CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

50%↑

15%

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

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
February 02, 2010 08:10 AM UTC

Romanoff v. Bennet

  • 30 Comments
  • 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.

Tweet
Share

Comments

30 thoughts on “Romanoff v. Bennet”

  1. i might as well comment

    you wrote


    Romanoff supporters are incredulous.  He earned it.  He has paid his dues.

    no, botw, voters were mad that Ritter passed over DeGette, Hickenlooper, Perlmutter, and yes, Romanoff for a person unknown to the electorate.

    Had any of these people been chosen, it would have made sense. Since none of them were, people in the democratic party solidified their support behind Romanoff, who at the time of the appointment had garnered 61 of 64 democratic county chairs endorsement.


    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.

    What reason? You say that a newbie to ANY political office was smarter and more capable than all of the other democrats in the Senate?  

    But it seems Bennet has high friends in high places, and that’s why he has raised more money than every other Democratic Senator from Wall street except the top 4, as a Freshman.

    Could that have something to do with it?

    Finally,

    Romanoff has seemed adrift, in a near rage at not being appointed (not surprising but not endearing), but also dithering and increasingly unlikeable.  

    Your Evidence? Rage? Seriously? I have seen Romanoff and Bennet in multiple settings, and I call on any objective witness in the blogosphere here, to name a time or place when either candidate was ‘near rage’ or ‘dithering and increasingly unlikeable’

    btw welcome to pols.

    comments welcome

    1. “voters were mad”

      Democrat insiders were mad.

      Most voters could not have cared less whether it was anyone you named or Bennet.

      You think it matters on the street that 61 of 64 democratic county chairs” endorsed anyone? It matters to the D county chairs. It matters to the party insiders. Others? Not so much.  In fact, it confirms that Romanoff is a popular D insider, a caucus plus but a general minus.

      Bennet is smart – they both are – and has friends in high places. You say it like it’s a bad thing, but it seems like a good thing.

      Likeability is a personal thing, and it matters. But not what I or any one person feels, it matters what the large groups feel.

  2. A few supporters, yes, but Romanoff, no.  

    I have nothing bad to say about Andrew Romanoff.  He is a good man and was a great Speaker of the House.  Most of his supporters are wonderful people (many of them friends of mine).  

    My main point (always)is this: Michael Bennet is a good guy, too. He’s smart and doing a great job already. He’s also much more electable and knows how to run a campaign.

    I wish President Obama would offer Andrew Romanoff a position so wonderful he could not refuse it.  He deserves good things, too.  

    1. I retract the use of the word rage (though I actually said “near rage”).

      I didn’t mean rage like punching the officials.  I meant real upset, quite steamed, extremely unhappy, like throwing your headset down.  I also said that his feelings weren’t surprising, as in understandable under the circumstances.

      It’s interesting to me that my use of the word rage got challenged, but not my sense that Romanoff chose an inherently false issue on which to base a challenge.  And again, I’ll say that I like Romanoff.  Just not for this office and not this year.  And his out front issue sounds (and is) wrong coming from a candidate who happily took PAC money before he didn’t.

  4. It’s easy to refuse money no one wants to give you in the first place. It’s not some moral position. It’s cynical positioning.

    Coming from a career politician who has never before run a competitive election, yet still took thousands in PAC money, says all we need to know about the moral weight behind Andrew Romanoff’s attack politics. It’s sheer cynicism.

    We can do better.  

  5. If I could write like that, I would have. You wrote what I’ve been thinking.

    I would add that on paper right now in a general matchup , Bennet looks better than Romanoff v. Norton (who will fade) v. Buck (who needs cash) and v. Wiens (who put up a large 4Q dollar number).

      1. Polls are fairly meaningless right now. Did it screen for likely voters, did it adjust for party affiliation, did it push the question, did it make any other adjustments, etc

        I wasn’t referring to any polls. I was referring to other general electoral analysis, and I don’t mean the kind by the D insiders and party types.  

    2. I hope botw will stick around and post some more on other topics. It’s very rare that a first-time diarist can string more than a few sentences together (yours truly included, check out my first few attempts), so maybe the bar is set kind of low, but hey.

  6. Nice job trying to set yourself up as a neutral bystander, but your sharp turn into the tired and vague Bennet talking points betray you as just another Bennent troll.

    Bennet has succeeded at everything he has done? Examples? Shall we go into the state of DPS?

    Bennet has been impressive since his appointment? Examples?

    Romanoff did take PAC money while in the legislator, and he’s addressed that. Washington is a different sphere all together, and corporate money directs influence away from the state’s interests.  

    1. I started out liking them both very much (for the reasons I summarized in my original post).  I would have been happy if Romanoff had been appointed.

      You are right that now I support Bennet.  I support Bennet because he is extremely capable and is and will be highly effective (and yes I will pull together a number of examples).  Part of it, however, is that Romanoff has steadily lost my respect.  He and his surrogates are saying and writing things that I do not believe are true.  It is disingenuous and wrong to say that taking PAC money makes you corrupt.  When you say things that are disingenuous and wrong (and when you yourself happily took PAC money for years), it means the attack can have the effect of boomeranging on you with people who started out liking and admiring you.

          1. Far more money, more influence. He points to health care reform, cap and trade, and financial regulation as examples where overwhelming amounts of money influence policy beyond reason.

            I’m not saying I agree with his assessment vis a vis Colorado, but that’s what he’s been saying for a while now.

            1.  the big money donations have undue influence everywhere.

              But it’s worse in DC, as demonstrated by HCR not going the way he would have preferred, and C&T and financial re-regulation not happening fast enough.

              So it was okay for him to take PAC and corporate donations in CO, when he wasn’t corrupted and it didn’t really matter, but it is not okay for a candidate to a national office?

              That’s not an argument for supporting his campaign.  It’s an argument that says if we elect him, he’ll swim against the tide as best he can, fight the good fight against DC politics as usual, but eventually get nothing done.

              Now if wanted to make a campaign finance reform arguement, that might be something. Not much, but something.

              1. of Romanoff asserting he, himself, is uncorruptable, and Bennet isn’t. When Romanoff was taking all those checks from PACs and corporate interests with business before the Legislature, he knew the folks personally and everything was on the level. Different story in the Senate.

  7. Many politicians transfer their reelection funds to other candidates when they will no longer run for office.

    If Romanoff wins the primary, will Bennet transfer his funds to Romanoff to help colorado elect a democratic senator?

    1. I didn’t think a candidate could transfer their funds to another candidate. Could you cite a link to the FEC law that covers transference of funds?

      I’m sure Romanoff would love to get his hands on Bennet’s money–I can’t argue with you on that, particularly since Andrew can’t seem to raise any of his own.  

    4. It’s just an educated guess, but I would imagine that Bennet would refund his campaign contributions to the original contributor with the hope that they would then re-donate that money to Romanoff’s campaign.

      I think Bennet would endorse Romanoff, and would do everything in his power to get a Democrat elected back to the Senate.

      But since we’re on the subject, do you think Romanoff would reciprocate in the event Bennet wins? Will he endorse Bennet and do everything in his power to make sure a Democrat goes back to the Senate? I like to think he would, but I doubt many of his Bennet-hating supporters would follow his lead. I hope that if Bennet wins, they prove me wrong.

      1. It becomes increasingly hard the more Romanoff calls Bennet a corrupt tool of special interests, but stranger things have happened.

        Oh, wait — Romanoff already endorsed Bennet, when the senator was appointed a little over a year ago. Here’s what Romanoff had to say then:

        “I called Michael Bennet to offer my warmest congratulations on his appointment to the United States Senate. Michael has been a friend for many years, and I wish him great success representing our state in Washington.”

        — Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff

        1. Where he said the banks own Bennet, and slams him for cramdown, yet didn’t suggest cramdown as a potential policy fix despite laying out four policy fixes.

    5. because there’s PAC money in there.

      And it’s against the rules anyway so what would happen is Romanoff would make a big deal out of refusing to accept the money even though he wasn’t going to be offered any anyway.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

48 readers online now

Newsletter

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