February 17, 2010 09:13 PM UTC

Reflections on the Bennet-Romanoff debate

•  
• 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.