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

60%↑

40%↑

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*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

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) Manny Rutinel

(D) Yadira Caraveo

45%↓

40%↑

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 07, 2009 02:45 AM UTC

To Ray Springfield

  • 18 Comments
  • by: JO

Ray,

You are one of a small number of people on this site whom I respect. I feel grateful for all the hours you have put in at chicken dinners and innumerable other events working, in concrete ways, to get Democrats elected. Thank you. I am better off for your presence.

I also believe you and I share a great deal. I suspect you and I both believed it when we heard in school, “all men are created equal.” Didn’t see anything wrong with ordinary people having a celebration in the White House having won an election after the previous one was stolen. We probably think the right Roosevelt is on the dime. I know we both know the meaning of November 22. And also April 4 and June 6, 1968.

So your opinion is important to me, and I think you deserve a fuller answer to your objection to my treatment of Michael Bennet than the answer I sent earlier.

I will admit that I don’t automatically grant respect to the office-holder because of the office, possible exception of the presidency but after 2001-2009, not even that. In the case of your Mr. Bennet, I can see nothing–nothing whatsoever, Ray–that he has done to deserve my respect, much less my fealty as a Democrat. He was born with many gifts. I know Wesleyan, for example. Father in medium-high office with good connections. Yale Law, law review, job with a prosecutor, or was it two? Connections may have helped, but I’ll give him credit.

But then Mike had a choice and he made it. He went to work for a billionaire. Job: help the billionaire get even richer, and along the way get a small share for himself, enough to be called “rich” by most men’s standards. Ok, that’s the way capitalism works and it worked for Mike Bennet.

Then what? Well, get an appointment–as a surrogate son? I wouldn’t dare speculate!–followed by another appointment in an area of vital importance but one in which he had absolutely no experience. Followed after three doubtless exhausting, but not especially noteworthy–were they?– years, by another appointment to the United States Senate. Based on what qualifications? Based on what experience? Based on what dues paid? Based on what record earned? “Government” is people working in jobs for the public good (in Democratic administrations); “politics” is people running for office. The United States Senate is not the place to start off. Why Bill Ritter made that appointment, I have no idea. Deal with Hickenlooper? Something else? Unknown.

And once in the United States Senate, filling in for someone who had been elected, your Mr. Bennet didn’t surprise us, did he? No, he joined his colleague Udall (whom I supported, and who strangely also went to a Little Three school) in some bizarre right-wing coalition imagining they had a role to play in thwarting the efforts of newly elected President Obama in easing the impact of the economic MegaRecession. Not entirely a set of actions we were surprised to see when taken by one of Uncle Phil’s boys.

Yes, Mike has made the chicken dinner rounds over the past six months. So what? I have no idea how he got your support, or why you feel obligated, Ray, to stick by him over a man who has a record in politics, in getting elected, in working effectively and successfully among legislators. No idea at all. But I don’t tend towards the theory that you think Bennet is the better man. (Happy to discuss in another place why I think Romanoff is.)

Democrats in this state face problems next year. Is the best solution to stand behind two weak candidates, one of them just because he was appointed by the other one out of the blue? Sure, you say Bennet is a fast-learner; no doubt. But he ain’t enrolled in kindergarten, he has never — never at any time — demonstrated that there’s anyone, anyone at all, standing ahead of Mike Bennet in the line for hand-outs. And a seat in the United States Senate ain’t a bad handout.

Lastly, a matter of style. You and I have both been to lots of chicken dinners. One difference may have been that I mostly took a notebook ’cause I was paid to go and report back. We’ve both seen guys being friendly as hell with strangers (if anything, I’ve heard Andrew is a lot better at this than Michael, but you’d know better than I) whom they proceed to screw to high heaven in votes cast the next day. The gods of Olympus handed out plenty of literary tricks (if “literary” is the word wanted for this scene); not everyone likes all of them, especially when their favorite is on the receiving end. Ain’t nothing on this site that strikes me as especially new in the attempted comebacks, put-downs, snorts, or other crap, even though I did amuse myself by coining a few new expressions for them http://coloradopols.com/diary/…  

So, Ray, I say to you: think about your heritage. About our politics. About all men and women created equal. About César and Bobby marching together. Yeah, I know, those days are long gone.

Or are they. I beg to say no. I would rather have someone who has at least paid some dues and shown some proclivity to dealing with people in this sort of forum. For the life of me can’t understand what Mike Bennet has done (as opposed to what Bill Ritter had done for him) to deserve a spare quarter for a phone call, much less my vote, and very much less my respect! To me, he is and remains The Appointed One. End of Story.

Warmest personal regards.  

Tweet
Share

Comments

18 thoughts on “To Ray Springfield”

  1. You are one of a small number of people on this site whom I respect.

    JO–How does it help your candidate, or Dems in general, to berate all (or nearly all) who either already support Bennet or who want more from AR before making a decision, as unworthy of respect–either clueless or, it seems, somehow less than real Democrats?

    1. 1. Don’t you think you’re one of the small number?

      2. What’s a small number?

      OK, three questions:

      3. Respect for what? Did lots of people go to lots of chicken dinners, and not get my respect? The Democratic Party wouldn’t operate without people like Ray, and I don’t see all that many of them on this site.

      Some people start out saying: “Hi Everyone! I love all of you. I think you’re all brilliant and beautiful, no matter what you may type.”

      Most don’t, and neither do I. My recent temporary surge of activity isn’t the first time I’ve been here. Neither is this site about me and Ray; we happened to have a couple of exchanges, one in particular, recently that caused me to put my case in this particular format. In any case, I’m not running for office and ColoradoPols doesn’t supply editors. Pity, no doubt. I will say that on this occasion, you missed the point. Or rather, I see that I didn’t get the point across to you. Sorry about that.

      Which is not to say that Michael Bennet is therefore qualified in any way imaginable to be a United States Senator, given his background and experience, and there is nothing in his performance to date that has changed my mind in the least. The ONLY reason for his support that I’ve read here that seems in line with the chronological record is that he was appointed, unexpectedly, by an increasingly unpopular governor. Rationalizations galore, some of which go so far as to say that he has mentors who are pleased.

      And, of course, MBennet isn’t just any random model from any random background. He’s a convicted investment banker (trans: takes without giving) who thought it would be convenient ’bout now to take on a mantle previously worn by, among others, Jack and Bobby and Ted Kennedy. “Democratic Senator” isn’t just any random title (although if you add “from Colorado” it seems to take on a different meaning for some), and I do NOT respect everyone who puts it on his letterhead this month. Why should I?, as I keep asking.

      Assess the thoughts, not the people, and get back to me on “respect” in the sense that I meant. (“All men and women are created equal,” of course! But, I said that, in a couple of places.)

      BTW, rumor to the contrary, Boy Wonder is not a “leader” in health care reform or in any other damn thing, any more than any other freshman, let alone an appointed freshman (translation: hasn’t proved he has a constituency beyond One). Senators know who’s been elected and who hasn’t, just as well as everyone else. IF his supporters make such claims, as they have on this very site, do you imagine that I would turn around and conclude, “Oh, there’s a thought process and data assessment I can respect!” Would you respect someone who came to that conclusion on the basis of the available evidence? Is it more effective to say, “Well, on the face of it you’re a fool, but I respect you.” [Too bad American punctuation doesn’t really seem to have anticipated this sort of construction….] I’m quite sure everyone able to get here is able to think for him/herself without JO’s blessing.  

  2. I can agree to disagree about Michael Bennet. Both he and Susan Daggett (hiis wife) have been committed to civil rights since undergraduate school. They both wrote theses on the topic.

    The speaker is no saint, however, when it comes corproate PAC money.

  3. In the eight years he was running for or in office in the

    Colorado General Assembly he took $74510 in PAC contributions. This was 26% of his

    total career fundraising.

    He ran in 6b, so the numbers are low i.e,  representing 2 state house races. But given it’s only a state house race from a relatively safe district then the numbers are quite high

    I haven’t done a correlation between his votes and his contributors interests as yet, but I may if hssupporters continue unfounded fabrications of Bennet.

    I’m taking some of the gloves off due to some one in  his campaign putting out that Michael Bennett wasn’t halakally Jewish when his Mother’s Mother survived the Warsaw ghetto and the Holocaust.

    I had planned on writig an expose on his very similar prufile to “BLue Dogs” that his supportrs derisively use to refer to conservtive Democrats.

    The Bennet campaign asked me not to do so in the spirit of party unity.

     

    1. ..that you just did put out that story, didn’t you?

      I have never heard any such wild allegation, or attempt to deny him any presumed important part of the Democratic vote through such a manoeuvre. Quite amazed to hear this stuff is still floating around! This ain’t Brooklyn, after all. Is it? (If it is, where can I get a decent sandwich? Ah, for the Carnegie…)

      Speaking of a deli sandwich, I’ve only spent 10 minutes glancing at the PAC list, current, for MB; I suspect there’s a great deal more to be had there. His choice to rake in this dough has two consequences: money and headlines. Every reporter salivates for such lists, as you know. Shame your guys (until I persuade you to switch and come back with the Good Guys) will have to dredge up old ones from a state house race; doesn’t have quite the same impact as taking SAFEWAY bucks while grocery workers are in the midst of a NEGOTIATION, and with SAFEWAY as the target company no less! Does it? C’mon Ray, that was an “oversight by a minor staffer that is being corrected,” isn’t it? OR, are Mike and Bill are quite a pair; is that right? Are they completely rewriting the book on tactics as a Democrat during a campaign year? May I have an autographed copy? I’ll pay for it.

          1. State house only pay 30k. Oterjobs, Ibet his gross wa around 50k.

            He takes a lot of trips, and paid 27k himself for  poll in march. Maybe he ets NGO’s to py his trips. I kow that Joe Miklosi, who I likan rsect very much, worked for Andrew and Aice Madden before.

            Funds for tris couldcme from Jewish leadeship training sources, too.

            Maybe it’s inherited. The whol point is thath in’t from a loer income hose hold either. Hehas a lot more money tha the average voter.

            I had prmised not to attack him, but I did that under the impression that his campaign would run cleanly. I haven’t seen that to date.  Too many people close to his inner circle have put out innuendo and flat falsehoods. The lady that made the atrocious coment about Michael not being halalically Jewish is new to the campaign. She got it from someone within the campaign.  

  4. I don’t know whre it came from. Realisticaly it couldhve come from severa sources, safeway, republians, DEMOCRATS….politicsis dty business…I don;t know whre it came from though……I’ve moved on..too may other issues and only so much time to spendtime findig out

    1. .

      they knew that it was a den of nepotism.  

      Whether or not an appointment is nepotistic does not depend on competence or credentials.  It only depends on genetics.  

      I didn’t know hardly anything about that union, but I knew that the Durans were making a bundle off of folks earning less than $10 per hour.  

      Member were jealous that their union leaders were each making over $100 Grand, were surrendering in “negotiations” with management, and were out of touch with the rank and file.  

      Maybe none of that was true, but you know the relationship between perceptions and reality.

      .

      1. Like you, Barron, I don’t know anything about the UFCW or the Durans.

        But as a general principle of trade unionism, there is a strong argument to be made for union leaders to make salaries comparable to the salaries of the managers with whom they’re negotiating lest there be any subtle dynamics over the table that have noting to do with the issues at hand.

        However, that often means a severe disparity between union leaders and their members, which some people outside the movement take in a different light. The point is arguable, and the numbers are certain arguable, but there is an underlying principle there.

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

61 readers online now

Newsletter

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

Colorado Pols