I support Michael Bennet and want him to win the 2010 general election for US Senate. Of course, this means I want him to be the D nominee in the primary.
I have tracked comments and diaries here on Pols since September about why various posters support Andrew Romanoff for US Senate.
I have previously posted some of them here. And I am consistently surprised by the passionate opposition to Bennet with no corresponding passionate expression of support for Romanoff.
There have been some solid explanations- I remember Voyageur’s, Dan Willis’s and one other. So I’m not calling them out here- I’m calling out the rest of the anti-Bennet, apparently pro-Romanoff posters.
I’ll paraphrase a few below – and apologies if I get any of your posts wrong. Just correct me here, link to your post or whatever.
Also, if I’ve named someone a Romanoff suporter by mistake, apologies. Honestly, other than being clearly anti-Bennet, for some of you I’m really just guessing- you coul be pro-Wiens for all you’ve said in favor of Romanoff.
In the end, I assume that almost all the D’s and enough of the U’s can come together and elect the D nominee whether it’s Romanoff or Bennet as either would be far better to me than any of the R candidates.
JO: He’s not Bennet. (HNB)
Sharon Hanson: HNB
Wade Norris: ______
Sir Robin ______
Anyone else ______
I am for Romanoff to drop out.
Because… he’s the incumbent?
Because… he’s done so much as a Senator already that he clearly has earned a return to the job?
Because… DPS has turned into such a beacon of success after all these years under his Denver Plan that the rest of the world is beating a path to Denver to learn how we did it?
I think the Bennet supporters are the ones who’ve drunk too much of their own cool-aid.
-Andrew Romanoff is and has been for his career a tireless and dedicated public servant.
-He has a history of legislative successes and leadership in Colorado which Bennet can’t match.
-He has continually fought for causes which have benefitted all Coloradans, such as fighting for health care reform before it was popular, fighting for Referendums C and D (think where we’d be today with that!)
-Andrew Romanoff will be the next US Senator from the great State of Colorado!
Bennet is taller. And he was appointed. Though he may not be taller.
I lean slightly toward Romanoff, but think Senator Bennet is a good candidate.
Here’s why I lean Romanoff:
1. He knows Colorado. He went to DU. He’s taught at Colorado Universities. He worked in the State Legislature for 8 years.
2. He authored Ref C, and because of it, we aren’t in an even larger hole when it comes to the state deficit.
3. I believe he is closer to myself on the political spectrum.
4. Bennet voted against Cramdown.
5. Bennet receives a ton of Wall Street cash. I believe that meaningful Wall Street form is imperative, and don’t see this happening from Mr. Bennet.
I believe Andrew has earned his stripes, and deserves consideration from the voters of Colorado.
I respectfully disagree with your choice. After the primary however, I hope we both agree.
Wall Street reform…not form…
About your #2…I had heard somewhere that Cary Kennedy actually wrote Ref C. I went Googling to source it and couldn’t find anything except that she ‘worked on it’ when she worked for Romanoff.
Now, to my jaded feminist ear, that translates to, “She did most if not all of the work so her male boss could take the credit.” 🙂
Admittedly, I am inclined to be prejudiced in her favor. She’s a genuine financial genius. (Though since she’s rooting for her ex-boss in this race, I have to consider that another mark in his favor.)
Maybe we can split the difference and say he wrote it WITH Cary?
Cary Kennedy is not only a financial genius, but a great speaker and leader. She will go far.
I have not dug into the details. He also helped get the thing passed.
So did Jane Norton. So did just about every Democratic elected. Romanoff tirelessly stumped for Ref C (and Ref D, let’s not forget, which failed at the ballot), but he was hardly the one politician most responsible for it . NeonNurse is right, success has many parents.
I’ll remove that one from my list.
Do you want to address the other points I brought up?
and you don’t need to take it off your list, Romanoff was a key player in the Ref C situation, no one’s suggesting otherwise.
As far as I can tell, Romanoff would have voted the same way all but twice: bankruptcy reform and healthcare reform.
I’m glad Bennet voted yes on healthcare, even though I agree with Romanoff that the process was flawed (it always is) and the bill was less than ideal (as they almost always are).
Bankruptcy reform- aka cramdown.
Bennet voted no, Romanoff says he would have voted yes.
1) Can you explain Bennet’s reason for voting against it? The way I understand it, his reasoning was correct.
2) Others who know more about it than I have said the markets with the best consumer protections are because of the relevant state rules. Why didn’t Romanoff do more when he was a state legislator? (And by extension for another topic- why doesn’t the state do more now?)
that he believed it would bring up rates for all mortgages. There might have been more to it, but that is what I remember.
Higher rates for all mortgages was part of it – but his reasoning was more complex.
I’ve been trying to make a point that for the “I’m for the other guy” who argue that the Senator’s vote on cramdown was “bad” I haven’t seen even one who could explain either the bill as Durbin had it, the law as it is now, nor the politics of how and why the Senate killed it. Let alone the Senator’s reasoning.
I agree with Senator’s Bennet’s reasoning, but I still disagree with his vote and I’m hoping this issue comes back in banking regulation. But one vote wouldn’t have changed the outcome- the cramdown provision failed by at least five and I think more. Why? (kingbaby, strykerK2, SH, etc)
More to the point of Senator Bennet – he knew the provision was going to fail and he could have taken political cover under that and voted for it anyway. Instead, he explained his thinking and voted against it. Maybe it was a new guy thing- but I don’t think so. I think it’s what we’ll get from him.
In the broader debate about foreclosures and banking – effective bank regulation is going to have to be federal. But effective foreclosure regulation is almost always state. As concerned voters we’d be much better served pushing on our state legislators to act.
I cannot explain it either.
I’ll try and do it as a separate diary about bankruptcy reform and foreclosure rules in general.
Do you have no idea how this blog thingy works?
After the primary I hope so too.
and approx 11,500 others.