(What say you Polsters--Can he pull it off? (Poll attached). Should the Sen. be worried? - promoted by ClubTwitty)
Author's note: in an earlier version of this diary, the author wrote that Andrew Romanoff was advocating a policy proposed by, among others, Al Gore, called the carbon offset tax. Mr. Romanoff does not advocate such a policy. The author deeply regrets the error, and the diary has been updated to reflect the correction.
On Wednesday, US Senate candidate and former Colorado Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff spoke with students and faculty of both the University of Colorado at Denver and Metropolitan State College of Denver. In what was billed as a "foreign policy discussion" by the Metro State Political Science department who sponsored the event, but was really more of a campaign event/town hall Q&A session, Romanoff spoke for around ten minutes and then took questions for the next half hour. The questions ranged in subject matter from the state's budget crisis, to genocide in Africa, to climate change.
It was at this meeting that I was reminded of why Romanoff was such a popular choice to be appointed to Ken Salazar's US Senate seat a year ago: Romanoff is smart, quick-witted, knowledgeable on the issues, and his responses were direct and to the point.
In his opening remarks, Romanoff, for the first time that I have seen, seemed to have developed a much clearer message than we had seen during his roll-out and subsequent campaigning over the past few months. Whether or not this has anything to do with reports that there has been a major staff shakeup--including the addition of former State Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon as an adviser--is unknown, but Romanoff's message was essentially three-fold:
1. His campaign won't be taking corporate PAC money, and he won't be, as he put it, having to reconcile his funding sources and his voting record once he gets to the Senate. He said that money is too involved in Federal elections, and he would support sweeping campaign finance reform that would take away the necessity to raise money from sources you might not like so you can put enough TV ads up to win.
2. Swift and decisive action on climate change that goes beyond Cap and Trade. When asked what the biggest national security threat facing our country today is, Mr. Romanoff didn't hesitate to say climate change. He thinks that there are only upsides to using different strategies than we're currently using to help curb the effects of climate disruption. "The window is closing, if it hasn't already closed," he said.
3. He's not going to make this campaign about, in his words, the shortcomings of the other candidates in the race. He wants to keep it about the issues, and, unlike many of his surrogates in the blogosphere, he never attacked Michael Bennet directly--except for when he said he would have voted yes on the Durbin Amendment (AKA cramdown).
More after the fold... |
| Whether or not this is actually a message is debatable. For me, this offered something more substantive than what I had seen from his campaign thus far. I accepted it as, at the very least, the beginning of a message--whereas before he had been gliding along on glittering generalities. It highlights the areas where he's the most in line with what his Democratic activist supporters were imagining him to be--the environment and campaign transparency. On those issues he can be true to himself--not having to abandon his Democratic Leadership Council sensibility/credibility--while at the same time showcasing what some would describe as more left wing policy positions.
Some will also criticize his decision to decline corporate PAC money. There are several good arguments as to why he's declining it: he wouldn't be getting that money offered to him anyway, it's an excuse for why he can't raise the dough it takes to win, or he knows he can't raise $15 million so he might as well make it look like he's taking a stand on something. Whether or not any of these explanations are correct is irrelevant--the mere fact that he's declining it gave me, an avid supporter of Senator Bennet in this race, cause to have a more open mind than I did when I went into the event.
Some will say that this bounce-back is too little too late, and there's an argument to be made for that. Something tells me Romanoff wishes he'd jumped in back in January saying things that are similar to what he's saying now. It's even possible that he could wipe the floor with Bennet in the assembly if he can hone this semblance of a message into a cohesive whole--and that still might not be enough momentum to rake in the small donor funds he's going to need to be competitive in both the primary and the general.
If this is the pinnacle of the Romanoff campaign, then so be it. But I came out of that event with more of an impression that it's really the beginning, and Michael Bennet may have less of a cakewalk in this race than some pundits have posited. If that's the case, then I think it benefits everyone--especially Andrew Romanoff. No matter what happens with this race, he needs to at least put up a fight to make it worth it. If he can't keep improving, then it will be all over before a single primary vote has been cast.
For now, like I said, my mind is more open than it was. I look forward to seeing if Romanoff can build on this resurgence--or shuffle off into the dark and ponder what could have been. |
