U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) David Seligman
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(R) H. Scheppelman
(D) Alex Kelloff
70%
30%
10%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Trisha Calvarese
(D) Eileen Laubacher
90%
20%
20%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Shannon Bird
45%↓
30%
30%
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
November 26, 2009 09:09 PM UTC
63 Comments
on the sorry state of political discourse these days?
Just saying.
…a candidate’s partisans get carried away when the candidate gives an obvious answer to a softball question (“Would you vote for the principle you believed in even if it might cost you the election?” –what’s he supposed to say, “No, I’d pull a Betsy Markey”?).
AND…a candidate’s partisans present as a fatal flaw the notion that the primary opponent hasn’t laid out detailed position papers nine months before the election, as if five months weren’t enough time to explore fully any and all issues, even then long before the subset of the electorate interested in primary contests have even registered who the candidates are…
AND…a candidate’s partisans put forth as a huge advantage the raising of big contributions from lobbyists at DC townhouses that are meant to foreclose a primary challenge, in exchange for what they don’t say…
AND…a candidate voted AGAINST the “cram-down” bill, directly in line with the interests of financiers responsible for making dubious loans on dubious terms to borrowers affected by the recession…
THEN, yeah, I think it’s valid and wholly within the range of legitimate political discussion to illustrate how questions from certain interviewers on certain cable networks with a handful of viewers are fairly obvious softballs with obvious answers, and to point out that accepting big contributions from monied interests is less than admirable, and to do so in an ever-so-slightly subtle manner without resorting to name-calling and adjectives gleaned from Crosswords for Beginners.
Fortunately this thread has not (yet) deteriorated into the simplistic (not to say simple-minded; that would be rude) level of name calling that makes no point whatsoever.
in this race, yet. And I don’t need AR to lay out detailed positions. I do think he ought to respond to questions from primary voters–such as myself–on what his top issues are and his general positions.
But you won’t get that. Being a partisan.
..that, purely for example, next April Romanoff issues a detailed set of position papers and emails them to you personally;
AND, let’s pretend that after examining those position papers, you conclude that over all, you tend to agree with most of his posiions;
THEN, is Romanoff still cooked in your books since he hadn’t issued those papers by Hallowe’en, or Thanksgiving, or Christmas?
Do you, or other undecided non-partisans like you, have a deadline for reading position papers? Some may conclude that if Romanoff doesn’t issue these papers by Some Date Certain that it will be too late for them to absorb, whereas they are reading, in detail, everything Bennet says about every topic…well, you get my point.
But I don’t really get yours…at least not yet.
that I am really someone who knows what he is talking about, not merely an armchair quarterback ruminating on politics on a side diary on a blog.
I never suggested that AR should have had detailed policy papers by Halloween, or yesterday, or next month. I don’t have a hard deadline because there isn’t really one. It’s primarily about optics.
Certainly, if he were a candidate I was advising, I would suggest that he have some information on his website–for instance–short of ‘detailed policy papers’ that talk about his top issues and positions and why they matter for Colorado and why he, AR, is the one to get the job done BEFORE he launches his campaign, and seeks support and funds. I would advise him not to ignore known activists who contact his campaign seeking additional information.
This would seem particularly important for a candidate taking on an incumbent, even one that has not actually stood for an election.
Were I that person (or someone with any political sense or experience in organizing) I would suggest that he have such basic statements, particularly on positions that matter to the Democratic base–say the economy, labor, environment, health care, energy, choice and reproductive rights, whatever–so that folks casting about, folks that are not necessarily the hoi polloi but those who donate (in small amounts but) early and often, or blog, or talk to friends, and all the other types of grassroots/community opinion leaders, can see how AR will represent their interests differently that Bennet.
Because that is what it will take to get those constituencies, collectively, to dump a known (even if not completely loved) incumbent with a boatload of cash, and it is the community/grassroots leaders that will do a lot to move those constituencies’ rank and file next year.
Or not, he can do what he wants, I am merely giving my impression–admittedly early in the race, which remains unchanged:
1-Andrew should distinguish himself from Bennet with more than “it should have been me because I am the ‘people’s choice'” and
2-He needs to show he can raise the money needed to wage what will likely be the most expensive Senate race in CO history.
Does he need to listen to me? Do you? Of course not. But I remain undecided, but I am likely to be decided before next April, and I am not going to jump on a campaign I perceive to be a cluster, poorly run, or a sinking ship.
what you refer to–that AR has to define his differences from the incumbent he is mounting a primary challenge against and show he can raise sufficient cash? Both seem obvious, and not ‘too high’ to me.
“…some information…”, not ignoring activists, basic statements about priorities, values, and policy positions, especially as they differentiate AR from Senator Bennet, and etc
This is a well articulated list of the general sentiments of many of us who have posted here expressing frustration with Speaker Romanoff.
And sometimes my sarcasm is too brief to work well in cyberspace. The bar is patently obvious and, if anything, far too low. And I’m mystified how anyone could not see it.
Unable to get past first graf. First, can’t imagine Club Twit as described. Second, wondering why he/she finds it necessary to denounce the qualities of the writer in order to make a point.
Where did I ‘denounce the qualities of the writer??’
After your diary on the state opf political discourse, which I front-paged BTW, you accuse me of denouncing your ‘qualities’ and then further down you call someone you disagree with ‘peacemonkey.’ That is a classic fail.
I really wish you would practice what you preach re: your opus the other day about civil discourse. He answered your questions with real thoughtfulness and you reply by being your usual self.
I reread what I posted, and the offense therein remains a mystery to me. Perhaps JO thought I was saying s/he was an armchair quarterback?
I was making a, perhaps feeble, attempt at self-effacing humor, because I am an armchair QB. I do issue work, I don’t do electoral work. I have never worked for a candidate or for a political campaign. That is what I meant. I have knocked on some doors and made some phone calls as a peon volunteer, and I like to think I have a little political sense and I do have lots of organizing experience, but I wasn’t insinuating that JO didn’t.
It’s all so bizarre to me how someone thinks being thin-skinned and angry helps their preferred candidate in a Primary where we all have to come together afterward.
If someone is going to win, they need to stand for something. They need to be eloquent and forceful on the issues they hold dear. We want to know what they are going to go fight for.
If someone spends 6 months standing for nothing, that gives the electorate a giant message that what is driving them is love of office rather than goals they want to accomplish.
We had 12 years of a do nothing Senator with Allard. I have no interest in repeating that with Romanoff – even if his vote would consistently be the opposite of how Allard voted.
Just saying.
I like you a lot. You’ve posted a lot of insightful stuff and I enjoy reading your comments.
Your new signature line, however, is pretty ridiculous. Unless you’re saying it ironically. In that case, three cheers!
I think Bennet is not going to represent the people of Colorado but will do anything he can to help the banks. And now right on cue he is going to stand with the Republicans to block legislation that would regulate the banks. Yep, he’s pulling a Joe Lieberman for sure. It’s a bit over the edge if you’re a Bennet supporter but if you see him the way I see him it fits. Don’t worry I felt this way about Ritter but still voted for him because he was better than the alternative. And look how Ritter is working out for us.
You know there’s a saying. In Washington, there are two Wall Street parties who differ on abortion. Food for thought.
This is why I say Bennet is the next Joe Lieberman. You can agree or disagree but his pattern of standing with the banks and Republicans and against Main Street has been established. First against the cramdown and now against the super-regulator.
With all due respect Skyler this quote from the Denver Post says it all for me. He’s positioning himself to stand with the Republicans and against the critical reform we need. If this doesn’t get done our economy is going to be in a world of hurt.
By the way in case you haven’t noticed Dodd is mending his ways but Bennet has just started down the path of both taking money from banks and voting for legislation that favors them.
He said, in reference to the Denver Post article, “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
The Denver Post has been leaning Republican since the Rocky shut down. They know creating division in the Democratic party is good for the reds and they will do anything to divide us.
Please.
Which part exactly are you, or Bennet, claiming didn’t happen? It’s a pretty serious charge, give the details.
If you want the details of his comment beginning, “Nothing could be further from the truth”, you will have to go back to hear the Sirota interview yourself.
My charge against the Denver Post is from being a full-time health care reform activist since Barack Obama was elected. I have been to dozens (50? 75?) meetings, town halls, rallies, etc. on health care reform. Over and over, the Denver Post did not cover the pro-reform side, under-reported it, or inflated the tea-party side. If we had a rally with 500 people and 15 tea-partiers showed up, they got equal coverage. Believe me, it got real old.
I guess hate gets more coverage than hope.
You’re making a charge here, substantiate it.
I guess it’s not that important. Well, thanks for the fly by.
ANd it’s only your “job” to go listen to it if you want to express an opinion to the contrary.
DenPost says XYZ about Bennet. The Senator says- ABC and XYZ is not true.
The Post doesn’t refute it – but their commenters (crazy bunch!) go nuts.
I’ll ask again, what question?
I’m not giving a contrary opinion, merely asking for the details for a rebuttal.
BTW, the next time Sirota’s voice hits my ears I’ll be too dead to change the station.
was whether DenPost accurately characterized S. Bennet’s reaction. Sirota asks point blank about the DP piece and and Bennet says they are wrong. This is what peacemonger was talking about…. I think.
I’m still lost on the original posts by peacemonger, but am willing to stay that way. Not your fault. Thanks again.
Your personal hatred of Michael Bennet borders on insanity. From day one, you have been trashing this man all over cyber-space.
Trash a politician’s politics (95% progressive)… fine.
Trash his votes (also consistently progressive) … fine.
But you trash the person, his supporters, and rational people all over the state of Colorado.
Were you passed over for appointment to be Senator too, or are you just obsessed?
I ask you for the state of CO and for your own mental health, please move on and use your wit and intelligence for something productive.
I don’t go to Al Vino’s for my wisdom. Do you? Wanna get into it all over again?
If you want to trash Michael Bennet’s voting record, go for it. Use facts.
Trashing (and intimidating) people does not help your arguments ever. In fact, it discredits them.
Your personal love of Michael Bennet borders on insanity. From day one, you have been praising this man all over cyber-space.
And he hasn’t earned it in my opinion.
A little blogging tip for you: when you are replying to someone, click on reply instead of randomly posting.
You’re welcome.
…but “peacemonkey” or whomever most certainly does.
Most of us that support Bennet also ping him for his vote on things like the cram-down legislation. We see him as imperfect and while he may not be in bed with Wall St., they’re definitely dating.
What concerns me about a lot of you Romanoff supporters is you view Bennet as evil in every way (I expect to see you claim in a month that he’s telling kids there’s no Santa Claus).
And at the same time you take the blank slate Andrew Romanoff presents and you each paint your dream policy approach on that so he is perfect.
particularly your last paragraph.
know anything about Romanoff? Anything at all? Other than the interview you did?
Were you at all involved in Colorado politics when AR was a legislator? Were you around when Bill Owens was governor?
Do you know how many years state offices had been dominated by repubs before AR came along?
Did you know anything about any of the legislation he was involved with [his website has a list]? Or anything about his efforts at party building? Or his reputation as a very hard worker?
Apparently not–or else you wouldn’t post such absurdities such as comparing him to ‘do nothing Allard’ or calling him a ‘blank slate.’
Don’t tell me what you did for me yesterday, tell me what you’re going to do for me today. Yes Romanoff did a lot to help build up us Dems here in the state and he deserves a big thank you for that.
But it does not, in my opinion, mean we hand him a U.S. Senate seat. He needs to tell us what he will do as a Senator. And so far he has chosen to not tell us anything about this.
In terms of what he would do as a Senator, Andrew Romanoff is presently a blank slate. And no level of appreciation for his previous efforts changes that.
One of the oh so frustrating parts of his “campaign” is that you know he knows. This is his life, he has the opinions, he knows how to write policy. WTF?
OTOH, Ray Springfield recently posted that Romanoff can’t work with the party opposite. Romanoff supporters don’t get to skate because of his history, but Bennet’s don’t get to pretend it never happened.
http://coloradopols.com/showCo…
Whereas never having done anything at all in politics is a perfectly good reason to hand someone a U.S. Senate seat?
Reminds me slightly of Dana Perino claiming “there was never a terrorist attack on the United States” during GWBush’s administration.
And, a reminder: this ain’t the start-up world. This ain’t business.
If Bennet had no experience at all, I might agree with you. He has been a DAMN GOOD SENATOR for almost a year now. Look at his record. It is almost flawless.
http://bennet.senate.gov/issue…
He’s earned the respect of President Obama and many others in Washington because he works hard, listens to people, and doesn’t pretend he knows everything. Being responsive to his constituents is his best skill. He has traveled around the state and talked to tens of thousands of Coloradans. That is how he decided IN JUNE (3 months before Andrew Romanoff showed back up on the political scene) that the public option was a (quote) “moral obligation”.
Bottom line: It makes no sense to oust a great Senator for one who might be great.
Illiteracy being defined as the inability to grasp the meaning of written words.
LAST TIME: If you want to get it started, keep on issuing invitations. Coming soon to a theatre near you: Precious 2.
Meantime, your post is entirely irrelevant to my comment. Your relationship, such as it is, to M Bennet is well known. Personally, I’d lay off the $15 bottles of wine and direct your fantasies elsewhere. I doubt that he’ll call a second time.
Illiteracy being defined as the inability to grasp the meaning of written words.
LAST TIME: If you want to get it started, keep on issuing invitations. Coming soon to a theatre near you: Precious 2.
Meantime, your post is entirely irrelevant to my comment. Your relationship, such as it is, to M Bennet is well known. Personally, I’d lay off the $15 bottles of wine and direct your fantasies elsewhere. I doubt that he’ll call a second time.
I felt Romanoff was the best choice and wondered what Ritter was smoking when he appointed Bennet.
But…
Seeing Bennet in action, I have to admit that Ritter saw something the rest of us did not see – and made a very good choice.
The only significant vote that I have seen come out of Bennet is a no vote on the cram-down legislation that would have benefited mainstream Americans. Oh yeah and his lukewarm support for HCR before Romanoff entered the race and now his political suicide avoidance stance of undying support for HCR after Romanoff entered the race.
comprehensive financial services reform/re-regulation, big-time. As Dubai’s shenanigans this week reminded us (in case we thought the overwhelming debt burden had magically gone poof! while hiding under the TARP), there is more, much more, to be seen and done in this arena. Anyone betting that St. Michael is leading the way to New Deal-era style reforms…even if it costs him his big campaign donations?
If Harry Reid thought getting 60 votes for health care reform was hard, wait ’til he goes up against the tasseled-loafer set. They’re even bigger (25% of the economy vs 15%), much richer, and they never took no stinkin’ oath ’bout doin’ no harm.
O come ye Western Warriors, ye saints in the making! Hello? Mike? Are you with us on this? Mike? Damn! Lost the connection again!
would lead the way to New Deal-era style reform? And why would they think that?
yesterday talking oil and gas with Senator Bennet. He asked good questions but made no statements.
As we were leaving, I said,” It’s too bad we didn’t have time to talk about banking reform”. His reaction seemed to indicate he expects trouble on that subject.
I am a Romanoff supporter at this point, and if the Senator continues his current stance on financial reform, I will become a RABID Romanoff supporter…depending, of course, on ARs’ position, which I don’t know at this early stage in the debate.
Reining in the Lords of Wall Street is job one in my mind.
The days of ignoring Wall Street greed and corruption are over. One way or another we as a society will have to deal with it. It will either be proactively through regulation and taxes on Wall Street’s unearned incomes and assets or through a continued deterioration of our economy, the middleclass and jobs.
armed insurrection? 😉
Sharon Hanson & JO complain that heart disease is still a problem.
and his supporters think he cured cancer.
…do try to keep up.
We merely think he’s venerable.
In fact, though Ritter has never said publicly that I’m aware of, it is pretty clear that a long political career was not the main reason for his selection and appointment.
From day one, I questioned the reasoning behind appointing him. I thought Ritter was nuts to not appoint Romanoff, whom I admired for 8 years.
Then, I took my time to get to know Michael Bennet, followed his voting record, and asked him tough questions. After all that, I learned he was a decent guy, has progressive values, and cares about me and my working-class extended family. He listened when I shared stories of family members not having health insurance, and he listened when my friends asked for his support for the GLBTQ community. He listened to many of us, again and again and again.
I respected the work of Andrew Romanoff for 8 years as Speaker of the House and I respect the work of Michael Bennet this past year as Senator. Both have been GREAT for Colorado.
I just won’t join the Hate-of-the-month club. Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff are both great guys. One just happens to already in the job, and I don’t think he should lose it now.
If that makes me insane, so be it.
If he agrees, then what he’s looking to do on financial regulation will be the first series of questions. Hopefully this will let us discuss this based on what he’s actually going to do rather than each person’s assumptions.
Free (not entirely painless) and archiveable and downloadable from iTunes and other.
For my last 10 or so interviews I’ve recorded them and put the full recording up on the web. So you’ll have to wait 3 – 4 hours but you will get the entire thing.
I just got a reply from his press person that they will set something up in the near future. When they do I’ll post here asking for suggested questions.
thanks – dave
Keep in mind this entire interview operation is just me.
right?
I mean sock puppeting here in text is one thing but doing it in voice….seems a lot harder. 🙂
Why did you screw homeowners by voting no on the cram-down legislation? And as a follow up, now that banks are raking in taxpayer dollars and paying out bonuses to their executives for poor performance and many more homeowners are in foreclosure further deteriorating our economy how do you rate yourself on that vote and do you think the voters will forgive you for your poor judgment at best and at worst voting to help your paymasters?