CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

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 17, 2010 09:13 PM UTC

Reflections on the Bennet-Romanoff debate

  • 55 Comments
  • by: Voyageur

Question: “Who do you serve, MOTR?”

Sen. Bennet: “Don’t you mean ‘whom do you serve?’ Sharon?”

 That exchange, of course, never happened Tuesday night as about 300 Young Democrats gathered at St. Cajetan’s to watch former Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff debate U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet.  It was the first — and only — head-to-head confrontation of the two primary rivals for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate.

  I just made up that whimsical exchange to test my connections to Pols as part of the live-blogging exercise RedStateBlues and I conducted on the debate.  Yet, looking back, that mythical exchange almost captured the flavor of this event.

   At this stage in a political contest, the inevitable test is “beating expectations.”  Bennet, who entered the stage with no great reputation as an orator or debater, won the coveted “did better than expected” award.

  And he did it using a low-key wit and a strong overall knowledge of the political system — just as in the imaginary exchange “Don’t you mean ‘Whom do you trust?’?” with avid — and sometimes rabid — polster Sharon Hanson.

   As a veteran journalist who has covered hundreds of such exchanges, I found my first exercise in live blogging both frustrating and exhiliating.  Frustrating because the crude facilities forced me to balance my laptop unsteadily on my knees, trying to force my huge and arthritic hands onto its tiny keyboard.  I had a lot of typos and the ALL CAPS KEY KEPT STICKING.  I longed to be home with my custom-made computer desk, my ergonomic Microsoft keyboard and my 23-inch monitor.

  But exhiliating too — because after all those years in the press box, I was now part of the action, sharing with the deft RSB the job of taking this debate onto the screens of Polsters.  Obviously, the MSM have always been players in the political game, but on a newspaper you weigh in the next day, providing the play reviews.  Live blogging takes you out of the press box and onto the field, interacting directly with your readers.  It’s fun, typeaux notwithstanding.    

   I entered with a distinct, though not overwhelming, preference for Romanoff, based on his long and effective experience in the legislature.  RSB, who favored Bennet, and I decided to go against our grains: I would focus on Bennet and he on Romanoff.  Those preconceptions probably primed me to be impressed by Bennet’s performance and he made good use of the opportunity.

  It was a good, constructive, debate.  Nobody liberated Poland, as Gerald Ford famously did in his debate with Jimmy Carter.  Ford’s gaffe in that debate was proof that, in the weird world of Washington, a gaffe consists of speaking the truth that no one wants to hear.  Ford said “Eastern Europe is not under Soviet domination.”  

At that point  in the Cold War, the presence of 50,000 Soviet tanks in eastern Europe begged to differ. Yet, Ford was well informed enough about the growing independent spirit in the Warsaw Pact nations, especially Poland, with its budding solidarity movement and Hungary, with its “goulash communism,” to realize the era of Soviet hegemeny was ending.  

  But it was premature for Ford to speak that truth and Carter won the election.  Neither Bennet nor Romanoff made the kind of gaffe that would haunt them in the primary.  Romanoff rejected the notion of a health care plan without a public option, Bennet said he longed for such an option too but couldn’t turn his back on 850,000 Coloradans without health care by rejecting the current Senate plan if there was no alternative.  The perfect is forever the enemy of the good and both men made their points well and effectively.

  Likewise, there were no “Both Ways Bob” moments.  Neither candidate handed the Republicans a killer line to beat the Democrats with in November, as Whatizname famously did to poor Bob Beauprez.  Likewise, it was Democrat Gene Nichol who hung the infamous “Millionaire Lawyer Lobbyist” title on Tom Stickland that Republican Svengali Dick Wadhams used against him with such deadly effect in two Senate races.  Both Bennet and Romanoff repeatedly stressed their respect and admiration for their opponent.  Good luck making use of that in November, Dick.

  So why would I say that Bennet “won” this sole head-to-head matchup before the March 16 caucuses?  Three reasons:

  1-The expectations game.  Bennet certainly didn’t overpower Romanoff.  But he did well in a forum that seemed ideal for Romanoff.  The crowd seemed evenly divided — but if Romanoff can’t dominate a crowd of Denver Young Democrats, what venue can he beat Bennet in?  

  Don’t make too much out of this: the YDs tried hard to balance supporters and be polite to both sides.  But their own members had first choice on tickets.  If Bennet fought Romanoff to a tie on the former Denver legislators “home field,” that bodes well for Bennet in other venues.

  2-The two areas where these ideologically similar candidates differed did not, on balance, show Romanoff in a good light.  He repeated his vow not to take corporate or PAC contributions.  That is superficially popular but most Democrats know, however much they like that notion, that they will face a cataract of cash in November as Republicans and third party “Independent campaigns” funnel money into Colorado to buy a Senate seat.  A seat in Colorado, after all, is still a bargain compared to one in New York, California, or other megastates.  Democrats may hate the rules of the money game.  But most instinctively know you can’t change those rules by getting the hell beat out of you.  Ask William Jennings Bryan how well he did when “Dollar Mark Hanna” opened the floodgates of corporate cash to crush his populist insurgency.

 Likewise, Romanoff several times repeated the silly ass notion — let’s call it what it is — that Senators shouldn’t accept health care benefits for themselves until all Americans have such benefits.  It’s a flashy idea — in the same way that a streaker running across the field at the Super Bowl is flashy.  And it wouldn’t bring health care to a single needy American.  It also wouldn’t seriously hurt that millionaires club called the United States Senate.  As he repeatedly touted this silly symbolism, I flashed back to the sophomore “Whip Inflation Now” buttons of yesteryear.  

   Such off-point gestures were a poor contrast to Bennet’s quiet and compelling calls to renew American investment in our schools and infrastructure, to provide for our children as our parents did for us.  Bennet is a substantive but often not very charismatic man.  Tuesday, he was both substantive and compelling in his low key but sincere and humorous delivery.

   3-The final reason I think Bennet won this debate is that Romanoff clearly didn’t.  And Romanoff, as a challenger, needed a win — he needed to give Democrats a clear reason to prefer him to the incumbent and didn’t do that.  

   Bennet, as the incumbent, needed only to hold his own.  He did that, and more.

   It’s true that Bennet is only an appointed incumbent.  That entitles him to less deference than an elected incumbent receives in his own party.  It’s certainly false to call Romanoff supporters “PUMAnoffs”  — thecall to party unity label is only fairly issued after the nominee is chosen, not before, and that is doubly true in the case of an appointed incumbent.

  I had a quiet talk with Bennet after the debate.  He spoke movingly of the acrid atmosphere in Washington and the “Orwellian” quality of the debate where million dollar ads paid for by the financial services industry assail plans to regulate that industry as a “bailout.”

  “It’s like 1984.  War is peace, freedom is slavery,” Bennet said.

   Yes it is, and such lies on the airwaves are further proof of the degeneration of our politics.  But if there is a mess in Washington — and God knows, there is — Michael Bennet has clearly shown that he is not part of that problem.  He has instead demonstrated that he is part — only part, but an important part — of the solution.      

Tweet
Share

Comments

55 thoughts on “Reflections on the Bennet-Romanoff debate”

  1. For so many of us that couldn’t be at the debate and didn’t want to wait for a week for more to see it streamed, this was a real treat to get an on-the-ground account as it was happening.

    Big thanks for spending your evening on behalf of Pols readers.  

      1. but just one, with room for just three people.  Having access to that table would have made a world of difference.  I brought an extra, regular, keyboard for my Apple and if I could have set it down on a table, it would have made a great difference.  Live and learn, I guess.  But typeaux notwithstanding, the flavor came through.  

          I estimate I have typed more than 50 million keystrokes in a 45 year career in journalism.  There is a price to pay for that in one’s hands.  Repetitive strain injury makes it hard for me to even hold a pen (I use a special forked pen that winds itself around my index finger.)  that’s why I love my microsoft ergonomic keyboard.  It angles for easier reach (I have a 54-inch chest and aligning my hands on a regular keyboard is a struggle.  It also slopes downward, letting me rest my hands on the rest.  And that to a low-friction optical mouse and life is much better.  I use a laptop quite rarely but mine would have been adequate if there had been a real press area with several tables.  Still, for a guy who broke into this game in the era of hot type, I find live blogging to be exciting and fun.  

  2. Two thoughts-

    Love the reference to Dollar Mark Hanna.

    David Pogue, technology writer for the NYT, speaks glowingly about Dragon, Naturally Speaking. I’m sure it takes practice, but then buh-bye keyboard.

  4. As veteran journalist I’m sure you and your readers would want to know about the fact that the

    Denver Media Ignore Press Conference by Dem Leaders Angry @ Obama Meddling in Senate Race

    http://www.coloradopols.com/di…

    Many in the Colorado Party are angry that our County Party leaders are muzzled and cannot endorse any Democratic candidate until after the Primary, But

    President Obama, the national leader of our Party Ignores the Rules, creates a precedent and raises Millions More for Bennet who Already has Seven Times as much money as Andrew Romanoff.

    Yet available online polls show Andrew with an overwhelming lead

    ( the BeTheChange Poll showed 61% for Rmanoff and 37% for Bennet ).

    WHAT is Obama trying to do…

    Buy the Seat,

    And if he can’t do that..

    Lose the Seat?

    By the way… decent streaming effort.

    Keep up the good work.

    John

        3. That’s why you created your own diary. Multiple postings of the same thing in different diaries is considered bad form, or at the very least, bad blogging etiquette.

          You’re welcome to share your opinion, but please do so in the appropriate place.

      1. But…

        I told you so:

        If the former Speaker of the House does end up winning–and all signs point to that happening, unless Bennet sends out a Freep Mail as well–does anyone doubt that they will claim the endorsement of Be the Change to be evidence of the overwhelming support for “the people’s choice”?

        Sometimes I really hate being right all the time.

  5. Do you know if a videotape, or at least a transcript, is, or will be available?

    I thought I heard Romanoff go beyond strongly implying, and state definitively that he would have voted against the Senate healthcare bill because of the deals to Nelson and Landrieu.  I’d like to confirm that.

    1. and Harber said video should be available elsewhere, I think from Channel 12.  It may take a few days but, hopefully, they will air well before the caucuses.  I think you’re right about Romanoff, but it’s hard to track everything when you’re concentrating on writing at the time.

  6. Voyageur.  

    If I write until I have the equivalent of your journalistic experience (measured in years, not professional standing), I hope to do so one-tenth as well as you do.

  7. In fact, you did such a good job, I don’t have to write mine now! 🙂

    I think you summed up the issue with PAC money quite well with this line:

    A seat in Colorado, after all, is still a bargain compared to one in New York, California, or other megastates.

    And yet, the vote counts just the same.

    And, as RG pointed out, this will likely not be the last debate between these two–though you were correct that it will be the only one before the caucus. I hope any future debates are just as infoirmative and issues-based as this one was.

    After last night, I was reminded why I am proud to be a Colorado Democrat. Both Romanoff and Bennet showed all the qualities that I look for in a candidate for the US Senate, and I think that whoever wins the nomination, and hopefully beats Norton in Nov., will be a great representative for the people of Colorado–a state both of these men clearly love and want to help make a better place.

  8. There was a guy in a motorized wheel chair that attempted to attend the debate, unfortunately the ramp was covered in snow and ice.  I considered for a moment that perhaps a push might help, but it would have been reckless for both of us. The guy turned his chair around and left quietly.  In the future it would be nice if the sponsors of such events would spend a couple of dollars on some mag chloride. 11th commandment be damned, we’re a big tent party.

    1. I saw a man in a wheelchair, stage right near the front.  In fact, Michael Bennet came up to him after the event and the man asked the Senator a question. (I didn’t eavesdrop.)

      1.  three wheellchairs in the room.

        I was in early and helped DYD clear one row to make room for one of them.

        In the future it would be nice if the critics of such events would know whatinhell they are talking about.

  10. Nice job both of you last night.

    I saw Voyageur- he was working so hard I didn’t want to interrupt him.

    ANd I appreciate hat you took the time to write up your notes from last night- you got this right on.

  11. And we should point out that none of the moderators of Colorado Pols sought out either person to do this — it happened entirely on their own, completely organically.

    In our minds, this is the true beauty of Colorado Pols and why we are so proud of what it has become. Regardless of your beliefs or who you support in a particular office, Colorado Pols gives you the opportunity to go out on your own and tell others what you think (or report on things as they happen). Colorado Pols gives you the opportunity, like David Thielen, to interview Colorado’s major political figures (something that also happened organically).

    So thanks to Voyageur and redstateblues, and to all of you who continue to make this a vibrant political community.

    1. blatant ass-kissery.

      And now I suppose all y’all are wanting all of us to go and do something, you know, worthwhile.

      Well what if I don’t wanna change the world? What if my idea of organic accomplishment and contribution is I stay home and sit in my Barcalounger and let the cable TV wash over me?   I suppose DT and rsb and V are better people than I.  Is that it? Sure, I see how it’s gonna be.

      Do something, contribute and you are a good guy. You count.

      Do nothing and we suck. Sure. Ok. sniff.

  12. I don’t want to violate the “no outing” rule, but I will say that the highlight of the evening for me was watching Sharon Hanson jump up on stage and do a table dance for Romanoff.  I guess its true about bloggers working in their underwear.  Personally, I thought she looked great in that green Teddy!  

  13. I admit that since session started i’ve hardly had a chance to post, and that saddens me.  However, I generally get to catch up on the action after work or on the weekends, and I’ve just got to say how happy I am that Pols has evolved the way it has during/since the 08 election.  Great job guys, and thanks for doing what you did in place of the DYD stream fail.  Sufi and I were laughing our asses off and felt like we were (sort of kind of) in the room with yall.  Thanks again.  

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

173 readers online now

Newsletter

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