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%
March 08, 2009 09:59 PM UTC
75 Comments
Which elected officials signed it?
why do you need to know?
Or is it a big secret or something?
while i don’t believe any of the officials who signed would actually care, it is not my place to post their names.
I asked them to sign a pledge of support, but I did not include the phrase
“i might post your name in a diary tomorrow”
plus, if i am going to interview people again on my radio/camera show, I want them to know they can trust me.
but I was just asking. The reason I asked was because there were so many names the other day in the diary about the Bennet fundraiser.
And no, Wade, my name is not a big secret.
if i say i am not being defensive
will that prove i am being defensive?
you will also notice the names not on the list.
The rep of that district did not attend the fundraiser…
neither did Ed Perlmutter…
the plot thickens
But are we supposed to simply take your word that there’s overwhelming support for Romanoff?
In judging the viability of a campaign or political movement prior to a vote, the inside baseball crowd looks to various measures: press generated, money raised, supporters accumulated, endorsements, web presence, visibility, chatter, etc. In this particular case, these measures help establish the difference between a viable effort that is gaining ground and an exercise in wacktivism.
Although Wade gets his back up when folks ask for specifics along these lines, it’s the grist that keeps the mill working. I’m not sure his favorite subject-changing fallacy — bitching about anonymity on a blog famous for its protected anonymity — is all that persuasive (or succeeds in changing the subject). Sanctimony has never survived long here either.
I actually think a primary would be fun, but Wade seems to be generating less legitimacy for a primary. Not more.
It’s clear that you fear revealing your name.
When I fought the city of Denver and a union and won a decade ago, many people lobbed anonymous threats.
Five people openly joined me in that fight at the start. When it became clear that I was going to win about 30 others came out of the woodwork.
Beating city hall was a phyrric victory.
The cost of replacing my totalled vehicle and replacing articles lost in the fire(including medical bills, and a lack of renters insurance) far outweighed the cash settlement.
It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the anonymous phone calls were made by people that eventually were paid out on the tailgate.
The history of attacking anonymously creates memories of many other violent attacks in politics. The history of our country clearly shows anonymity is used by those who have fear of being held accountable for their actions.
I can say that I learned to have a private number, renters insurance and get mail at a PO BOX.
If anything, your total lack of a sense of humor, over the top hyperbole, obsessiveness, evident rage, etc. are pretty good antecedent conditions for a wacktivist. Throw in a political cause, and you’ve got Wacktivist Jambalaya for dinner!
I have a good sense of humor, but not for people that believe sticking up for democracy is whining.
My story is not unique. Do some oral history with minorities in this state and you will find that many have stories of anonymous violence perpetrated against them.
I don’t believe that reason can break through your stealth attacks. As a matter of fact, I’ll simply ignore you.
It would best for the board if we could agree to ignore each other.
You attribute this comment to me. Where did I make it? Or are you upset about something you made up yourself?
Is that the royal “we”?
If anything, your total lack of a sense of humor, over the top hyperbole, obsessiveness, evident rage, etc. are pretty good antecedent conditions for a wacktivist. Throw in a political cause, and you’ve got Wacktivist Jambalaya for dinner!
anyway….I offer a peace treaty.
I did keep the correspondece with members of the Congressional delegation, and the documents ordered public information unanimously by the Colorado Supreme Court, which won the case.
Complaints against attornies (in this case a union attorney) are held under a gag order while the discplinary process takes place, and usually gagged permanently.
Basically, the documents that won the case by proving perjury held “anonymous” lies (the gag order made them unknown to the public) in documents signed by officials involved in the process.
I’ve stated before that then AG Ken Salazar was the only politician that did the right thing. In reveiwing the records, however, it’s clear that that Rep. David Skaggs gave some effort to assist me as well.
To be absolutely fair, I also received some assisatance from a special agent of the FBI.
That changes everything. No more “wacktivist” teasing. I promise.
thanks for emailing me, rsb.
although we disagree on this subject, thanks for encouraging our dialogue.
Look forward to grabbing a beer with you sometime.
I worked the dinner for signatures and gave out stickers. He has support in Pueblo, Boulder and certainly Denver.
I told Sen Bennet at the CYD party (I ran into him with my Romanoff sticker on my jacket and clip board)that I believe that he’s a good man, well qualified, and has a good family background for D.C.
Sen Bennet was quite gracious.
If Andrew Romanoff decides not to run, then I will wholeheartedly support the Senator.
I still strongly believe that Speaker Romanoff has been the man most responsible for turning Colorado blue in the last 6 years.
I told Sen Bennet that I believe in loyalty.
He understood that and respected my position.
He had strong support in the Arapahoe and Adams County delegations as well.
I respect that. I don’t agree with his positions or his tactics as SOS.
I respect your position as well, I just feel that the tone of the campaign (on this website anyway) has been unnecessarily divisive. I reached out to Wade in an attempt to change that, and I appreciate your passionate support for Fmr. Speaker Romanoff. My opinion on whether there’s a reason for a primary or not still hasn’t changed, but I hope that it’s a building block from which we can have a more constructive dialog on this issue.
As to my quote, I just thought it was funny because it’s so descriptive. Coffman has served his country, and he deserves respect for that, but as you said his politics leave much to be desired. If it says anything at all, it’s a commentary on his work in elected office–not his military service.
..if they signed their names on your paper at the JJ dinner, they had no expectation of secrecy. Spill it or be quiet.
would come by…
thanks to those who posted demands for proof of names –
someone emailed me to let me know something
From House Majority Leader
Rep. Paul Weismann
thanks for the permission
anytime you want to back up your talk
send me an email and we will meet whereever you wanna…
otherwise
why don’t you STFP
What’s the P stand for? Did you mean “U”?
but let’s come up with something creative.
how about
or
I guess I am in a better mood today.
seriously though,
If Andrew gets in, what do you put the odds at?
I don’t know. It sounds like AR is popular, but MB is lining up support as well, and has that ever-important incumbent advantage. Maybe AR 2-1, MB 5-2?
It is a very natural question to know who is supporting your candidate. That is a usually the first thing people look at when they are weighing in their minds if they would want to go on this adventure or not.
I do not mind saying that I would openly support Andrew if he were to decide to run. I would likely even work on his campaign.
This has nothing to do with Sen. Bennet, it is only an acknowledgment that Andrew is a long-time friend and I will support him in whatever endeavor he seeks.
However, when you throw out the bone that elected are signing on but resist revealing who those electeds are, it makes you look dishonest, and by assoiciation, the candidate you are backing. So this approach is not helpful to the cause, yourself, or Andrew.
Just an observation.
Dan, but that poster above has not held back in personally attacking me.
One of the reasons I insisted on not contacting or communicating with Andrew was so that if anything I say in these posts are deemed offensive – like that one above, everyone would know that Andrew is not to involved.
The fact is, however, there are a lot of people who are either looking for work with Senator Bennet or the Governor or already are, and therefore are very upset with the prospect of a primary and have not hesitated to let me know about it.
Also, I updated the thread to reflect the support of one of the elected officials who are supporting Andrew.
(House Majority Leader Paul Weismann)
Thanks for posting.
Wade – hopefully, I’m not among the bloggers you feel personally attacked you. But here’s the deal: you titled titled your diary “Overwhelming support …”, but without any substantive facts to support that conclusion.
After many hours of browbeating, we finally got a few meager facts out of you which certainly support the conclusion “Intriguing support …”, and if we had a hard count of signatures and a few more names of significance, then I could see potential for “Impressive support …”. However, you have a very long climb to even approach the term “Overwhelming support …”
I am not as sanguine about the rise of advocacy journalism as David may be. As I’ve written before, I find it dismaying, because of the ease with which some would dismiss objectively reporting facts for the chance to express their opinion in the guise of truth.
That the blogosphere is left-leaning probably is a natural response to the years of ridiculously slanted right-wing talk radio. As sympathetic as I might be to the bloggers’ progressive views, I don’t want to get my news on yellow-tinted pages.
So if and until Andrew announces something, I’ve said my last on this matter (gotta get back to the office), so I probably won’t post any more on this thread.
but asking who has publicly endorsed Romanoff for a Senate primary challenge is a fair question.
Whether you like it or not, you are, as far as I can tell, the public face of the Draft Romanoff movement. I was asking you a legitimate question in my capacity of the Democratic guest front page editor of this blog. Obviously it’s a fairly informal setting, but I’m just trying to get answers to questions that many people were asking themselves when they read this.
I’m glad that we exchanged e-mails, but I do hope that you understand I was within my rights to ask the question.
You have made yourself the face of the Draft Romanoff movement, Wade, and how you act in that capacity reflects on Romanoff – fair or not.
that’s why i have tried to stay civil, because I will still support the democratic candidates of this state, (and even some republicans when they are doing good – like Maristoca) but will also demand them to be as progressive as possible, whether on the Employee Free Choice Act, Clean Coal, Net Neutrality, etc.
And, hopefully, my sometimes amatuer actions and responses here won’t be blamed on Andrew.
And to the Colorado Pols website, thanks for making this forum possible.
that is why I reposted this diary with the House Majority Leader’s permission to show his name.
If the other reps from the state house, state senate, and our congressional delegation give me the permission, then I will publish their names as well.
I agree with your request and, believe me, I wanted to give everyone answers to their questions, but i did not feel right about sharing names.
As for me being the face of Draft Romanoff, i am ok with that label on this website, merely because this site only represents a small portion of the Colorado Democratic population.
But the creation of the Draft Romanoff website was done entirely independently of me. Also, the calls and emails I have received from people at the capitol (Like Rep. Weismann) were also unsolicited and heard about contacting me through either this website or by good ole’ word of mouth.
thanks for contacting me.
Did it mention that this was a petition urging Andrew to declare his candidacy?
Or was it a simple declaration of being a “Friend of Andrew Romanoff”?
He’ll always have plenty of those.
i told them it was to let Andrew know that he had their support for a Senate Primary.
they knew
… cute
I guess we’ll just have to keep waiting for the “announcement” coming any time now.
But at this point, the harder you push, the more it will seem to simply be an ego trip (yours or Andrew’s).
And in that contest, I believe you would be the hands-down winner.
So your petition collection effort didn’t actually include a petition? Please clarify.
How many names did you collect? I saw plenty of Bennet for Senate stickers, but kept my eyes peeled for the promised Wade’s Vanguard and saw one guy with a homemade sticker.
and I think it’s understandable that Wade wants to hold that information back for now. It’s still pretty early.
But I’m really curious to know what the petition actually said. Wade’s comments suggest that some people signed it without asking what it was for. Which means it clearly didn’t state “We would support Romanoff in a primary against Bennet” or anything similar.
Still, it’s not too surprising that hardcore Democratic activists would strongly support a primary challenger; they think differently from the general Democratic public. I remember how Joan Fitz-Gerald won overwhelmingly in the county convention despite Polis actively campaigning for delegate support.
… So all it says is “Friends of Andrew Romanoff”. Lotta those, heck, I would’ve signed it.
But nudge, nudge, wink, wink, those that ask are told by Wade (not sure what the 6 other volunteers, uh, volunteered) that it’s to primary Bennet.
So, by not releasing the names, those that “knew” or especially those that didn’t know, can’t contradict Wade’s spin on the “Overwhelming support for Andrew Romanoff for the Colorado Senate Primary”
I told people openly that we were encouraging Andrew Romanoff to run.
Many officials I talked to stated that they would personally talk to Andrew about his intentions.
I told Paul Begala, who objected to a primary on general principle, that once again that I believe in loyalty and that Andrew Romanoff is not done in Colorado politics.
He didn’t argue with that.
…by resisting a response to this post. But I am interested only in the greater good……
……..
Wade, Back in February you announced you had a story about (former) Rep. Foster that would be coming out “soon.” Is this still in the works?
Wade has decided that he has a recipe for success in propping up his candidate. He spreads rumors on this blog, never quite says anything that people can contradict because he NEVER gives any details, names, or specific information. Instead, it’s a whole lot of insinuation that big things are happening just out of sight.
Fact is, I like Wade’s candidate… but I really have no respect left for Wade. I like to think that if Andrew Romanoff had any idea the things Wade is doing, he’d ask Wade to stop.
Not only is this getting a bit silly and tiresome with the “Big announcement coming soon” but it’s also not at all helpful to the guy Wade is trying to help. In fact, the more this is the face of Romanoff For Senate, the more embarrassing it becomes and what could be something entirely viable starts to look about as serious as those who were calling for Miles to challenge Sen Salazar.
I’ve posted before that I think Romanoff could actually pull off a solid win over Bennet based on who the primary voters are and their love affair with him. The longer he stays out though, the more people are going to sign on with and give to Bennet simply because they don’t see any real evidence of an opponent. That was an impressive list for the event Friday but I do wonder how many would have been on or off the host list if Romanoff (or any other viable challenger) were publicly in the race. All that said, it’s pretty clear that Romanoff is at least considering a run and I’ve been told that he has met with a number of people who have the experience raising money and running campaigns to have a full fledged campaign quickly if he decided to get in. I do think that he needs to either get in or publicly state that he is not getting in and put an end to the speculation (and if the decision is to get in, put a credible face to his candidacy vs. the mystery petitions from last night).
Last quick thought: Anybody else find it odd for Bennet’s camp to be pushing stickers on everybody who walked in last night? I understand that they’re trying to raise his profile and name, but there were a dozen other elected officials there and none of the others were campaigning or trying to get people to wear their sticker or pins.
Let’s leave Romanoff out for a second and focus on Bennet. Two things could realistically happen soon.
The first is that he decides not to run. Clearly his and Ritter’s intent is for him to run and win, but thinking you can handle a schedule like Bennet’s and actually doing it are two different things. You know how kids make that face and say something that’s too true? My niece has changed my mind doing that. “Daddy’s never here because he doesn’t love us.” I’m not saying that it will happen, I’m saying it’s possible.
The second is related to Bennet’s brand new voting record. If the Recovery Act fails, or if it doesn’t meet the average voter’s expectation (whole other, interesting conversation), the party may need to consider someone with no record on it. The GOP would be all over that and the money is admittedly impressive. That takes us to Romanoff or Hick (depending on the circumstances), neither of which will run if it’s a nasty Bennet sucks thing.
I posted under you because you had actual points and it seemed to make sense.
yes.
again, I will defer to her judgement on the matter.
as you can see, most elected people do not want to risk going against their Governor based on a candidate that ‘might’ declare.
IF he does, then those that have my confidentiality, have given me the permission to use their names.
Others, who are already fine with their names being used, are kept in confidence because I believe it opens them up to the same style of attacks people here have directed towards me.
As I mentioned above, Sen Bennet himself was quite gracious.
Democracy is about competing ideas and interest groups compromising.
I apologize for my counter attacks, but too many people have fought and died for our freedom for me to not retaliate when someone suggests that stating that we have freedom equates to “whining about democracy.”
tension in the air at the CYD even, but no one was disrespectful.
thanks for your help Saturday.
Especially since you hurt my feelings with your unflinching defense of democracy by calling for censorship.
Care to share a link that directs back to this shocking “whining about democracy” quote?
when you go against the Governor of the State and the leader of the party, you start to become aware of the folks you have pissed off.
Governor Ritter had democratic support in 2006 because we were so happy to have a democrat in office. I know, personally, we can sometimes neglect the important questions about our leaders and what they will legislate, much like when we blindly gave Bill Clinton a pass in 1992 on NAFTA.
(see below)
a question we must continue to ask…
we must always be vigilant…
i don’t know if I met you back in GJ
but one of my contacts told me she would give me all the ethical violations the President of Mesa had committed, (not to mention the fraud he had committed)
but she has not emailed lately, perhaps a lack of nerve. (ash are you out there?)
A petition that had the words “Andrew Romanoff” on it gathered some signatures. And it has lots of signatures including lots of elected officials, but it would be bad to make that support public.
Oh, and you had lots of volunteers running around saying who knows what collecting signatures but the signers assumed that their signing would be kept super-secret.
Yep, got it.
when one drives to Trinidad…
by the way, it is freaking windy along
I-25 – more proof that this could easily be the number 1 wind powered state.
Ok, where to start
Look, I know this wears on you guys’ patience to have me insinuate names and support etc.
We did not have to tell people any thing at the JJ about our petition. The questions they asked me/us was “when is going to announce?”
There were people who would not sign or take a sticker because they are in the party or could not commit until Andrew announces.
But a lot of people did sign and the 100 stickers were mostly gone by dinner.
You might have seen us by the door before the dinner started, we were quite popular in fact. (Even i admit being surprised that we were turning people away without stickers)
Someone in the House of Representatives called me Friday to find out what I would be doing at the JJ and that he would be doing the same at the State Re-org. I told him I have had no contact with Mr. Romanoff, and still haven’t, but I was told he knows what the various groups of volunteers are doing and is making the decision soon, one way or another.
The comparison to Mike Miles is a big stretch. Miles was never elected to office, and ran in 2004, when Bush and the war were still over 50% and even the Salazar race was still a tossup against Coors.
That was then. The leading candidate from this website’s perspective is Tancredo. If Owens gets in, (and with the rumors about his extra family I don’t see that happening)
maybe there will be an interesting race. That said, I believe the primary candidate winner will be the next Senator.
As for your “respect” for me,
gosh that hurts. For the objective readers out there, I have a pretty diverse body of work over these past couple of years.
Trust me, it is not easy nor pleasant to go to an after party with Bennet and his staffers around.
Your view of me or ‘respect’ does not matter to me, nor did it matter when Musgrave’s chief of staff was calling me and my radio station executive on phone accusing me of making up my May interview with Betsy Markey to give her ‘cover’ to avoid going on air in Fr. Collins to debate Musgrave. I am use to being in a pressure situation, and am also used to protecting candidate’s. I feel no need at this point, to state names. But believe me, they are real. And the volunteers are not figments of my imagination, neither is their decision to start their website.
As for David Thi808, his respect I do wish to earn. He is doing what I have done in the past, interview our elected officials (even Republicans, I think) and give us insight on what they are all about.
That is what I am doing as well.
With a primary, we will get a chance to vet our candidates.
And you can best believe that Bennet’s guys were there handing out stickers because of volunteers like me.
And nothing could hide the tepid applause the crowd gave him and the overheard whispers of ‘who is that?’
These are not the fault of Michael Bennet, and I am not saying anything slanderous or untrue. These are the facts of being unknown and appointed to a Senate seat.
Part of the problem Wade, is that if you actually had any connection to Andrew, you might have at least one small iota of credibility. As it is, the more you post, the clearer it becomes that Twas Brillig called it:
Now, finally, you are starting to give us a sense of the “Overwhelming” support. At a gathering of several thousand Democrats, it seems you maybe got about 100 signatures?
I think we’ve accumulated on various diaries, a far bigger number of reasoned posts as to why Andrew might not want to run for this particular office at this particular time.
And you didn’t actually respond to any of David’s questions, so you might need to work a little harder getting his respect as well.
i underestimated the level of support when i was making up the badges and signature pages. I myself collected 120 signatures, (6 pages) before I ran out, not to mention the other 2 batches others were circulating.
the 100 you refer to is the 100 badges – which were gone quickly.
If anything, listened to the “reasoned posts” here caused me to greatly understimate the amount of support received.
And – why did Bennet have staffers passing out Bennet stickers?
Just pullin’ teeth here trying to extract a fact or two among the blizzard of bloviation.
BTW, for a newsman, it’s odd you missed Perlmutter (or for that matter insinuate nefarious motives for my representative to miss this event):
According to the Post:
As to why Bennet was passing out stickers? Well don’t tell anybody, but heard a rumor that he’s up for re-election in 2010…
i was talking about the fundraiser for Bennet friday night
those who attended
Governor Bill Ritter
U.S. Senator Mark Udall
Congresswoman Diana DeGette
Congressman John Salazar
Congresswoman Betsy Markey
Congressman Jared Polis
Mayor John Hickenlooper
Senate President Peter Groff
Speaker of the House Terrance Carroll
Honorable Roy Romer
Honorable Gary Hart
Honorable Wellington Webb
No Perlmutter
no rep of the district
I’ll try to keep the entire context of the thread in my head next time!
And yes, my representative is a close friend of Andrew’s, so taking a pass on Friday (for whatever reason) is perfectly reasonable.
But, my real point is that newsmen, which you claim to be, don’t report rumors.
Shall I quote all the times you’ve used that word in all these posts?
and thanks for being civil.
btw
is your handle something from Harry Potter?
… and yes, thank goodness Harry Potter and Dobby the elf(?) occur so frequently on the web 😉
It affords me some privacy from those that don’t use quotation marks to limit the search.
Google away!
reflects such “overwhelming” support…for what again?
is that you give us specifics including names. As others have said, what you claim is general and vague.
One thing in my interviews – I have never gone off the record in one. There are things I choose not to write because they are personal. And a couple of times I was witness to stuff that while of interest to people, I didn’t think it was appropiate to post. But it’s always been 100% my call.
thanks – dave
ps – I do treat all incoming emails as off the record. But those I don’t talk about at all.
“backstory” with the names I have your public word you would keep them in confidence?
ultimatepolitics@hotmail.com
I also would not take that email into account. And to be honest, I’d prefer to not get that email.
One thing I should have said above, we each choose our own way to decide what we listen to, what we keep confidential, and how we approach that mix. No single approach is perfect and we each have our own.
But your approach will garner you a lot more skeptisism.
…that you would keep their signatures secret? yes, all of this sounds plausible
I indicated that we were gathering names to demonstrate to Andrew that he has solid support.
David, most of the officals I talked to were sitting on a fence and didn’t wish to declare until they spoke directly to Andrew.
Many expressed positive thoughts about it.
I understand their position.
Most signers were party activists that actually work in the trenches. The three most historic areas of Democratic support (Pueblo, Denver, and Boulder)
are well represented on the lists.
We need Andrew to tell us what he plans to do soon.
How could Romanoff possibly know what he wants to do at this point? If he wants to challenge Bennett based on significant disagreements about policy, or based on a significant difference in his political ability to get things done, then there’s a good chance he might have my support. (It will, of course, depend on exactly what policy differences he has, and how competent Bennett proves to be.) But what’s he got to base that decision on if he makes it tomorrow? Bennett being a little slower than you’d like in deciding whether to support the EFCA? Yeah, right.
Seriously, announcing now would be one big huge announcement that Romanoff isn’t motivated by a desire to impact policy decisions, or ability to get things done. If he announces when no one has any idea what Bennett will do or how well he’ll do it, then we can be sure he’s just in it because he wants the job for personal reasons. That’s not going to go over well with voters here, no matter how strong the support is among Democratic party insiders.
Sen. Bennett is not entitled to the Democratic nomination just because Ritter chose him to replace Salazar. But for better or worse, he is entitled to a fair shake at doing his job right now.
I think that if Romanoff waits, however, he’ll cede the media coverage completely and have no chance to raise funds. How does an ex speaker stay in the media spotlight for 18 months?
Senator Bennet doesn’t have this problem.
I share the doubts of some of our fellow polsters and especially wonder how direct you were with the folks signing your petitions. I almost wish I had been there…alas, one boring as hell JJ was enough for me in 07… 🙂
Regardless, this will all resolve itself eventually. If an when Andrew announces, the names you do or don’t give us won’t really matter…and you’ll have been right about something most of us are skeptical about. If he passes on running…well…you’ll look like a jackass. 🙂
Thanks again.
Wade doesn’t look like a “jackass.”
He looks like a person that expressed his belief in democracy.
I cannot help but think of my deceased father, an African-American WWII veteran that was wounded in combat, and how those in the Civil Rights Movement itself (not to mention the US labor movement), suffered diligently, were jailed, beaten and killed to pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The US Government didn’t outlaw lynching until the 1950’s.
The Civil Rights Act of of 1957, though weaker than the act in ’64 was hard fought and won by LBJ in the Senate.
It saddens me to think that party activists followed the party line for so long without doing what was correct.
It encurages me that President Obama displayed that we don’t whine about democracy. Americans embrace it.
hence the smiley face >>> 🙂 <<<
Though I’m glad you somehow drew the civil rights movement and lynching into this…somehow…
The heart of my post still reflects on being told that I was whining about democracy.