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
July 27, 2010 10:59 AM UTC

Romanoff And The Balloon Boy?

  • 83 Comments
  • by: peacemonger

In case you didn’t think Colorado was interesting enough, there’s more.

But first, let’s recap some of the more interesting news in CO this past year:

– A family hides their young son, and then gets the entire country to believe he is inside a giant “Jiffy pop”-looking balloon flying loose over CO, causing widespread panic on international news station, CNN.

– Pastor Ted Haggard, the drug-using, homophobe from Colorado Springs, opens a “gay-friendly” church.

– A Grand Mesa woman crashes her car, saying she was fleeing a “vampire” .

A woman in Boulder gardens publicly in nothing but a thong but police cannot arrest her because Boulder does not have a law against it.

A real bear goes into a car to take a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich, the door closes behind him, and he takes the car for a joy ride.

And in political news:

– CO’s Senate candidate Jane Norton attacks opponent Ken Buck’s “manhood” on television.

– In response, Ken Buck says he doesn’t wear ladies shoes.

– Conservative groups paint Ritter and Hickenlooper in zebra stripes, and Hick finds it so funny he runs with the theme, dressing in zebra stripes at the Dems state convention.

– McInnis is charged with plagiarism, a crime usually committed by 3rd graders (3 times, in fact).

– Tancredo is fighting with the tea party (who have now become too “main-stream” for the likes of Tom).

And now Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, in a desperate media grab, will loan his campaign $325,000 from the sale of his $360,000 home in Washington Park, according to a story in the Huffington Post.

Law school graduate and former CO Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, the same candidate who attacked Senator Michael Bennet for taking money from PACS while he actually had his own PAC, wants voters to believe he can fundraise enough money to fight Republicans in November. He is so sincere about it, he is apparently willing to become homeless for the cause.

Homelessness is a serious societal problem, causing immeasurable pain to it’s victims. Homelessness is not often used as a campaign gimmick — Coloradans will not stand for it.

Voters will want to know, “If Romanoff is so destitute he has to sell his home in upscale Washington Park to loan money to his campaign, how did he afford to travel to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Nigeria in 2009? How has he paid his bills since he left the Colorado State Legislature?”

This story could go either way for Romanoff. If the media grab is legitimate, and Romanoff really has spent his entire life savings leading up to this campaign for the US Senate, voters will find his sacrifice admirable, and it might solicit sympathy from potential donors (and more contributions). If he has money put away somewhere that could have used to loan his campaign before having to sell his home, this story may ultimately end up in the same category as… “balloon boy”.

This should be interesting, but then again, it is Colorado.  

Will this media grab work for Romanoff?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

83 thoughts on “Romanoff And The Balloon Boy?”

  1. .

    I would like to disagree with the notion that Tancredo is in a tiff with genuine Tea Party activists.

    His conflict is with stealth GOP organizations that CLAIM to be the Tea Party, but command no loyalty from the independent-minded liberty enthusiasts.  These phony “Tea Party” groups are led and funded by the likes of Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, Richard Mellon Scaife and Koch Industries.  

    .

    1. the article you site is still from the Denver Post


      “Information from: The Denver Post, http://www.denverpost.com“

      and since you warned me in last night’s diary,

      that I could get Colorado Pols sued, it is ironic that you are re-posting something that is also quite likely opening Colorado Pols to liability (since Huffington post has permission from the Denver Post to use their material)

      1. You an link to the paper that must be named, but you cannot quote from it.

        Personally I would like to see monopoly press try to sue Pols for quoting with proper credit given. They would be laughed out of court.

      2. Only literary style.  If The Pravda or That Which Must Not Be Named reports that so and so did such and such, the information is in the public domain, only the specific wording of the story belongs to the originating paper.  PM is on supersolid ground by linking to the Huffpo.  

  2. Mutual funds are still there. Hard to pack and campaign at the same time. Perhaps he’s renting from the new landlord? Is there a buy back clause?Or is he, as I think, simply preparing to leave under any scenario?

    1. if you are re-telling the ‘interesting’ news stories – why did you (curiously) forget how Bennet’s spokesmodel – Trevor Kincaid – helped turned a once civil Democratic Senate Primary into “street fight”

      as the Huffington post referred to his antics in the Romanoff Campaign Headquarter’s parking lot?

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

      2. It is not uncommon for representatives from other campaigns to attend a press conference. If there was a shouting match (which is quite different than a street fight, right Wade?) doesn’t it take two to tango?

        I wasn’t there (I have long since given up Romanoff press conferences), and the article is pretty vague as to what really happened.  

        1. in Nicaragua. I think he made it up. I was illegal to do business from 1982 to 1990.

          Was he there as a guest of Daniel Ortega or the Contras?

                  1. Throughout this primary Wade and the entire Romanoff campaign forgot to qualify their statements with something called proof – preferring to use unsubstantiated claims to prop up their candidate to make him appear bigger than life. I’m certain the bribery concerns surrounding his candidate have offered up heavy dose of reality – and it’s a tough thing for him to swallow.

                    1. If Wade and Campanoff had to give a clear specific answer to this one, it may be verifiable that AR broke the law doing business in Nicaragua.

                      If AR wins the primary we’re going to hear about it. Why not answer it now? Because it makes him look unelectable in the general.  LtCol North, Bill Casey and General Secord acknowledged their involvement in Nicaragua and it worked out ok for them.

                      I believe AR’s website that traveled through Nicaragua and elsewhere in South America.  But was he a tourist?  Does “teaching English” mean he chatted with locals as he travelled?  Or does it mean something else?  DId he get paid for it? By whom?  Was he a volunteer for some NGO or was he more of a tourist?

                      It’s like his claim to have worked for SPLC.  If he interned there for a few weeks once upon a time – say so.  If he was on the payroll in  a real position – say so.

    1. The same with her Senator “Aw-Shucks.” They never do anything mean or low. They are purely victims in this world of ours. They can throw taunts and innuendo at anyone, but delete it or flat out claim they never did it later. When they repeat that lie enough, it sinks in. Like propaganda.  

  4. Peacemonger — I thought we were friends.  I mean FAKE Susan Daggett calls you whenever we need crazy people on the blogs; I remembered your name long enough to make you think we were friends.  What else do I have to do to be included in your piece?

    Well since you forgot me, here are a few things.

    Remember when my Senate staff was found to be trying to make political hay out of an FBI probe?

    “Bummed we missed this – I was under the impression we were being asked not to talk – looks like everyone else did and will lieky [sic] get the press,” wrote Sarah Hughes, Bennet’s deputy chief of staff. “Lesson learned for next time.”

    Or how about when I admitted to talking to Rahm Emmanuel about trying to bully Andrew Romanoff out of the race?  I mean I’m especially proud of that one.

    “Yeah, I was aware,” Bennet said. “Right.”

    Or the stories about how well trained my interns are?  I mean they don’t let people near me unless they are willing to pony up at least $2400

    Or the whole “voted against it before I was for it” thing that David Sirota kept harping on?  I mean I really didn’t have a good explanation for that at all.

    Or all the information coming out now about how all those teachers lost their pensions so my buddy Phil and I could make a few extra million?  I mean that should really deserve a mention in your article — I don’t think my friends at Goldman Sachs could have done better.

    In the end, Bennet profited mightily from the same flavors of financial manipulations that destabilized Wall Street and led to the crash of 2008, and the loss of millions of jobs and billions in lost productivity. And while Denver taxpayers will take years to climb out of the mess at Denver Public Schools, will voters keep an experienced corporate raider in an appointed United States Senate seat?

    There’s a few I think you could have included.  I’m hurt that you forgot about me.

    2. he does not deserve to be so dishonored as he is by your “advocacy.” You are only doing him, yourself, and the Democratic Party a disservice. If that’s your goal, then pat yourself on the back and have at it. If it isn’t, then you might want to rethink your strategy. Because anonymity only hides your identity, not your repugnance.

    3. Your post looks like a psychopath’s journal. You are scaring me.

      In order of your links.

      1. They missed the ball on a story and admitted it. No story there.

      2. Bennet didn’t say he talked to Rahm Emmanuel about anything. He said he “heard about it”. HUGE difference. Your intrepretation is not supported in fact.

      3. Bennet removed the volunteer who screwed up. If he didn’t, you’d also be all over his case. He did the right thing and you still rake him over the coals for it.

      4. Anschutz and Bennet are not “buddies”. They’re politics is 180 degrees apart. That’s one of the reasons Bennet took a massive pay cut to work with John Hickenlooper, who really is his good friend.

      Telling lies over and over does not make them true.

  5. Why didn’t his supporters clean out their bank accounts to donate the max to his campaign?  

    What are those teaching jobs and how much do they pay?  

    Maybe he’s already taken that job in Washington with a September start date.  

  6. I’ve stayed out of many of the arguments that fill this site, instead posting diaries with news stories, but this piece made me respond.

    You may not like Andrew Romanoff and prefer Michael Bennet — that’s your choice as a voter.  You may disagree with his message and go with another candidate — again that’s a valid conversation to have.

    But to attack a man who so fully believes in changing Washington that you make fun of him for risking everything he has — selling his home — to help the cause is disgusting.

    You think this is for media attention?  You think that a man who has lived in his home for years and is a staple of that community would abandon that for a day of headlines?  Disgusting.

    And now Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, in a desperate media grab, will loan his campaign $325,000 from the sale of his $360,000 home in Washington Park, according to a story in the Huffington Post.

    And then you mock him?

    Homelessness is a serious societal problem, causing immeasurable pain to it’s victims. Homelessness is not often used as a campaign gimmick — Coloradans will not stand for it.

    I’ve donated to Andrew’s campaign.  I’ve made phone calls to voters.  Vile disgusting crap like this diary make me all the more resolved.  If I can say one nice thing here, it’s thank you for the reminder to send the campaign whatever I can.  If nothing else it’s a way to show that people respect the dedication the man has to his ideals.

    1. Sense of humor failure . . .

      Don’t worry–it’s a common problem among the AR faithful.  Soon it will be cured when Sen. Bennet wins the primary and frees AR to move wherever he wants.

    2. If this is sincere and he really needs the money, I will admit I was wrong and apologize.  If it turns out he has money stashed away in a trust fund and this is just a shameless media grab, then you can apologize to me. Sound fair?

      1. you think this is some media ploy?  prove it.  You think this is anything but a genuine move from a man who believes in his cause? Find some evidence.

        You want to float some rumors out there?  Try backing it up with some shred of evidence.

        In the meantime I stand by my statement.

        1. Up to this point, he’s kept his word on challenges like this. He’s free to voice his suspicions – he’s not asserting anything, so he doesn’t need to prove anything.

          So, why don’t you take up his challenge?

          1. One of the things I like about the CoPols community is that when somebody starts talking smack, the usual response is “You got a link for that?”  If they do, then great. If they don’t, the usual response is “Meh. Come back when ya got sumthin.”  So MickeyD is right to challenge the assertion.  

              1. PM didn’t MSU. He just gave it the worst spin he could based on unfounded assumptions. When challenged, his response was “prove me wrong.”

                And who says that Libs can’t emulate Fox News?

                    2. The diary is titled

                      “Romanoff And The Balloon Boy?”

                      Balloon boy was a hoax.

                      It follows that your inference is that Romanoff selling his home was a hoax, done only for the free media it would generate, based on the fact that he seems to live on a very small income, yet managed to travel overseas.

                      Sure, you presented your argument as a series of questions.

                      Voters will want to know, “If Romanoff is so destitute he has to sell his home in upscale Washington Park to loan money to his campaign, how did he afford to travel to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Nigeria in 2009? How has he paid his bills since he left the Colorado State Legislature? [my emphasis]

                      But you maintain there is no inference there. No attempt to sow rumour.

                      It doesn’t look that way to me.

                    3. How did he travel all over in those countries if he is that broke? Voters would love to hear it.

                      He wants us to vote for him and believe he is good with money — kind of an important thing for a legislator, right? We (speaking as a voter) have a right to know how he ended up in this mess if he wants our votes.

                    4. His campaign needed money.

                      He sold some assets (his house) to generate cash to loan to his campaign.

                      Why his house? I dunno. Maybe the tax benefit (no capital gains). Maybe that’s all he’s got. Ask him.

                      But I don’t see a mess.  

                    5. Sale of house netted $235,000 and then he got another $100k from personal funds and loaned $335 to the campaign.  

                      As discussed yesterday – he also has his trust fund. You could look it up on his amended FEC financial filing at the Colorado SOS site (or my post yesterday had the link).

                    7. The Gaza is pretty screwed up.

                      AfPak – mess.

                      Tancredo shredding his party for no discernible reason- mess.

                      The Rockies – big mess.

                      Broncos – mess.

                      Gangs, the border wars, the Gulf of Mexico, that oil spill in Michigan (Michigan?), the state budget, the national debt – mess.

                      Oh, yeah there’s a contested D primary for the US Senate saat form Colorado.  Mess…. well pia, anyway.

            1. what’s your point?  Romanoff seems like a guy who hasn’t spent a lot of money and lives within his means.  I thought we applauded people who are smart with finances.

              Where is your proof on this conspiracy?  The burden of proof is on you here.  You’re floating negative rumors you haven’t backed up.

              1. that nobody was “floating rumors.” There’s a difference between voicing suspicions and floating rumors. Would you like me to explain the difference?

              2. I applaud him for being charitable.

                I applaud him for caring about other people.

                I applaud him for a great career in the CO State House.

                I applaud him for being a mensch (look it up).

                I have stated hundreds of times, if this were another race, another time, I would be on his side 100%. I would give the guy a kidney. Seriously.

                We cannot risk this Senate seat to someone who jumped in the race too late and doesn’t know how to fundraise, or someone who hires campaign staff like Pat Caddell and Andrea Merida.

                Andrew Romanoff for Senate — right guy, wrong race, wrong time, wrong campaign decisions.

                    2. you posted the exact same diary on multiple blogs under different names.  I referenced the multiple names.  That’s a violation?

    3. I’m getting sick of Romanoff shills making vicious personal attacks on Bennet and his family, including his wife (see above) then squealing like stuck pigs when Bennet people reply especially when, as Peacemonger did, they do so with humor and creativity.  Pimp for AR all you like but keep your vomit off PM.

      2. MikeD said he thinks this diary is mean-spirited and listed out why. You call the attacks on Bennet vicious & personal and yet the ones on Romanoff you view as fine. That’s a double standard.

        2. At some point, for reasons still inexplicable to most, you just decided Bennet was no damn good.  Since then, if Bennet walks on water, you say it proves he can’t swim.  To each his own, I guess.  But when I see AR shills go psycho, as so many have, then vilify a sweet person like PM, I can and will protest.

            Team Romanoff needs to lose the notion that it has exclusive ownership of Free Speech!

    4. to talk about selling his house. If this wasn’t a media grab, he should have made it clear that he was there to talk about the campaign and not his house.

      I mean come on. He did this for the media. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Two birds, one stone. He needed money for his campaign and he needed to reach voters. It was a smart calculated move.

      Of course he got the Chris Matthews treatment on Hardball. Not sure he walked away from that interview intact. May have been a wash.

        1. I’m just saying…who cares if it was a media stunt? How is it a bad thing? Personally, I think it shows a real political calculation we haven’t seen from him before.

          Whether it turns out to work for or against him depends on whether he was ready to sell or not (I doubt anyone would willingly sell in this market after roughly 11 years) and whether he WINS. Either way it was a bold move that he deserves credit for making.

        1. individual donations from big oil and big business insiders was a good one. Andrew seemed really thrown off by it. His answer seemed like a total dodge.

          Anyone know if this is something easily checked into?

          And before I get attacked, I am in no way accusing. I am just wondering.

            1. that questions was that some politicians say they aren’t going to take PAC money from a certain group i.e. O&G but get donations from the executives who then get reimbursed. It’s an end run around the system.

              I doubt this is being done by Romanoff but I think it is a fair question to be asked and hadn’t seen it brought up on here before.

              1. at least before Citizens United was illegal. It’s probably still illegal to be reimbursed through PAC funds. Direct corporate reimbursement would be answerable to the shareholders on some level if it’s at all legal as well.

                The problem with executives giving personally to someone that has refused PAC money is the bundling.  Even a maxed out donor will only get so much respect from a candidate (actually less over the short term since they can’t be tapped again) but when somebody holds an industry fundraiser or shows up with a handful of checks then they get to sit in the drivers’ seat.

                If we could have more transparent record keeping, then that sort of thing would be easier to ferret out but quarterly paper reports makes it impossible to pinpoint a single day money dump by pharmaceutical executives or oil & gas insiders.

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

163 readers online now

Newsletter

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