December 16, 2009 08:42 AM UTC

Attend a house party with a conference call with Andrew Romanoff on Tuesday, 12/15, 6-7 pm.

•  
• by: MADCO

Attend a house party with a conference call with Andrew Romanoff on Tuesday, 12/15, 6-7 pm. Call to find the one nearest you.

I got invited several times from different sources. I accepted several times, but it took awhile to get the call-in information.  

The call was late to start and then said nothing.

To recap: Romanoff was introduced by I have no idea who. The actual candidate part of the call was approx 5 minutes: 10-city tour of western Colorado the past 3 days, he fixed rural schools in Colorado on his watch in the House, 1000 volunteers, 95% of his donors are in Colorado, happy birthday to some kid in Douglas County, happy holidays and out.

I am offended. Brevity can be good, but where the hell is the campaign? What does the campaign stand for?  

The bar is not set that high: have a reason to challenge your own party beyond “I am not the other guy” or “I really, really wanted this job.”  And then execute a campaign.

What he said:

The past three days a 10-city tour in western CO.

What I heard: 10 west slope cities in mid-Dec is far too little, way too late.  No talk about how energized and excited everyone was and no talk about what’s next.   Because they weren’t and no one knows.

What he said: 1000 volunteers; thanks for the support. 95% of my donors are from Colorado.

What I heard: no plea to get more, no call to action, no call to make calls, no request for support nor money, he can’t raise the big dollars for this kind of campaign.   It sounded like the start of a concession speech, like he was done; like he wasn’t asking for money or more volunteers because he knows he is going to pull the plug sooner not later.

What he said: rural schools in CO needed fixing, I fixed ’em.

What I heard: He should be running for Governor.  

What he said: half the D’s in the CO legislature are behind my campaign.

What I heard: They know him and like him and they’re too polite to question his campaign to his face.

What I did not hear:

A campaign manager to introduce him.

A campaign manager to introduce.

An introduction and some excitement about newly hired field staff.

Any advance or release for media.

I also did not hear:

Any differentiation from his opponent. No reason to get behind him nor to persuade others to do so.

I heard no policy positions about national Senatorial issues: nothing about AFPAK, nothing about financial regulation, nothing about green energy nor independence from foreign oil, nothing about climate change, nothing about immigration reform, nothing about labor.

I heard no call for donors, no “let’s make some calls and find some donors and more volunteers.”  What it sounded like:  it’s almost over, so let’s not get any more invested or involved.

This seat is at risk. The 2010 CO election cycle will not be like 2008 with record D turnout and a lackadaisical R organization.  

D’s and progressives and moderates and Colorado voters that aren’t supportive of Buck or Norton or Wiens have to unify and start running against them. Now.  

The AR campaign is offensive. Not offensive like the Colts or Saints – offensive like what the hell are you doing to the party? And the longer it stays that way the more at risk the seat is.

I didn’t know Senator Bennet before he was appointed. I am not employed by him or his campaign.   And to repeat what I’ve said many times before- I like Andrew. But until someone, preferably him, explains why I should care about his campaign, and really, really makes the case for him, I am going to remain supportive of Senator Bennet.    At some point in time one of the D candidates is going to have to do the right thing for the good of party, for the good of Colorado and the nation and exit gracefully, the sooner the better.  I don’t say this to be dismissive of Andrew. If he was appointed and anyone primaried him this poorly I would be supporting him and saying this about that challenger.  

But if (when) the campaigns become divisive and mean, we increase the risk of losing the seat.   And I hate the thought.  The voters have had their chance to speak up and write checks. They haven’t because they are not going to.