February 02, 2010 08:10 AM UTC

Romanoff v. Bennet

•  
• by: botw

I’m a first time poster but a long time Pols-ster.

I’ve reviewed the recent threads about Romanoff v. Bennet and other issues.  The discussion here is both interesting (most of the time) and indicative of a race that is heating up and getting hotter.

I’ve followed both Bennet and Romanoff for more than a decade.  I’ve genuinely admired both.  A year ago, I would have said they are more alike than unalike.  Both are highly capable.  Both very well educated.  Both smart.  Both honest.  Both are likeable and the kind of person who should be in political office.  Both genuinely moderate in a thoughtful way.  Neither an ideologue.

Romanoff has run for office and led a caucus.  He is a public policy wonk.  A student of government in the best sense.  A career politician, but not in an unlikeable way.  He could be a statewide office holder and could be very effective.

Bennet has a unique mix of public service and business experience.  He has succeeded at everything he has done, and he has done a lot of different things.  He is not a career politician, but he could be a statewide office holder and could be very effective.

Ritter appoints Bennet.  Almost everyone is surprised, because he is not a politician, wasn’t on the radar screen, is at a minimum an unconventional pick.  People who know Bennet are less surprised because he is so smart and extremely capable.  More capable than people who don’t know him understand; knows Washington better than people who don’t know him believe.  Romanoff supporters are incredulous.  He earned it.  He has paid his dues.

Since his appointment, Bennet has been impressive, more impressive than some otherwise smart people acknowledge.  He knows his way around Washington and he has been effective there in ways that are getting attention in D.C.  He is becoming a genuine player.  Exhibit A: he gets Ted Kennedy’s seat on the HELP committee.  There isn’t a Democrat Senator who didn’t want that and Bennet got it.  He got it for a reason.  It’s that he is smart and effective and knows how to get things done.  Listen to him in a committee hearing.  Watch him on the floor.  Does he light the place on fire?  No.  Never.  Does he know what he is talking about?  Absolutely.  All the time.  In Colorado, he has worked as hard at meeting people, answering questions, and learning the state as anyone could possibly have done in 12 months.  Unbelievably hard working.  Truly listening.  Genuinely working to represent a state with many different constituencies at a fascinating and difficult time.

Since Bennet’s appointment, Romanoff has seemed adrift, in a near rage at not being appointed (not surprising but not endearing), but also dithering and increasingly unlikeable.  Lieutenant Governor?  A seat in the administration?  Then, belatedly, very belatedly, he announces for Senate.  But he has no real issue on which to run.  Nothing he can identify that genuinely makes him different or a better representative for the state, except that he has run and won before.  But he doesn’t run mainly on that.  Instead, he chooses a single issue on which to focus: PAC money.  Is it a real issue?  Nobody really likes the current campaign finance system.  But following the rules and taking PAC money doesn’t make you a bad person, or tainted, or bought.  Exhibit A: Andrew Romanoff, a guy who took PAC money and was also capable and cared about the state and genuinely tried to bridge the gap between the parties, without sacrificing his principles.

By making the central attack on Bennet the fact that he takes PAC money – just as Romanoff himself did without becoming tainted – Romanoff is changing the perception of himself.  The issue seems unworthy of Romanoff.  It isn’t a real issue.  It is a fake issue.  And Romanoff knows it.  He knows better than to call a guy bought just because he takes PAC money.  But he does it anyway.  Not because it is a genuine issue.  Not in a state where a Democrat can’t compete without taking PAC and significant out of state money.  Romanoff does it because he is trying to motivate a progressive base and because he can’t raise the same money.  So find an issue that can both fire up some part of the base and explain why he can’t raise as much money.  Except that it isn’t a real issue.  Not for a guy that himself took PAC money.  And not when other politicians who have won and are respected – Salazar and Udall, to name a few – have also taken PAC money just as Romanoff himself did only a few years ago.

The other issues, including those Wade Norris raises on multiple websites?  Not real issues either, in my book.  More on that another time.