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
30%↑
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%
February 17, 2010 04:39 AM UTC
240 Comments
But it these are Democrats running for Senate, so they’re going to need 60% of the crowd to vote yes on cloture before the debate can officially begin. 🙂
I decided to not go when I heard you’ld give us the blow by blow.
We can actually stay home in our pajamas. 🙂
n/t
Gosh, I hope I’m up to multi-tasking.
n/t
We’re all working late (development side) because we just got a tremendous opportunity – and need get 3 final bug fixes in and to test the snot out of one of our programs by tomorrow morning.
Ah the joys of owning a small software company…
I’ll wear pajamas for both of us.
Not a good day of the week for the swing shift..every other day of the week is regular day shift….odd I know
but I don’t have a computer at home so I’m still here at work–just let the boarding dogs out for the last time and am finally on my way home. Been here since 7:30 this morning and did paperwork while following the debate. Enough for tonight, I think.
Have a good one, Ray.
without a computer at home? That’s horrible.
When would I use it at home? While I’m asleep?
I don’t have cable or satellite at home, either. No cell phone and no long distance on my home phone. Just a DVD player for movies. It’s fantastic. 🙂
at the office, if you’re working late (development side)? Dude, you should start your own company where you can set the rules!
Well actually about 10 more minutes of putting the final build together – but everything works and so we’re just about done.
As for my part, one of the large bugs I had, which I spent hours chasing down, was I forgot to define a build var in the release build (it was in the debug). Stupid!
🙂 You are about to break Sharon’s heart, you know.
I thought all the pissing on the leg was for a reason. That must be it, she “just let the boarding dogs out”.
“Don’t you mean ‘Whom do you serve,’ Sharon?”
SUFIMARIE AND I ARE WORKING LATE TOO SO DON’T SHOW OFF DAVID.
I never asked you.
What exit?
RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
JERSEY SHORE!!!
I was from from exit 151 (Parkway exit, of course).
In the summer, exit 98.
Congratulations to all of us for making the toll fare so we could escape.
You’ve got to check this out THEY’RE BROADCASTING EARLY!!!
It’s 8 pm, why don’t you two have a glass of wine or something?
it’s the bomb
but they’re not helping!!!
Mostly I’m running builds and then testing the installer. Longs periods of waiting for my computer to finish a build.
yep.
I only hang out with them.
some of my best friends are lobbyists…
is that they are the bastion of information for legislators AND you know where they stand. They aren’t all bad. You just have to utilize that muscle of discernment which can be painful at such high altitudes.
Is one I agree with 🙂
I never make anything
Big boy pants or pj’s?
Hot.
I waited in line and I can’t find you anywhere. I’m over against the wall with the [whisper] …MSM…
that I may have just found a solution many ds are introducing themselves to me as pols readers. I WISH I had a table to type on, but there is a reason they call them “laptops.” haven’t seen rsb. I’m at the front north side, amigo, and the wi-fi is atrong here.
this one is tainted.
yet.
Nice of Bennet to pull out a Scott Brown … its the People’s seat.
That’s a rhetorical question.
Bennet and Romanoff supporters gathered outside St. Cajetan’s before the doors opened. “Better off with Romanoff!” and “Bennet for Senate!” could easily be heard walking across the NW corner of Auraria.
“2 minutes” says one of the DYD event organizers.
cos that’s also what she said.
Apparently they’re unaware that they’re supposed to be mortal enemies.
that makes it easier to keep up. but if we wing it, so be it, i lean ar, rsb to bennet, so the switch may keep us honest, or not
I got my beer and popcorn.
Making a short speech, thanking volunteers and so forth.
the young republicans say they will only use abacuses;-)
the updates go in the diary, not the comments bee tee dubs.
Deal.
The format was set earlier today so people can reply directly to individual comments from V and RSB.
I guess that will be a recent manifestation of our independent western spirit. Go Broncos!
And maybe lay off the liquor.
🙂
Lots of cheers.
Romanoff gets lots of cheers and his customary standing O from his supporters.
is obvious
is swirling for this one! Exciting times!
i call it a draw in the young lungs contest.
This intrepid young blogger already had his on vibrate.
each wikk make an opening statement, with ar first:
It’s still not up
“Sorry. We have experienced technical difficulties and were not able to set up a live stream for the debate. Apologies for the inconvenience.”
Thanks the young Dems, makes the joke “I won’t hold my opponent’s advanced age against him.”
“Millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their health coverage, and their savings.”
“The Senate is where good ideas go to die”
The best way to stop corruption (in the Senate) “Is to turn down corporate PAC contributions.”
“It’s not enough just to send a Senator back to Congress.”
just wondering……..I guess he’s against any PAC. That must mean he’s anti-AIPAC.
necessarily
n/t
“If I’m a Democrat going to caucus… why should I vote for you? Why you over your opponent.”
Romanoff: “If you like the way that Washington works, you shouldn’t [vote for me].”
Vows that he will fight backroom deals, and bring leadership to the Senate”.
” I agee with andrew about the dysfunction in Washin gton. Even before recession, middle class incomes down while health insiranc e up 95 percent, NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO GIVE UP FIGHTING FOR HEALTH CAFE WITH A PUVBLIC OPGION . psledges to go on fighting for democratic v alues. extends courtesy to crowd.
n/t.
” I agee with andrew about the dysfunction in Washin gton. Even before recession, middle class incomes down while health insiranc e up 95 percent, NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO GIVE UP FIGHTING FOR HEALTH CAFE WITH A PUVBLIC OPGION . psledges to go on fighting for democratic v alues. extends courtesy to crowd.
FEEL LIKE CALLING ME AND LETTING ME LISTEN IN TO THIS THING? NO STREAMING IS BULLSHIT!
BENNET, WILL VOTE FOR IMPERFECT HEALTH CARE bill becaujse willhelp 850,000 coloradasns without health care. “We needan architecture from which to work.”
This was the biggest takeaway from the debate. Romanoff said he would have single-handedly killed the health care bill if he had been in the Senate because he was unhappy with the deals given to Nelson and Landrieu. This is what he strongly implied at a HD37 meeting I attended a few weeks ago. Tonight, he definitively said he would have killed the bill. Bennet had a great reply about how it was important to pass, even with the deals, and that since then Nelson had backtracked.
I can’t wait to get a transcript of that argument. Caucus goers will be pissed and shocked to learn that about Romanoff.
The legislation as it stands today is a huge give away to the insurance companies and will impoverish the middleclass further. I applaud the decision by AR to speak out against this bill.
I would be happy if they pushed single payer or the public option through reconciliation.
have you found video yet?
“It [either vote yes or let the HCR bill die] a false choice”
Calls for a “real fillibuster”, where they have to stand on the floor of the Senate, rather than just blaming Republicans and letting business as usual run things.
I can’t type fast enough to transcribe Romanoff though.
and deny Americans needed legislation.
… and the Dems, wither or without Romanoff, don’t have the votes to (a) change the filibuster rule back to what it was in the 60s, or (b) eliminate the filibuster.
Romanoff isn’t going to impress me, or win the primary, by demagoguing totally unrealistic options.
Bennet: I’ve contributed to a strong public dialoaguer.
took hundreds of thousands in corporate and law firm donations after being appointed interim senator.
Plus he oversaw the graduation nearly 1 out of every 2 kids who entered DPS for High School.
and still floating!
your warm milk is ready then you need to brush your teeth say your prayers and get to bed!
.
“What was your biggest accomplishment in the State legislature?”
Mentions investments in education. I believe he’s referring to A-23.
“The point of getting power isn’t just to keep it, it’s to use it to help the people you represent.”
Harber asks “Would you be in favor of using reconciliation to pass HCR?”
Romanoff: “Yes.”
Bennet: “Yes.”
on Reconciliation, shows us all the value of a primary – these two candidates, who are, have been, ‘centrists’ are trying to out progressive each other.
Winner of this debate: that would be you and me my friends.
Pure and simple- I think both of them would have answered yes even if the other wasn’t in the race.
through reconciliation. My guess is he is fighting for progressive votes in the primary, trying to make it look like he supports the public option but when it actually is time for him to vote I’ll bet he backs down. This is my opinion of course.
Sharon: all things good=Andrew; all things bad=Michael.
When has your universe ever been more nuanced than that?
Sharon’s opinion = irrelevant.
An object lesson in how to marginalize yourself, in one easy (but interminable) step.
You need to stop repeating this like it’s the truth. Bennet already said that he would use reconciliation to pass HCR with a public option in the 9/9/09 Denver Post.
I don’t know if you can put the dates in order or not, since you seem to have such a hard time with it every other time you try to use this theory, but that is at least a week (no clue when the interview was actually conducted) before Romanoff announced his candidacy.
Now, despite all of these attempts at distorting and misinforming people about Sen. Bennet’s position, I’m starting to think there might be some truth to the idea that this would make Bennet a stronger candidate–though it’s not from a policy perspective.
Having watched him in the debate last night, I can safely say that Romanoff’s presence in this race has forced Bennet to become a better candidate–his performance side by side with Romanoff last night is proof enough of that. Bennet not only held his own with one of the most dynamic and engaging personalities in Colorado politics, but more than that, I bet he reassured many of the people who are going to caucus and vote in the primary for AR that if MB does end up being the nominee, they can feel happy voting for him in the general.
So I think if there’s anything to take away from this, it’s not that two moderates have been “pushed” any way on any policy, but rather that two good candidates are turning into better candidates. Democratic values and policies on display for the voters, and proving that Bennet and Romanoff are much more capable of helping to solve our country’s problems than Jane Norton or Ken Buck.
i have googled the search for Bennet’s statement on Healthcare and reconciliation and the Denver post, and only comments on this site come up.
I also searched the Denver Post archives from 9-8-09 to 9-10-09 and only 2 articles mentioning Bennet come up.
neither are articles about HCR.
do you have the link?
Us (thanks rsb)
1) http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
+
DenPo
2) http://www.denverpost.com/poli…
+ 10 -15 seconds on the google
at campaign events since early January, when it became a realistic option. Even when Romanoff was dithering over whether to run for governor.
But just in case anyone else is wondering, the second link BlCora posted in response to Wade is the link to the DP article where Bennet said he would vote for reconciliation to pass a public option (and by extension HCR.)
is going to come back and acknowledge a correction either here or in the other diary where he falsely asserted the same errors?
Or will he find other half-truths and innuendo to support his false contention that only the primary challenge has gotten Bennet to do or say what Bennet was doing and saying long before AR filed?
Wade will reply in private to rsb.
or Building Excellent Schools Today, the school construction act. He makes explicit reference to it all the time as his proudest accomplishment. He’d probably agree Amendment 23 was significant, and involved investment in public education, but that’s not what he was talking about.
to pass healoth care reform thro9ugh reoconciliation pro cess?
Bennet: Yes and I seNT Harry Reid a letter today to thaqteffecxt.
AR also said Yes.
and protect xconsumers from credit card abuses.
Good banks have already up’d their capital positions without regulatory mandates
is that he’s not an economically illiterate boob.
Okay, one of the differences.
n/t.
including the noise pollution of absolutely blind and mindless ideological chanting, combined with a flailing, ubiquitous belligerence, that merit no respect whatsoever. You and Libertad offer the two most prominent examples of that abuse on this blog.
My intention had been to go back to ignoring you as the meaningless droning background noise that you are, as you explicitly asked me to do. But if that is your preference, why are you now buzzing in my ear, begging to be swatted down?
This is the theme of the night, they agree on everything. Should never have gotten to this point, AR doesn’t have the monies to compete.
Bennet has a couple mill. And by the looks of it, Romanoff has the political capital to compete. Is it worth something?
Just saying
and AR has 460k……
Sec.Salazar per Manny spent 15 million. Per Udall’s staff person, he spent 19 million.
460k sure competes
and pull a Joe Lieberman.
Times have changed Ray and the American people are engaged so this election cycle money is going to take a back seat in my opinion.
There are times something else also has as much power as money, but money always gets to sit in the front.
When a candidate is running unopposed in a district where the registration numbers are wayyy in their favor, making the seat safe asl long as they don’t change party affiliation.
Say, for example, a young, smart D in a south central Denver house district 2000-2006.
and millions in corporate contributions could be double edge knife these days
Caucus voters will chose the candidate who has the best shot at the Senate seat. Hopefully that is.
“How much do you think these people (the Senate) understand when it comes to economics?”
“Not very much…” “If I was in the Senate today, I would stop giving taxbreaks to companies who ship jobs overseas…”
Says he would follow Sherrod Browns’s lead by turning down the Federal health care benefits that are offered to members of Congress.
… not really good for anything, but brings a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs.
……
Says he would have voted for cramdown. “Most of its [the Senate finance cmte] are subsidized by the banking industry.”
“If they’re too big to fail, then maybe they shouldn’t exist.”
“Most of its members…”
It’s too close to call right now IMO. Bennet is definitely exceeding my expectations.
Bennet: Bush inherited $5 trillion debt, it’s now $14 trillion. I agree with andrew this is immoral. My daugfhter told me “Just to be clearf, I’m not paying that back,”
I helped proimote a military base closing commission. But Repubs andsome
dems haven’t been serioujs aboujt debt reduxction.
Bush inherited a surplus.
He did say debt.
Because there was an annual surplus, but there was still a big debt. Math!
So Bennet was correct when he said $5 trillion debt?
n/t
Bush inherited an annual surplus but 4% trilolion i n long term drbt. He neaRLY TRIPLED thqt debt.
Bennet agrees with Romanoff, Romanoff replies “You should join the team!”
Bennet says “I wish you were running a primary against one of the people who was actually causing all of these problems!”
but the faithful won’t be moved
Did that sell as well in person as it sounds here?
NAtional debt was 5 trillion and being paid down by the surplus.
National debt differs from annual budget deficit..
Do not tell me that your daughter says she’s not going to pay it back. It’s rude and it sounds privileged. THX
I know who’s line that is!
repeats that line regularly.
They all say things that way. Not to disagree with your framing of it – but that’s generic to most all kids.
Why the fuck should any kid be stuck with $30,000 of debt the minute they are born? It’s the height of irresponsibility to pretend this is in any way acceptable or okay.
Out of the mouth of babes, so to speak…
n/t.
Posted by Sharon Hanson on this site, Feb 11 2010. (5 days ago)
that treating SH TCO as if she’s sane doesn’t work.
austic
razy
lueless
omplaining
rabby
hurlish
ranky
onfusing
onsternatious
onfounding
ombative and
antankerous!
unt
And looks who’s talking…
Remind me never to cross you for no good reason.
Sharon, are you an asshole in real life or just on blogs?
for SH TCO:
1) If you really support Andrew, the biggest favor you could do for him and his campaign would be to start blogging in support of Bennet;
2) and, similarly, if you want to do the Democratic Party the biggest service imaginable, become a Republican.
Your gratuitous rude and antagonistic remark to Voyageur moves you from “pathetic” to “disgusting.”
trim discretionary spending, stop tax breaks fo0r companies thAT SHIP jobs overseAS.
“What is the biggest challenge facing us?”
Romanoff: End Tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas, and mentions Citizens United as “magically turning companies into people.”
“As long as companies are able to bankroll Congress, we aren’t going to see these reforms any time soon.”
Sorry for the lousy tying, stable platgform and arfthritic hands.
The Sufimarie and Libertad comments are getting old for those of us trying to follow the live blogging here.
It’s like hecklers in the back, making fun of everything and everyone and just trying to be disruptive, except that those of us trying to listen can’t throw them out.
I’m sorry. :'(
and you are providing for lots of signature lines that will keep us laughing for weeks!
Bennet responds by saying that Romanoff did a great job as Speaker of the House, and not only did he take PAC money, but he had his own PAC. “I didn’t even know you (meaning elected officials) could have their own PAC.”
One audience member shouted at Bennet “Answer the question!”
Well, you took PAC money and apparently it didn’t corrupt you so I feel pretty confident I’ll be okay. 🙂
Any candidate for any office should have the answer handy. So far no one has asked me that one on the trail.
MB: You did a great job in the CO House, you did a great job as Speaker when you took PAC money- in fact, you had your own PAC – I didn’t even know you could have your own PAC – and it gots lots of donations and lots of PACS donated.
It will be televised/streamed in about 10 days – lots of energy in the room here.
for raising PAC money as spoeaker of the house, but sayhs we need to fight the4 republicaqns, not other.
Ar and
bennet ezxchanged a num vber f jabs, crowd loved it, but no real substaqnce or kn ockdowns. Bennet beating ezxpectations as soeaker and debater.
hear him speak occasionally.
Is a lot different than a real debate with an opponent in front of hundreds of people. Nearly everyone had low expectations for Bennet going into this, and thought AR would win. I believe it is pretty much a draw.
I’m just not surprised. I’ve seen him on c-span too
But I’ll give tbis one to you.
AR is supposed to be the great debater
It was a management tool he exploited very well…you know allocating other peoples money and taxing those who failed to conform to the leadership stance.
n/t
“When it comes to climate change, what is your feeling about the role of humanity, and what do you think we should do?”
Romanoff: “I think the Federal gov’t should take a note from Colorado, and I thank Gov. Ritter for his work on this issue.”
“I think the Senate made a mistake by splitting the difference with Cap and Trade… [a carbon tax] would be much mroe cost effective.” Romanoff adds that a carbon tax has the ability to be deficit neutral, and avoids “the gaming that Cap and Trade can invite.”
He’s spot on about a carbon tax being a lot better.
with a variety of pros and cons on both sides, and shifting balances when considering more global v. more local, and longer term v. shorter term. More locally (even to the national level) and in the shorter term, carbon taxes are probably better (lower administrative costs, particularly). But I wouldn’t be quite so glib about it in absolute terms.
that you think an issue is more complex than the rest of us 🙂
A carbon tax does not set limits on total carbon production and does not have an intrinsic mechanism for progressively reducing total carbon production.
Cap and Trade does have this advantage. On the other hand, CnT is (as AR noted) vulnerable to gaming. Especially with offsets since what is being traded here is a “product” that is invisible and odorless and NOT being produced. How the hell do you take receipt of this sort of a product?
I tend to favor the tax route. Part of this is irrational — as a recovering Catholic, I still find indulgences distasteful. If you find the concept of Cheat Neutral offsetting, then you can understand my misgivings about carbon offsets. (However, if you are unable to remain faithful, I will, for a fee, offset and thus neutralize your indiscretions.)
You’re right, of course, that a tax offers price certainty but quantity-of-reduction uncertainty, while cap-and-trade offers the opposite. But taxes can be gamed as well, in the realities of the political process (and thus, our wonderful tax code that David discussed elsewhere today). Granted, the complexities of the cap-and-trade regulatory regime, and the enormous information demands on the system, invite all sorts of potential mischief. But there is a lot of specific attention to those areas most vulnerable to such mischief (involving issues of additionality, leakage, and permanence of reductions which generate compliance units on the market) among the Kyoto regulatory agencies, for instance, whereas the politics of politically motivated tax breaks ends up receiving far less attention.
I’m not in anyway challenging your points, Steve. I was just, in my typically inartful way, trying to point out that there are advantages and disadvantages to the different approaches for limiting RAGs (Radiatively Active Gases).
Simple has no intrinsic value. If simple solves the problem as well as another approach, then this parsimony adds beauty. But if simple does not produce the desired solution, then the beauty is embodied in the result, not the method.
A positive about Cap and Trade is that it rewards innovation much more than a tax would. And this is something I really like about it.
Simple systems that work tend to work very well and be self correcting. Complex systems tend to have numerous side-effects that only become apparent over time and tend to not self-correct well because there are so many pieces in play.
And when it’s the government setting something up complex is an invitation to people to find ways to game the system.
is comprised of a combination of numerous simple and complex architectural innovations accumulated over the years, most of which are utterly indispensible. Simple solutions to problems are absolutely preferable when the accomplish as much as complex ones. They are often preferable when they accomplish somewhat less than complex ones could, but do so more cheaply and with less risk of market failures. But complex solutions are preferable to simple ones when the challenge at hand requires a complex solution, and simply cannot be effectively addressed by a simple one.
It is very often the case that when you get down into the weeds of a problem, and begin to take inventory of all of its facets, of all of the forward and backward linkages involved, of all of the moving parts and joints and pivots, of all of the diverse interests that will have to be brought together into an agreement, you recognize that you will need to develop a very complex piece of regulatory architecture to address that problem. Such is the world we live in.
But it is incredibly complex.
I’ve studied it in multiple contexts now (in resource economics, over a decade ago, and now in three separate law classes- energy law, environmental law, and climate change law). In the context of working toward a global solution to climate change, cap and trade is really the only choice, because it’s the only equalizer among nations in vastly different conditions. There would be no way to arrive at an agreement on, and implement, carbon taxes acceptable to all parties even in all major GHG emitter nations.
And then raise/lower them to bring carbon emissions to the level desired. And set a rate at which over time they equalize across equivalent economies.
The beauty of a tax is it’s very straightforward and simple to implement. Less gaming and less overhead.
Study the negotiations leading up to and including the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. Tax rates on a per-country basis would never have been agreed to (due to the absolute impossibility of all parties agreeing to a single distribution of taxes as being fair and equitable), and would not have been efficient (due to isolating countries from one another, rather than allowing efficiencies of international trade in carbon off-set markets).
Yes, that is the beauty of a tax. But when faced with a global problem, and in the absence of a global government, we need mechanisms that work transnationally. Markets are precisely such a mechanism.
You love simple solutions in a complex world. And under certain conditions, simple solutions are possible and desirable. Unfortunately, under many other conditions, they are neither.
I’ll agree here. I tend to favor these straightforward solutions. If I look at my energy bill and see a carbon tax, I’m more likely to change my behavior than if it’s assessed indirectly.
Make it flat, exempt some amount, and then just do it. Call it an emergency measure.
This is the same feeling I have on the gas tax. Just increase it. Regressivity sucks, but if the price to pay is a bunch of complication and invasiveness, it seems like a reasonable compromise.
as a national problem amenable to a national solution. It isn’t. It’s a global problem requiring an international solution. And we have no global government with which to impose and implement a tax on GHGs (which include, in the Kyoto protocol, six gases, as well as forestry and land use sources). We do, however, have the ability to create an international market for GHG reductions.
Like a lot of the stuff around pandemic warning and response. It can be done. And simplicity is something that is way under-appreciated by governments.
Besides, if SXP & I agree – can it be a bad idea?
“intrinsic value of simplicity” post. The pandemic warning and response challenge does not involve as many competing interests and backward and forward linkages; it is a problem tailor-made for a simple solution. The fact that an addition equation can be solved within the framework of a simple arithmetic architecture does not imply that a matrix of differential equations can be as well.
I’m not arguing that a GHG tax can’t, eventually, be a part of a global solution to global warming, or even the main part of the emissions reduction regime. I’m merely arguing that when you study the topic, and take inventory of the challenges and complexities involved, you know that you are in no position to declare that you are in possession of the one obvious simple answwer to the problem. My defense of cap-and-trade isn’t due to my own inflexible conclusion that that is the only way to go, but rather to my recognition of the two sides of the argument that must be taken into account.
In the current environment. And I don’t have a good solution for that. But I think ideally it’s a better idea, and I’m glad Romanoff advocates it.
Bennet applauds ritter leadership on new energy economy. I blv climate change is real and human aactivity contributes mightoly to it. Break dependence on foreign oil, c reate new energy jobs at h9mel
germanyhas more clean tech jo0bs than auto9m9obioe jobs. We can’t say that.
This lEGISOLatio9n is vitaL to Colorado.
oops, wrong diary
Agrees with Bennet that “National security is at stake” when it comes to energy and climate change. Reiterates that he will provide leadership on that issue in the Senate.
mericanshav e them, I wish he’d drop this silly ass idea.
That does no9thing, the millionaires club tghat is the Senate woujld never missthis benefcit.
Americans have them. IMO, thisw rivalos the WhipInflation Now pin s of an earlier era as a really frivolous idea.
for Congress to give up its health care plan until HCR is passed.
I couldn’t quite follow that one.
Says the Colorado Senate doesn’t run the way that the US Senate does. “We don’t spend forever talking about bills in the Colorado Senate, it just seems that way.” Good one.
Harber is telling everyone that the debate will be available online and on TV (Comcast).
Bennet is first, I’ll let V give you the summary.
USUAL kudos to crowd.
Sats we live in mostbeatiful stqate in u.a.but our schools and roads are cxrumbling b ecause we won[tg make invesatmenss for our childreen (voyAGEER COMMENT Thankyou
doug Bruce)
Send me back and I’ll fight for o9ur children as our p-arentws fought for us.
big cheersw.
“At the end of the day, I think this election isn’t about my job, and it isn’t about Michael’s job. It’s about yours. It’s about all the Coloradans who have lost their jobs.”
Says he’s proud of the work he did in the GA. Taking on insurance companies, took on polluters. “These aren’t just talking points for me.”
Romanoff is now relating a letter from an unemployed woman from Colorado Springs who sent him a $10 check. “Please remember us when you get elected,” Romanoff says that the woman who donates $10 is just as important as big money donors. “If the Democratic Party doesn’t fight for her, then no one will. When I get to Washington I will fight for her…”
Both did well, Bernnet perhaps “better than expected,” because he’s not known as an oraTOR. I’LL declare the candidate the winner who firwst gives me a cold
PBR! blogging is thirsty work. Thaqnksw for aall you polsters for your faith in our democratic process.
Romanoff and Bennet shake Harber’s hand as well as each other’s. Both men are now working the crowd shaking hands.
Really appreciate it, guys.
And what are you doing at his computer?
stuck at work til 9pm, no live feed,…thank you
is RSB and Voyageur, for giving us the play by play.
Voyaguer and RSB for doing this, much appreciated.
I was hoping one of these guys was going to start screaming like Karl Rove last night in Boulder. Priceless
Thanks to all who kept us informed. Nice work.
We had a party here and we couldn’t have done it w/out you there.
The people of Colorado. A civil substantive debate is of tremendous benefit to the body politic. Kudos to both candidates.
It will be on tv and the web in approx 7-10 days.
http://www.colorado2010.com/
(I propose we have another discussion of it then assuming we’re still in a primary)
A lot of it was predictable- they were very civil to each other, respectful of the process and their place in it.
Oddly, without actually saying it out loud, I got the strong feeling that AR has a magic wand or faire dust or something because if he had been in the Senate we woulddda got single payer by now.
AR made a big deal out of the point that “it only would have taken one Senator in the majority party, just one, to stand up and say no to the special deals for Nelson and Landrieu and other back room deals”
I look forward to the broadcast, cause it sure felt like he said he’d be that Senator. Ie., he would have killed the Senate HCR bill.
Overall- I heard what I’ve been hearing: AR can change the discussion , but he can’t win. I didn’t hear anything from AR that practically addressed how he would be a better Senator. Yes, no PAC money, but that does not convince me he’d be a better Senator.
I still have an adrenyline rush and haven’t read any comments… yet.
Andrew Romanoff was more Andrew tonight. Less snark, more kindness, more caring about Colorado — very refreshing. Michael Bennet showed the tough, principle side we have been wanting him to have with Andrew. He did not let Andrew differentiate himself at all.
Both men at the top of their game. LOVED IT!an’t wait for more.
Even Libertad acted like a human (eventually.) What is this place coming too?
I’m going to post a more thorough analysis tomorrow morning, but I thought both Romanoff and Bennet did a great job. Either one of them will mop the floor with whoever the Republicans nominate.
And special kudos to the Denver Young Dems, who did a fantastic job putting everything together. Despite some apparent technical issues with the live stream at the beginning, everything else went perfectly. I was happy to have donated $15.