President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

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

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

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

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

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
April 17, 2010 01:58 AM UTC

Romanoff Backs Down on Photoshopstroturfing

  • 77 Comments
  • by: jaytee

(Who could have imagined we would still be talking about this? Thanks Andrew. – promoted by Middle of the Road)

It has been a fun week in Colorado getting to know latest Romanoff spokesman Roy Teicher. I hope he hasn’t unpacked his bags! That banner montage he defended? It has to go. He may be next.

The Colorado Independent:

Romanoff campaign spokesperson Roy Teicher said the campaign had done nothing wrong and despite a growing media storm said the campaign wouldn’t take down the banner. Romanoff has stepped in and taken control to make the best of a downward spiraling situation. The banner will go.

Was it a real scandal? Not really. It is now. The sad press release after the jump.


   “Several months ago, a volunteer put together a montage on our website, composed entirely of photos of supporters who attended our campaign kickoff. This decision and a description of it have caused offense. I regret that and have removed the montage from our website.

   I take offense at any suggestion that our campaign attempted to deceive anyone. That’s outrageous and false. I bring a lifetime of commitment to equality and opportunity, and I reject these attacks on my character. I am very proud of the diverse support we’ve already received and

   continue to earn every day.”

Tweet
Share

Comments

77 thoughts on “Romanoff Backs Down on Photoshopstroturfing”

  1. There goes campaign spokesman #4, I guess.

    “‘These minority folks’ write to you today shocked, disturbed and outraged. Please allow this letter to serve as notice that we are NOT random people to be moved around for aesthetic reasons. We are NOT political pawns to be used when convenient nor do we accept being manipulated and repositioned when it serves one’s political motives. The ‘photoshopping in’ of minorities is not acceptable and falls far short of the integrity we expect of candidates running for the US Senate.”

      2. This sort of crap is the perfect example of what is WRONG with our politics. Beyond that its the sort of opposition attack that stoops to the level of Karl Rove.

        In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a Bennet supporter and if someone inside his campaign is responsible for this attack on Romanoff then that person should be fired. I don’t believe for one minute there was a deliberate attempt by the Romanoff campaign to deceive anyone with the montage and if someone inside the campaign did engage in a deliberate deception then that person should be fired.

        The discourse in our politics needs to be focused on issues that are far more real and meaningful, not this bunch of malarkey.  

  2. and the reporter made sure to hold up a piece of bennet literature and say how it was doctored…and that the “outrage” about the issue was coming from a bunch of bennet activists.

    Thought I’d include that in the “story” here.

    1. Because I just know that the Romanoff campaign just wants to keep talking about this story so the more comments on this diary, the better. 🙂

      1. already gave the story more attention than it deserved.  I just thought I’d clarify a bit on what the coverage of the story actually said…that Bennet doctored campaign literature and that it was Bennet people fanning the flames of this whole thing.

    2. are you saying that this whole thing is actually just a cheap ploy from the Bennet campaign…and that the Bennet campaign is guilty of the same thing?  Say it ain’t true!

      2. are you saying ti was a Bennet spy that did the montage and then referred to “those minority people’ instead of everyone in the picture attended?

        Infiltration tactics …

        Say it aint so!

        1. Having volunteered to phone bank for caucus for the Bennet campaign, I can’t tell you how much our directors emphasized that we were NOT to say insulting or negative things (or anything unless directly asked) about Romanoff.  We were just to talk up Bennet positives. Bennet’s speeches never make veiled references to Romanoff either.  

          What you say, Peacemonger, perhaps can’t be proved but certainly fits my experience.  There seems to be a very clear choice made by the Bennet campaign for Bennet to run entirely on Bennet without reference to Romanoff, leaving the negative campaigning entirely to the Romanoff camp. This is probably why the whole tone of the Romanoff campaign sounds seems so whiny and juvenile by comparison.

          1. no distinction is being made by some between obnoxious voices in the blogosphere…you know…like mine… and what’s coming from the actual campaign. Some of us here have certainly said insulting things about Andrew but that’s not the campaign’s fault.

          2. called me to encourage support for Bennet.  I told her I was a Romanoff supporter, and she raised her voice and said, “Oh, ma’am” and then began telling me negative things about Romanoff.  I quickly cut her off telling her I’ve known Romanoff for years, and she was not going to change my support for him.  So, maybe she was just that one in a million “problem” volunteer . . .

            1. that was not coming from the campaign but from that silly volunteer.   We volunteers were told quite clearly not to approach it in that way.  

              They knew there were many people torn between loyalty to and liking for Romanoff, sympathy with his not being appointed when they thought he deserved it and the feeling that Bennet really was doing a good job, was in place and was the better candidate. The people on that particular fence didn’t want to hear insulting things about Romanoff. They mainly wanted to be reassured that they were doing the right thing in going with Bennet. They were looking for a positive, not a negative.

              That’s how we volunteers were supposed to handle it. Those who went negative did so on their own initiative and against the wishes of the official campaign leadership. Controlling volunteers, especially unregimented Democratic ones, can be like herding cats. Your reaction is exactly why we were told to just talk about Bennet pluses, not Romanoff minuses.  I know I got several “maybes” for Bennet to change to definites by doing just that. In fact, my precinct went 2 to 1 for Bennet.

          3. I too know that very high ups in the Bennet campaign have specifically instructed people NOT to take the low road in any way in any of the campaign activities; they are determined to avoid the nastiness of the Udall race, especially the last 6 weeks. I guess that is what irritates me so much about the AR rhetoric here and elsewhere. There was a letter to the editor to the Boulder Camera this morning from an AR supporter that basically blames Senator Bennet for the lack of a public option in the final bill, showing the naivete about the real way legislation happens in DC, and just how much control Reid and Pelosi had over what went in that bill and what didn’t.

            Frankly, given the fact that Michael Bennet took on this tremendous challenge of accepting the appointment with no staff in place, no previous national experience in politics, and then decided to run for the office, surprising the wisdom of the so called experts in Colorado politics, shows guts, and he has conducted himself with honesty and integrity and a determination to contribute to problem solving as soon as he hit DC. I don’t think he gets enough credit. He took an a very difficult challenge and from all indications from his record and his colleagues, he has done exceptionally well.  

  3. that we actually make a big deal about someone using photoshop in a perfectly legitimate way to create a montage?  Well, why not?

    Our schools are great, our roads are superb, Fastracks is years ahead of schedule and billions under budget, unemployment is 2 percent and falling and our local baseball team, being in the National League, is spared the horror of the designated hitter rule.

    So, what possible thing do we have to talk about than Photoshopgate?

    1. And none of them negate the fact that AR’s campaign has turned a stupid, minor event into a full blown 3 day running story that has now hit national news. We’re fast approaching Both Ways Bob status in campaign management. When you have to resort to blaming your opponent for your own dumbassery, you got bigger problems than a stupid montage.

      1. 7news made it really clear that it was the bennet camp that was making this a 3 day story (the idea of which was attacked on this blog previously).

        2. And that makes it true? Maybe they think people who comment in favor of Bennet on blogs are the Bennet camp. In this context the Bennet camp shouldn’t be mouthy jerks like us but actual Bennet campaign officials.  Anything linking this story’s ridiculously long life to them?

          1. was made ridiculously long by the multiple press releases Romanoff’s ‘sacrificial spokeslamb’ put out about it.

            Experienced media people bury stories, they don’t perpetuate them.

      1. I kind of prefer a candidate that talks about issues and gets specific:

        Bennet said he will push for increases in the limits on certain kinds of SBA loans from $1.5 million to $5.5 million; super loans above $5.5 million for companies that create a lot of jobs; increases in allowed microloans from $35,000 to $50,000; and allowing intermediaries that deal in microloans to take out their own loans of $5 million, instead of the current $3.5 million.

        http://blogs.denverpost.com/th…

    3. I couldn’t agree with you more here: This is one area in which we are way, way too obsessed with “procedural” trivialities (is he running his campaign smart enough?), and not nearly enough with substantial issues (what ideas does each candidate have about the issues that face, and what skills have them demonstrated for advancing those ideas in the legislative process?).

    4. in a “room” full of unruly 4th graders.  The dialogue here just isn’t about real issues much any more.  It’s certainly noticeable to me and to many others that the insightful discussion of Colorado politics has become very diffcult to find on this site.  Some of the best posters have disappeared, or say little.  

    6. why they felt a montage was necessary, why the use of  photoshopping,and how no one at the AR campaign either figured that minorities might feel used a bit, or didn’t care. And then, the aftermath was just bungled.

      Is that enough? The AR folks kept this alive; Bennet folks must be just thanking their lucky stars at this debacle that just fell into their laps.  

      1. I uploaded the offending banner, because the Romanoff campaign didn’t change their password to their website’s backend from “password1”.

  9. and apparently now the game is to comment on the comments on the comments on the original story, which wasn’t terribly interesting to begin with.

    The anti-Romanoff people on this site keep doing this petty bullshit and then spend comment after comment complaining about all the petty bullshit from the Romanoff supporters. I was leaning towards Bennet for a while, but this nonsense gets me sympathizing with Romanoff.

    Bennet supporters keep telling us over and over how positive their campaign is and how negative Romanoff’s is. But if you were just to look at this site, you’d see very little but silly attacks on Romanoff and a whole lot of petty insults toward all of Romanoff’s supporters.

    Bennet’s campaign must be thankful that only an infinitesimal percentage of Colorado voters actually read this site. Otherwise it would make him look pretty bad.

    1. This story has nothing to do with Bennet. You don’t believe it’s possible for we Pols contributors  to look on this story and laugh and want to mock the tin pot crappo Romanoff campaign? This guy wants to be senator? What a shit campaign he has run, start to finish. Give us a break. I don’t want this  guy in washington representing me and I’m a total lefty.

      Romanoff has lost. His campaign has been horrible. His arguments against Bennet have been weak. His fundraising sucks. He doesn’t pay his staffers so he gets lousy help.

      Andrew please please, do us all a favor: announce your Q1 totals of $80,000, apologize profusely to your supporters, endorse Bennet and get the hell out of the race.

      1. Most of the regulars on this site are pro-Bennet and anti-Romanoff. There are plenty of fair criticisms of Romanoff’s campaign (hiring Pat Caddell, the press conference to announce he’s still in the race, etc.), but the criticism here quite often veers off into the absurd. Which is where we are with this junk story.

        1. If Jane Norton had done this we’d have had her drawn and quartered.

          After the first story it wasn’t even about Photoshop anymore but about the fact that Romanoff’s staff kept it alive.

          1. There are others out there helping to keep it alive, as well. Charles Ashby of the Daily Sentinel asked him about it this morning at a discussion group in GJ. I didn’t hear Andrews’ answer, but I’ll wager it will be in Saturdays’ Sentinel. I checked the site at 11:50 PM and he had not yet filed a story. Maybe the answer Andrew gave him isn’t newsworthy.

            1. You don’t think Ashby was responding to the press release Romanoff sent him today?

              You can’t blame the press for keeping a story alive if you keep sending press releases out about it.

        2. sxp I am not neutral. I was. I’m not anymore. How can you be? And why would you be? It’s time to make a decision.

          How can you not look at AR’s campaign and say: This man is not ready for the US Senate?

          Not one AR staffer is getting paid. His job has been to raise money and build confidence. He has totally failed on both fronts despite being a popular Colorado political personality.

          Running for a state House seat in Denver is an utterly different matter than running for the US Senate, as has become painfully clear. The boy ain’t ready. He’s out of his league. This week of debacle has made it clear: it’s time for Andy to drop out and endorse the real candidate.  

          1. I am sorry, jaytee, But I have to take exception to your casual condescension toward Andrew Romanoff.

            One…it is inappropriate for you to call him, or anyone else for that matter, “the boy”. Is it necessary to demean a very experienced and accomplished public servant in such a manner?

            Two… He’s out of his league, you say? Is that the league where a political party annoints its’ candidates, instead of encouraging a fair primary between two qualified and dedicated individuals? Nothing like offering up a level playing field to both players, eh?

            His job has been to raise money and build confidence.

            I have noticed that money seems to be a focus of those who are telling Andrew to give up (and you presume to tell him his job). Do you not recognize that your emphasis on money as the key to election success is the very definition of our nations’ biggest problems?

            If this is only about who can raise the most money, then we must be Republicans. Or at least, you must be.

            (Full disclosure: I committed this morning to a leadership role on Andrews’ Mesa county campaign committee. After reading your rude remarks, I am even more glad I did.)

             

            1. I respect AR as a state legislator. But that is a long way from where he is today. A statewide campaign for a US Senate office is a different kind of serious business.  It begins with the campaign itself and that means raising money to pay skilled staff to gain confidence among voters and raise more money to land the kind of strong support it takes to win. That is the first leadership test.

              People mocked Obama as naive but Obama won state office and then national office– in Illinois! Look at the campaign he ran for president. It will be studied for decades to come. He put his leadership skills to the task of raising cash and delegating authority. Obama had a clear plan on how to turn local popularity into real world assets. AR, though, has been a bungler. He has proved a terrible manager. It’s that immaturity I meant to refer to when I called him a boy. He is fresh faced. He is energetic. He is full of good ideas. But he is not ready to hold national office. His campaign is the evidence.

              This has been a valuable learning experience. Time’s up for AR.

            2. That is what is REALLY motivating the AR supporters is this comment from Dukeco1:

              Is that the league where a political party anoints its’ candidates, instead of encouraging a fair primary between two qualified and dedicated individuals? Nothing like offering up a level playing field to both players, eh?

              So, once again, it is about the process, not the person chosen, it seems to me from the rhetoric. I saw some objectionable tactics and heard some questionable rhetoric at the caucus, but when asked directly, the AR supporters all said they liked Michael Bennet, that they really couldn’t find a reason to dislike him. And then they would resort to the process soundbites, along with the corporate corruption nonsense.

              I agree with JayTee. Lots of whining and blaming going on in the AR campaign.  

              1. I can see that a little reduction is necessary. It is arrogant to posit that you know “what is REALLY motivating the AR supporters.”

                Well, of course, that must be it, since there can only be one reason, right? Certainly, all Romanoff supporters are alike, all are duplicitous and won’t tell you the REAL reason they support Andrew. I am glad my comments have helped you figure it out.

                In fact, Advocate, “it” is about the person. I support Andrew because I know him, I trust him, and I know that he is the best legislator I have ever gotten to know…and I know many. I believe he is the best person for the job. I will not go negative on Sen. Bennet, even though some Romanoff supporters choose to do so.

                My reference to the process only reflects my reaction to your “out of his league remark”. I do not believe it is appropriate for elected party officials to take sides in primaries. I would feel the same way if the President, Governor, Secretary of State, and practically every other high muckety-muck in the party were taking Andrews’ side. They should stay the hell out of it and let the rank and file party members decide who they want to nominate.

                This, of course, is my opinion only. While I support Andrew and his candidacy, I do NOT speak for Andrew or his campaign. The last time I checked, it was completely appropriate for any citizen of age to run for office. It is not for me to decide if Andrew SHOULD run for this seat…he is running, and I think he is the best man for the job. Your “evidence” notwithstanding…that’s all there is to that.

                1. Your opinion is a fine one to have. Many people have been supportive of this primary for reasons other than thinking Romanoff was more entitled to it than Bennet.

                  The rhetoric needs to get ratcheted back if we’re going to make it to August–let alone November.

                  2. Duke’s been here forever and he’s one of the more reasonable and measured voices on this blog. When he voices an opinion, I actually read it and mull it over and I can’t say that about many people here or anywhere else for that matter.

                2. Is that it has spawned the most reasoned discussion of the Senate race that I have seen on this site in a long time.

                  Duke, why can’t more AR supporters on this site be like you? Why can’t the discussion of this race on both sides be like this and less prone to hyperbole?

                  I half expected someone to jump in and start frothing at the mouth about PAC money or photoshopping!

    2. …I’d be voting for Bennett. Not because I love the guy, cuz I’ve long loved Andrew (you know, in a non-homosexual guy admiration kind of love, ha ha….)

      I wasn’t happy that AR decided to run against Bennett, a good food fight with Ritter would have been revenge and appropriate.  And I’d probably have camped out with AR in that, if that’s what he would have done.

      But beyond that, all I see is ineptitude and whining.

      Why would I want to vote for a man of that caliber caliber?

      1. To finish up, AR has not given ONE reason to vote for him.  Bennett has given LOTS of reasons to vote for him.  Those LOTS are, to me, how he has conducted himself, with grace and diplomacy.

        Of course, for me here in FL, the question is, will Crist run as an independent for Senate?  With his veto of the Republican backed education reform, uh, dismantling, bill he has alienated many far righties.  But how many teachers and independents did he win over?  LOTS!

        Since my tenure (get it?) in Florida, Crist has shown himself to be quite a populist.  He also vetoed legislation that would have removed insurance pricing regulations.  He only went hard core right after Rubio started winning in the polls.  But this veto may have been incredibly smart.  After all, it’s not the nuts that will put a Republican into the US senate in November, but indies.  

        Maybe AR should hire Crist for his consultant.  

  11. Participants on this site are among the most politically knowledgeable and engaged residents (and friends) of Colorado. Each one of us chooses the balance of our interests, of our focus, of our contribution.

    The purposes of participating here are manifold, including entertainment, comradery, and, sometimes, posturing and dissembling. But, hopefully, one of the primary purposes is to contribute something useful and meaningful to our political discourse.

    This is, for better or for worse, the pre-eminent Colorado political blog. This is our public forum, where citizens come together to discuss our self-governance. This is where the genius of the many can be channeled to our collective benefit, providing a rich resource on which all others, both in office and out, can draw upon.

    This is where we can form a bridge between esoteric knowledge and popular understanding, improving both by doing so, and governing ourselves wisely as well as passionately.

    All of this energy, all of this knowledge, all of this interest, so overwhelmingly dedicated to the most meaningless of issues, and so marginally dedicated to the most meaningful ones. It’s a tragic waste of a vital resource. It’s the squandering of an opportunity.

    We can do better. We can mobilize information and analyzes regarding the issues that confront us, in search of improved policies by which to govern ourselves. We can participate responsibly in our collective endeavor, rather than reducing it to a stumbling mud-pit brawl on the smallest of pretexts. We can focus a little bit more on the things that really matter, and a little bit less on the things that really don’t.

    Next time anyone who thinks otherwise complains about the inefficiences or incompetencies of our government, who looks elsewhere to place the blame for our failure to do better, it would be best to recall Shakespeare’s admonition: “The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves….”

  12. You know the media is bored when they focus on stuff like this.  There is so much to write about if they just leave the Denver Post building.

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

39 readers online now

Newsletter

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