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%
February 25, 2010 10:23 PM UTC
134 Comments
Mark it down. Thursday, Feb. 25, 2010: The date that the Andrew Romanoff for Senate campaign officially “jumped the shark.”
Loading ...
Definitely a shark-jumping moment.
I just posted a diary that said, in part:
The part about Romanoff not accepting PAC money is true, so long as you count only the last 5 months and not any of the ten years and four state house elections before that when the Romanoff Leadership PAC was open for business.
However, when coupled with the next two sentences, it makes the whole thing veer to snide, some would say just plain false and disingenuous. Which Senators does the Romanoff campaign think say “you come to my fundraiser and I’ll vote for your bill”? Which “take the money and somehow never get around to actually changing anything”?
Romanoff sure seems to be comfortable burning bridges, especially as someone who was for PAC money before he was against it.
Messages like this make it harder and harder for people of good will who support Bennet to ever support a Romanoff candidacy for anything in the future. Truth and future be damned seem to be the motto over there.
The point isn’t that Romanoff took PAC money. It’s that he’s now turning it down. Someone else accepted special interest/PAC money, realized the error of their ways, and moved on. Any idea who? President Barack Obama!
“Part of changing the culture is recognizing that special interests and lobbyists, the insurance companies, the banks, the drug companies, the HMOs, they have come to dictate the agenda in Washington. And the only way that you break out of that, so that ordinary people’s voices are heard, is if you stop taking money from PACs and lobbyists like I have…” -Candidate Obama (http://tiny.cc/tBSOn )
Start watching at 3:35.
And to suggest that Miles’ support of Romanoff guarantees his inevitable doom is absurd. They are completely different candidates. Romanoff is very popular, more so than your coveted Bennet (note the latest Rasmussen poll). And his resume shows he’s more prepared for the Senate than Miles, and Bennet for that matter.
What about Cary Kennedy’s endorsement of Romanoff? I didn’t hear you all saying he was guaranteed to follow her footsteps toward victory in November.
You’re all in the bag for Bennet and this site should probably just change its name to Colorado Pols “for Senator Bennet.”
What does that have to do with Romanoff running an incompetent campaign?
Unless you’re trying to tell me he’s running against Obama, in which case you just pissed me off. Not only me, but at least 3/4 of the Democrats in Colorado.
Remind me why I should vote FOR Romanoff, not AGAINST someone else. It will help me make up my mind.
Or maybe you already failed to do that.
I’m saying the similarities between Romanoff and Obama are stronger than those between Bennet and Obama. I don’t know how you got confused and assumed I said Romanoff is running against Obama (maybe you didn’t get confused, you just got nervous).
Obama and Romanoff are both LEADERS who learned the error of their ways and proceeded to refuse the corrupt PAC/special-interest money. Bennet is simply FOLLOWING the money trail.
Romanoff represents the people of Colorado. Bennet represents those who can afford to pay him. Phil Anschutz knew it and still does. Wall Street knows it. The DC lobbyists know it. The writing is on the wall and it’s about time you learn to read.
Anschutz is supporting Norton. After all, that’s the race that really matters not a bloodied up and uninspired Dem party when the general comes around, which should have already begun.
And I don’t support either candidate, although the more asshole Romanoff supporters I run into here the more likely that is to change.
I’m unaffiliated, won’t be going to caucus, and probably won’t affiliate until the Primary.
I guess that’s why he didn’t close his personal pac until January 2010. It is not only hypocrisy, but donating to Colorado politicians who would proceed to endorse you while you are running for office doesn’t exactly sound reformed.
It’s very shaky ground
would vote for a and b above.
And how about the fact that Miles says Romanoff opposed the Iraq War??? Didn’t Miles endorse Jared and attack Joan in large part because of the resolution, passed in the Senate by Joan and in the House by Andrew, praising George Bush for the Iraq War effort?
Or am i wrong and only the Senate passed something praising Bush and Rumsfeld? Does anyone know?
The appalling performance by Andrew Romanoff at the Be The Change forum, moderated by Mike Miles, should have served as a lesson of warning. In fact, it was seriously unethical for a Mike Miles to moderate the forum, since he is a major donor to Andrew Romanoff’s campaign.
The hypocrisy in this attack email endangers Mike Miles’ hard-earned integrity. Andrew Romanoff has long been a corporate Democrat and is a DLC fellow.
Not only that, he supported Bush’s Iraq War on more than one occasion. He put his name to a resolution that “commends and supports the efforts and leadership of President George W. Bush in the conduct of military operations in Iraq.”
Mike Miles should issue a statement condemning Andrew Romanoff’s record the same he way he condemned Joan Fitz-Gerald.
The actual moment that campaign jumped the shark was when, following gov. Ritter’s announcement, Andy held a presser to tell us he was still running in the race for Senate. Reconfirming your existence through press conference is the beginning of the end.
He had to hold that press conference on a Monday because he was telling everyone on Sunday that he was going to quit the Senate race and run for Governor.
Two additional shark jumping moments come to mind:
1) Engaging Pat Caddell. Playing snippets of his Fox Spews appearances will be hard for Romanoff caucus goers to defend.
2) Stating that he would have single-handedly killed the Senate health care bill because of the deals to Nebraska and Louisiana. Caucus goers will be reminded that we had 60 votes at the time. That was before the MA debacle (and, an opportunity to remind everyone that Romanoff hired Coakley’s pollster!).
Romanoff desperation may be because of what I’m finding when making phone calls — there is a lot of quiet, but strong support for Michael Bennet.
“Jump the shark” is the moment when you really KNOW that things have shifted. It’s not the first time there is an error, mistake or whatever — it’s the one that really stands out as the defining moment. Those listed above were certainly milestones of their own, but this is the first time we felt like you could say, “Yup, this is over.”
you’ve got to acknowledge it’s never again going to be the show you loved. You can’t stuff the Fonz back in the bottle. After that, it’s got its kitsch value, but you’ve moved on.
It was the hesitation after the Ritter announcement. I was ready to forgive him for all his other indecision.
When he failed to be clear after the Ritter announcement, all I could think of was the Prince of Denmark. Make up your mind, dammit. Here’s a guy who feels entitled to SOME office, but he wasn’t sure what.
This reminds me of the CD-2 vote where JFG was hoping JP wouldn’t even get 30%. And instead he came close to beating JFG. And very few saw that coming.
was the pitiful little crowd of Romanoff supporters protesting the President outside the Fillmore. More than a few new Bennet supporters told me that was a defining moment for them.
If only they referred to you and your crew as pitiful. Maybe it would be better if they just kept their displeasure with Chicago extending its arm into Colorado to themselves.
Cure for your BS saturation – come up with a non-Bennet campaign supplied talking point.
Why are you for Romanoff?
Didn’t Miles win the caucuses and state convention? Isn’t Romanoff trying to do the same?
Miles doesn’t mean squat to a general electorate, but he might mean something to state delegates, a much different audience.
In a campaign where he can’t afford much ammo, Romanoff has to use anything he’s got.
That’s why his top line out of the state convention was such a shocker — he didn’t come into the convention ahead on delegates.
Romanoff is trying to win the primary — most certainly not to “do the same” as Miles did.
And that’s the problem here. It’s not bad to use Miles to help Romanoff – you just don’t do it publicly in a way that invites comparisons that were already being made. Romanoff can’t have people saying that his campaign is like the Miles campaign of 2004, but this email did the comparison anyway.
Most people knew that Miles couldn’t win, and that’s why the comparison has been made with Romanoff. That comparison is not entirely accurate, we might add, but it is being made nevertheless. When Romanoff sends out a fundraising plea from Miles, he is only adding fuel to those comparisons.
The biggest danger to Romanoff’s campaign has nothing to do with policy — it’s the concern that “he can’t win.” Once that sticks, he’s toast. Any benefit they might get from this email pales in comparison to the damage that is done by putting their names side-by-side.
I need to send Andrew some more money.
One less dollar for Jane…
I’m maxing out for her.
Like I’ve mentioned, I’m pretty new to this. Thank goodness for Google, I needed some help getting up to speed on who Mr. Miles was and why I should care. Well, I looked him up, not really impressed by that endorsement.
Respectfully, Mr. Romanoff jumped the shark when he decided that his thin as a wafer stance on PAC money would be the big defining issue.
when he decided to challenge Bennet without having clear and substantial issues with which to differentiate himself from Bennet and give a plausible rationale for his candidacy.
When I interviewed him that was my main question and his reply was “it’s coming.” When you’re 2 months into a campaign you should already have a compelling argument for you as an alternative.
In face you should have it 2 seconds into a campaign.
I didn’t know this until now. Did you diary the interview? Which one is it?
The disclaimer is that I’m a Bennet guy, but I think the Miles letter was a good idea for Romanoff. Yes, I see how the “Romanoff=Miles” analogy could be harmful, BUT:
(1) Any Romanoff path to victory involves having activists win the caucus for him, and isn’t Miles popular with many of those activists?
(2) To the extent we Bennet folks think we’re persuasively arguing that Romanoff is a DLC moderate falsely posing as a true-believer progressive, a Romanoff endorsement from a clearly bona fide true believer progressive like Miles seems like an effective counter-argument for Romanoff.
Aligning yourself with a loser who was engaged in a very divisive campaign COULD be harmful?
I think it was just flat dumb. And I’m not supporting either of them until one of them is the candidate.
The lowest point of Happy Days was not the episode when Fonzi jumped the shark. It was earlier when Richie met Mork form Ork and Fonzie had to save him from being abducted.
Otherwise, you missed the rest by about 10 weeks.
Now, Andy (Richie) meets Pat Caddell (Mork from Ork), and…
….I’m appalled.
Why do I sense this will only get worse?
I am pretty ambivalent on the Romanoff/Bennet wars, but I think he kinda wished he could rewind the past 2 years and try again.
Lots of missteps for an otherwise very intelligent and thoughtful guy. Everyone makes mistakes, and I think we will see him again soon. I’m not saying its over but it is damn close to over.
Andrew is not quitting. It sounds like when my spouse was told, “Your job is not in danger; we’re hiring”. A week later, pink slip.
goes out, then we’ll know the shark has truly been jumped.
that was funny.
I was on the fence before. Andrew, you just lost me.
While Bush cruised to re-election, Salazer won the senate seat and dems took control of both houses of the state legistature. They then celebrated their victory by sacking Gates as state party chair (who championed Salazer) and put in Pat Waak who was part of the Mike Miles fan club.
Six years later, we’re still talking about the guy.
I worked hard at the Arapahoe County level for Mike. I will agree, in hindsight, that he probably couldn’t have won statewide, but there is no question in my mind, today, still, as to how effective he would have been as a progressive senator.
I think a lot of us still love the guy and what he stands for.
and he’s a hell of a speaker compared to Salazar. But I liked the idea of having a Dem who would vote my way 85% of the time rather than another conservative R who would vote against my interest 100% of the time much better. Supporting Salazar was a no-brainer. Since then, Miles has given me many reasons to feel even better about my choice.
Now, there isn’t even a significant difference in policy stances to encourage me to support the weaker, under funded candidate so going with Bennet is even more of a no-brainer for me. And you can make all the cracks about no brains you want, Parsing.
…I’d be in Bennett’s camp. I watched and listened to Polster’s opinions of Andrew and Bennett with an open mind because ultimately I won’t be voting.
As mentioned, I deeply respect(ed)AR. But his current effort just leaves me with an open mouth, for both what he’s doing and how he’s doing.
No question/comment on the brains!
I’d be surprised if Speaker Romanoff is ever friendly to me again. Then again, he threw me under the bus last year when I supported him to run immediately in February at the JJ. I got told to let it go, so I did.
The campaign’s negative underbelly (whisper …Bennet doesn’t support the public option) last summer disturbed and has only gotten worse.
I beieve that he lost his chances to win when he entered into negotiations with Gov. Ritter to be Lt.Gov last spring. His indecisiveness as to which office he would pursue hurt him badly. I believe that if had beat Hick to the punch, that the party would have rallied around him for Governor and Hick would not have entered. I could be wrong. I know Mario Solich Maris put out on FB that Romoanoff was running for Governor that weekend.
Nevertheless, my political life went on.
Getting to know Sen Bennet and his wife has opened my eyes to a pattern of practical success. That’s been their life story. they have succeeded at everything they have ever set out to do. With people like Sen Bennet backing him, I still believe that the President will succeed.
Really Ray? You think Romanoff is all that concerned about you after the things you’ve said to him and the way you’ve been when you’ve been around him? Between you, Caroman, peacemonger, bicora, Madco and the still bitter MOTR, it would be comical if y’all weren’t getting your talking points from a sitting senator. You spend a lot of time complaining about some mythical “whisper campaign” from unknown sources and the only ones you and your crew have hinted at either were removed from Romanoff’s campaign or were never officially involved – unlike the lot of you who boast of getting your talking points from what you describe as “my campaign asking me to/not to”
He threw you under the bus? You rail against Romanoff not having set himself apart on the issues but what has Mikey done? That speech on the floor after the Senate vote? That hail-mary of a letter on the public option the day of the debate when Guy Cecil came out to shepherd Mikey along with a blatant play for the left with a maneuver he and Rahm knew well would never go forward?
Mikey is great at agreeing with Romanoff. Romanoff has a decade of actually leading. Voting for what the party tells you to do is easy. Pandering with something you know won’t do anything is easy. Leading on things, fighting for things, crafting realistic bold solutions is what a true leader does and it’s what Romanoff has a proven track record of doing.
to post that?
Man, the Romanoff campaign is a mess if they imagine that is effective, and if all their supporters can do is attack Bennet.
Remind me again why I should vote FOR Andrew not AGAINST Bennet?
I have been asking for what–three months? Is Andrew EVER going to have an answer other than he really, really, really wants an office–appointed, elected, or otherwise?
You’re absolutely right. I registered tonight because I’ve been watching the nonsense grow to a new crescendo and got to annoyed to sit silent.
Why Romanoff? Because the guy has committed 20 years to serving people who most needed a voice. For the first half of that, Bennet was busy building the wealth of one of the nations leading homophobes and bigots. Why Romanoff? Because he spent a decade in the legislature first leading his colleagues as minority leader, then as speaker of the house. He didn’t wait to go along with a vote, he saw problems and crafted solutions. He led while others followed. Bennet championed the public option after there was no chance of it. I won’t get into the who supported it first argument because I wasn’t following that closely. What I do know and see from searching Bennet’s record is that he’s great at being a reliable vote for Reid and Obama but has rarely if ever been a leader. Why Romanoff? Because for 15 years, he’s been getting to know the people of Colorado, learning about their concerns, their challenges, not waiting to do so until it was politically expedient or necessary.
I don’t care that much about the PAC money. He took it once, so did Obama. The whole Senate does though Bennet has learned that game fast. What I care about is having a Senator who will lead when it’s right, not when it’s expedient or out of necessity to placate a constituency.
Tht is the first pro-Romanoff blog I have ever read that actually answers the question. He should fire his entire staff, and hire you. Seriously.
As for Bennet working for a leading homophobe and bigot, I have heard from people close to him they were completely opposite on politics. Anschutz, I’ve heard, is giving loads of money to the Norton campaign. Apparently, he hires liberals, but he won’t vote for one.
I do appreciate your note and recognize all on both sides get heated to the point of it becoming a nasty unproductive dialog. I’ve been thoroughly bored with Romanoff’s “no PAC money” repetition. It’s an issue but not the one most care about and not why I support him. I’m as guilty as the next even though I’m very new to posting but it would be great to see all of the posts be about who can best champion the causes for the people of Colorado. I support Romanoff for the reasons I wrote. Because I don’t know of anybody who has done more for Colorado, who has stood on the firing line and fought like mad for Coloradans and the things I care about. I want a leader and a fighter and that is what I believe Romanoff is.
As to Anschutz, I don’t argue that their politics are the same but I do have a problem with Bennet having worked for the guy as long as he did. It wasn’t like he couldn’t find other work or like Anschutz’ political givings were unknown yet Bennet stayed working for him and building the very wealth that was use to fight equality. That alone isn’t why I’ll caucus for Romanoff. My caucus and primary vote are far more FOR Romanoff than AGAINST Bennet.
But that is a statement of why for AR- just not the first.
And I wouldn’t go so far as to fire all the staff to hire you. Do you work for the campaign?
I don’t know Anschutz. I try not to pass judgment when I don’t know someone and don’t know anything about them. The fact that he contributes to Norton is definitely not a plug for the guy. If you say he is a homophobe that disturbs me greatly.
I remember reading somewhere that he took the job after his wife got her job in Denver working for the Sierra Club. I’m glad Bennet was smart enough to get out of there quickly. Working for Hickenlooper and DPS were great gigs for him, and in-line with his values.
That’s not much of a reason to fire a sitting Senator, that’s the issue here. I’ve yet to hear a single reason why this guy needs to be fired. That’s fine and dandy that AR is a good guy and worked hard in the political theater but it’s not a good reason to run an insurgency campaign that has targeted a sitting Dem Congressman (Polis) and a sitting Dem President.
Furthermore, your point about Anschutz is idiotic. First of all, you probably haven’t worked in the private sector so you probably have no basis here. Secondly, talk about associating with the wrong crowd, how about AR hiring Pat Caddell “hired Dem hitman” as his top advisor.
There is no good reason why this primary should be taking place right now…
not against Romanoff. I am hopeful Andrew will run again from the BEGINNING of an election cycle next time, and hire people who trumpet his strengths. He is a great leader and we need him in CO. Same with Bennet. Andrew could have used you at the beginning, JeffCo. It is too late now, and too many mistakes have been made to salvage this cycle, IMHO.
Why are you for Romanoff?
You think that winning is possible bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight?
The same thinking was used by isolationists in WWII prior to 12-7-41. That caused the virtual elimination of European Jewry, the majority of which perished in 1942.
People that flat lie about their intentions and change their minds every other month are narcissitic. They believe that the world revolves around them. Sen Bennet hasn’t lied once about his intentions. He’ll honestly say that he has concerns with language of a bill because he reads the bills.
Sen Bennet raises money because he can, and wants to hold the seat for Democrats. Those who can’t raise money say they won’t take it, and whine that the US Senate (Dems and Republicans) are an encumbent protection racket.
Sen Bennet made a ton of money for Anshutz through talent. He then left to enter public service. Speaker Romanoff apparently has had money forever. How else does one live in Washington Park on 30k a year?
Speaker Romanoff has plenty of money as evidenced by paying for a 27k poll in March that told him not to run for Senate. His supporters never mention his finances.
Sen Bennet has not been a professional politician. Speaker Roamnoff says he has not been a professional poltician when all he has ever done is be a politician.
Sen Bennet has a good relationship with the President. Speaker Romanoff and his allies attack the President daily.
Sen Bennet raises money because he can, and wants to hold the seat for Democrats. Those that can’t raise money say they won’t take it, and then whine about the entire US Senate as a protection racket.
Speaker Romanoff and his supporters claim that they are progressives, but he hires Pat Cadell and facetiously suggests that he didn’t know the man’s opinions. Anyone that can google knew the man worked for Fox news, and spent his time attacking Democrats.
Sen Bennet has a more balanced view on immigration reform than Speaker Romanoff.
The list goes on and on.
Sen Bennet is by far the better Democratic candidate.
Speaker Romanoff’s people have been attacking me since the first week Romanoff entered in September. They apparently think that they can muscle people into supporting him, while he employed a man that called union members “Thugs.”
They are wrong.
Andrew Romanoff thinks that winning is possible bringing a pea shooter to a gun fight.
The Republicans will bring 25 million to the campaign between the candidate and the PACS. Not using all resources available will result in a far right wing victory.
People that flat lie about their intentions and change their minds every other month are narcissitic. They believe that the world revolves around them. Sen Bennet hasn’t lied once about his intentions. He’ll honestly say that he has concerns with language of a bill because he reads the bills.
Sen Bennet raises money because he can, and wants to hold the seat for Democrats. Those who can’t raise money say they won’t take it, and whine that the US Senate (Dems and Republicans) are an incumbent protection racket.
Sen Bennet made a ton of money for Anshutz through talent. He then left to enter public service. Speaker Romanoff apparently has had money forever. How else does one live in Washington Park on 30k a year?
Speaker Romanoff has plenty of money as evidenced by paying for a 27k poll in March that told him not to run for Senate. His supporters never mention his finances.
Sen Bennet has not been a professional politician. Speaker Roamnoff says he has not been a professional poltician when all he has ever done is be a politician.
Sen Bennet has a good relationship with the President. Speaker Romanoff and his allies attack the President daily.
Speaker Romanoff and his supporters claim that they are progressives, but he hires Pat Cadell and facetiously suggests that he didn’t know the man’s opinions. Anyone that can google knew the man worked for Fox news, and spent his time attacking Democrats.
Sen Bennet has a more balanced view on immigration reform than Speaker Romanoff.
The list goes on and on.
Sen Bennet is by far the better Democratic candidate.
Speaker Romanoff’s people have been attacking me since the first week Romanoff entered in September. They apparently think that they can muscle people into supporting him, while he employed a man that called union members “Thugs.”
They are wrong.
I get that CoPols has chosen their man. Somebody with close ties to a certain group endorsing Bennet even went on the radio identifying themselves (by name which i won’t do) as being with CoPols and spewing the identical talking points that Bennet’s new media gal puts out and are faithfully copy/pasted by Ray, MOTR, BICora, Madco, Caroman and BOTW. Ironically y’all, especially peacemonger and Ray with support from Madco and Caroman rail about the alleged Romanoff people speaking ill of Bennet but Romanoff is the only one who has done something about his crazies. I don’t get the sense that Sharon or JO could be controlled or have any connection with the campaign at all. Triguardian who was a volunteer from what the Post wrote was apparently removed quickly like a cancer. The new media guy JohnE that Romanoff’s manager inherited was removed pretty abruptly too. Meanwhile, y’all boast about being told what to say or do by “your campaign” while you spew venom at Romanoff and his supporters. Mr. Bennet, I think it’s time you reign in your crazies or cut them off. If they are the ones speaking for you… I did hear a funny story about a Bennet staffer being overheard boasting about the “dirt” they claim to have on Romanoff and describing how they’re “just waiting for the right time to saturate the net with it.” Really? Dirt? Running a horrible campaign when he first got in is not dirt it was just dumb. Being the errand boy and rainmaker for a bigot, that’s dirt.
I have never received a “talking point” from the Bennet campaign. I am responsible for every one of my posts, and (I’m going out on a limb here without the requisite research) I wouldn’t retract any of them. In fact, I even try to leaven my thoughts with some humor sometimes.
But, thanks for reading! And I hope you’ll help in the general election.
I want a spirited debate between the two on the issues and leadership and then whoever the Dems of Colorado nominate, will have my time, money and vote!
Haven’t you spoken on behalf of Bennet at a house district meeting before? Excuse me if I’m wrong. Maybe I’m confusing you with MadCo or peacemonger. After all, your points are all so similar if not copy/pasted straight off the Bennet website.
But if you have spoken on behalf of Bennet, are you honestly going to say you didn’t receive talking points? Even Jared Polis, a sitting U.S. Representatitve, was given talking points to surrogate for Bennet.
I am really biting my tongue/fingers right now.
Ouch.
I am really biting my tongue/fingers right now.
Ouch.
(Kidding.)
Seriously, believe it or not, Democrats are capable of independent thought.
Is this a true statement:
“To help ease the small business credit crunch, Bennet is co-sponsoring the bipartisan Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act”
Here is the link if you want to use your independent mind to formulate your answer:
http://bennet.senate.gov/newsr…
In the above referenced press release Sen Bennet states he is the co-sponsor of legislation he is not. Look here and you will see he is NOT a co-sponsor of the legislation:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/…
I am just saying you support a man who has to lie to gain support. He did it again in the letter to supporters he said he is the co-sponsor of legislation to combat the Citizens United ruling. There is no such legislation.
Please justify to me these statements and why Sen. Bennet has to spread these lies?
If there is an error, all you have to do is call the campaign and let them know.
What press release / legislation are you talking about?
And pm is right- call (303) 433-0022 and ask the campaign. I’d be interested if post your answer. (If i was going to bet on a mistake, I’d bet against you- but I don’t bet)
He IS a co-sponsor. I did some highly complex research on whether bennet was a co-sponsor:
(1) I googled the name of the bill (“Small Business Job Creation and Access to Capital Act”).
(2) I clicked on the first “govtrack” link.
(3) I clicked on “show co-sponsors.”
(4) I saw Bennet’s name as one of teh co-sponsors.
Otoole, do you need me to type this more slowly so that you can follow it?
I am really biting my tongue/fingers right now.
Ouch.
I love when people know they have been called out and have absolutely nothing to say in response.
Caroman you need to accept this and just take your ball and go home (you better check with your campaign if that is OK first).
Show me where.
I posted this comment on Wade’s recent post:
otoole, you wrote “Some of you have even used the phrase ‘my campaign told me’ in your posts. You are holding yourself out as a mouthpiece of the campaign.”
I don’t remember anyone saying that, yet you’re declaring that multiple people have done so. That’s a pretty serious claim — that certain Pols posters are “mouthpieces” for a campaign — so please let us know which members have said that.
Unsurprisingly, you never responded.
Also, none of us seemed to believe you when you pretentiously wrote, “I have sat with Presidents, legislators and world leaders…” I suppose it’s possible you’re Warren Christopher or James Baker, and in your retirement you’re tooling around Mountain State blogs… but on behalf of all of us who mocked your “I have sat with” language, let me say I think you’re lying.
See my post below. We just need people like him to bet us and put some serious money up, or STFU.
I place people like you in the same category as those who get their news from Fox Spews. That means I won’t respond to anything from you unless you phrase it in the form of a bet (and a pretty sizable one at that). Because otherwise, you’re just spewing garbage without consequence, and wasting my time.
But it’s a safe move to blame caroman. Seriously.
Like Ritter’s complete mastery of all markets O&G, caroman is the Democratic party and I follow his command whenever possible.
Seriously?
So what if someone surrogated for a candidate? (though I haven’t, and I can’t speak for caroman, the true master, or anyone else.)
The Bennet campaign’s talking points are no mystery: http://bennetforcolorado.com/
Wait, I forgot – what is your point?
just kidding.
I’ve seen emails and other messages from the campaign. I’ve never claimed to be doing what the campaign told me to do, because the campaign never has told me what to do.
I’ve said I like Andrew. I’ve complimented his leadership and track record in Colorado.
And I’ve called exactly three posters names (not counting when I’m just being funny and obviously not serious) in thousands of posts so what do you mean by “spewing venom”?
You heard a funny story about blah blah blah.
Oh no. You heard something.
I heard stuff too . wow- that must be the first time in the history of campaigns that happened. ok maybe not.
Bennet worked for a guy with crazy politics? uh-oh
The purity police are onto us – I confess: I once worked for Ronald Reagan. And after that I worked for George Bush. I’ll keep my tail between my legs and just go away now. Probably not.
I am a Democrat and I want the seat to stay D.
And so, if AR gets the nomination, he’ll have my support.
Can you say the same about Bennet?
It’s a common mistake, don’t sweat it.
This is flattering, but I think we’ll get off to a better originator/imitator relationship if you try using paragraphs. About the time I got to your reference to our distinguished colleagues Sharon and JO, I realized that you might as well be one of them. Really, paragraphs.
But to address your question, I don’t find Bennet supporters, on the whole to be “the crazies.” In fact, I find that to be an emerging contrast between the two campaigns.
What do you think of that, Mini-Me?
It’s just plain mean spirited to ask for paragraphs.
Oh, wait… no, it’s fine.
If you go back and read all my posts, I say almost daily I like and respect Andrew Romanoff. He is a good candidate in the wrong race, and his campaign is a poor reflection of the former CO Speaker of the House.
I wouldn’t exactly call that venom.
I don’t copy and paste. I wouldn’t type so badly if I did.
OMFG! Look folks, I am a finance guy for a living and also an LGBT actvist at heart. I am floored at how much back and forth there is on this issue.
1. Andrew loses the Primary
2. Andrew Wins the Primary, he loses the general.
End of story. I have an amazing amount of respect for Andrew and Mike Miles. What this email shows me is two things. 1. BTC is coming in for Andrew and there are 200 – 300 trained field folks going to canvass the hell out of the metro area for Andrew. 2. Andrew is the new Mike Miles.
When are Democrats going to learn YOU NEED TO RAISE MONEY to win. The End.. If you are not spending 65% of your day raising money call to call to call your campaign staff needs to be canned and replaced.
Andrew will lose because a good 10 day 1000 point tv buy is about 390,000$ ( being points are about 390 a piece in Denver) So you can go on tv in just Denver for 10 days with the cash on hand he has. Not in FTC, G.J. or Colo Springs. How can you afford Mail, Radio, Internet ads ect ect.
Have 100 x 30 person house parties a week my friend but you still don’t reach as many people as TV.
So lets all go about our business and stop fighting on here.. He will not win, we will not change each others minds and if you support one of the two get on the damn phone or go knock some doors and get off the blog.
I have friends on both staff’s campaigns and I urge all of my friends on Andrews staff to get out of there before he bounces checks.
I’ve followed your career, and given you grief on other campaigns. Still, you know your finance and your politics. I respect your knowledge.
I wish Andrew would listen to you. I like and respect him as well, and I think he digs his hole deeper every day. We need him in another race, and he is just sabotaging his future. It’s hard to watch self-destruction.
Seriously – stop acting like you are some kind of saint here. We all know who you are and no one believes for one second you are not a Bennet lackey.
What is so sad is that you at one point (when you were campaigning for the President) believed in change.
Just own the fact that no matter what happens you are going Republican and not getting off the talking point supplied to you by the Bennet campaign.
So sad
You shut your fucking mouth if you’re threatening to out peacemonger. You will find yourself ostracized and hopefully banned (if the rules are still being enforced around here).
If you need to threaten a poster to win an argument, your argument is probably shit. We take this stuff seriously. Argue the merits, but nothing personal.
I’m proud to say I campaigned for President Barack Obama. Nothing to hide there. ; )
Going Republican, though, Tool? That’s a good one.
I like AR and MM too. Smart, passionate, talented progressive D’s – what’s not to like?
Could you do a seperate diary on campaign finance- esp media budgeting in the modern era?
Specifically-
why do people refer to CO as a “cheap seat”? I’ve seen punditry conclude that the NRSC will target CO because it’s a “cheap seat”. Seems like the media budget is going to be north of $10mm – that doesn’t sound cheap.
When does the media budget get done? I get htat campaigns a re condensed time line, but every project I’ve ever seen with real 8 figure budgets has the budget projections done months in advance, if not longer.
Whattheheck is a point? and why does it cost $390?
And wouldn’t 390 x 1000 x 10 be a little higher than $390k (approx 10x higher?)
why does tv work so well?
When was the last time a contested US Senate campaign was won without significant media?
Dem has told us all we need to know:
Next debate?
AR has no chance without the proper funds, end of story…
…watching the anti-Romanoff feeding frenzy here on ColoPols.
Ironically, it lends credence to Caddell’s point that dissent is not tolerated. Romanoff has a lot of nerve not giving Bennet his blind devotion! Doesn’t he realize Ritter, Udall and Obama have decided who are next Senator is going to be? One of you puts it best in your sig line: “Bennet had me at ‘Obama’.” No rational thinking necessary!
Bennet is a weak candidate that Ritter dropped on our heads. We still have time to correct Ritter’s mistake.
One more thing: what is with the rabid hatred for Mike Miles?
And if Republicans weren’t having an even more divisive primary, over actual issues, they’d be laughing even louder than they already are.
I’m not anti-Romanoff. I am anti “Andrew Romanoff killing all hopes for a future successful race”. I told him in August I am a strong supporter of his, and hope he runs again for something. I told him in September he was crazy for choosing this race. He jumped in too late, and you don’t primary another great Democrat. Stupid, stupid move. His own ego is destroying his formerly bright and promising future.
Watching Andrew Romanoff destroy his own political career is like watching your own kid drop out of high school or college. It breaks your heart, but there is not a damn thing you can do about it.
Bennet will crush him like a bug. I can’t watch.
I don’t have anything against Mike Miles. His “Be the Change” poll was a great piece of comedy.
I would have loved to have elected him. I would have loved if was electable in Colorado in 04.
Bennet was unkown- that on;y temporarily made him weak.
I am a Democrat and I want the seat to stay D.
And so, if AR gets the nomination, he’ll have my support.
Can you say the same about Bennet?
Miles was no prince. When Romanoff pushes him to the front of the herd, he isn’t saying much about his ability to judge character. Either that or he’s just desperate. I like Andrew… I really hope it’s the latter.
I’ve been comparing this race to Miles/Salazar since the beginning. It is glad to see others are now agreeing.
but usually with the qualifier, “Romanoff is different than Miles.” Well, it’s true, the DLC never would have made Miles a fellow, but beyond that, the differences are getting harder to see.
was a case of two candidates with very different views and very different positions on the left/right scale. There is no such distinction between Bennet and Romanoff.
Maybe that’s why it gets so personal here. Those passionately supporting AR just like him a lot better at gut level and feel he was screwed out of the seat in the first place. Those who strongly (I wouldn’t say passionately) support Bennet just don’t get why AR and his supporters won’t accept practical reality and why they demonize Bennet even though he votes pretty much exactly the way AR would.
With Miles and Salazar there were actual issues to debate.
In Salazar/Miles, it was a classic far left vs. moderate/semi-right matcfh up. There was also the issue of Salazar was well known by the voting public, Miles was not.
In Bennet/Romanoff, there is not the great divide in philosphy, and the person many of you try to protray in the Miles role, is actually the better known of the two.
The only point of comparison in these two races is that the upper eschelon of the party is backing one of the candidates before a primary. It was bad form when Gates did it with Salazar (and I was a Salazar supporter from the beginning), and it’s bad form now.
If Romanoff hadn’t waited on the fence for 10+ months, it wouldn’t be happening. Nobody wanted to run a primary against Bennet for most of 2009, so a lot of Dems got behind him thinking it wouldn’t cause any intra-party stress.
By the time Romanoff announced in the middle of September, it was too late for most of the upper echelon (and the lower echelon too for that matter) to go back.
I am on the outskirts of party involvement these days (my life is transitioning into a non-political direction) and even I was pretty certain Romanoff was going to run for most of 2009.
Romanoff was giving speeches to any group that would listen, and these speeches were unmistakenly preliminary campaign speewches for a federal office and the CD1 seat was certainly not opening up so only US Senate made sense.
The Bennet bandwagon seems, from my point of view, as an attempt to discourage Romanoff (or anyone else) from running.
has multiple causes, not least of which is the talent and quality of the Senator himself. That is my main reason for supporting him.
To some extent, yes, the party always has an incentive to discourage a primary challenge to an incumbent. But that’s only because the party is designed to put and keep Democrats into office, and party discipline and unity contribute to successfully accomplishing that task. That’s not bad form; that’s focusing on accomplishing the purpose for which the party exists. But it is by no means a monolithic position: Many of our Democratic state legislators strongly support Romanoff, and no one denies them the right to do so.
How successfully Romanoff had signalled to how many people his intention eventually to enter the race, the fact is that he didn’t, during the entire period that that question was the buzz. Romanoff’s timing absolutely did contribute to Bennet’s momentum.
I guess that’s why he told several lobbyists and others in his spiritual community that he had no interest in the Senate race in March of last year.
However, even with you being on the outskirts right now, you’re head and shoulders above most Dems as far as knowledge of party workings. And a lot of the upper echelon aren’t CD-1 activists, and may have missed the subtlety of Romanoff’s warm up run.
It certainly didn’t get any media attention, and the first I heard about it was when he was calling people the week before to let them know he was going to run.
Either way, my point is still valid, if Romanoff had jumped into the pool right away instead of dipping in his toe for nearly a year then it would be a much different story.
If Romanoff knew for 9 months that he was going to run, he could have showed up to a house meeting/town hall/rally/forum/debate/march, etc., when the rest of the party was battling hostile tea baggers all year. We would have GLADLY welcomed his assistance! As far as I could tell, he was nowhere to be found. I understand from bloggers here that he was out of the country, but if he was throwing out signals, as you say, they sure weren’t anywhere this party activist was looking. (Or maybe they just weren’t in English?)
He did take a two week vacation at some point there, I really hope you are suggesting he had earned one by now.
He did spend much of this time outside of Denver, but there are 63 other counties to consider when seeking support for a statewide race.
Yes, he absolutely earned a vacation. Question — How long are your vacations? Mine are a week. I have a wealthy friend or two who take a month, although most people I know take stay-cations these days because of the economy. Even if he took a month, what was he doing the rest of the year? I didn’t see him at Denver party events, but as a grassroots organizer, I admittedly wasn’t at a lot myself — especially those that required money to get in. I can’t afford them.
Where was he when we were in the heat of the (free) health care movement events? Senator Bennet was all over the place fighting the radical right fringe — I know, I ran into him or his staff all the time. There were literally about 50 health care rallies organized by non-profits, unions and other groups that I know of — plus many more town halls, forums, seminars, debates, marches, etc. Michael Bennet did more house meetings and town halls on the subject than I could count.
Thousands of us took to the streets demanding health care reform in 2009. Lots of our legislators lent a hand, too — Daniel Kagan, George Kafalas, Morgan Carroll, Su Ryden, Suzanne Williams, Nancy Todd, Pat Steadman, John Hickenlooper, Ed Perlmutter, Jared Polis… and many more (sorry to those I forgot). Even Republicans Cindy Acree and Aurora’s Mayor Ed Tauer came to one out of curiosity(!). Andrew was conspicuously absent. I never doubted his stand on the issue (we all know he cares about Coloradans), but the fact that Michael Bennet was there for us in ’09 and Andrew wasn’t, will follow Andrew.
When I first heard Andrew Romanoff was jumping into this race, I told him I thought he was nuts. Did anyone in Colorado deserve the seat more than him, originally? No. He should have gotten it. Most of us agree on that point. Did he ruin his opportunity to prove to Colorado that he was worthy of it when he was not there for us in 2009? Unfortunately, yes. Being out of the country during Obama’s first year of the Change agenda, rather than working on it with the rest of us, was a political miscalculation, in my humble opinion. The shift had occurred from an international focus to a domestic one, and sadly, Andrew Romanoff did not get the memo.
To former Speaker Romanoff’s credit, there was an SEIU/HCAN/Change That Works/MoveOn event a couple of weeks ago to protest Wall Street, and he was there, along with supporters of his and Michael Bennet’s. Sadly, it was a year too late to try to win over the SEIU endorsement, but it was still good to see him there.
I hope it won’t be the last time.
Caucuses and the campaigns are probably costing the Party close to $500K this spring.
Some of that money has to be spent, lots of it doesn’t.
So, I’m wondering, wouldn’t it be better to just rent out the Pepsi Center, put four of you from each side of the Romanoff-Bennet split in a cage match, and sell tickets to Republicans (who will likely enjoy it more than Dems)?
We’d raise real money for the winner, which might be a better way to actually, you know, KEEP THE SEAT (supposedly the goal of this whole process).
All this to say, at what point in all of this does the Democratic Party actually “jump the shark,” and let Norton walk right in.
By the time both sides managed to agree on the cage match rules, it would be 2016.
Elvis and then I wonder why a picture of Elvis on water skis is relevant to an article about Andrew Romanoff.
[Note to self: schedule eye exam.]
It looks like a still from Blue Hawaii.
That’s exactly what I thought the first time I saw it. And the second and third times as well.
this writer seems too caught up in analysis and a vision of politicians as benevolent professional deceivers to realize that some of us like Mike Miles and will take his endorsement seriously; i have been undecided on this race, but i want someone who incites me to believe in him, not someone whom i think will “raise enough money”
i am fed up with “political reality” and this post just pushes me further
There is no inherent incompatability between being a master of political reality (including raising enough money) and being an inspiration. In fact, the two often go hand-in-hand, and neither on its own has, historically, generally been a recipe for great deeds.
I listen to people carefully, and, while I am still refusing to criticize Andrew Romanoff, I can only say that I hear plenty that inspires me in Michael Bennet. If others are more inspired by Andrew Romanoff, and feel, upon careful reflection, that he better represents their hopes and aspirations, and that he is better able to help us as a state and a peaple to realize them, then I respect and admire your decision to support him.
There. That’s not so hard, now is it?