January 16, 2010 06:56 PM UTC

"Take Me to Your Leader"

•  
• by: JO

Aside from being the first words extraterrestrials are instructed to utter upon landing in New Mexico, that seems like a reasonable request by Democrats in Colorado.

It’s debatable whether Bill Ritter fit that description before instructing his driver to turn right onto Lame Duck Lane, but now that he is largely out of the picture, who is the leader of Colorado Dems?

The question is relevant to the Romanoff-Bennet race. Bennetistas typing on this site occasionally suggest that Romanoff is out of line for “challenging” Bennet who somehow, for some reason, has “legitimacy.” In effect, “Do as you’re told, Andrew, and maybe you’ll be allowed to run for dog-catcher in a year or two.” Allowed by whom?

It may turn out that the real significance of Ritter’s decision to retire from politics, at least for now, is to shatter the illusion that the party leadership wants Mike in office. (If your answer to “who is your leader” is “Rahm Emanuel” or even “Barack Obama,” well, okay, but they don’t seem to have bothered to register to vote in this state–yet.) And it may further turn out that Romanoff is the one who commands the greater fealty of party activists, the sort who turn out for conventions by whatever name, getting his name on the top of the ballot. Even on BennetPols.com, just yesterday, there was idle chatter about Bennet having to petition his way onto the ballot!

Does Bennet have any claim to the office, or the nomination, superior to Romanoff’s? His one and only claim is the vote, singular, by Bye-Bye-Bill. As much as his devotees repeat “incumbent, incumbent, incumbent,” Bennet is not an incumbent by virtue of having been elected, by virtue of having persuaded a majority of voters (or, hell, more than one voter) to put their confidence in him. (At least Romanoff can make that claim, as well as the claim of having been effective in a legislature.) Yeah, one can occasionally see MB tap, tap, tapping the gavel in the Senate chamber, pulling freshman duty and learning parliamentary procedure, but his claim to “incumbency” is bogus, which needs no explanation among reasonable people. Seems to me even he has admitted as much, as in “I am not the incumbent,” in a year when being the incumbent may not be the place to be!

So the question arises, yet again: Why Bennet?

–A record as a successful politician? No.

–A dynamic campaigner? In living rooms, maybe, but a successful politician has simply got to learn to smile and look like s/he means it.

–Obvious leader in the polls, guarantee of keeping the seat in Democratic hands? No.

–Fund raiser? Oh yeah, that. Just as much a liability as an advantage, as will be further revealed when the details of who’s writing the Big Cheques comes out.

–Champion of the People (previous item notwithstanding)? Well, watching the Banking Committee over the next few months, as it takes on Big Banks over the issue of 30s-era re-regulation, may turn out to be the most fascinating story of the year (at least for those who sneak a look at CSpan while the Significant Other is getting something to drink during the “commercial break”).

 Loading ...