Yesterday, Former Colorado State House Speaker Andrew Romanoff began his campaign in earnest. By all accounts it was a success, except for one harsh reality that the Pueblo Chieftan reported:
Romanoff didn't mention Bennet by name, but the junior senator has been dogged by criticism that he is a legislative newcomer who is reluctant to take positions. One issue labor groups have pressed Bennet for is his position on the federal "card check" legislation that would help unions organize workplaces.
Asked for his opinion after Wednesday's speech, Romanoff said he supported bringing the legislation to a Senate vote but could not support the most controversial part - which would do away with secret-ballot voting on whether workers wanted union representation.
"I support the bill except for eliminating the secret ballot," he said.
So Romanoff stakes out a position, but it's the exact opposite of what most of the people who were pushing Romanoff to run were hoping he would take. With Senator Michael Bennet having come out so strongly on health care--including supporting the public health insurance option that Democrats have been so intenton getting passed--this was one of the last places where there could be a policy difference between the two. It was widely expected that Sen. Bennet would come to a decision that looked a lot like Romanoff's quote in the Chieftan. By taking this position, Romanoff's presence in the race has, in one day of the campaign, had the exact opposite effect on Michael Bennet that many on the left thought it would have. Namely, it has created an opening for Bennet to vote for the watered down version of EFCA that will probably come up for a vote later this year--or possibly next year. Translation: instead of "pushing him to the left" it has allowed him to go towards the center.
Which brings me to my main question: Why are we having a primary again? |
| Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with Andrew Romanoff's position on EFCA. I think it's great that he was decisive, and on the first day told people where he stands. It was something I always liked about him, and it's why I supported him (as well as Ed Perlmutter) to be Ken Salazar's replacement when he left for the executive branch.
But now that Romanoff has made it clear that he's not changing who he is to fit into some mystical idea that he was going to be the progressive savior in 2010, doesn't it seem a bit silly that we're going to have a great big old-fashioned Democratic US Senate primary? My question is, why? For what possible reason could this be other than decidedly non-political ones: Romanoff is prettier, Bennet comes form money, Romanoff was Speaker, Bennet worked for Anschutz, Romanoff deserves it, the appointment system is wrong, Ritter sucks. All true statements, but what do they have to do with what is best for the people of the state of Colorado and the Democratic Party in a pivotal year?
Not only has Romanoff begun to show he'll be true to his centrist record, but many state legislators have already lined up behind their former Speaker to show their support. These are Representatives and Senators like Rep. Sal Pace, Sen. Abel Tapia, and Rep. Lois Cort and House Majority Leader Paul Weissmann--all of whom are fine representatives and great Democrats, but all of whom are safe Democrats (to their credit, people like Rep. Dennis Apuan of Colorado Springs and Rep. Ed Vigil of Alamosa showed their support too.) For the first few I listed, their re-election campaigns will most likely be a walk. They come from safe D districts, where getting past the primary is the toughest part of getting and keeping the seat. However, many in tough districts, and those running to unseat Republicans, will find 2010 an welcoming year for the Democratic brand as it is. If a divisive primary could make things even worse, by causing those dissatisfied to stay home in November--especially in a year when Democratic turnout will likely be more important than it was in 2008--then Democrats stand a very real chance of watching their near-decade long grip on both houses of the legislature disappear.
Because, after all, without a clear ideological, policy, or legislative difference between Sen. Bennet and Former Speaker Romanoff, where else is there to go besides bitter personal attacks among fellow Democrats; who, as early as six months ago, were dancing in the streets together celebrating a historic victory.
Not only that, but if we let this primary take our eyes off the ball on the health care reform push, we stand to lose everything we've been working towards. This is going to be a fun primary, there's no doubt about that. But if we devolve into personal attacks, lose sight of the important legislation we're trying to get passed, and concentrate solely on the US Senate primary, then the Republicans are going to mop the floor with us in 2010.
Let's not let that happen. |
