took a significant grass roots effort on the GOP side to let everyone run.

    Speaks volumes about a fundamental difference between the GOP and us Dems.

    1. we want to be like Republicans because they stay on message and walk in lockstep.

      Having primaries like Salazar vs Miles hurts the party in the General.  Not!!

      1. That’s the exact same argument I’ve received from the people supporting Romanoff to primary Bennet as to why there shouldn’t be a primary against Ritter.

        There’s no doubt in my mind that by going after Bennet instead of Ritter, Romanoff will indeed be doing unnecessary damage to the party by wasting money and time (and potentially inter-party blood in the form of counterproductive bickering among Democrats) going after the guy who he is basically ideologically similar to.

        The best argument I’ve seen as to why Romanoff would get support is because he’s a better leader. I don’t disagree with that statement. Romanoff has a proven track record of leadership–both legislatively, and at a broader statewide level–than Michael Bennet.

        But Romanoff can only be one voice among 100, and his leadership skills will take years to cultivate the kind of bonds necessary to become a true leader in the Senate. Michael Bennet already has an eight month head star on that count. If he ran against Ritter, he would be able to be a strong leader for the state right away.

        Ritter is as close to a failure as you can get while still being just mediocre, and if anyone deserves a primary in this state it’s him.

        1. and you’ve actually addressed something I’ve mentioned several times now–where’s the cry for Romanoff to primary Ritter, who clearly has pissed off a large portion of his base? Where’s Wade and Sirota and their ever loving passion for freedom, democracy and a primary on that one?

          Oh wait.

          I think Wade did address that–I think I’ll just blockquote a few highlights from his comments since I’d hate to misquote his sudden pragmatic streak:

          I think Romanoff has no chance against Ritter

          and maybe Ritter is going to lose to the R challenger.

          Romanoff would be splitting the party to challenge a sitting governor

          Challenging Ritter who is a sitting incumbent is tougher to do.

          Make no mistake–folks such as Wade that are touting how fabulous for democracy a primary against Bennet would be are the same gutless wonders that are afraid their boy wonder would get his clocked cleaned in a primary against a sitting governor.

          Too bad they have their political know how all backwards because of the two, the stronger candidate at this point is Bennet, not Ritter, but it’s nice to see all that starry eyes ideology is nothing more than bullshit, isn’t it?

          1. Ritter earned his seat as the governor – through a campaign, through being a candidate, through consolidating support, and through a record of service to Coloradoans.

            that is why he would be tougher to beat.

            Bennet did none of those things, yet Ritter appoints him over a long list of good candidates who had, Perlmutter, Hickenlooper, DeGette, Romanoff, etc.

            as for this:

            starry eyes ideology is nothing more than bullshit

            I think if you go to the website in my tagline, you will see i am not fighting on behalf of any candidate out of fandom, but out of a need to significantly change our course on Climate Change Legislation – something that needs to be addressed. And besides, you will notice I have not been calling for a primary on Ritter – simply because a governor has no influence on U.S. legislation – but a senator does.

            And the significant Climate Change legislation must get past these weak ass conservadems who are getting paid by the lobbyists to not do anything. If you think the healthcare debate is getting rowdy, wait until the climate change legislation debates.

            (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/new-talking-points-house-gop-stop-using-made-up-numbers-start-mischaracterizing-cbo-report-to-attack.php)

      2. regarding the Miles/Salazar race.

        Did the primary challenge lead to a more progressive candidate in the Senate? No.

        Did the primary succeeded in forcing Salazar to be more progressive? I would think the vast majority of people would say no to that question as well.

        Was there anything productive accomplished by it, short of the creation of BeTheChange? In my opinion, not really.

        Again, I don’t necessarily think all primaries are inherently bad or good. There are both pros and cons, depending on the situation. But so far I fail to see the logic in thinking that a challenge by Romanoff at this point would somehow not fracture the party. After all, if we were to look at this in a “Romanoff will be more progressive than Bennet” context, isn’t the point to crash the gates in a contentious way? The problem is it takes massive grassroots support and community organizing to accomplish such a thing–eihter that, or some cash–and so far Romanoff appears to have neither.

        1. I know some people might disagree with this (OK, Sirota and Davidthi), but ask Mike Feeley if he thinks his primary with Dave Thomas cost him the race against Beauprez.  On the flip side of that coin, ask Gail Schoettler if she thinks the primary with Mike Feeley cost her the governors race.  

          Ask Tom Strickland if Gene Nichol branding him lawyer lobbyist had an impact on the general election.

          I’m betting the answer is yes to all three.

          Beauprez did not particularly come off well against Holtzman either.

          Lets face reality — if this is an almost year long primary, it will get negative.  It just will.  Feeley and Thomas were friends; that got rough.  Polis, Fitz-gerlad, Shafroth went negative including 527s.  Schoettler-Feely got nasty.  Nichols-Strickland went negative.  Nichols-Udall was even negative.  

          Don’t kid yourself that just because Andrew and Michael are ideologically similar that this won’t get personal.  It will.

            1. And I wish I could claim I had thought of this myself but a friend of mine actually pointed it out to me–unlike several other states, we have a late primary date–right before Labor Day.

              After the primary settles on who the Dem candidate is, the Party has less than 8 weeks to rally funds and time behind our nominee (unlike Virginia for example, which held their gubernatorial primary in June and which leaves them 4 1/2 months to rally the troops and 527s’ for the GE.)

              I think I’d be far more in favor of a primary if it were held in March like it is many other states. In fact, I’d like to see that changed in Colorado because it is damaging to the process for both Dems and the GOP. But since our current political reality is that it’s held in late August, it’s a factor that needs to be considered.

              With a primary, the State Party as well as the DSCC will be forced to sit on the sidelines and that means their money will sit their, too. Have Wade and Sirota thought about the larger implications of a primary and what the trickle down effect could be on an off-presidential election year for our state House and state Senate? I’m guessing no.

          2. But seriously, thanks for using Colorado historical examples, and not national ones. We’re our own political landscape, and the history of bitter, divisive primaries here is well-documented.

            With what’s at stake, why should this one be any different? Considering there’s not a lot to argue about policy-wise (providing either of the candidates don’t attempt to “remake” themselves) then it should be even more cause for the campaign to get nasty and personal.

            1. Romanoff was a HIllary guy.

              If he ever came over after June 08, I didn’t feel it.  

              I like the guy, but like a lot of Colorado team Clinton I just didn’t feel the love even after June.

              Do I think this is affecting his outlook now? yes.

              If not because he still feels HC should have been the nominee, perhaps because he sees more value in the political, partisan insider status than I do.

              Primary, don’t primary -there’s pluses and minuses both ways. But don’t do it in a way that results in candidate that is wayyy different from your politics just because the other guy is a little different from you.

              Deep down, well not that deep, I’m hoping its a head fake designed to grab some D headlines.  

          3. completely leave out the context of the times and you make the assumption that it was the primary that cost the candidate the election.  

            These races were held during an ascendancy period of the Republican brand and the results might have been the same regardless of the existence of a primary.

            It is a standard scare tactic to state that primaries are bad things and must be avoided at all costs because it will cost the party candidate has a chance of winning a chance of winning in the General.  It assumes that past political history, individual personality and issue solutions are irrelevant and the only thing that matters is not holding a primary with an incumbent.  No wonder we have some many rancid blue dogs in Congress.

            DailyKos has a great line on this scare tactic in:

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/…

            Acrimonious primaries can be damaging (e.g: Clinton/Obama) but strong state party leadership should help keep the debate civil.

          4. That was one nasty primary and based on your logic (Primaries bad/Winner loses general) Perlmutter should have been clobbered in the general.  Perlmutter would have taken out the incumbent Beauprez because it was a Democratic tide in 2006.  It is really reaching for straws to say that primaries are the only reason that a candidate loses an election.

            You also omit the positive benefits of a primary like keeping the candidates picture in the papers and stirring interest among the base.  By portraying every primary as an evil invention by the devil himself, you weaken your argument that this election doesn’t need a primary.

            1. Genius said primaries are usually bad–not “every primary as an evil invention by the devil himself.”

              The central point is that the benefit/danger of a primary is specific to each different context. And since there’s been plenty of ranting from the school of thought that, “All primaries are good, all primaries are grand,” which was the premise of Sirota’s post yesterday, it’s not unreasonable to counter such blanket claims with examples of where they weren’t.  

              1. But I still question the examples and the assumption that the candidate lost because they had a tough primary.  There is a lot of revisionist history by the anti-primary crowd about why candidate x didn’t win.

                  1. I don’t think any Dem. who posts at this forum wants a right wing extremist in office but there is also a desire on the part of some Democrats to make sure that we aren’t door mats who allow corporate blue dogs to stall real reform during this period of Democratic control.  If you have an election victory then you should use the opportunity to enact the changes that the people expected when they voted for your candidate.

          5. First off politics is a contact sport. So yes JFG & JP (to use a recent example) said nasty things about each other. That’s also called differentiating yourself from your opponent – which is what an election is all about.

            But primaries generally don’t expose proplems with a candidate that wouldn’t be exposed anyways. Tom Strikland’s problem was not that Gene Nichol called him a lawyer/lobbist. His problem was that he was a lawyer/lobbist and Allard was going to use that even if Gene Nichol never existed.

        2. was Liberal/Centrist and it didn’t fracture the party enough to do any harm. Clearly enough Dems pulled together once the candidate was chosen and that candidate won.  

          Bennet/Romanoff is more Centrist/Centrist and while I don’t see much point, other than to let people have their say, not a bad thing, I also don’t see much danger of a serious fracture as an outcome.

          Maybe the Miles/Salazar did Dems less harm than recent GOP primary rivalries because it wasn’t nearly so down and dirty.  Not much red meat for the general. I don’t think Bennet and Romanoff will muss each other up too badly either.  I bet they won’t supply the GOP with anything as useful as what they gave us in “Both Ways Bob”, for instance.

  5. Won’t be convinced that Romanoff is running until he makes a public statement. If not, why doesn’t he stop the rumors? It’s been proof that Romanoff still retains a lot of political power and support. Sometimes the “Kingmaker” can wield more power than the king. By demonstrating that his possible primary challenge can motivate a lot of followers (and media coverage), Romanoff may be in an excellent position to fill the political void in the state party left by Ken Salazar’s departure to Washington DC.  

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!