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%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 19, 2010 10:31 PM UTC

Playing with Fire

  • 56 Comments
  • by: botw

This week’s Bennet-Romanoff debate suggests that Andrew Romanoff and his most vocal supporters are using a calculated and dangerous set of tactics.

Calculated because the message is repeated and consistent; dangerous because the message assumes voters aren’t smart or checking the facts and also because the message can easily boomerang on you and the people you say you are fighting for.

First, continue to make your signature issue and central theme that taking PAC money is wrong and shows you must be corrupt.  When pressed, the Romanoff camp says they aren’t really calling Bennet bought.  But a drumbeat of e-mail blasts and public statements says they are.

Two examples are a December 22, 2009 broadcast e-mail paid for by the campaign entitled “Unbought and Unbossed” and a January ad entitled “the best Senator money CAN’T buy” in which a fictional senator pats a pocket with money falling out of it and a cash register sound in the background.

They want caucus and primary voters to think Bennet is paid for, pure and simple.  When you took PAC money in each of your four previous elections, it’s a tough argument to make the centerpiece of your campaign.  It also assumes that potential voters are dumb enough to think that when all kinds of fine public servants have taken PAC money – including you – it’s only you and not the other folks who are able to handle it and make good public policy decisions.  It also ignores the reality that Democrats need the extra money from PACs to run effective statewide campaigns for federal office in Colorado.  Ask Senator Udall and Secretary Salazar.  Both of them are fine Democratic public servants who took PAC money in their campaigns.  The Democrat running for Senate this Fall will face a tremendous onslaught of ads fed by Republican, Tea Party, and 527-fed groups and individuals from around the country.

Second, misrepresent the other guy.  One example is that Romanoff supporters on this blog and in other places have said repeatedly (and for months) that Senator Bennet was not for a public option until Romanoff announced his challenge.  It isn’t true, and saying it without evidence over and over is shameful.  The claim has been thoroughly disproven by videotape evidence, but it still gets peddled.

A second example is that, in late January, the campaign broadcasts a link to an “article in the Huffington Post” they say provides “useful information for voters.”  What is the “article”?  It’s just the Wade Norris blog he posted on Huffington, Square State and Pols.  It’s the one with the flaming faucet video, suggesting that Bennet is in favor of flaming faucets, I suppose.  The theme of the Norris post (or is it “Huffington Article” with “key information for voters”?) is the equally odd claim that Bennet is really a “conservadem” (or at least hasn’t “disproven” that he is, whatever that means).  Bennet’s record on health care legislation, among other things, shows a strong, outspoken and consistent progressive record.

A final example that folks on this blog know well is that Romanoff supporters say – and Romanoff himself said in a blog the day after the debate this week – that Bennet “sent a surrogate” to the first candidate forum, implying that he dodged the forum.  They are referring to that “Be The Change” forum set on a date when the Bennet campaign said well in advance that he couldn’t attend.  Again, it seems they think their audience is just dumb and can’t check or simply doesn’t care about the facts.  It’s also a little odd to call a guy a dodge the day after he debates you.

Third, claim Bennet is just “my shadow,” as if the Senator is cloning his position to Romanoff’s. There is actually another reason, of course.  It’s that, as anyone who has followed their positions knows, their views and instincts are actually quite similar in most respects.  This is evidenced by Romanoff’s failure to identify any vote other than cramdown where he says his vote would have been different than Bennet’s (as reported in the Wall Street Journal on 12/29/09).  Except that now Romanoff says (or is it just hints) he would have single-handedly taken health care down on Christmas Eve.  Okay, I guess that’s two votes now.

Where does this leave voters trying to make a choice at the caucus and in the primary? A few months ago, people could be forgiven for thinking the two were more alike than different. One might think that based on their age, temperament, education, ability, and smarts. But the primary challenge may have done something quite different than Romanoff and his supporters intended. The challenge might have shown instead that there are some clear, meaningful differences between the candidates that have become evident precisely because of the primary challenge. And the differences could well be on the minds of thoughtful progressives and moderates voting in the caucus next month and in the primary in August.

Among other things, in response to Romanoff misrepresentations and snark, Bennet hasn’t bad-mouthed Romanoff, misrepresented his record, or called him names.  That says something about Bennet just as much as Romanoff’s tactics say something about him that some of us didn’t know before.

While Romanoff and supporters have been bad-mouthing and insinuating full time, Bennet has actually had a full-time job 1500 miles away.  When the unemployed, career politician challenger can only identify one (or is it two?) votes he would have done differently, that says more about the challenger being a clone than the other way around.  It also begs the question as to why, exactly, Romanoff is in this race and what he is accomplishing.

In a year when the tide may be turning, fairly or unfairly, toward Republican challengers who are actively courting the Tea Party, what is the rationale for a Romanoff challenge of a highly-capable, sitting Democratic senator whose views you fundamentally share? And why should a Democrat driving to the caucus or primary think that choosing you and endorsing your approach is good for them in a difficult environment?

Voters could be forgiven for thinking there are plenty of reasons not to choose Romanoff to represent this square, purplish state, many of which he and his most vocal supporters provided for them as a result of his campaign message and tactics.

Tweet
Share

Comments

56 thoughts on “Playing with Fire”

  3. that wouldn’t be viewed as hopelessly destructive to anyone who supports Bennet?

    Should Romanoff just say, “I’m good, but Bennet’s better, so vote for me if you really feel sorry for me, but otherwise go vote for him.” Or would that still be destructive since he’s leaving open a tiny possibility that people might support him?

    We complained he wasn’t distinguishing himself enough from Bennet. Now he is. To challenge an “incumbent” you have to tear him down a little bit.

    1. Versus what NPR called this race this a.m. “increasingly bitter.” There is a difference, a huge difference in tone and right now AR’s campaign is using a tone that is nothing but negative. But then I’m just a Bennet support so what the fuck do I know?

                  1. every drink of alcohol kills  a thousand brain cells…

                    the quiet cells go fist so you get real loud, but it’s ok caus e the dumb cells are next so everything you say is real smart…. then come the memory cells…

                    I drink to forget.

                    Forget what?

                    I forgot.

                    6. was a solo walkabout,  sort of spiral starting at some wacky place in what would now be Platte Valley and getting further and further from  LoDo – I remember some names….Herb’s, El Chapultapec, … some other wacky places.

                      I was sore for two days just from walking- let alone the dehydration

      2. The more Romanoff feels on the ropes (and the day after a presidential visit can’t help but make you feel that way, at least a little), the more he might go for the sort of Pat Caddell moments to appeal to disgruntled Dems.

        But frankly, I don’t see it. Romanoff decries corruption, but he says the Senate and the system is corrupt, not Bennet or Udall. He hits Bennet for not taking his PAC pledge, or whatever, but that’s entirely fair game for a challenger to say. I still assert that if you listen to Romanoff for an hour, he’s only using the tone you describe for five or six minutes.

        He’s angry at the way things are, at the economy, that working folk are getting the shaft, that the Senate is the place where good ideas go to die. But that’s not negative tone, that’s the same stuff Bennet says.

        1. To me, after watching some segments of the Young Dems debate, I thought some of Romanoff’s answers were substantive but I found his tone overwhelmingly negative when he refers to Bennet. It’s a turn off for me. Time will tell if that applies to other voters as well. And let’s not play naive here–when he constantly refers to his opponent taking PAC money and then constantly points out that PAC money corrupts, it doesn’t take a genius to connect the implication that he is running against someone who is corruptible. The only difference is he is more subtle than Sharon Hanson and JO.

          2. When I say above that I don’t see it, I mean I don’t see it to the extent you’re seeing it right now. I can envision him going nuclear if he thinks he has to. But I don’t see it so far, and by any measure this is polite as far as primaries go. (Just look at the recent ones in Illinois. It’s astonishing they all kiss and make up after brawls like those.)

                1. Don’t forget the bribery. It’s practically a rite of passage to be accused of stealing from someone, especially elderly people, the handicapped or veterans.

    2. Politics ain’t beanbag.  And everyone agrees it’s fair to differentiate yourself.  I think it’s far more effective to differentiate yourself based on substance and issues.  The fact that Romanoff seems to have chosen false issues might show he doesn’t actually have any substantive way to differentiate himself in a meaningful way.

    1. I read Pols a lot over the last year, enjoyed it, and debated whether to register and participate a bit.

      I went back and forth on whether this was substance and entertainment (both are good) or more cable news-type slinging (there’s too much of that already and I don’t enjoy it).

      I alternate between liking the exchange of ideas and banter and getting thoroughly exasperated.

      1. You’re what’s wrong with this blog country.

        If more intelligent lurkers like you pop up botw, then it’s going to be more of the former, and less of the latter.

        1. … log out and log back in as Libertad, SHARON, Jo, Wade, etc.

          Please try to keep your personas distinct, PRAER.orgRedstateMOTRpeacemongerJO.

          It’s only after the election that the rest of us want to learn that there are only about 6 real people blogging her.

  5. He points to his proven record of leadership.  You ignore it.  I wonder if MB will go through his whole life without ever having to work from the ground up.  Seems like his whole life is a series of gifts on silver platters.  AR worked from the ground up in Colorado politics and then accomplished great things.  You all seem to have forgotten that.  MB is like the pretty stranger who shows up at the dance and you all have dumped your reliable long-time girlfriend for her, falling for her sparkly dress, forgetting all the times your girlfriend has been there for you.

    2. I have said several times here (and many more times in other contexts) that I think Romanoff is highly capable and smart.  I’ve never belittled him or his career and I have not forgotten that he was effective.  But I think his campaign — in particular the misrepresentations he and others close to him make about another highly capable public servant — is beneath him.  He has dug himself a huge hole with people like me who spent many years singing his praises and following his career with interest.  I felt sorry for him for a time, but I don’t any more.  I think he has not acquitted himself well and he has burned bridges.

      1. If you weren’t the better writer, I would be hard pressed to tell your posts from mine.

        Oh, and OBWan, I don’t care how Michael Bennet got to where he is now.  He has an outstanding record and is motivated by service, not by ego.  That’s enough for me.

    4. are the Romanoffskis so bad at promoting their guy? I tell you, posts like this do your man absolutely no good because of what botw says.

      Romanoff has conducted a campaign that may well acquit Beauprez of having run the worst one in memory. I guess that’s the breaks, since Bennet has shown that he will vote the same way as Andrew, a fact which has really left Dem voters with no reason to pick him.

      I have to say, charges that Bennet had everything handed to him on a silver platter smack of projection. I get the impression that AR and his supporters are most upset that he wasn’t appointed (e.g., that the Senate seat wasn’t handed to him on a silver platter), because nearly every post supporting him has boiled down to a whiny variant on the theme that Andrew really deserves to be Senator and that Bennet does not. Sure, people point out his service, but it’s not enough if he can’t differentiate how he’d vote from how Bennet votes. No wonder he can’t raise a dime.

      1. seem to think it’s all about Andrew. Well, it isn’t.  

        Ritter could have picked from a number of well-qualified democrats, dems like AR, who were around for all of the party building that took place over the past 7 years.

        Who did he pick?  A complete unknown to go up against a fairly attractive opponent [Norton] who has name recognition, even if the first names don’t match.  Who did he pick?  A guy who, as far as I can tell, has never made a single contribution toward party-building; a guy who has pissed off a sizable number of voters by closing Manual High School and didn’t finish whatever it was he started at DPS; a guy who spent almost a decade making fortune ‘restructuring’ Anschutz’s holdings and generating wealth for him [Anschutz]; a guy who is just so very passionate about the dems and dems’ causes, that we never even heard of him until his appointment, where we all got to see that deer in the headlights look ala Quayle.  

        At his acceptance speech, he guy couldn’t even muster enough concern to come up with something other than, “oh hai, gotta figure out my positions, then I’ll get back to you.”  He couldn’t speak strongly about one single matter of importance to dems.

        And I’m supposed to buy his candidacy?  I’m supposed to believe that he genuinely supports the dem platform?

         

        1. Michael Bennet supported Barack Obama. Andrew Romanoff didn’t (and doesn’t).

          Michael Bennet opposed the war in Iraq. Andrew Romanoff didn’t.

          Michael Bennet supported passing health care reform on Christmas Eve. Andrew Romanoff didn’t.

          Michael Bennet supports the rights of children of undocumented immigrants. Andrew Romanoff didn’t.

          Michael Bennet has experience in the private sector, running a major metropolitan city, running and reforming a major school system, and experience raising a family. Andrew doesn’t.

          Michael Bennet isn’t a career politician. Andrew Romanoff is the consummate insider and career politician, and that seems to be the one and only qualification you and he believe entitles him to the job. A lot of people, including November voters, are going to disagree with you there.  

        2. because all you’re talking about is insider baseball crap that’s as relevant as someone’s position on the SALT II treaty.

          Bennet has a record now; Romanoff has to distinguish himself based on what he would have done differently or better, had Ritter done your bidding and appointed Andrew. If Ah Choo’s and MADCO’s statements are accurate, what distinguishes him from Bennet are not things that make me inclined to support Romanoff in the primary.

          Your response was a perfect example of what I meant when I wrote, “nearly every post supporting him has boiled down to a whiny variant on the theme that Andrew really deserves to be Senator and that Bennet does not.” That’s all that your criticisms of Bennet were – an assertion that he doesn’t deserve to be Senator, completely without a logical reason to support it.

          1. SALT II has been meaninless since 1986….. oh.

            dfarrah- to restate Aristotle (wow- I haven’t written that in 20+ years)

            Why are you for Romanoff?

            After this- if you want- I’ll promise to go all anti-R, all the time, if you promise my guy will win at caucus.

    5. No one is ignoring AR’s record of leadership except perhaps AR who is trying to run as an outsider. Career politician and party leader ? Who me?

      You don’t like Senator Bennet- fine. But can you point to any issues where his position is different?

      I won’t even get into how tortured and sleazy your metaphor is (long time girlfriend good for having been there, despite the lack of sparkle)  except to say I never thought of Andrew as my prom date. If it works for you- whatever.

      So far we have been presented three differences between Romanoff and Bennet:

      1) cramdown. Bennet voted against it – AR says he would have voted for it.  Both have sound reasons- though in the land of reality one vote did not nor would have made the difference.

      2) Andrew is not taking PAC donations this time. It’s not clear how he can raise enough for a major media campaign and it’s unclear how he  can run effectively in the general without a major media campaign, so is he actually electable or is he risking the seat staying D? A risk he takes because he would have voted no on cramdown, and

      3) Andrew would have voted to kill the Senate healthcare bill because it had so many problems.  Yes, I know he (and others) want to believe that if AR was there, the bill would have been different and etc. But in the land of reality the bill was what it was and the actual choice was to vote yes, flaws and all or kill it and Romanoff said he would have voted to kill it.

      Oh 4)

      Romanoff hired Pat Caddell to help with messaging.

      Yikes: strike 4.

      the rest is not different:

      – AR would have spoken out about the special deals to get healthcare to the finish line before the final vote

      Bennet did.

      – AR supports freedom of choice when it comes to reproductive rights.

      Bennet too

      – AR says X, Y and Z!

      Bennet did too- as a Senator.

      So finally- we have the one thing you can hang your hat (or prom dress) on.  AR has been there for CO D’s, leading in the House and building the party.  These things are true.

      I add it all up and here’s what I get: I support Bennet.

      I am a Democrat and want the seat to stay D.

      I respect Andrew’s contributions, but I’m not persuaded he would be a better Senator for Colorado and I think he’s far from more electable in the general.   In fact, I think he’s a much tougher general candidate (party insider, union loved, no media budget, reminding Coloradans why he ran against the D party and our President and our Governor)

      Bennet is good and getting better.  He thinks like me on most things and I like him. He’s more electable in the general. He’s voted the way I’d have wanted on all but one vote (I would have voted yes on cramdown).

      BTW – AR’s “outsider” campaigning that Washington is dysfunctional and the Senate in particular needs fixing raises an interesting question: who is more likely to adjust anything the Senate does- the real outsider who’s never held elected office or the insider who has a long track record of party building and legislative experience (albeit on a different level)?

      I don’t hold any single Senator responsible for the Senate’s institutional deficiencies. But if I had to pick one type of candidate who would do things differently- I’d pick the newbie outsider (even without the prom dress) – and that’s Bennet. He’s actually been building a track record in this area- but I’m saving that for the general.

      You can have your love affair with Romanoff. If he wins the nomination, he’ll have my support in the general because I’ll support the D nominee no matter who it is Can you say the same?

        1. Dude- the shit storm is coming and my umbrella is turn the wrong direction. dammit

          Let me just say now- it’s bs for a lot of reasons

          But bankers dont’ drink with O&G and med insurance types. ANd we don’t drink beer- we drink scotch. And we drink it- not swill it around the glass.

    6. Where was Andrew Romanoff during 2009? Because Michael Bennet was crisscrossing Colorado making the case for health care reform with a public option.

      Why wasn’t Andrew Romanoff out front fighting for the most important Democratic policy of the early Obama administration?

      1. (coupled with your excellent list above) is a good question and part of the reason why some people see this campaign as principally about a guy who is steamed he wasn’t picked.  There was a lot of hard work going on last year.

    1. Nice retort to the “will you do that?” gambit.

      Romanoff can come across as snide and snarky and unlikeable, especially (and I know I’m a broken record here) on an issue on which he has absolutely no authority to lecture someone.

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

47 readers online now

Newsletter

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