Andrew Romanoff is a GREAT GUY….

I was very disturbed to hear from a friend that some ardent Romanoff campaign insiders are accusing me of blogging under more than one name, and saying negative things about Andrew Romanoff and his closest supporters. I don’t. I haven’t. I wouldn’t. I am offended by the gossip.

For the record, Andrew Romanoff is a great guy. The State of Colorado is a better place because of his hard work, dedication, principles, leadership, and vision. There isn’t a single Democrat I know in this state who doesn’t agree. If you don’t believe me, listen to Senator Bennet say it himself here. Clip from Denver Young Dems Debate

All of my criticism of his campaign, his timing, and his advisors, is just that. None of it lessens my respect for Andrew Romanoff, the Former Speaker of the House in CO. (Oh, and while we are on the subject — he has a Damn good website, too.)

Senator Michael Bennet apparently agrees that his opponent is someone who deserves our respect — he said as much at the DYD debate on Tuesday. Senator Bennet’s record closely mirrors the beliefs and principles of our Former Speaker. It is truly unfortunate these two strong progressive leaders are running against each other, rather than joining forces to affect real and lasting change.

On that note, the whiney emails and irrational videos put out by the Romanoff campaign and/or its surrogates, I am guessing, were not Speaker Romanoff’s doing. They are not consistent with the kind of person we all admired during the last decade at the State Capitol. They are consistent with Fox-news style campaign tactics, and the displaced anger of a few people who prefer to scapegoat Senator Michael Bennet than examine what kind of message will help us all to unite again under one banner.  

Andrew never should have jumped into a race nine  months after his opponent — many of us here told him that, and he wouldn’t listen. Andrew also shouldn’t have chosen to go negative — that was a costly mistake in a state that prides itself on independent thought. Andrew made some very unfortunate campaign decisions in hiring Caddell and Trippi. Andrew’s refusal to accept PAC money in this political climate, while admirable for its idealism, is foolish. We can’t change the system unless our guys (or women) are in office and have a vote. It’s that simple.

As Senator Mark Udall pointed out at the Obama/Bennet rally on Thursday, the reality is, it takes a lot of cash to win a Senate race in Colorado. We may not like that reality, but the alternative is having a Republican like Jane Norton decimate our schools, our environment, our social safety nets, our diversity, and our way of life in Colorado. Are we willing to take a chance to let that happen?

Colorado — if Andrew Romanoff drops out of this race and jumps in early into another at some point in the future, I hope you will join me in working to get him elected then. The 2010 Senate race is not his race, but another one down the road may be his to claim.  

Who’s with me?

38 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. botw says:

    I agree with much of what you say, peacemonger.

    I went a bit farther in the diary I posted a bit before yours.  I think Romanoff has said quite a bit about himself and the campaigns he runs, and I am not sure he has helped himself even for future races.

    My diary is at:

    • Ah Choo says:

      On that note, the whiney emails and irrational videos put out by the Romanoff campaign and/or its surrogates, I am guessing, were not Speaker Romanoff’s doing.

      Anyone who’s been watching this race or Andrew Romanoff’s behavior in public can easily trace his campaign’s divisive negativity and whiny tone straight back to the candidate.

      He’s in the first competitive campaign of his life, where a politician is truly tested, and Colorado is seeing the result of that test. It is truly embarrassing.  

  2. peacemonger says:

    He is hurting himself more each day, and we need him.

    • wade norris says:

      Andrew never should have jumped into a race nine  months after his opponent — many of us here told him that, and he wouldn’t listen.


      Joe Sestak got into his primary race vs. Specter in August of 2009 – one month before Romanoff.

      Would you begrudge him? I mean, Obama endorsed Specter already too.

      But he has said himself he is not a ‘loyal democrat’

      as you can see here, Specter has been campaigning and fundraising against democratic candidates in support of Republicans.

      Is that the kind of Change Obama campaigned for?

      And it turns out that Obama has been intervening to choose candidates and to ‘clear the field’ for elected officials, thus thwarting our democracy, on a level not seen since FDR.

      Sestak says federal job offered to quit race

      Obama touts Bennet as outsider

      Obama clears the field for Gillibrand in New York

      Obama asks Patterson to quit NY Governor’s race

      Larry Sabato offers this insight on the perils of this interference into local elections.

      And guess what pm, just because you think someone should not run for a primary does not represent the will of the electorate.

      Heck, if just one person wants to primary a candidate, at least it makes that candidate have to answer on their positions.

      • RedGreenRedGreen says:

        You’re taking the same line of attack as the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which sent out links to those same article! You sure you guys aren’t in cahoots?

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        it turns out that Obama has been intervening to choose candidates and to ‘clear the field’ for elected officials, thus thwarting our democracy, on a level not seen since FDR.

          I was not aware that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech excluded the President of the United States.  Why, therefore, does Obama’s endorsement “thwart our democracy.”

          The FDR reference is also both outdated and wrongheaded.  If memory serves, he challeged ten or 11 Democrats who had opposed his court-packing plan.  All but one of them was reelection — which hardly constitutes a “thwarting of Democracy.”  As I recall, most of them were southerners in states where the Democratic primary was the equivalent to election.  That’s very different than Obama;s efforts to strengthen the party in states, like Colorado, where the Rs have a strong chance at winning the seat in November.  Personally, I don’t find the President’s endorsement of Bennet to be dispositive, but I certainly don’t begrudge it either.    

  3. redstateblues says:

    Otherwise they would agree with you.

  4. JeffcoDemoJeffcoDemo says:

    Ugly, very ugly.

    And thats while MB is stopping by the bank to drop off another $675k from yesterday’s events, from Colorado voters, who believe in him.

  5. oldbenkenobi says:

    And all the money in the world won’t change this.  So why don’t we let Democratic primary voters decide who they want in D.C.?  The proven leader who has never been afraid of tackling the serious problems facing Colorado — or the political neophyte who claims to be an agent of change but has acted more like a “career politician” in his short time in the Senate than Romanoff ever has?

    Ritter gave us MB but we are under no obligation to keep him.  The difference between MB supporters and AR supporters is that MB supporters think we are stuck with MB.  Not yet we aren’t.

    You MB supporters can keep telling yourself the issue in this primary campaign is policy differences.  AR supporters know better.  This is about leadership and our guy is a leader.  Really, when is a primary ever about policy differences?  Was Obama-Clinton about policy differences?  Get real.

    The money issue is another red herring.  If AR wins the primary the money will come.  And MB is dropping another $675K in the bank because people wanted to see the President and wanted to get their picture taken with the President, not because they believe in MB.

    • RedGreenRedGreen says:

      is your old girlfriend, again?

      But you’re right to point out Bennet’s lack of leadership qualities. After all, he got bumped up from some mid-level manager position in some school district.

    • Ah Choo says:

      Michael Bennet is a health care hero.

      Thanks to him, the public option is back on the table. That’s real leadership, my friend.


      According to Andrew Romanoff, if he had been up to him, health care reform would be dead. That’s leadership?  

      • redstateblues says:

        So on the one hand we have someone who would have voted to kill HCR in the Senate because it wasn’t to his liking, and on the other we have someone who has been working tirelessly to make HCR a reality despite its imperfections.

        Yeah, I think I know real leadership when I see it.

        • RedGreenRedGreen says:

          And to fix some of those imperfections along the way — shaming Nelson to withdraw the special deal for Nebraska, finding the right time to reintroduce the public option with a way the Senate can adopt it. On that last, we’ll see what happens — it could be a sop to the base and ultimately go nowhere. But it’s got a better chance of passing now than it did before Bennet stepped in. Legislation is incremental, not all-or-nothing. I get the feeling Bennet understands this and can accomplish things in that environment.

        • wade norris says:

          someone who would have voted to kill HCR in the Senate

          what Romanoff said:

          “This is really a false choice to suggest the only option we have got is to either ‘kill the bill’ or to settle for the back room deals with a public option – less proposal is false… When insurance companies cut deals with members of the Senate to kill the public option…it points to a a Senate that is fundamentally broke…  If 41 members of the minority party are going to hold up progress with the threat of the filibuster, then it is time for someone from the majority party to call their bluff and see how long their lungs or bladders or the American people, hold out for that spectacle.”

          • MADCO says:

            But we all remember back in December it wasn’t a false choice – in the real world this was the only choice 60 senators had: vote yes, flaws and all. Or vote no and kill the Senate healthcare bill.

            We can imagine all manner of hypotheticals – none of which changes the real world, hard choice, the Senators had.

            If you reply without explaining the  fairy dust and the red unicorns- especially the red unicorns- say so in the subject and save us all the time and punishment of just reading this spin over and over and over and over

            • RedGreenRedGreen says:


              Is it time for Wade to admit he’s in Rick Santorum’s pocket? Along with some other things I don’t want to mention, as this is a family blog.

              • wade norris says:

                for once. Washington DC power brokers should stay out of local primary races.

                (in his case he was referring to the Republican DC power brokers)

                I am referring to the President.

                As Larry Sabato says in my link above, FDR was the last President to inject himself into local primaries – and it cost him politically.

                If Obama’s nominees that he has endorsed all win, then his efforts to dampen primaries and clear out challengers will have paid off.

                If on the other hand, his endorsed candidates lose (which is likely to happen in Pennsylvania and Colorado) then it will leave Obama in a weaker position.

                And your logic, that because Rick Santorum agrees that Primaries should be decided by local voters, as I do, means I am ‘in his pocket?’

                what are you smoking?

          • botw says:

            I agree with MADCO that in December this was the choice.  You could vote for the bill or agin it.  Bennet has explained why he voted for it.  I can’t tell if Romanoff and his supporters want us all to think Romanoff would have voted the same or different.  It’s almost like they want it both ways, which isn’t how votes work.

            Also, Bennet’s actions show he understands there aren’t only two options.  First, he came out strongly against the Nebraska purchase, then Nelson said he would take it out.  Second, he has come out again (as he has at least since June, which is before September) in favor of a public option.

            This is leadership.  And it is leadership on issues that matter to constituents, including the 850,000 Coloradoans without any health care and to those of us with health care who care about access and cost for all.

            Bennet was out talking to people about this and other issues in every single county in Colorado in his first months in office, including during the August of our discontent.  Where was Romanoff in all those months and who are he and his supporters to talk about lack of leadership from Bennet, especially on this issue?

          • redstateblues says:

            Okay, let’s say that Romanoff’s statement at the debate was purely rhetorical, and it all comes down to where he would have started (the 20 yard line, not the 50 yard line talking point he uses on the stump.) I can accept that.

            My point was that the Romanoff campaign, and many of his surrogates here on Pols, are saying that this race is about leadership rather than policy differentiation. Bennet has consistently shown himself to be a strong advocate for HCR including a public option, but Harry Reid actually acknowledging that Bennet’s letter helped influence his decision shows that Bennet is not only one of the strongest HCR advocates, but one of the strongest leaders on HCR in the Senate as well.

            • MADCO says:

              it’s a false choice- Bennet didn’t write the letter and Reid didn’t get on board until after there was a primary so

              [insert difficult, and anti Bennet link , slight off subject here]

              And then something else and  yada yada yada.

    • peacemonger says:

      1. RE: “Why don’t we let voters decide?”

      You have a choice in the Senate election. No one is trying to take that away from you.  It is called a caucus and a primary.

      2. RE: “MB supporters think we are stuck with MB”.

      After getting to know both candidates I freely choose Michael Bennet.

      3. I attended the rally because I was excited my candidate was finally getting the recognition he deserved. Mr. Obama just happened to be there, too.  And yes, he’s a dandy speaker- nice of him to drop in.

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.