U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(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) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

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
February 20, 2010 05:41 PM UTC

Pat Caddell's Side of the Story

  • 68 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

Originally posted at the Daily Caller a couple of days ago, but after all the time we spent in the last couple of weeks on ex-Andrew Romanoff campaign strategist Pat Caddell’s consorting with the right wing’s most vilified talking heads, and attacks on the Democratic Party in general at every opportunity, we thought his take on his termination by Romanoff’s campaign was worth noting:

Longtime Democratic strategist Pat Caddell on Wednesday blasted the Obama White House for creating “a world in which there is no dissent,” following his banishment from Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff’s campaign for Senate.

Caddell, in a phone interview with The Daily Caller, doubled down on the comments he made in November that he said public sector employee unions in Colorado used as leverage to get him tossed from the Romanoff campaign.

“What I said about Andy Stern and the SEIU? Sure, they’re thugs,” said Caddell, a former adviser to President Jimmy Carter, who until Monday* had an informal advising role with the primary challenger to incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.

Caddell said he does not fault Romanoff, a former state House speaker, for cutting ties with him after his remarks from November – in which he called the Service Employee Union International (SEIU) “thugs” and said the goal of the environmental movement is to “deconstruct capitalism” – were made public.

But Caddell said the comments were pushed into the public spotlight by the state chapters of the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, who called on the Romanoff campaign to get rid of him or risk losing any chance of getting labor’s endorsement.

“The unions have been considering endorsing Romanoff, and basically they told him that if I was involved with the campaign, ‘sayonara,’ which I think is the definition of thuggery isn’t it?” said Caddell, who has worked for a who’s who of Democratic politicians over the last few decades, including Ted Kennedy, George McGovern, Mario Cuomo and Gary Hart.

Mike Cerbo, the executive director of the Colorado AFL-CIO, said he called Romanoff after hearing of Caddell’s comments but denied applying pressure on the candidate to get rid of his adviser.

However you feel about unions, it’s tough to argue with the AFL-CIO being upset that Caddell was anywhere near Romanoff’s campaign. It’s a little screwy to be asking for the endorsement of organizations your campaign strategist calls “thugs” on national television, isn’t it? And it wasn’t just labor who was incensed at the things Romanoff’s ex-strategist was on record saying, the enviro crowd’s jaws dropped every bit as much at Caddell’s suggestion that the goal of environmentalists is to “deconstruct capitalism.” Safe to say, as much as Caddell wants to pin his firing on a catchall ogre like “the unions,” there was enough outrage for everybody.

Which leads to the obvious question, a question nobody has satisfactorily answered: what was Pat Caddell supposed to be doing for Andrew Romanoff?

Tweet
Share

Comments

68 thoughts on “Pat Caddell’s Side of the Story”

  1. If you look at Pat Caddell’s campaign history, and Andrew Romanoff’s campaign, you see what was — and is — happening, is that Andrew Romanoff is running the Pat Caddell “Senator Smith” campaign plan.

    http://mydd.com/users/cravergu…

    What made Senator Smith so different from the real presidential candidates was his decidedly anti-Establishment rhetoric. Described by Caddell as a “consummate insider,” Smith runs as an outsider, an economic populist whose “protest candidacy” endorses campaign-finance reform and embraces “people power.” Senator Smith refuses to accept big money donations, calls on people to make sacrifices for the common good of the country, and talks about the campaign “empowering people” to “take back our country.” Is any of this sounding familiar yet? If not, here’s an excerpt from an actual Smith stump speech in Caddell’s memo:

    “America’s leaders–not just in the Republican Party, but in the Democratic Party as well–have failed America! The moment has come for you, the people, to take back our politics and our country! The experts and the failed elites say I am wrong. They say my message is too unconventional, too unrealistic, too idealistic, too extreme. They say that a vote for me is a wasted vote. But I tell you, it is never wrong to vote for the truth!”

    If you think that sounds an awful lot like Howard Dean, you’d be right. But you’d also be wrong, because it also sounds an awful lot like Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden, Jerry Brown, and Ralph Nader. You see, Pat Caddell worked for all of those men’s presidential campaigns. He polled, spin-doctored, and wrote speeches for Carter, Hart, and Biden, and he “consulted” and “advised” Brown, Nader, and Dean, the latter of whom was managed by Joe Trippi, who learned everything he knows about insurgency campaigning from his work with Caddell on Brown’s campaign.

    Pat Caddell may have “left” the Romanoff campaign. But Romanoff is still running out of the Pat Caddell playbook. I don’t think anyone realized just how much influence he has over Joe Trippi and Bill Romjue.

    So the question isn’t: what was Pat Caddell supposed to be doing for Andrew Romanoff? The question is: given Andrew’s continuing crazy slash-and-burn anti-Obama campaign, is Pat Caddell really not still part of the equation?

    The Caddell hire wasn’t an accident. They brought the old boy out because he was the guru.  

    1. when he says that: “Pat Caddell is one of the most insightful, strategic thinkers in politics.”

      And that’s why he hired him. Because the Pat Caddell campaign model is to take an money-soaked career politician, phony the guy up as a firebrand “outsider” who thinks money is bad, and play the public for rubes using an inauthentic candidate and an inauthentic message. Pat Caddell gets a good laugh, because he clearly has nothing but contempt for Democrats and Democratic values. Andrew Romanoff clearly found that model to be extremely insightful and strategic.

      But it’s just really cyncial and opportunistic. And that in a nutshell is Romanoff for Colorado. Let’s be real.  

        1. Clearly, the putz can’t give credit where credit is due, and admit he got taken down by a blogger on Colorado Pols.

          “Union thug” conspiracies are so much more comforting after you get whipped by an open and democratic participatory online community.  

      2. Painting Andrew Romanoff as the devil in human form is about as far from being “real” as you can get without joining the Tea Party.  Be careful about the scorched earth policy you are now waging — you may need the support of the people you are reviling now in November.

        1. Apparently, a bad case of politics has broken out in Colorado. Primaries aren’t necessarily bad for the party, but this raging fever may be. Some folks just need to put a cold compress on their foreheads, take some asperin, and watch a few hours of Road Runner and Bugs Bunny cartoons. Enough’s enough, already.

        2. Painting someone who dares criticize a campaign or candidate as “painting [them] as the devil in human form” when no one did such thing is compete and utter bullshit on your part. So concern troll away, but don’t expect anyone to buy it.

          Since you don’t seem able to answer the issue at hand, let alone have the willingness to hold a public figure accountable after he makes a bizarre hiring decision, are you in a position to criticize anyone? Instead you raise up a strawman and blast away with all the sanctimony of hypocrite.

          Either link to an example where someone has done what you claim, or get stuffed.  

            1. It is still funny , so thanks.

              NTCTS – but I was watching the 2 Stooges this am. OMG. I love the MAx Bros and Ernie Kovacs and Steve MArtin. But- seeit, the stooges had some funny stuff figure out. I was ROTFLMAO with the kids.

              1. “douche” is singular — as in Ah Choo is a mega-douche.  “Their” is plural.  You can’t use a plural pronoun with a singular antecedant.  Now, hie thee to Square State!

                1. I suppose I am painting you as the devil when I point out you can’t even spell “antecedent” right. My apologies.

                  Now hie thee head back up thy ass!  

                    1. and hopefully beneath the radar, here’s an FYI for you (note the date).

                      But my hat is off to you. You’re a better man than I (in deference to grammar rules gone by).

      3. The romanoff campagin has devolved on FB, his e-mails, his paid staff, and his advisers in the most negative campaign among Democrats in my memory.

        1. Even among Democratic primaries, even in Colorado, even in recent years, even for Federal elections, the CD-2 primary last year was about as rough.

          This is rather mild.

              1. as mutually assured thermonuclear destruction.

                Were it not for the Democratic wave and utterly incompetent Rick O’Donnell, Ed might have been too damaged to win the general.

          2. I don’t remembera candidte putting out a video that basically calls his opponent corrupt for PaC money (which Romanoff did), while at the same time having his own personal PAC open while running for the seat.

            Romanoff’s PAC closed in Januaty 2010.

            1. I also don’t remember a candidate named Romanoff running against a candidate named Bennet before, so it’s true that everything going on in this election is completely unprecedented.

              2. condoned attacks on the Senators’ wife for donating to the President in 2008 under her own last name, which she has always used in their marriage. Apperently it was discussed that the Bennet family contributed most likely the maximum 9600 out of the nearly 1 billion contributed to the

                President, was a conspiracy to hide contributions as though the Bennet’s knew in advance that Sen Salazar would join the cabinet, and then  Bennet would be appointed Senator, and the President would feel obligated to raise money for the Senator last week.

                The Speaker’s staff has degenerated not only to approving personal attacks against the Senaotr’s wife, but flat sexist conspiratorial delusion.

                It’s sad to see that Pat Caddell, and others like him are bringing out the true nature of a bitter Speaker ROmanoff who has no one but himself to blame for delaying his entry into the campaign for 6 months.

                That’s an example of how low he has degenerated.  

                1. I’m sorry, Ray, but

                  Recently a source seen regularly with the Romanoff campaign condoned attacks on the Senators’ wife …

                  is a nonspecific, anecdotal rumor, it’s not an example. Either name names and close the deal or leave this kind of rumormongering out of it.

  3. trying to tear down Romanoff, and only 10 percent of their time talking about Bennet’s strengths, it suggests to the reader that there’s not enough good Bennet stuff to talk about.  Bennet will either win this because he’s the best candidate, or he won’t.  The rest is unnecessary garbage.  

    1. It’s not necessary to talk up Bennet, after a year in the Senate he has proven himself. We all know he get’s the job done so why would we start looking elsewhere? You need a damn good reason to fire someone and I haven’t heard it yet. All I hear about is AR trying to take down Bennet with a blunt object.

    2. You deliver that same lecture to Sharon Hanson & Co. on a regular basis?

      Or maybe you can help us all: what are Romanoff’s strengths that make him a viable candidate, since it’s in such poor taste to point out Romanoff’s massive blunder in hiring an anti-Obama, anti-Labor, anti-environment, anti-Democrat, Glenn Beck water carrying right wing hack to be his campaign mastermind in a Democratic primary?

      Please advise.  

    4. Bennet is by far the best candidate. At this point, Bennet wins hand down on character alone.

      You won’t see Sen. Bennet employing Mr.Caddell. Nor will you see Sen Bennet running his own PAC while running for office, and attacking the good name of every Democrat that knows that you don’t bring a sling shot to a gunfight.

      The Republicans will bring with 527’s probably 25 million.

  4. Pat Caddell’s role in the Romanoff campaign will be a caucus talking point for Bennet supporters (like me).  I plan on bringing a summary of Caddell’s views to caucus and ask Romanoff supporters to try and defend.

    1. And as for this:

      “The unions have been considering endorsing Romanoff, and basically they told him that if I was involved with the campaign, ‘sayonara,’ which I think is the definition of thuggery isn’t it?”

      No Cadell.  It’s not thuggery.  It’s more like NOW declining to support a candidate whose campaign staff includes a well known operative who has been openly proclaiming that women belong barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen or the ADL withdrawing support from a candidate who just hired a notorious Holocaust denier.  Don’t expect a lot of support from people you call thugs. Duh.

      Besides, Cadell, there is no shortage of Dems who think you are a piece off crap outside of the unions. Maybe 98% of all those who know who you are?  Even those defending AR for hiring you aren’t defending you.

      1. it’s more like NOW blowing off a candidate who openly supports murdering gynecologists or the ADL rejecting a candidate who was on Mengele’s staff.

        I mean, seriously, Caddell has rejected everyone in my family and in the most hateful, derogatory terms, he’s like Illinois Nazis. And I hate Illinois  Nazis.

  6. To be clear, the Romanoff Campaign ended its relationship with Pat Caddell last week, immediately upon viewing remarks made by Mr. Caddell in which he disparaged a nationally respected labor leader.  The campaign was not pressured in any way to end the relationship but did so solely because of those remarks

      1. When the campaign shut down for a week to decide whether or not to run for Governor they probably shut down the Internet service as well and could not run a google search on Pat Caddell.  

        2. that is funny. And comedy counts.

          Maybe they were trying to save money ….

          and their dial up internet just didnt’ allow them to surf the web.

          and they were in line but couldn’t get one of the good computers at the library.

          Maybe they couldn’t see Youtube because th ecampaign isp filters didn’t allow youtube or porn.

    2. http://mediamatters.org/resear…

      I simply can not accept the claim that nobody in the Speaker’s inner circle, including the Speaker himself, knew who Pat Caddell was.

      Pat Caddell, a FOX News Channel contributor and onetime pollster for former President Jimmy Carter, has made the rounds on cable television this campaign season, apparently being booked as a counterbalance to Republican pundits. But on almost every occasion, Caddell has attacked the Kerry-Edwards ’04 campaign and the Democratic Party, reinforcing Republican pundits’ attacks rather than refuting them.

      The O’Reilly Factor, May 10: “Former Democratic strategist” Caddell said of Kerry’s call for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal : “I don’t believe this, but people would start saying he [Kerry] doesn’t care what happens to the troops as long as he can make political hay out of it.”

      Indeed, Pat Caddell makes a regular appearance in MediaMatters’ refutation of conservative misinformation in the media:

      http://mediamatters.org/search…

      If Andrew Romanoff and 100% of his advisors pay so little to the opposition that they hired one of them by mistake, why would anyone have any confidence whatsoever that Andrew Romanoff or any of his inner circle are prepared for what they would be up against?

    3. To be clear, everyone but Mr.Roamanoff “apparently” knew Mr.Caddell to be a Fox news analyst that spends the majority of his time attacking Democrats.

      He was hired with this knowledge to run a negative campaign.

    4. Nobody in the Romanoff campaign knew anything about this before reading ColPols? Seriously?  Do  really expect anyone to buy that? Sorry, no sale.  And don’t bother us with any pyramid schemes either. We also don’t believe in gold coin crapping unicorns.  

      1. Pols is obliged to cover this when the Colorado Statesman is still covering it, and Tucker Carlson’s idiotic Daily Caller site picking it up.

        Sharon’s anger is directed at Pols because they broke the story in the first place, but it’s not their fault it’s still in the news cycle.

    2. Indeed — everyone’s known for years Pat Caddell spews this kind of anti-union, anti-environmentalism rhetoric. … er, wati, apparently everyone but the campaign that hired him.

    3. How’s that for news?

      I know,I know if the other guy was the Senator we’d already have single payer and peace in the Middle east and red & blue  unicorns playing together. But this is pretty good, true?

          1. I also think it is the only chance Bennet has of getting elected. I still think he’ll have an uphill battle but more of a chance if HCR with a public option passes through reconciliation.  

            Am I optimistic about this? Not at all and not after witnessing Obama’s inertia and obsession with appeasing the GOP.

        2. Really?

          Did you just say “So what it doesn’t mean it’s going to get through

          You vilified Senator Bennet for voting no on cramwdown- even though his reversed vote would not have gotten it through.  By your own logic your reaction to his vote should be “so what”.

          Oh wait- by your logic Senator Bennet is just bad, bad, bad.

    4. we have a deal.  What?  We can’t engage your candidate with any criticism, but anything Bennet ever did or that you imagined he did or that he might do or could do or that you suppose he could might do, is fair game.  It is impossible to take you seriously Sharon, and you, of all of us here at ‘BennetPols’, deserves the biggest check from the Bennet campaign of all–you do the most damage to Romanoff of anyone on this board.

  9. Bashing Obama.  Bashing unions.  Bashing environmentalists.  Bashing Democrats, in general.

    Romanoff seems to be melding into Joe Lieberman to become:

    Andrew Liebernoff!

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

131 readers online now

Newsletter

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