U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Janak Joshi

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet

(D) Phil Weiser

60%↑

50%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) Jena Griswold

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) David Seligman

50%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line
(D) J. Danielson (D) A. Gonzalez (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*

(D) Milat Kiros

90%

10%

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) Jessica Killin

70%

30%

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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
December 06, 2009 04:39 AM UTC

Questions for Speaker Romanoff

  • 67 Comments
  • by: DavidThi808

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Hi all;

Ok, you know the drill. Please post any suggested questions. This is my second interview with the Speaker so it will be Q&A. Lunch on the 8th.

thanks – dave

Tweet
Share

Comments

67 thoughts on “Questions for Speaker Romanoff”

  1. 1. Ask him why he voted to back GWB in the invasion of Iraq in the statehouse

    2. Ask him why he has permitted his supporters to put out that Bennet didn’t back the public option until September, when Bennet is on record in June

    3. Ask him why he permitted Wade Norris to accuse Sen Bennt of being soft on climate change, when Susan Dagget is the best enviromental lawyer in town.

    4. Ask him how he plans to raise 7 to 10 million if he should win the nomination

    5. Ask him what kind of committee assignments he expects and how it compares to the HELF should he win.

    6. Ask him why he opposes tuition equity and stated that in 2006 that his legislative session on immigration was such a success when it makes Colorado one of the most anti-immigrant states in the union. i.e. human rights in our hemisphere.

    I thought that AR supported human rights. The 12-20 million undocumented immigratns have absolutely ZERO rights in this society.

    There are people in the Federal Correctional Facility here in town that are doing de facto life sentences because countries like China won’t take back the women that were freed from human trafficking (slavery) when arrested.

    7. Ask him how he manged to pay 27k for a poll in March on a 30k salary

    3. (Pardon the interruption in this diary, for all others who are not Ray Springfield, please feel free to go about your diary reading)

      3. Ask him why he permitted Wade Norris to accuse Sen Bennt of being soft on climate change, when Susan Dagget is the best enviromental lawyer in town.

      Bennet  has been one of the few Democratic Senators to write letters of support on behalf of tax subsidies for Natural Gas

      http://enviroknow.com/2009/09/…

      and also for Coal

      http://coloradoindependent.com…

      Colorado U.S. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet with 12 other Senate Democrats signed onto a letter (pdf) urging Senate leaders weighing climate legislation to consider granting valuable credits to utilities that rely most heavily on coal. Udall and Bennet joined other perceived pro-climate legislation lawmakers such as Minnesota’s Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar in making the argument. The lawmakers’ proposal clearly aims to save money for residents in coal-dependent energy states like Colorado and Minnesota, but it moves against the spirit of the legislation, which is meant to discourage use of coal as an energy source.

      Sens. Udall and Bennet seem to want it both ways: They want to support cap-and-trade progressive legislation but not have it effect Colorado.

      I have repeatedly stated that I wanted a primary to give these two candidates the chance to outflank each other on environmental issues, thus giving voters a cleaner choice for energy.

      If Romanoff is smart, he will take advantage of these moves by Bennet and earn the  environmentalist vote.

      The fact that Bennet (and Udall) wrote these letters supporting these polluting sources is disappointing, and we Enviro voters need our voices to be heard.

      No one has to tell me that I need to point this out. (and I am saying here and now plainly that I do not take any orders from any politician)

      Furthermore, a Senator’s wife or husband does not make a difference when it comes down to that Senator’s voting record.

      And by your logic, Michael Bennet is telling you what to write on this site.

      So does Bennet tell you what to write Ray?

      2. if AR isn’t the nominee, but is “smart”and  “takes advantage of these moves by Bennet and earn the  environmentalist vote.” whatever that means, then AR should also primary Udall in a few years.

          1. Natural gas when properly extracted is clean energy. Bennet’s in favor of safe methods of extraction.I know that you’d like to see the oil and gas guys go away immediately.We all would like to be in a position to provide nothing but solar and wind, and biofuels. The reality is that they won’t. It’s hard enough making the coal industry become obsolete. This is one area where the Speaker does differ from Sen Bennet. He apparently feels like you do that natural gas is not a clean industry choice. Many environmentalists disagree.

            It didn’t stop him from taking PAC money in the past for the Majority Project.

            It’s been going on all summer. First with health care, and then with energy, and then with financial regulatory reform. It will follow with education, and then the Speaker will magically change his position on immigration, just like he’s done with PAC money. He had no qualms about PAC money when he ran for the state house. He had no qualms about taking PAC money for the Democratic Majority Project, but now since he’s getting little or no PAC money he  states that he’s against it.

            The Speaker’s record is a record of a moderate, DLC, Democrat. He is not the super liberal that his followers would like him to be.  He prides himself on reaching across the aisle and finding common ground.

            I don’t see anything wrong with that. Compromise get’s things done.

            It woulld be more honest for his supporters to say that they back the Speaker because they simply like him better, rather than attack Sen Bennet on issues in which the record demonstrates that the Speaker, in the majority of cases, shares the same views.

            1. that is burns with less particulate than oil?  less CO2 than coal?  i’ll give you ‘relatively clean’ but it is not clean.  burning CH4 still gives you CO2 and NOx

  3. In light of Ken Gordon’s email (isn’t Ken Gordon now Romanoff’s campaign manager…) attacking Senator Bennet, and Andrew Romanoff’s own comments attacking PAC contributions, will Andrew Romanoff’s senate campaign be returning corporate contributions Andrew Romanoff has accepted in the past?

    Over his career as a politician, Andrew Romanoff has taken over $30,000 from corporate political committees. And what about the $4025 from Finance/Banking PAC’s, or the $8700 from Big Insurance?

    1. Asking Andrew to give back PAC contributions from previous campaigns is like if you told me you had decided to become a vegetarian and I responded that in order to be a real vegetarian you must regurgitate all the meat you’d consumed over the previous 30 years.  

  4. Ask him about immigration policy. I remember a quote, and I am paraphrasing,”We just passed the toughest immigration laws in the country”, as if he was extremely proud of his special session in 2006. Bennet is co-sponsoring the DREAM act, AgJobs and Seasonal Jobs acts. Would he support those pieces of legislation?

    Ask him if he thinks he would be supporting single payer if he was appointed, or what he would do differently from Bennet in the HCR debate.

    Ask him if he will get out of the race (or if he thinks he is endangering the seat) if he doesn’t raise enough to be competitive.

    Primaries occur because of large ideological differences between candidates. Why should anyone support him if he has no significant differences with Bennet?

  5. Who the heck does he think he is, challenging Ritter’s appointment?

    Can he please quit cracking so many jokes at these party meetings?  His bitterness is really getting to me–so I’m sure others are disturbed by it as well.

      2. know what you are talking about.

        I thought I was making fun of the ‘how dare he!!’ attitude that has been expressed toward AR’s campaign.

        I made no comment about AR’s support of Ritter.

        1. I’ve seen two flavors of “how dare he” in this primary.

          First, from AR supporters that are still outraged that AR wasn’t appointed.

          Second, the imagined variety, wrongly accusing those of us who have articulated practical political analysis and concluded we’re supporting the incumbent anyway.

          There is no how dare he! attitude in the bennet campaign.  Of course I don’t speak for the Senator nor is campaign nor volunteers nor other supporters. But I know a dozens of supporters and I haven’t heard any reaction like that at all.

          So – How dare you?

          Why do you trivialize my support of the Senator just because you’ve chose to support Romanoff?

          Don’t you realize that at the end of the day that kind of bs is exactly most likely to emerge in a divisisve and damaging primary that divides the party and weakens the eventual nominee.

          just sayin.

           

            1. Most of us who support Bennet will have no trouble supporting Romanoff should he be successful in the primary.  We simply would prefer (and foresee) a Bennet candidacy, all things considered.

              I also think a Bennet candidacy is better for Ritter.  If nothing else, selecting Romanoff would be a clear rejection of Ritter’s choice and therefore judgement on the part of his own party which would not go unremarked or unexploited.

              As for the enthusiasm of the Huffington Post for sending Dems, like Specter, Bayh, Udall and Bennet, a message, the fact that Huffington would lump them all together shows they really don’t pay much attention to us out here in the western hinterlands.

              They must have missed the whole Udall as Boulder liberal thing (for a long time you rarely heard the name without the epithet) and aren’t really listening to Bennet or Romanoff or they would know there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them on the left/right scale so what would the “message” be in that particular case?  

          2. I just think his campaign so far is weak and he has failed to meet my threshold for voting against the incumbent whom–although I too oppose his cram-down vote–I think is doing a pretty good job.  But I don’t need to make a decision just yet.  

            Some of the AR supporters here are engaging in good discussions, others are a bit….unhinged.  They do not do their candidate, or their party, any favors.

  7. Mr. Romanoff,

    Or is it Speaker Romanoff?   Anyway, thank you for the time and putting your name on the ballot.  That alone takes guts so- thanks again!  Some ground rules:  I’m not a genius.  I didn’t go to Harvard, or even the Harvard of the mid-west, or Idaho or something.  So when you answer my questions, please do me a favor- speak normal English!  Also, somewhere in your answer can I get from you declarative statements like “so at the end of the day, I am firmly for/against X!” or “there are no good options because we, the PEOPLE, have made some suspect decisions over the years and here we, the PEOPLE find ourselves- so here is why I think this is the less evil choice…”  Fair enough?  Coolio!  Here we go…

    Oh, one last thing: Bennet, if you looking in on this cold, December morning and want to take a swing at these questions I’m sure myself and we, the PEOPLE, would be much obliged!  Just laying it out there…

    Okay, HERE we go!

    To begin, are WE, the citizens of the United States, under the fig-leaf of a nearly decade old Act of Congress for the prosecution of a war against a tactic (“terrorism”) about to take this war into Pakistan beyond the “big toe deep” level?  Perhaps even so far as ankle-deep?  God forbid mid-hip or higher??  Are we, the PEOPLE, on the cusp of using Afghanistan as a base for both sides of Af/Pak?  If I vote for you, what am I getting on this issue?

    Al Qaida (remember them?) is mobile and diffuse.  How would you propose protecting the United States by not allowing AQ to seek aid and comfort in such other predominantly Muslim, lawless or sympathetic lands like Yemen, Somalia, etc?  

    We, the PEOPLE, have got Iran surrounded?  Now what?  J/k…  😉

    But seriously folks…  What about India in all this?  Mr. Speaker, impress me with your world view that includes the world’s largest democracy?  As Speaker in Colorado, we, the PEOPLE (of Colorado) trusted you with your ability to know and be able to use details about Montrose, Fort Collins and Brush (here is your exclamation point, Brush!-!).  Now I need to trust you are working towards knowing more about Afpakia than any of the 99 other zipper heads you want we, the PEOPLE, to place you with in a political working environment.  India is as much of a lynchpin in this Afpakia as any player.  We, the PEOPLE, want trade with India, but we, the PEOPLE, don’t want them meddling in either Af/Pak in an attempt to prosecute a low-level guerilla and PR war in those countries.  Your thoughts on sticks/ carrots and India?

    Oh, while I have you Mr. Romanoff.  Or is it speaker?  Can I call you Andrew?  Andy?  Yes, yes, I know… You would prefer we, the PEOPLE, call you senator.  Just a few more questions before I make my decision there…

    Straight up, Speaker Andy, are you for or against any sort of new tax specifically earmarked for coving the costs of funding Afpakia and/or Iraq from this point forward?  Perhaps leave it in place after we, the PEOPLE, have declared victory and brought home the troops to pay for the first years of the efforts?  How on Gods Green earth are we, the PEOPLE, going to pay for all this???

    On an associated line, want to say the word “draft” out loud?

    Final question.  When we spilled even one drop of American blood for Iraqi oil we spilled infinitely too much!  We have completely overvalued oil by how much blood we have spilled for it.  I want the spoils.  I know, I know!  It is jingoistic at best!  In the year 2000 we, the PEOPLE, made a decision in this country.  Both Presidential candidates agreed that the oil available in the world was going to hit severe tipping points within a few generations.  They also, I would suppose, have agreed to the data that suggested one of the most physically accessible reserves yet tapped lied largely under Iraq.  Bush/Cheney/Halliburton, et al, kept secret the fact they wanted our military to put a Green Zone on it for generations.  Al Gore made public he wanted to get us off the dirty stuff altogether within a few generations.  BCH, et al, won because we, the PEOPLE, wanted to have a beer with Bush.  What was going to be the topic with that beer?  I dunno maybe Bush’s views on exporting Democracy at the tip of a rifle?

    We, the PEOPLE, are there.  We, the PEOPLE, have bastardized the Iraqi constitution regarding oil.  We, the PEOPLE, still spill blood over there on occasion and are spending the future of many generations.  We, the PEOPLE, are now trying to get out.  With over 4,200 dead and 30,000 wounded (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm), we, the PEOPLE, have precious little to show for it.  The obscenity of it all almost makes me want to double over in gag reflex.  Are you for using your power as a Senator for any of the following?  

    *Just getting the hell out?  Say “screw the oil!” and try will all God’s speed to work to not lose another military/contractor or civilian life over there in Iraq?  

    *Any other exit strategy, fast or slow, that does not include something for the oil?

    *Facilitating getting United States oil companies into Iraq so they can profit and we, the PEOPLE, can tax them?

    *Taxing oil companies to pay for the remainder of the Iraq war?

    *Something else?  Go ahead, I’m listening…

    Final comment:  Would you please endorse the concept of a rationally defined and properly funded program to work towards fully and completely ending the dependence on oil by we, the PEOPLE, as soon as humanly possible?  Think of it…  We, the PEOPLE, can kill two birds with one stone.  Al Qaida wants the infidels off the holy land (and for political purposes, the surrounding Arab lands…) We, the PEOPLE, are exhausted at having to pay ancient, Mercedes driving, wahabiistic, anti-west spouting, women-hating kings and princes of the holy lands (and surrounding Arab lands) for them to keep the spigot wide open so we can continue to run EVERYTHING off oil.  We, the PEOPLE, can address both issues on we, the PEOPLE’s, terms!  The moment we, the PEOPLE, make the decision to get off fossil fuels from the middle east, the price of oil will rise.  For a generation the west and Middle East will tussle with prices as we, the PEOPLE, move to other means of fuelling our lifestyle instead of oil because we, the PEOPLE, decided a generation ago to jump in both feet!  We, the PEOPLE, can kick back in our American Furniture lounger watching the news on our plasma screen of kingdoms crumbling in parallel with falling oil prices. We, the PEOPLE, are demanding less and less of their ONLY exportable commodity.  More generations will pass and we, the PEOPLE, will be selling the kings their solar powered tents from which to watch over their long dormant oil rigs…

    What say you, Speaker Andy?

    And again, thanks for the time and effort.  Not sure if I will vote for you, but good of you to put yourself out there!  We, the PEOPLE, need to have the discussion!

    1. … that all this all-caps PEOPLE business is kinda silly.  And a bit of grammar:  instead of “we, the PEOPLE’s”  you should use the phrase “our.”

      Your argument would be stronger if there were a argument (rather than just a bunch of stuff you bitch about), and if your rhetorical structure did not rely on a single phrase which you use to the point of cliche.

      1. a great read, and got right with the flow of we, the PEOPLE. Had a couple good laughs as well. Guess I’m not discerning and critical enough, eh?

        Would that we could induce any candidate for federal office to engage in discourse on these subjects with we, the PEOPLE, in this level of detail.  I don’t expect we’ll hear it from Romanoff, nor from Bennet.  But these sorts of questions should be asked, if only to let senators, and representatives, and presidents know that not everybody outside the Beltway is asleep, stupid, or . . god forbid . . a teabagger.

  8. In Senator Bennet, we have a fairly liberal Senator with ties both to East Coast liberal (dare I say) elites, as well as western Big Money.  Sen. Bennet is an intellectual, but one with a great deal of real world experience.

    And he has a seat on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions.  This is a VERY influential seat given President Obama’s legislative agenda, and I like having it in Colorado.

    So, my question is this: Why should we ignore all this and support Speaker Romanoff?  What compelling deficiency if he solving?  Specifically, where is Bennet wanting, and Romanoff stronger?

    Now, I have contacts in both campaigns, and I seriously doubt Mr. Romanoff will actually answer a question like this with anything except vague platitudes about electability and Darfur, or being a friend to education.

    But, if you ask me, this is the ONLY question that needs an answer.  Mr. Romanoff has a solid legislative history, and I am sure he would do us proud, but Sen. Bennet is doing a great job, and is quickly becoming influential. Why do we as Coloradoans need to change course?

      1. I know everyone here got it the first time . . . and if it’s possible to delete, I’d be happy to, or to have an editor delete two of them . . .

    5. this is precise, clear and brief.  

      And mostly right.

      If asked, the answer will not be about Darfur or education nor any other substantive issue.  It will be about process, the right to primary, the joy of one citizen one vote and legislative experience.

  9. Romanoff commissioned in March?

    Does he think the results would be much different if he conducted the poll again this month?

    When exactly did he learn O’Brien wasn’t going to step down to open a vacancy for him?

    The 4th Quarter is over in a few weeks. What was his fundraising goal? (If he answers in platitudes, “we need to raise enough to be competitive,” ask him why anyone should take seriously a campaign that doesn’t set real dollar fundraising goals.) How’s that going?

    What conclusions should we draw from Romanoff’s statewide campaign for Amendment 59? If he’s learned his lesson from that failed campaign, why isn’t he running a similar fix next year? If he hasn’t learned his lesson, why should Democrats entrust him with a Senate campaign?

  10. My first question was asked above but I believe the number is closer to $75 grand and that ain’t chump change so I would like to ask this question and add the following:

    Andrew Romanoff recently began claiming that he is a different kind of politician, one that is not beholden to the special interests, and that’s why he’s not accepting PAC contributions.

    However, throughout his career as a state legislator, Romanoff had no problem funding his campaigns with tens of thousands in PAC contributions. In eight years running for office he’s taken $75000 in PAC funds. What has changed his mind in the last 9 months about accepting PAC contributions?

    And…

    With Troops to Teachers and the Medicare Protection Amendment, as well as his outspoken support for the public option over the summer during a time of great criticism of it, Michael Bennet has quickly emerged as a nationally important senator. In the Senate, what three things would you have accomplished that Michael Bennet has not?

  12. What do you consider the top three issues facing Coloradans that the US Senate can address and what legislation will you sponsor or support to address them?

    What positions on issues that the Senate is likely to take up in 2011/12 distinguish you from Sen. Bennet and why is your approach better?

    How will you convince Democratic primary voters that your will be the stronger candidate in the General election?

    1. Whenever anyone runs for office they are making, at least implicitly, the claim that they can do it better than whomever currently holds (or is running for) the office. Therefore, there must be some deficiencies in the current office-holder or candidate that they believe they do not have. So, what does Romanoff think those deficiencies are with Bennet, and how would he make up for them?

      1. I appreciate that, and for some people, that’s enough.

        I’ve just never been one to base my vote on one single issue. And as far as I’m concerned, on almost every single other vote, Michael Bennet has voted precisely how I would expect him to.

        It reminds me a lot of when Morgan Carroll was ostracized by the left wing blogosphere and media pundits for her vote on tuition equity. I still think it was a bad vote by Carroll, but I wasn’t willing to throw her under the bus for it. I have about the same opinion of Bennet and cramdown.

        On the other hand, I think Romanoff has every right to hammer Bennet on cramdown. It’s a policy that, IMO, would benefit people greatly, and I think any attention on it can only help. Just like the public option–by discussing it openly, we’ve shut down all the nonsensical debates erupting from the GOP over death panels and other such nonsense.

        If Romanoff is going to run, then I want this campaign to be about how the Democrats are everything the Republicans aren’t. If Romanoff and Bennet can continue to keep it about the issues, then it only helps the Democratic brand in 2010.

        From a purely political standpoint, I think that the more Romanoff has to offer in contrast to Bennet–even if it’s a policy position, or the strength of a particular policy position–the more it helps his cause with the people he needs to win; namely, the party activists and regular primary voters with whom he’s supposed to have the biggest sway.

      2. Basically, AR is asking us to fire a good employee because he is claiming he will do a better job. I’m a small business owner. I do not typically terminate good employees based on what someone else tells me they think they can do better. If I’m going to fire someone from their job, I need a good reason, such as incompetence and consistently doing a poor job.

        Since Bennet is both competent and by most counts other than JO’s, doing a great job in the Senate, please ask Mr. Romanoff why we should fire our current Senator? Really. Why?  

        1. David, I–too–think my questions are great…

          Kidding, kind of, although I would ask and like them all answered, I agree that the second one is really pertinent, however you ask it.

          1. Have a great time, Twitty and enjoy some R&R. If I don’t get a chance to say this before the new front pagers are announced, I have really enjoyed reading your work here. You’ve been a discovery for me and are one of the reasons I check in here. What a load of talent this place has.

            Have a good holiday.

            1. I have yet to hear about a new FP Editor (s)election but hope to be able to participate in the nominating and voting…even from la playa if necessary.

              Thanks for the music threads, always glad to share some good tunes.  You are in Steamboat or somewhere in Routt, right?  If I get up that way sometime I’d like to meet up.

        2. In effect, Mr. Bennet was appointed on an interim basis as a seat-warmer until a real election could be held.  The rank-and-file Colorado Dems had wanted Andrew Romanoff to be appointed, but the governor spurned our wishes and appointed his virtually unknown buddy instead.  Now We the People have the chance to set things right and choose our own U.S. senator. This is the Democratic Party — we choose our leaders by consent of the governed, not by insider cronyism. This primary shouldn’t have to happen, because the governor should have appointed the right person in the first place. That person is Andrew Romanoff.

          2. is if/when Senator Bennet wins the nomination, you and whomever you are calling the R&F D’s, will back him?

            And that if he wins the general that then- but only then- can he be considered a valid candidate?

              1. If Mr. Bennet wins a contested primary (even with the deck stacked in his favor, as it is now), I think that would go a long way toward garnering much of the legitimacy he now lacks.  If he does win “re-“election, he’ll probably look back on this contested primary as a godsend.  

                  1. that clearly goes both ways.

                    So far AR is apparently playing it straight and clean.  He’s obviously not into attacking Bennet.

                    If the same was true of his supporters, it would be better.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Gabe Evans
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

174 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols