I Can’t Watch This Train Wreck: Bennet vs. Romanoff

A friend of mine once told me he loved politics because every two years he got to see new and creative ways that Democrats screw up a sure thing.  He won’t be disappointed in 2010 if Andrew Romanoff stays in the Senate race.

Andrew Romanoff is a good and decent man.  Most of us CO progressives would have given our I-teeth to see him appointed to the Senate months ago.

This contentious primary has became ugly, with some Romanoff supporters unable to separate the personal from the political. Some of them seem willing to (politically) kill anyone who stands in their way, because of their fierce loyalty to their friend. More than one has said, “He helped me get elected, or he canvassed for our county.”  Their loyalty is impressive, but at what cost to the state of CO and to the nation?  

Driven by anger toward Governor Ritter for exercising his right as a Governor to fill a vacancy left by Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar (imagine that?), Andrew Romanoff’s supporters are insistent that he be given a second chance at becoming Senator. They are going to all lengths, including considering an unprecedented vote of the Denver Dems to formally endorse him. They are willing to risk dividing the State Democratic Party, chasing away tens of thousands of former Obama volunteers and independents who have clearly told us they hate partison politics, and keeping major funding donors like the DSCC from helping either candidate, thus increasing the chances Republicans take back one of CO’s Senate seats.

And if that weren’t bad enough, all of the negative mud-slinging is hurting Governor Ritter’s chance for re-election, as well. This could be a two-fer for the Republicans. (DSCC money could have helped down-ticket Dems like Mike Coffman’s opponent John Flerlage, too.)

On the other hand, Michael Bennet has done an outstanding job as a freshman Senator, and is increasingly recognized all over the country as a leader in the health care reform movement.  His appointment to the Senate HELP committee, as well as his endorsement by President Obama, are an indication most of the national players will support him in this race. Senator Harry Reid referred to Michael Bennet in a speech as “our expert” on health care insurance reform.  With each passing day, Senator Bennet makes a bigger splash on the national stage. We may not like how he got appointed, but he has been doing a stellar job since his first day.  Seemingly everyone except Colorado Democratic party officers blinded by their Romanoff-loyalty seem to be aware of that fact.

Watching Andrew Romanoff try to catch up to Michael Bennet is heartbreaking. Party activists know Andrew Romanoff as an effective leader in the state legislature.  Most CO Dems do not pay that close attention.  Most of them will go to the election booth in the primary and vote for the impressive and articulatae new Senator they have been following on television.

Andrew Romanoff cannot raise enough money to compete, and it is sad to watch him grovel. His supporters might consider what this desperate act may due to what could have been a bright and promising opportunity elsewhere.  An embarrassing loss will not help Andrew Romanoff’s career in the future.

Remember when Ralph Nader had a reputation as a hero to the people, until he gave us George W. Bush, wrapped up in a big, red, Republican ribbon? A lifetime of work for average Americans became a simple legacy as “spoiler”.  

Whoever wins this primary, we will all work diligently to help them get elected in the general election. Either candidate will be better than the Republican alternative. We know Michael Bennet will be an excellent Senator — we’ve already seen it.  Unfortunately, because there is now a unnecessary, contentious primary, the chances of winning that election are diminished more every day Andrew Romanoff stays in this race. We’ll be lucky if CO Dems don’t lose their shirts in 2010.

I hate it when my friend is right, but he usually is.

When Andrew Romanoff Drops Out, Will His Career Be Over?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

100 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. dukeco1 says:

    Is someone in the Bennet camp getting worried? I am afraid I don’t buy the “Romanoff will cost the Dems the election” ploy.

    Sniff, sniff…I smell sockpuppet.

  2. Laughing Boy says:

    This is just awesome.

  3. cologeek says:

    We all will know who is to blame!

    Seriously, if Bennett was all that and a bag of chips, there wouldn’t be a primary challenge.  More than one long time poster here on Pols has stated their dissatisfaction with Bennett as a Senator, and his appointment by Governor Ritter was a big WTF moment here.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t more than a little bitterness behind Romanoff deciding to run, but saying that he will drop out is being more than a little disingenuous.

    He obviously has a lot of support from the base, which will count more in a primary than all of the money the national Democrats will funnel in to the state during the general, which they will do no matter who the candidate is.

    • MADCO says:

      you would have to acknowledge there is a HUGE difference between DSCC money and support coming to Colorado say in January – the DSCC recent m.o. – or waiting until August which they will if there is a primary.

      The biggest complaint about Bennet so far seems to be that he’s not AR, that he was not a popular D insider.   And the only other complaint so far has been the cramdown vote- which I suspect  is how AR would have voted too.

      So- differentiate AR for me.  Why would he be a better Senator than Bennet?  

      • Nomadic Politico says:

        Andrew has said publically that he would not have voted the same way on Cramdown — he would have voted with Udall…on the side of people and not big banks.

          • Nomadic Politico says:

            I saw it in person — sorry.

            But it may have come up on the Sirota interview…I don’t recall it coming up on the yourshow interview, but I don’t remember exactly.

            • redstateblues says:

              Even though, when it came to Bennet on Public Option, people needed triangulated sources from no fewer than a dozen newspapers, hand-signed documents, and baby footprints to believe he supported it, but I’m glad that AR has staked out that position. He should probably put it on his website or something–along with stances on other issues as well. Right now, there’s nothing there.

              I disagreed with Bennet on that vote, is that really the only thing other than personality that we’re getting to decide on? AR supports card check-less EFCA, and Bennet has decided to wait until it actually comes up in debate before he decides on it, so that’s another 1/2 of a point. If Bennet supports EFCA sans card check (which seems to be the way it will come up according to everything I’ve read) and then does a turnabout on Cramdown when it comes up again, he’s basically eliminated even the smallest hint of a policy difference.

              So we have cramdown and EFCA (sort of). Is that really it? The most important issue right now is health care, and Bennet has already shown himself to be strong on that issue.

                • MADCO says:

                  Sirota interviews AR

                  I think RBS has a brilliant idea.

                  If only there was some tool or medium which could be used to communicate policy positions on opinions to voters. Something publishable, free to the audience, open 24/7 and easy to use.  

                  The AM760 interview is helpful, but I’m thinking maybe something more compact and even indexed and searchable.

                  Here’s an exampleof something that appears to work.

                  • sxp151 says:

                    Dare to dream, MADCO. Perhaps someday when the technology improves. For now, I’ll just be examining these cow entrails until I figure out Romanoff’s position on cramdown. So far, I think it’s in the 7th house of Sagittarius, with a moon rising in Pisces.

              • sxp151 says:

                People are literally becoming homeless because Congress didn’t do anything about the foreclosure crisis, and some people are predicting it’ll get even worse. Bennet is one of a few Senators who sabotaged this effort.

                Romanoff should totally attack him on cramdown, and if Romanoff does, I’d probably support him.

                So far I see no public statement about it though. Romanoff’s campaign web site doesn’t even have an “issues” page.

      • cologeek says:

        But given that this diary post reads more like a campaign ad and less like commentary it tends to turn me off to Bennett.  Of course I’m a Republican and so I don’t have a dog in the fight.  But I find it interesting that when an appointed Senator, who has never stood for any elected office, is challenged in a primary by a former Speaker of the House, the experienced campaigner is attacked as a disruptor and destroyer of election chances.

  4. lanman2k says:

    This diary tries all the Bennet campaign arguments: Andrew is bitter, Andrew can’t raise enough money, Andrew will cost us the seat, Andrew should think about his political future.

    I was expecting to see a DC job offer for Andrew at the end of the diary.

    • MADCO says:

      of peacemonger or most other posters here.

      But this particular post sounds more to me  like a loyal D who got blasted over the weekend by other D’s  of varying degrees of friendship who support AR and want peacemonger to do the same.  Been there myself.

      I don’t understand the AR supporters’ hostility for the D’s who have chosen Bennet.

      And these aren’t the Bennet campaign arguments – they are arguments being made by local grassroot D’s.  We should be encouraging all the D engagement and involvement we can find, rather than plannig some questionable  grandstanding at the Denver central committee panned for this week. Sure – change the rules, endorse a primary candidate, there’s no way that could hurt the party.

      Win or lose now, AR could have a great political future. If he wins- obviously.  If he loses, it will depend on how he loses and why.  But no reason a primary loss this season means his career takes a hit.  Of course if he loses, there is a timing question- whatinhell can he run for next?  

      • lanman2k says:

        I’m not sure about hostility, but I have seen some over zealous comments by both sides’ supporters. I think that will die down as this turns into more of a campaign.

        • redstateblues says:

          The hostility towards Bennet has been seething for months now. It’s people who either don’t like Bennet, don’t like the system under which Senate vacancies are filled, or don’t like the person who chose Bennet to fill the vacancy.

          This has been going on for months now. Until Romanoff filed, there wasn’t really a way for them to channel their anger into something productive. Now that he’s in the race, it can be called “passion” or “enthusiasm”. Look at Wade Norris and David Sirota’s diaries and comments on the subject if you want to see evidence of that.

          The hostility towards Romanoff comes from a lot of the same people who were pushing for him to be appointed in the first place. People feel like their hopes in Romanoff are being dashed by his (thus far) unimpressive campaign.

          I’m not saying that it’s right or wrong on either side (actually, that’s not true, I think it’s all wrong and divisive) I’m just saying that there’s a difference.

          Both sides’ surrogates would be well advised to knock it off, because in case you haven’t noticed, we’re making the GOP salivate right now.

  5. Skip Tracey says:

    I watched the health care forum with Adam Schrager this weekend. (I was the one dragged out of the hall by security guards for shouting about medicare. not.) I was impressed with Coffman and (surprise) with Udall.

    DeGette is unlistenable to my ears. Almost as bad as DeGette is Bennet. I don’t get why you all think he’s articulate. He talks like his mouth is full of oatmeal. He had nothing to say.

    I don’t know Romanoff but I can’t believe Bennet is the best Dems can do.  

  6. Automaticftp says:

    we can only hope this is the end of his political career.  

    As has been pointed out elsewhere, Romanoff has not given anyone any reason to vote for him over Sen. Bennet.  And he has yet to counter the fact that Sen. Bennet is simply more electable in a statewide race.  

    • dukeco1 says:

      where and how you came upon this “fact”?

      the fact that Sen. Bennet is simply more electable in a statewide race.  

      Isn’t the question of electability usually left to the voters?

      • Automaticftp says:

        😉

        Simple.

        1.  He’s the incumbent.

        2.  He’s married and has three kids.

        3.  He has far more financial capacity.

        4.  He’s tireless.

        Perhaps you’d care to explain how Romanoff is more electable in a statewide election when Romanoff himself passed on previous statewide elections because he himself didn’t think he could win one?

        • dukeco1 says:

          making any claims or assertions about Bennets’ candidacy or anyones’ electability, so I don’t think I need to provide you with squat.

          The four items you provide are essentially meaningless, except for #3, which has some bearing on the outcome, but certainly doesn’t make Bennet a “slam dunk” to win anything. But just for fun I will give you four equally meaningless “facts”.

          1. Andrew Romanoff is, arguably, the most popular Democrat in Colorado.

          2. He has enormous support from the rank and file members of the Democratic party.

          3. He is young, handsome, energetic and articulate.

          4. He has enormous experience in being a legislator and is a very good campaigner.

          That said, I believe the desperate attempt by “peacemonger” to convince someone/anyone that former Speaker Romanoff should abandon his candidacy is a clear indication that some in the Bennet camp are hearing from far too many Colorado Dems who support Romanoffs’ candidacy.

          Why don’t we just embrace this primary and see where it leads us?

          And how do you know this, BTW,

          passed on previous statewide elections because he himself didn’t think he could win one?

          did he tell you this or state it publicly?

          • Automaticftp says:

            Peacemonger isn’t the only one who thinks Romanoff should withdraw.  I do too.

            As for lists, if you don’t think being the incumbent in general, or being married with 3 kids is an electoral advantage in Colorado you’re misinformed or just being willfully ignorant.

            As for your list, let’s see:

            1.  Perhaps in the past, but hardly now, as your weasel word “arguably” demonstrates.

            2.  And that’s why his campaign is in such disarray, and why his fundraising numbers are as anemic as they are.  

            3.  Guess what?  So is Sen. Bennet.

            4.  Eight years is “enormous” experience?  OK, whatever.  Very good campaigner?  Not based on his campaign so far.

            Perhaps you would care to explain why you’re engaging in wild speculation that Sen. Bennet is hearing from too many people who support Romanoff’s candidacy?  And while you’re at it, perhaps you could explain where Romanoff is and what he’s doing?  

            Finally, regarding his not believing he could win a statewide election: Yes, he told me, and others, he didn’t think he’d win a statewide election.  More than just once, in fact.  

            • dukeco1 says:

               this exchange started with this tidbit of speculation.

              And he has yet to counter the fact that Sen. Bennet is simply more electable in a statewide race.  

              And your list of “facts” didn’t impress me. So I responded with a list that, by my own admission, is as meaningless as yours.

              To insult me by accusing me of using “weasel words” is simply a reflection on the weakness of your argument. I used the word, “arguably” because I recognize the impossibility of proving the claim conclusively. Which leads to the point of my initial response, which is…

              the fact that Sen. Bennet is simply more electable in a statewide race.

              you have no basis upon which to make this claim other than your OPINION. My OPINION is based on the “fact” that I have spoken to many of my fellow Democrats and my experience is that many of them are not willing to capitulate to the superior political knowledge of people such as yourself, and the majority of the Democrats I have spoken to favor Andrew Romanoff.

              Keeping in mind that I did not make any claims about Romanoffs’ inevitable victory and call for the early withdrawal of the incumbent, your zeal in bashing the former Speaker betrays a lack of confidence in your predictions.

              If Bennet is such a steamroller and the outcome is inevitable, what the hell are you worried about? Damage to the Democratic party? Because of a primary? To quote John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious”!

              So…as your “Sigh” header indicates your tedium at dealing with such unenlightened rubes as myself, why don’t we just chalk this up to a disagreement that will be settled by the voters?

               

          • cdsmith says:

            based on the anonymous diary of someone at Colorado Pols.  Seriously, I could start writing a bunch of misinformed crap in support of Romanoff, and would you consider that evidence of the desperation of the Romanoff campaign?  Nope.  It would just mean that somebody has poor taste and too much free time.

            Being honest here, neither Romanoff nor Bennet are in serious danger of losing the general election.  It’s a tad ugly that so much institutionalized support has already lined up behind Bennet with a still undecided primary; but, in the end, that’s all primary issues… none of that resentment carries over into the general.

            • redstateblues says:

              I would agree. Let me put it this way; if Andrew Romanoff had been appointed, and Michael Bennet was running a campaign with the same kind of message (or lack thereof) Romanoff is running with, don’t you think these same people would be lining up behind the former Speaker? If he had done as good of a job as Bennet has in the first few months of his time in the Senate, I can guarantee you they would.

              Had Romanoff avoided the appointment process altogether, and started his campaign after the pick, all of the arguments for him to run, and the arguments against the support from elected officials including the President, would be a lot more valid.

              I do agree with your first paragraph though. You can no more judge Bennet from this diary, than you can judge Romanoff from Wade Norris’ posts.

              • RedGreen says:

                Does anyone think, if Romanoff had been blessed with the appointment he sought, that he wouldn’t be pulling in out-of-state contributions? Bennet’s are weighted toward particular industries, because of his expertise and his committee assignments, but this seat was always going to be a chore to keep for Democrats and was always going to attract big bucks.  

              • peacemonger says:

                I can’t speak for all Bennet supporters, but I like your scenarios.

                If Romanoff was appointed by Ritter and had a record as strong as Bennet’s, I would be supporting Romanoff one hundred percent.    

                If Romanoff would have entered the race five months earlier, I would be pro-Romanoff.

                If Romanoff supporters over at the other blog weren’t so nasty, making personal attacks instead of making rational arguments, I probably would have gone Romanoff.

                He wasn’t, he didn’t, and they are.  By entering late, all Romanoff is, is a spoiler for Bennet and everyone down ticket who isn’t getting DSCC funds because of this ridiculous primary.  Makes me wonder what his real agenda is — what’s good for the party, or for his ego.

                I worked for Nader once, too. I liked him until he gave us Bush.  

                • Middle of the Road says:

                  Nader did not give us Bush. Give that old chestnut a rest, would ya?

                  • sxp151 says:

                    As a guy who was one of the most hardcore Nader supporters in 2000 that anyone could be, I also believed that Nader had nothing to do with Gore’s loss.

                    And it’s true, I mean what kind of politician can’t win his home state? And that had nothing to do with Nader.

                    But still… Even if 1/3 of Nader’s votes would have otherwise gone to Bush, that would have given Gore a relatively easy victory in Florida. I can’t say whether Gore would have been a good President (honestly, every good thing about him I ever heard has been in the many years since he lost the election, and it seems to me like losing was a catalyst for him becoming a decent guy). For a while this didn’t bother me at all, but now in retrospect, it kinda does. I think he might have been a crappy President, but it took me eight long years to realize I’d prefer even a crappy President over a complete shithead asshole douchebag incompetent motherfucker like W.

                    Hey, on the bright side, at least we’re all on the same page now, right? [awkward grin]

        • PoliceSquad says:

          of tepid dishwater.  

        • longtimedem says:

          How does that make someone more electable?  All I can think of is that he’d have 4 more people to vote for him but since the kids aren’t of voting age that would leave him with 1 extra vote?  Or???  I just don’t get how one’s marital status or number of offspring has to do with all of this.  

          (Plus, even if Zorro can’t vote, he’s just as cute as 3 kids all by himself)

  7. cunninjo says:

    I am a democrat and I haven’t really decided who I support yet. I don’t feel like either of them is really standing out as a clear favorite.

    I am concerned that Bennet is selling himself to out-of-state interests. Much of his money is coming from the banking industry. And seeing that he is serving on the committee that oversees banking it concerns me. We need strong regulations placed on the banking industry and Sen. Bennet will play an integral part in this.

    I would agree that Romanoff needs to differentiate himself from Bennet if he hopes to stand a chance.

    I feel there is nothing wrong with a primary. Bennet needs this experience if he wants a shot at the general election. Bennet was not the people’s choice and he doesn’t deserve any free rides to the nomination.

    I don’t just want someone who can win, but someone who represents my interests.

  8. caroman says:

    Michael Bennet is a reliable vote for the Obama agenda.  His new position on the Senate’s Health, Labor and Pensions Committee is significant.  His fundraising ability (10 times the money on hand as Romanoff) is crucial to taking on what will be a well-funded GOP candidate.  

    The worst part of the Romanoff primary is that it prevents the national Dems from providing staff and financial resources to this race.  If Romanoff doesn’t drop out soon, say by 12/31, we will lose these important resources.  In my view, Romanoff has this fourth quarter to prove that he can be as strong a fundraiser as Bennet, or else he should drop out so we can focus on the real enemy.

    • cunninjo says:

      I fully understand the importance of money in a state-wide campaign. But there is more to a race than just campaign contributions.

      Romanoff has much more passionate supporters behind him willing to create the organization needed to run an effective campaign. With an army of volunteers you can run a campaign on less money. I don’t see the same passion amongst Bennet supporters. He just doesn’t inspire people.

      Romanoff does have to show he can raise money at a faster pace than we have seen so far. But I think it speaks a lot for a candidate who is primarily raising money from Colorado donors. I don’t want a Senator who is beholden to east coast financiers and special interest groups, no matter what letter they have next to their name.

      Let’s not let the Democratic Party turn into the party of big business.

      • Middle of the Road says:

        from Coloradans so let’s stop acting as though Romanoff is the only one getting the majority of his donations from in state voters.

      • caroman says:

        If we were witnessing a primary like Liebermann vs. Lamont, then I’d agree with you.  But, there are absolutely no significant policy differences between Bennet and Romanoff.  So, it comes down to who can run the most effective campaign, and that is reflected by who can raise the most money.  Sorry, but it’s true.

        More important is my comment about forgoing national Dem support in terms of staff and money because we are in a primary that won’t be settled until six weeks before ballots are mailed.  We were inundated with national support from the Obama campaign and it made a huge difference.  If we lose that national support just because Andrew wants to continue his quixotic run past 12/31, then he and his supporters should be prepared to accept the blame for losing the seat in November.

  9. peacemonger says:

    According to Clean Campaigns CO, more than 90% of the candidates who raise the most money win the race. It shouldn’t be about the money ever, but sometimes that is a big part of it.  

    Even more important than that is Michael Bennet’s track record of success and Andrew Romanoff’s wasted year in 2009.  Bennet co-sponsored the Dream Act and the Matthew Shepherd law; voted for Lilly Ledbetter, the Sanders ammendment, the Save their Homes Act, the Recovery plan, the Credit Card Holder’s Bill of Rights, SCHIP expansion and much more — all while becoming one of the top leaders in the country on health care insurance reform in the nation.  His voting record is one of the most progressive in the country. So much so, he has been referred to as “Kennedy-like”.

    Michael Bennet makes money out of state because outside of Andrew Romanoff’s personal following, the rest of the country is noticing this young powerhouse named Michael Bennet!  

    One final thought – we all agree Andrew Romanoff was the darling of CO progressives for eight long years.  No one is questioning his intelligence, his integrity or his promise.  We all like him, right?  

    Colorado barely squeaked over the blue line in 2008.  With Ritter’s budget cuts (due to  Owen’s mismanagement and TABOR), Democrats are facing losing everything in 2010 if we don’t get tough against the reds.  We need money, we need nationial allies, and we need the big guns. Andrew Romanoff does not scare CO Republicans.  Michael Bennet does.

    There is a reason colleges don’t put the Homecoming King in as quarterback when the game is tied.  

    • lanman2k says:

      One of the most progressive Senators?

      Bennet scaring Republicans?

    • cdsmith says:

      A lot of people notice that correlation — people that raise more money tend to win — and infer a causation from it.  There’s decent evidence, though, that the causation actually runs in the opposite direction.  Business interests tend to contribute to the candidates that they expect to win.  Even individuals like to be on the winning side.  So Bennet raising more money might be more of a symptom of people expecting him to win, rather than a cause of his winning the race.  

      • redstateblues says:

        And doesn’t necessarily say anything about the candidate. Obama raised a ton of money from the financial industry, but he’s still pushing for a massive regulatory reform of that sector.

        Likewise, Bennet has taken money from the financial sector, but is one of the strongest advocates in the Colorado delegation for regulatory reform.

        I think it’s fair –check that, necessary–to point out where the money comes from, but you also have to criticize Bennet on his record in the Senate. The vote on cramdown aside, he’s not the wolf in sheep’s clothing for the financial industry that critics would have us believe. If anything, he’s a sheep in wolves’ clothing.

        • RedGreen says:

          Obama raised a ton of money from the financial industry, but he’s still pushing for a massive regulatory reform of that sector.

          Not so sure the second part of your sentence is accurate, not with Goldman Sachs running things:

          http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10

          • redstateblues says:

            Even if he’s not backing up the talk with action right now (disappointing, I must admit) I believe even the talk is a step towards changing how things were run the last eight years.

            I think that article was saying more about Obama’s personality than whether or not he’s bought and paid for by Goldman.

            At any rate, my point was that people would be better served attacking Bennet’s record, rather than complaining about where less than a third of his donations came from.

  10. peacemonger says:

    … Andrew Romanoff’s wasted political year in 2009.  Yes, he continues to great things to help others, which is why he would make a fantastic Ambassador or head of a national non-profit, IMHO.  

  11. peacemonger says:

    Someone who has the bigger picture in mind, with an eye for real change in the United States — interesting. I must have missed when Colorado withdrew from the United States of America.  

  12. peacemonger says:

    Points I don’t agree with.

    • Jambalaya says:

      Section 4. Qualifications of state officers.

      No person shall be eligible to the office of governor or lieutenant governor unless he shall have attained the age of thirty years, nor to the office of secretary of state or state treasurer unless he shall have attained the age of twenty-five years, nor to the office of attorney general unless he shall have attained the age of twenty-five years and be a licensed attorney of the supreme court of the state in good standing, and no person shall be eligible to any one of said offices unless, in addition to the qualifications above prescribed therefor, he shall be a citizen of the United States, and have resided within the limits of the state two years next preceding his election.

      Colorado Constitution, Psalm IV

  13. sufimarie says:

    for handing the country to Bush, right?

    • sufimarie says:

      I’m confused.

      Either way I think this is a pretty strange thing to get all worked up about. They’re Democrats. We like them because they aren’t Republicans (or are they??) Just get behind your appointed Senator and say “hey, he’s not a Republican, and that’s what counts” and then go back to re-upping your subscription to GreenPeace. Everything will be ok.  

  14. peacemonger says:

    All are entertaining.

    No, I am not paid by the Bennet campaign. Yes, I think Bennet has a good chance to win and Romanoff has none, as much as I like AR personally.

    I haven’t posted much on Pols before because I am not always interested in the CO state scene.  I blog on a national blog under my real name.  The CO state blogs have too many crazies.  No thanks. (Although this one so far seems to be a little less crazy than another — knock on wood.)

    I blog on other issues too.  Right now, I am up to here (pointing to eyebrows) with Bennet attacks because Ritter appointed him and because he has a finance background.  Ritter appointed him BECAUSE he has a finance background. Think about it.  When Ritter was making his decision, the country’s financial systems were falling apart, and everyday, we were watching Wall Street, waiting for “the big crash”.  How soon we forget…

    Ritter also knew the state was in deep political dogpoo because of TABOR. The only guy he could CONSIDER was someone with a reputation for handling money.  He knew he was going to be held accountable for Owens and TABOR’s messes, and by choosing a finance guy, he might win some points with people who point at Dems and say we’re all pie-in-the-sky with no brains about money.

    Come on, folks, this is a no-brainer.

    At the 9 News Town Hall the other day, everytime Perlmutter, Polis, Udall and DeGette answered questions that pertained to financing health care insurance reform, they turned to Michael Bennet.  He was able to expand upon it.  Again and again and again, when Dems in Congress want to beef up their credibility on paying for Dem initiatives, who is their new go-to guy?  MICHAEL BENNET.  Michael Bennet’s second language is finance. The Republicans respect his knowledge (even if they hate his progressive social agenda) and so do the Dems.  He is growing credibility for the “tax and spend” Dems, in the eyes of indies.  Bill Ritter is a hell of a lot smarter than the armchair quarterbacks on the blogs give him credit for.  

    If Colorado wants to sink on the good ship Romanoff, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

  15. Ray Springfield says:

    We will win this primary. The difficult part is to do so without alienating the Romanoff supporters.

    The Senators’ choice of new COS reflects that he is reaching out to former Clinton supporters in Colorado. The majority of the Speaker’s supporters that I have met were heavy Clinton backers.

    No one is running scared. Sen Bennet is better educated, has more business experience, and has the President’s ear.

    He’s the better candidate.

    • longtimedem says:

      is a political hack for hire, just like Craig Hughes.  He (or rather, the DSCC) didn’t make that decision out of any strategic attempt to reach out to Clinton backers.  

  16. peacemonger says:

    I just think only one can win this race, this time, this state.  

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.