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 26, 2010 03:14 PM UTC

Bennet's Cliche Cavalcade

  • 55 Comments
  • by: oldbenkenobi

The Democratic power structure is pulling out all the stops as they ram Bennet down our throats.  But how do the voters feel?  Here’s how I feel: disgusted with President Obama, Mark Udall and others who think they can make this decision for us.

Peacemonger’s sig line says he/she has reached overload on the political bs.  Clearly he/she has been reading all the Bennet emails.  By the way, thank you Obama for giving Bennet your email address list.  It makes me feel good about supporting you.  According to his emails, Bennet is an “outsider” and has “real world experience.”  He’s no “career politician”!  Just the latest in a greatest hits cavalcade of campaign cliches from the supposed agent of change.

But let’s look at Bennet’s claims.  First, the “outsider.”

Bennet was educated at an elite private high school in D.C., St. Albans.  His grandfather worked for FDR.  The outsider’s father was an aide to VP Hubert Humphrey, was head of USAID under Carter and later became President and CEO of NPR.  His brother is editor of The Atlantic.  Bennet went to Wesleyan College in Connecticut. Then he went to Yale Law School in CT.  Soon thereafter, his father became President of Wesleyan.  

I don’t think MB is an outsider in CT or DC.  Remember Bennet’s debate line to AR: “I love you, and I just wish you were running a primary against one of the people causing the problems.”  I could ask him a similar question.  Why not go home to CT and take on Lieberman?  We’ve got a deep Democratic bench in Colorado.  CT is obviously hurting in that regard.  Bennet could put all his East Coast money to good use out there.

After Law School the outsider got a job as Counsel to the Deputy AG in the Clinton Administration.  At the time, his dad was an Assistant Secretary of State.  But then MB moved to Colorado.  Maybe he’s just an outsider in Colorado.  Maybe this is when he became a community organizer and so endeared himself to Obama?  Nope.  He got a job (probably by answering an ad in the classifieds) as a managing director for Phil Anschutz.  Not bad for an outsider!  By then he was firmly seated on the executive position gravy train.  He was a wunderkind, the flavor of the month.  And that is why the School Board hired him as Superintendent.  As so many organizations do, they went for flavor over substance.  They went with the ultimate insider instead of looking for someone who would be the best fit for DPS.  Ritter then made the same mistake.

Now let’s look at that “real world experience.”

The phrase itself insults our intelligence.   First let’s ask, if the real world is outside politics, what is politics?  The make-believe world?  And if the real world is outside politics, why does he want so badly to now join the world of make-believe?  Why doesn’t he want to stay in the “real” world?  The “real world experience” claim is pure campaign bullcrap.  Does Bennet have any original ideas?  I’d like to hear one or two before we make him the Senator from Colorado for the next 30 years.  He claims he is all about change but he’s setting a record for campaign cliches.  He sounds no different than every other politician we’ve ever had.  

If we want change, change we really can believe in, we need to move away from the cliches and toward substance.  Romanoff offers substance.  He has a proven record of tackling Colorado’s toughest problems.

Let’s get back to Bennet’s real world experience.  When he came to Denver, he went to work for Phil Anschutz.  In other words, he devoted six years of his life to helping a rich guy shuffle his money around.  This is our new progressive hero?  His crowning achievement: he combined three struggling movie theaters into a theater chain supercorporation.  Just what this country needs, more supercorporations!  Again, this is our new progressive hero?  Have you been to the movies in the last ten years?  I know you have.  It sucks.  All the great theaters are gone.  Is there any wonder why the companies he “saved” nearly went bankrupt?

Here’s my message to Andrew Romanoff.  You showed great courage in getting into this race.  You are the only Democrat out of many who are qualified who had the guts to give the voters a choice. Keep fighting!

Research from wikipedia and Bennet’s campaign website.  I am not associated with the Romanoff campaign.

Tweet
Share

Comments

55 thoughts on “Bennet’s Cliche Cavalcade”

  2. I thought he was the unelected rube who never held elected office and therefor lacked the experience to get the job done, unlike the experienced career politician Andrew Romanoff.

    The story from the Romanoff campaign changes so often it’s hard to keep up.

    2. Unelected and unable to get legislation passed through compromise, yet simultaneously an insider with a bunch of connections to the establishment.

      I’m not saying I agree with that assessment, but it’s not illogical.  

  3. was a farm hand from rural Hotchkiss who grew up with no health care and a single Mother on food stamps, right? I bet he saved a drowning baby in the well while posing for his Eagle Scout portrait, right?  Please.

    Andrew also lived in the east and went to Yale. Everything about him screams urban, manicured and tailored. His bio is fine for those of us in Denver, but outside of Denver, do you honestly think he has a chance in Yuma or Alamosa or Erie or (name any rural area in this huge state).  

    None of the candidates have Ken Salazar’s five generations in CO to brag about.  Senator Bennet has a year’s worth of Senate votes to show he not only can do the job of representing Colorado well to the nation, but he has.  

    And thanks again, Obiwan, for giving Norton’s folks more ammunition in the general. Can I fairly assume you are employed by the GOP?

  5. things you quoted?

    I’m not suggesting you made that stuff up, but can you show that you didn’t?

    And I understand that you oppose Bennet.

    Why do you support Romanoff?

    “offers substance”  and “…record of tackling Colorado’s toughest problems. ”

    (OMG – talk about cliches.)

    “offers substance.”  like what?

    “He has a proven record of tackling Colorado’s toughest problems. ”

    Such as?

    I would say legislatively our toughest problem is TABOR, was TABOR and will be TABOR. Along with that is it’s too easy to amend our Constitution. That other budgeting restriction – that went away last year (something Bird) – sucked too.  

    What were Andrew’s accomplishments on these?

    Or what are you saying ar the “toughest problems”?

     

    1. BICora, I think we can all agree Romanoff had a significant hand in writing and helping get voters to approve Ref C, which has been the most meaningful attempt to deal with TABOR’s problems. He also “tackled” those same problems with Amendment 59, though voters didn’t agree on that one.

      1. for demonstrating, as Dan Willis did elsewhere, that supporting one candidate does not require bashing the other. The truth is that both Former Speaker Romanoff and Senator Bennet have demonstrated high degrees of talent and commitment in advancing a solid Democratic agenda. I think we should all remain more focused on that truth.

          1. Thanks for clarifying that.

            I do (have a preference), for Michael Bennet, but am still eager to acknowledge Andrew Romanoff’s strengths and virtues. After all, he may end up being my party’s candidate for the U.S. Senate, and the last thing I want to do is help the Republicans to defeat whoever that candidate turns out to be.

  7. His appointment to the DPS position had nothng to do with your statements, and by most acconts he did a fine job.

    Once again, nothing but negatives from a bitter campaign that has lacked ideas, money, and class.

  8. …you sure can’t take it, can you? Just yesterday you were gleefully proclaiming that AR had jumped the shark. Today I criticize MB and it’s like I’ve committed a crime against humanity.

    Steve Harvey, apparently to you any criticism is “garbage.” Yet many people have criticized AR here and elsewhere, and justly so in some cases. I suspect you were not so outraged at those “attacks.” AR did wait too long to get in. AR did wait too long to get a campaign manager and settle on a campaign team. Those are fair strikes against him. I still think he’s a stronger candidate than MB. Lost in all the criticism of AR’s campaign is the fact that MB has also, in my opinion, run a poor campaign.  

    To me, there is nothing wrong with criticizing a fellow Democrat during a primary, so long as you don’t make up facts, which I did not do. Allowing criticism is particularly important in this primary because MB is a virtual unknown.   Are we really going to elect this guy without allowing a detailed look at his background?  I honestly think MB is a weak candidate. I honestly believe the Republicans are chomping at the bit to take on MB. They will say much worse things than I said above. Yes, if he is the nominee I will vote for him.  He is a better option than Norton. But I think he has less of a chance of beating Norton, for the reasons outlined above. And I don’t think he’s the leader we Democrats need right now. Most importantly, he is not yet the nominee.  

    And I may have helped MB. I sure as hell hope he does not try the “outsider” cliche in the general election. Voters would rightly find that preposterous.

    As for the idea that I have provided opposition research to the Republicans, that is equally preposterous. I think The Wad knows about wikipedia, doesn’t he?  The Wad is aware of Bennet’s bio, isn’t he?  If I told them anything they don’t already know, the Republicans are even worse off than I thought. And if MB doesn’t already have responses prepared for criticisms like mine his campaign team is not earning their pay.

    Our job as Democratic primary voters is to assess (honestly, not through rose-colored glasses)(and not through money-colored glasses either) the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate. Don’t be so afraid of criticism, MBers. If your candidate is as awesome as you think he is, he will survive it and criticism will toughen him up. If he’s not, then he really shouldn’t be the Democratic nominee, should he?

    1. I’ll post a diary, and then reply in one long comment on the end of the thread. It’ll be great.

      And of course you’re not providing anything the Republicans don’t already know. I was just saying that they have people who are doing this already, but it was really nice of you to try to do their jobs for them.

    2. Did you actually say that because someone called your arguments “garbage” they’re saying it’s “like [you’ve] committed a crime against humanity”?  Way to dishonestly claim persecution!

    3. your arguments are garbage.

      Geez, couldn’t you guys let me stay happily on the fence? The sad fact is, you (and the unbelievable quantity of people posting in a manner similar to you) are doing a disservice to everybody except, as RSB so astutely points out, the Republicans. The only way this is rational is if you and the vast majority of the other Romanoff supporters here are really clever Republican operatives posing as Democrats in order to undermine the Democratic Party agenda.

      I respect and admire Andrew Romanoff, and have never said a single critical word about him, but that becomes increasingly difficult when the voices speaking on his behalf are all off their meds. Please, do the world a favor, and chill out!!!

      1. The hyperbole is flowing more freely than the hypocrisy at CPAC.

        I don’t believe anyone is attacking Andrew Romanoff the man, people have been critical of his incredibly inept and now increasingly negative campaign.

        Nearly everyone supports Romanoff, as they do Michael Bennet.  Both would be great for Colorado.  The difference is that one of them has had a head start and has shown himself to be up for the job—at least to many Democrats.

        So stop the goddamn negative campaign and wannabe ops research.  If Romanoff can show where his vision differs from Bennet’s positions, good for him.  But for chrissake run the campaign on the issues not trifling “insider/outsider” specious talking points.

        1. one trying to convince voters of his ‘outsider’ status. What’s that called in the trial world?  Oh yeah, he opened up that subject, so it’s fair game for everyone.

          And I suppose bennet doesn’t consider the issue to be ‘trifling’ since he’s apparently trying to use the issue to gain voter’s support.

          1. I just had the pleasure this evening of listening to, and talking with, Andrew Romanoff once again, and was, as always, impressed by his sincerity, his good will, and his strength of character. The tone and attitude some of his supporters are insisting on is an insult to the man and what he represents. He’s better than that, and you should be as well.

  9. …it is easier to read the thread that way.  Isn’t it better to consolidate my responses?  

    My saying “crime against humanity” was a joke in the form of hyperbole.  It was meant to point out what I see as a double-standard here on ColoPols.  Criticizing (and mocking) AR is accepted, criticizing MB is “negativity.”

    Peacemonger, you are right that AR did not exactly grow up a farmhand in rural Colorado.  But if you look at his bio you see AR did take a different path than MB.

    If you think my opinion is garbage that is your right, of course.  But the tone I got was that I am a traitor/all-round-bad-guy for even questioning MB on his bio and his campaign emails.  That is what I have a problem with.

    Finally, as I said, I have no connection to the AR campaign (nor to a really inept Republican mail firm). These views are solely my own.  

    1. Especially if you’re the diary author. Not everybody reads every comment and knows that you’re talking about them. I just happen to have a lot of experience with people passive aggressively attacking me, so I notice it more.

        1. If people are really that interested in the comments section of the diary, they’ll read the replies. But if there are a lot of new posts without replies it becomes harder to follow.

    2. I didn’t say your opinion is garbage.  I did ask if you were working for the GOP. Trashing a Democratic candidate (either of them) is just plain stupid, IMHO.

      And no, I didn’t say YOU are stupid.  I said trashing a Dem candidate in the primary is stupid (if you are a Democrat).  

    3. I said that the way you (and some others) are expressing it is. And I very emphatically stand by that assessment of your original diary post, and some of the reinforcements of it.

      I’m not “Colorado Pols.” I have no agenda other than to advance the values that I hold dear. Those values include striving to create an ever more robust, sustainable, and fair political economy, and a more cooperative and civil political culture. No, I do not believe that the civility fairy is going to sprinkle pixie dust on the world and make us all sing “Kumbaya” together. But I do believe that each choice we make, each action, each form of expression nudges the center of gravity one way or another within that multidimensional space. And the net force you are putting on that center of gravity is contrary to what most Dems are committed to accomplishing, both in and of itself, and in its consequences in the world.

      I have no problem with your disagreeing with that. I can understand that, and even respect it. But when you try to dismiss me as part of some grand conspiracy to discredit your preferred candidate, a man I happen to like and respect, I feel like I’m exercising considerable restraint by merely calling that “garbage.”

      1. I have come to believe that the Speaker has backed this negtive campaigning from his entry.

        The people that surround him on his staff, and close supporters have been using the same methods.

        The sock puppets want names? Patrick Anderson, Jen Herrera,and  Wade Norris.

        That’s a start. I have a few more, but those are some of the most egregious.

        The Speaker has yet to name any names of who he believes is corrupt (or has been) in the Senate, even though he himself calls it an “incumbent protection racket.”

        The fact that he has had his own PAC in his own name active in giving money since September when he entered and closed only in January is further evidence that his arguments have been specious.  

        1. for what it’s worth, I have never viewed political contests as an issue of who is the better person, who has done the most “good” or “bad” things in the course of his or her campaign, what nastiness on the part of respective minnions is justified or unjustified, or who is responsible for which defects of form and bearing. I have always looked at them as a means to get from point A to as close to point B as possible.

          Regardless of whether your assessment above is true or not, if it came down to a choice, I’d much rather have Andrew Romanoff in office than any Republican challenger. And I don’t think it helps us get from point A to point B to do things that would undermine that possibility, even just marginally, by reacting to perceived transgressions, whether by Romanoff supporters or by Romanoff himself.

          My rebukes are directed toward exactly that tactical error, regardless of on whose behalf. They’re not going to do anyone any good, but they will do us all a bit of harm.

    4. That–almost all–refuse to discuss AR’s virtues but instead attack (usually with little substance) Bennet.  As SH NTCO points out, this does a severe disservice to your candidate.  It makes AR’s supporters look politically naive, immature, and–yes–a bit crazy.  More than anything, it is AR’s supporters here that have done the most to secure my vote for Bennet.  Good Job!

      1. …I have argued why I am FOR Romanoff and I have explained why I think he is a better leader and will be a better Senator.  But this diary was about why I am also AGAINST Bennet.  It is possible and reasonable to be both.  I chose the topic because I think MB’s bio and emails deserve to be critically challenged and have not been.

        We as Dem primary voters must assess the strengths and weaknesses of each candidate.  Many of you seem to be arguing we can only talk about each candidate’s strengths.  I disagree.  I think to say we cannot talk critically about the candidates does a disservice to the voters of Colorado, especially when one of the candidates is new to the scene.

        Let me ask all you MB supporters, is the “outsider” card a good strategy for MB?

        1. I’ve read your posts- re-read a bunch of them just now.

          You have not documented why you are  “…FOR Romanoff and I have explained why I think he is a better leader and will be a better Senator.”

          Maybe I missed it. Link to it and I’ll apologize.

          You definitely did NOT BIC from above.

          He/she was onto something – it would help me if you addressed it.

          Do you have links for the

          things you quoted?

          I’m not suggesting you made that stuff up, but can you show that you didn’t?

          Why do you support Romanoff?

          “offers substance”  and “…record of tackling Colorado’s toughest problems. ”

          (OMG – talk about cliches.)

          “offers substance.”  like what?

          “He has a proven record of tackling Colorado’s toughest problems. ”

          Such as?

          Are you resting your support for AR on his record?

          Can you be specific about that record – why it makes him a better candidate and why it suggests to you he’ll be a better Senator?

          Can you also make a case for why it makes him more electable in the general?

          I like Andrew. I’ll support him if he earns the nomination. But I think Bennet is more electable in the general in Colorado 2010. I am a Democrat and I want the seat to stay D.

        3. MADCO is perhaps too crude, but he’s not wrong. And you definetely did not address my questions from above.

          I just reviewed your comment history.

          This is your only diary – no clear statement of why you are for Romanoff here, just that you oppose Bennet.  Now, if that’s all there was, that would be a reason I want a D, there’s only two to choose from, and I’ll choose the one I don’t opppose.

          It would be a reason- just not a very good one.

          And it’s not clear that’s what you think, but it’s certainly not a reason why you are “for” a candidate.

          In the rest of your comments:

          – you push back on the appointment process, hinting that perhaps there was some impropriety, but that even if not improper, Bennet was a mystery to you. I suspect you would have been fine with Andrew being appointed, fine enough that if after being appointed he got a primary challenge, you would have pushed back on the challenger. So it’s not the appointment process per se, just that your guy didn’t get chosen (to dance).

          – you say that Andrew has demonstrated more leadership and has more of track record, including showing that he was willing to “fight for his positions”.  So Bennet is the new guy, and you support Andrew because he’s been there done that. (and you dance with the one who brung ya’), and;

          – You claim that Andrew has a better life story, a better “path”.  I’m not sure how you make that assessment, perhaps it’s his 8 years in the CO House. But it sounds like more than that- like you see his and Senator Bennet’s life experiences as different enough that you choose Romanoff.

          So, in a nutshell, you choose Romanoff because he isn’t Bennet, he has a track record of leadership in CO politics, and he has a better life story.

          I don’t mind that Bennet is Bennet. I don’t know how to meaningfully assess their life paths.  I admit Andrew has more track record in CO politics.

          I choose Bennet (for reasons previously stated): http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

  10. Again – this is awesome.  The Bennet volunteers/staffer/representatives (if you speak on behalf of the good Senator you are one of the three) have nothing to bring to the conversation.  

    OBK – you are in the same category as JeffCo Blue.  Someone who has the balls to call out the Bennet lackeys here (MADCO, peacemonger, BiCora, caroman) and expose them for who they are – complete hacks who cannot tell you why you should vote of Michael Bennet.

    1. is the party that believes in advancing the cause of reason and good will, and that does so in small ways as well as large. Some of its members are registered Republicans, some are registered Democrats, and some are Independents.

      Some day, I hope you decide to join that political party. You will always be welcome when and if you choose to do so.

    2. Did you miss grammar day in 4th grade?

      Do you speak like an illiterate when you “have sat with presidents and world leaders,” as you hilariously claimed the other day?

      1. And forget the harmless pretensions. The problem with anonymous remote unmoderated public discourse is that there’s no way to keep it from being driven into the sewer by people whose only way to feel relevant (beside inventing delusional autobiographies) is to be as inflammatory and combative as possible. Otoole is just the latest in a seemingly endless stream of such gifts to the world.

        1. Not contributing much to the dialogue, as far as I can tell.

          I think he (and a few other Bennet supporters) are starting to make Bennet look bad in terms of negativity. Of course they all think it’s only the other side doing it.

    3. It’s pretty simple, Tool:

      Michael Bennet – a newly minted freshman senator – is the guy that has put the public option back on the table in the senate. Andrew Romanoff doesn’t even have the guts to say he supports reconciliation when he’s pandering on Fox News.

      Further, dear Tool (pasting a previous comment):

      Michael Bennet supported Barack Obama. Andrew Romanoff didn’t (and doesn’t).

      Michael Bennet opposed the war in Iraq. Andrew Romanoff didn’t.

      Michael Bennet supported passing health care reform on Christmas Eve. Andrew Romanoff didn’t.

      Michael Bennet supports the rights of children of undocumented immigrants. Andrew Romanoff didn’t.

      Michael Bennet has experience in the private sector, running a major metropolitan city, running and reforming a major school system, and experience raising a family. Andrew doesn’t.

      Michael Bennet isn’t a career politician. Andrew Romanoff is the consummate insider and career politician, and that seems to be the one and only qualification you and he believe entitles him to the job. A lot of people, including November voters, are going to disagree with you there.  

      3. You’re going to insult someone else for having a silly user name?

        Really?

        O’Toole is a common last name. I’m sure you got a lot of mileage out of that joke when you made fun of poor Percy O’Toole in middle school, but some of us expect a little more awareness of the stones-and-glass-houses stuff from someone who calls himself “Ah Choo.”

    4. I have said many many times,  I like Andrew and I will support him if he wins the nomination because he is a better choice than any of the R candidates and I want the seat to stay D.

      Will you say the same for Bennet?

      I’ll post again why I choose Bennet- and I’ll link to the prior posts when I do.

      Why are you for Romanoff?

    5. I choose Bennet and that makes me a hack?

      I could just post my short list over and over and over and over. It would get boring, and then I would be a hack, but at least no one could reasonably say I never say why I am supporting Bennet.

      Just the most recent example:

      http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

      Unlike you who has never posted why you are for Romanoff. And has only brought hostility and …inanity to the conversation.  

      Oh, wait …for you it’s not about being reasonable. Well then what could possibly be your motive….

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

116 readers online now

Newsletter

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