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
March 20, 2010 04:33 AM UTC

Will Romanoff's Move Put the Public Option Back On the Table?

  • 52 Comments
  • by: davidsirota

The big news this afternoon was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) abandoning his previous promise to offer an amendment to the Senate health care bill adding a public option into the bill. This amendment would need only 51 votes, as the public option reduces the deficit (by a lot) and therefore is in order for reconciliation. Sanders announcement that he is backing down to the Senate Democratic leadership and White House aides who cut a deal with hospital/drug lobbyists to kill the public option seemed to suggest the public option is dead. That is, until Colorado Senate Democratic candidate Andrew Romanoff tonight just issued a statement that will put significant pressure on his primary opponent, Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), to offer the amendment instead:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Romanoff: Where’s the ‘Public Option’ Champion?

After  learning today that no member of the United States Senate would stand up for a “public option” in health care reform, U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff issued the following statement:

“As Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, I led the fight against insurance companies that unreasonably delay or deny their customers’ valid claims. I know first-hand the lengths that industry will go to resist reform.

“I am deeply disappointed to learn that no member of the U.S. Senate is willing to offer an amendment to restore the public option to the health care bill.

“Millions of Americans cannot afford to keep up with the soaring costs of health insurance. That is why a majority of the American people support a public option. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that a public option will reduce the deficit.  

“I call on the leadership of the U.S. Senate to allow an up-or-down vote on the public option. We should not allow the insurance industry to kill the competition the American public wants.”

###

Bennet has spent the last month and a half touting his letter demanding a public option – and getting a lot of press for that move (deservedly so, IMHO). But now, thanks to Romanoff’s demand, he will have to put up or shut up. If he refuses to offer the amendment, he shows his past efforts to be kabuki theater – grandstanding for attention while refusing to actually take the steps necessary to do what he publicly claims he wants to do.

Bennet, as this clip from the Rachel Maddow Show proves, has shown a willingness to respond to primary pressure on the public option – and he may be even more willing to respond to that pressure considering he just lost the Colorado Democratic caucuses this week.

Oh, and how many other Senate Democratic primary challengers across the country are going to start issuing similar statements against Senate Democratic incumbents?

Stay tuned – this is going to get interesting. Romanoff will be on my AM760 radio show to discuss this on Monday.

Tweet
Share

Comments

52 thoughts on “Will Romanoff’s Move Put the Public Option Back On the Table?”

      1. Had Romanoff been in the Senate and not supported the health care bill as he has stated , there would be no healthcare bill. Thus no vote on reconcillation. What a guy!

      1. If the Senate offers any amendment at all, it fucks up the House’s plan and forces the House to vote all over again.

        The Senate MUST NOT offer any amendments to the House bill. This is the content of the letter that Reid drafted to the House, signed by 50 Senators.

        The whole point of this exercise is that the House doesn’t trust the Senate not to fuck up its bills. Adding the public option in (or doing anything else), when Pelosi can’t get the votes for the public option on her side, will kill the bill.

        That’s why they’re talking about bringing back the public option in separate legislation later on.

          1. What we needed was Andrew Romanoff and senators like him fighting months ago — not the ones we have who talk a good game, give in, and throw up their hands saying there isn’t anything they can do.

            Romanoff gets how the senate works, and more importantly he gets how is should work – which are very different from each other.  

            1. I mean, Bennet thinks his little letter is gonna turn the juggernaut around?

              Oh, no?  He doesn’t?  So, he was just pretending?  That is, he was LYING about trying to get a PO?

              It figures.  He is just like the Wall Street right winger he used to work for.  

              1. Different.

                Bennet was telling the House – if you put it back for reconciliation, we’ll have the support for it in the Senate.

                So why doesn’t Romanoff go beat on DeGette?

        2. http://action.firedoglake.com/…

          Dear Public Option Supporter,

          Congress passed its health insurance reform bill last night. It’s an admirable first step, but the task of providing affordable health care to every American is still before us.

          This week, the Senate will pass a series of fixes to the bill. This is the moment for a leader in the Senate to make the first step towards actual health care reform: putting the public option up for a vote.

          Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado led others in the Senate in showing that a public option can pass. Now it’s up to Bennet to show it he’s a real leader and force a vote on the public option.

          More than 22,000 people have already signed our petition to Michael Bennet to force a vote on the public option. We’re going to deliver the petition to his office in Denver on Wednesday. Can you add your name now?

          Click here to tell Michael Bennet to show leadership and put the public option up for a vote. Sign our petition now: http://action.firedoglake.com/…

          Senator Michael Bennet led the fight to, in his words, “save the public option.” Bennet said adding a public option will make health reform “far more effective” in providing “real choices for working families” who need health insurance. Bennet concluded, “we need to take the final step to include a public option.”

          Bennet’s primary challenger for his Senate seat, Andrew Romanoff, has already called on the Senate to “allow an up-or-down vote on the public option.” The only question that remains is if Michael Bennet really meant to “save the public option,” or if it was all for cheap political points.

          Let’s be clear: health insurance reform has already passed. President Obama will sign the legislation into law at any time. Anything that’s done in Congress during this next stage will simply fix what will already be the law.

          Adding a public option to these fixes won’t endanger passage of reform in the House, because that’s already over. A majority of the Senate has said they’d vote for a public option. There’s no reason not to force a vote on the issue.

          This week we can hold an up or down, majority rules vote on a public option. This is the moment. Really, this is our only chance. Will Michael Bennet step up and force a vote?

          Sign our petition to Michael Bennet: show you meant it when you said you want to “save the public option.” Force a vote by introducing the public option in the Senate this week.

          1. Any addition to the Senate reconcillation bill would send it back to the house for a vote. Senator Reid has said there would be a separate vote on the public option later.

            Are you stupid enough to want to kill the health care reform bill? If the Senate votes on a public option after the reconcillation bill has passed then fine.

            You and Romanoff are simply about political posturing, ignoring the damage doing something stupid might do. This is a prime example why Romanoff should not be Senator.

  2. .. as you go for it hook, line and sinker.

    Wow, Andrew playing cynical, gotcha politics.

    Interesting.  Clever too.  

    I’ll be interested in Bennet’s response.

    1. as a true supporter of the Public Option, I don’t limit my choices to Bennet.

      That’s where you (and apparently a lot of others confuse Sirota’s take on this issue with the Romanoff Campaign)

      Romanoff is calling on the leadership of the Senate.

      Perhaps like this statement from Harry Reid to Senators Merkeley and Sanders:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

      As you know, I am a strong supporter of a public option, and I included the HELP Committee’s public option in the bill I brought to the senate floor last year. I was disappointed when it became clear that we did not have the votes to keep it.

      Nevertheless, like you, I remain committed to pursuing the public option. While I believe that the legislation we are considering does much to provide affordable coverage to millions of Americans and curb insurance company abuses, I also believe that the public option would provide additional competition to make insurance even more affordable. As we have discussed, I will work to ensure that we are able to vote on the public option in the coming months

      I think the general feeling among Progressives, especially those committed to the public option such as mr. Sirota, is that once the current bill is passed, the Public Option will not be addressed again within a ‘couple of months’ as we will be moving on to other issues such as immigration reform.

      1. And I thought so did Romanoff and Sirota. This just appears to be a shallow attempt on Romanoff’s part to get some attention.

        Interesting that Romanoff’s breaking announcement came out after the news of Senator Reid’s letter.

        1. bennet’s sternly worded letter, right?  No, bennet’s letter wasn’t a shallow attempt at all.

          Besides, AR is able to get the attention he wants, with or without “shallow attempts,” in case you hadn’t noticed.

            1. Yeah- cause that’s how it works.

              That’s why Mike Miles is now the US Senator.

              Romanoff won just under 50% of the 23,000 delgates’ preferance last Tuesday.  Great.

              So what?  That means almost nothing – except that 11,400 Colorado D’s polled for him.

              Why are you for Romanoff?

              Experienced, but not a career politician?

              Should have been appointed, but not entitled?

              More electable itnh e general, but not because he’s been a private sector lawyer?

      2. I was giving you credit for the original diary.  I should be more careful when PUI 😉  

        Thanks for the link to the Reid article — who knows, perhaps in a few months when all the current brouhaha is over, cooler heads will reconsider the merits of saving money via the public option.  Will there be a vote in a few months?  Probably.  Will it pass?  Unlikely, but symbolic votes do matter sometimes.

        But the timing of Romanoff’s press release is clearly to impact this week’s votes.  And for anything to come out of the Senate prior to the House vote would likely kill whatever chance we have to pass HCR.

        This is a skillful a political move by Romanoff to put Bennet in a Catch-22. Bennet’s response, will demonstrate his political savvy in slipping the punch.  Good practice for facing the Republicans in the general, as David Theisen maintains.

        Romanoff knows that it was for the House to add the public option, not the Senate.  Bennet’s letter was to promise the House that he had their back if they had the will and the votes to make that addition.  

        Neither Romanoff nor Bennet are naive enough to think the Public Option can be added by the Senate this week on their own.

        How Bennet responds to Romanoff’s call will give us a measure of his ability to speak not only to the powers that be, but also to the voters in general.

  3. that he wouldn’t have voted for it with all the flaws in process and content.

    He’s stil trying to kill it now.  Amend it- send it back to the House where it will die or get delayed again.

    Hell- why not go all the way and demand single payer?

    1. Listen in while he goes down in defeat.

      “Precious, precious, precious!” Gollum cried. “My Precious! O my Precious!” And with that, even as his eyes were lifted up to gloat on his prize, he stepped too far, toppled, wavered for a moment on the brink, and then with a shriek he fell. Out of the depths came his last wail Precious, and he was gone.”

  5. Just like his claims of being a reformer and that he’ll stand up to Wall Street, it’s time for Anschutz’ boy to stand up to the insurance companies and offer the public option. This guy may be able to buy a lot of calls, mail and t.v. but it’s just slick talk that he thinks voters won’t see through and he can buy a reputation instead of earning one.

    2. The only way accepting PAC contributions would be a negative is if the candidate was then unwilling to vote against those contributors.  I can’t cite specific examples, but when Andrew accepted PAC contributions, I’m confident he was willing and able to vote against his donors.  

      And I can cite several specific examples of Senator Bennet voting against the wishes of PAC contributors.

      But even then- only 18% of his contributions have come from PACs – the lowest % of all Colorado’s Congressioanl delegation, except Cong. Polis who largely self-funded.  So which of the rest of the Colorado delegation is Romanoff saying cannot be trusted?

        1. So which of the rest of the Colorado delegation is Romanoff saying cannot be trusted?

          Wow. That is harsh.

          But now I’m starting to see that you really want an R victory in Nov.

    3. Lord come on, some of the biggest democratic donors in Colorado are federal lobbyists.  

      I enjoy this I shall not take money game… why because you did not get traction with these people early on so you now are claiming out of principle you would not take PAC or Lobbying money. What next… money from people with left hands, who work for banking as tellers, or scrub the toilets in a building that got a bail out?

      I am enjoying how Andrew is systematical pissing off everyone who would have funded his campaign if he won. From trashing on sitting congressmen to Progressive PAC’s across the US. I hate to break it to the Romanoff team, there are good progressive lobbyists, pacs and corps who would have helped you win but you pissed them all off.

      Well congrats on not even hitting 50% in Caucus and I used to be for Andrew but I caucused for Bennet because he has become one hell of a cry baby and is running a piss poor campaign.  

    4. Someone could get hurt. I am going to suggest to the National League that during the next World Series, our side should make a point by using cardboard gift wrap tubes instead.

      Who’s with me?

        1. What’s with the extraneous Cubs put downs?

          Seriously – last year the Cubs team batting average was weak  (26th out of 30 teams) but the five years before that they were top 15 every year.

          The Cubs problem is, was, will continue to be until they win it all  – pitching.  

  6. Bennet has been consistent. Romanoff has been all over the map — single payer, then not a priority, then public option… give me a break!

    Here is Romanoff waffling again on health care reform:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…

    I have come to the conclusion that Andrew Romanoff doesn’t know jack squat about how the US Senate works. He is playing with the lives of 45,000 innocent people/yr by attempting to interfere with the passing this bill. He should be ashamed of himself.

    1. …and exposing this public option letter as the charade that it is.  Romanoff understands how the Senate works.  It is the people who ever believed this public option letter meant something who don’t.

      Bennet has played the Democratic voters of Colorado, and very successfully.  

      With a generous assist from the Democratic party structure, he has also fostered an environment (enforced daily here on ColoPols) where anyone who criticizes him is “going negative.”  When nobody is allowed to be critical of Bennet, it’s easy to see why people think he’s doing an amazing and fantastic job.  Thinking otherwise is forbidden.

      1. Up is down, black is white, and in is out!

        Keep repeating it. It’s bound to stick.

        I’ve often repeated my respect and support for both candidates. I have absolutely no problem with people arguing on Andrew’s behalf why he should be our Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate. Many of the people I like and respect most in our state legislature have been doing just that. It’s not an issue.

        The tone of this blog has been a bit more horse-racy pro-Bennet than suits my taste: I prefer to talk about the merits and the issues. I am pro-Bennet on that basis, but not rabidly so, and not anti-Romanoff in the process.

        Some few of the individual Bennet supporters have been a bit too aggressive at times, and a bit too eager to attack Romanoff on their way to supporting Bennet.

        But those latter few do not approach, either in numbers or in vitriol, several of the Romanoff supporters on this blog, disgracing the admirable individual they claim to support, completely eschewing reason, civility, and tolerance of disagreement in their determination to beat the truth into others.

        Frankly, in my opinion, it’s not even a judgment call. It’s just a fact.

        Arguing on behalf of one candidate or the other isn’t “going negative.” Actually going negative is. Try to understand the distinction.

        Villifying either of these candidates is “going negative.” Few have villified Romanoff (though several have criticized him more stridently than I would), and almost all do so in reference to specific errors he has made rather than general aspersions. More have villified Bennet, in the crudest and most offensive of ways. You yourself paint him as some machiavellian puppet-master, while complaining that others would dare complain about you going negative. It’s simply mindboggling.

        Frankly, though I personally support Bennet, I would have remained publicly neutral in this primary, out of respect for both Romanoff himself and his supporters who are close friends of mine, if not for how offensive the Romanoff supporters on this blog have become.

        When I see little nuggets of character-assassinating disinformation like that which you employ above, too reminscent of the Party I reject and not reminiscent enough of the Party I embrace, you drive me (and presumably others like me) further into the arms of the candidate you don’t support.

        I may be wrong- one must never underestimate the role of irrationality in human affairs- but I strongly suspect that the Romanoff supporters that post here have done more to stoke support for Bennet than they have to stoke support for Romanoff. They have certainly done more to push rational people toward Bennet and away from Romanoff, since rational people tend to be put off by the wild-eyed, red-faced ranting that has become the hallmark of several Romanoff supporters who post here regularly.

        It offends me almost as much on Andrew’s behalf as on Michael’s. Who would want their name associated with that kind of nonsense?

        Please, if you think that Romanoff is a preferable candidate to Bennet, make your case, repeat it often and loudly, and argue it passionately. Make specific and defensible criticisms of Bennet’s votes and reasoning. That’s what a political contest should be. But this nauseating strategy of alternately villifying Bennet and complaining that Romanoff supporters are victims of intolerance is just too much to bear.

        Not all criticisms of people who speak their mind are criticisms directed either at the fact that they are speaking their mind, or at the fact that they are “thinking otherwise” from those who disagree with them. It may be a clever strategy to pretend so, but that strategy just lends more justification to the criticism itself.

        1. This is a very nicely done post.

          If this tone and approach were the norm instead of the exception, this site would be more useful, fun, and informative.

  7. he is not political timber, not even politician timber.  He is used to everything being easy.  

    All of a sudden, he thinks he could be a Senator, and lo, he gets the appointment after snow balling the Governor.  

    Now, he has lost his first election.  Will he admit defeat?  No.  He is too green for that.  He will try to tear the party apart in his rich kid demand to have his way.  

    Michael Bennet has been rejected by the Dem base.  Drop out now, Michael, before this gets really embarrassing, and before you damage our party.

  8. Will Romanoff’s Move Put The Public Option Back On The Table?

    Romanoff’s move?!

    Bennet was advocating for the public option before Romanoff was in the race.

    Bennet sent Leader Reid a public letter expressing support for the public option.

    Some 40 United States Senators signed on to Bennet’s letter in support of the public option.

    The idea that “Romanoff’s” “move” put the public option “back on the table” is ludicrous.

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

205 readers online now

Newsletter

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