December 07, 2009 02:45 AM UTC

To Ray Springfield

•  
• 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.