U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) George Stern
(D) A. Gonzalez
(R) Sheri Davis
40%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
May 13, 2010 04:46 AM UTC
110 Comments
JTB, Mario called the Bennet guy out on this a week ago on his show. He said Bennet’s press guy had been calling and emailing him accusing Mario of lying about Romanoff and claiming Bennet had issued “a strong statement” about Arizona’s police state law. Turns out Bennet wrote another one of his famous letters and had one line in it about Arizona’s law being outrageous. It was nice of Bennet though to write Reid a letter suggesting that congress move on immigration reform. In another act of his exemplary courage in taking on the broken system in Washington, it seems he wrote that after he got word that immigration reform wouldn’t happen before the election. Where have we seen that maneuver before?
Bennet is cracking and it’s starting to show. People are starting to see what he’s really in this for and that doesn’t have much to do with the people in his temporary home of Colorado. Maybe his millions will fool some but not enough to save him from the revolving door about to hit him in the backside. Voters already know and respect Romanoff and the more they get to know Bennet, the less they’re liking him. Expect the nastiness to get much worse and much more public the more desperate he gets. Specter is on his way out next week, maybe Lincoln too and soon Bennet will join them.
I mean is Rahm’s boy so incompetent and out of touch with Colorado that he really didn’t realize Casa Bonita is a restaurant?
I really just sat in front of my computer laughing for about 5 minutes straight when I read your note to Trevor. Oh my God these people are incompetent.
That said, you unearth a much bigger serious issue — I’ve thought the same thing for some time now; Bennet supporters seem to continue to echo the same talking points at the same time. Diaries don’t seem to match their normal writing styles; I’ve had a suspicion that a lot of the language came straight from the Bennet camp, but I didn’t really have anything to back that up.
This primary strengthening the party, and both of these candidates, for November. Its heartwarming.
This diary is embarrassing.
It makes all kinds of drive-by accusations and slurs, without any proof and with faux specificity.
Since one of the statements listed me, I can and will state unequivocally that it is just made up. 100% false. No basis whatsoever.
This kind of diary – like ones we are seeing from Stryker and others in recent weeks – is an embarrassment to Speaker Romanoff.
this diary is shedding some light on what the Bennet campaign is really doing. Whether or not they are feeding you talking points is not the main point even. They are spreading lies about Romanoff — whether on the blogs, on handouts at assemblies, or through their staff.
I’m so tired of seeing Bennet’s out of state kids running around democratic events telling people that Romanoff hates latinos because of the special session or flat out making up crap about a good man’s voting history of helping the state.
And I’m weary of seeing bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young Latinos being used like pawns over this crap, like the regional director that tells people that Romanoff hates Mexicans. Get a grip.
Why don’t you ask Bennet’s spokeman if they’ll post every press release they send out? Are you denying or stating that it is false that they send out press releases attacking Romanoff that they do not make available on their website or to the general public? A few months ago people on here insisted a press release from Bennet accusing Romanoff of conspiring with the GOP to kill healthcare reform was a hoax – until somebody acknowledged it was real. Just like that one, these others I mention will be proven to be real. Why don’t you start out by asking for the one they sent out the night of the last debate.
So I noticed Pols loves to post up frontpage diaries making fun of really dumb campaign staff/actions/etc. Maybe that would frontpage one about Trevor not knowing anything about the real South Park. Oh wait…it’s a story that wouldn’t be flattering on Bennet, so no — they wouldn’t.
To your serious point though yes — I think it would be interesting if both campaigns posted every press release they sent out so the good folks here could go into the validity of claims.
I noticed the Romanoff campaign started posting press releases and other statements some time ago. It’s sad that Bennet would rather hide and attack from the shadows, but I guess that’s what happens when you have a lobbyist as chief of staff and rahm’s buddy running communications.
A few months ago some claimed a release I posted “had to be” made up – It wasn’t. It was real: http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
Here’s the first part of one that was sent out the night of the debate. I won’t dignify their nastiness by posting the whole thing. You can see the date on it was the same as the debate – you know, the night Bennet said the “only time I feel like I’m in Washington is when I’m debating you.” Yea, except minutes later, he was engaged in the same type of politics he was whining about.
I’m not saying Bennet doesn’t have the right to make the argument Kid Kincaid makes in that release but don’t whine about getting beat up, complain about a tough campaign against you and tell the public you’re all for transparency while you’re putting out releases like this and not willing to post them and take responsibility for them.
Please leave out cell phone numbers. We always avoid posting cell #s with any press release, no matter who it comes from.
No malice intended. I was just pasting the full piece to demonstrate the authenticity. I had not caught the cell or thought about that. Is there any way I or one of the Govs can edit that out? Mea culpa.
Can’t tell what it is you’re claiming JTB is wrong about. Is she/he wrong when they say they’re not claiming you get your talking points directly from Bennet’s guy? Are you saying JTB is wrong and that Bennet’s press guy is not sending out press releases attacking Romanoff that he doesn’t post anywhere publicly? Are you saying JTB is wrong about Bennet’s people putting out talking points attacking Romanoff?
This is getting crazy.
What is shameful is to see these young kids from out of town running around assemblies insulting Romanoff, loudly, and in front of other people.
It is even more shameful that these kids are insulting elderly supporters of their opponent because this older man made a t shirt supporting his candidate. (For reference, these young men called this elder gentlemen, “A crazy stalker lunatic) It is disgraceful. What’s next? Making fun of the Veterans for Romanoff signs because they don’t like the yellow? It is not only shameful, it is disrespectful and unprofessional.
When Bennet staffers don’t even know who a Denver Post writer is, and continually ask that person if he “wants a sticker?” you have a problem.
I have had many Bennet staffers come up to me and before knowing I was supporting Andrew, lean in and tell me lies about him. These lies included him supposedly being racist, claiming his supporters had spit on people and rude guesses about why he is single. Ridiculous doesn’t even begin to cover it.
Then of course, the bloggers on here.
Does Michael support that behavior? Who knows? He has people to make those accusations for him.
I applaud Romanoff for not hiding behind his campaign.
I have overheard a couple of conversations between some of these “kids”, as you call them. They are pretty nasty sometimes.
But what do you expect? One of the oldest traditions I can recall in the Democratic party (I know nothing of the Republican tradition), is the expectation that party officials and high ranking electeds will stay out of primary races.
The Bennet camp has completely ignored that principle, from the POTUS on down. As much as I admire and respect Governor Ritter, his remarks to the Mesa County Assembly were seriously inappropriate.
He started his remarks with a campaign speech for Bennet. Sorry, Governor, but that was beneath you.
That’s a new one to me.
Party officials, yes – and I don’t condone the number of current sitting Chairs and other party members endorsing EITHER side. I’m also against the DSCC getting involved.
But elected officials have been free to endorse for years, and have almost always done so. I would have appreciated President Obama staying out of the primary – he’s essentially the real head of the DNC – but we’ve never had a ban on other Senators, governors, State legislature members or others staying out of the race to my knowledge.
Is that he never said we had a ban on electeds staying out of it, just an expectation that those who are higher ranking, the President being one, would stay out of it.
There has never been a rule on electeds endorsing, but they are fully allowed to do so. But it seems inappropriate for someone from The Governor (though an endorsement for the man he appointed would kind of go without saying)to anyone elected Federally to make an endorsement in a primary. But inappropriate does not translate to not allowed. I personally see that what duke meant was someone elected to the Federal level, but I obviously cannot speak for him.
In a very clearly stated email by Pat Waak, it was written that Party officials were prohibited from becoming involved in the primary while using their party title. 42nd State Vice Chair John Smith cannot endorse anyone without fear that he will be removed from his position. But John Smith, citizen, can endorse whomever he wants to.
Just my take on it.
Oz and I agree.
Public officials within the Dem party can say whatever they want as long as they identify themselves as an ordinary citizen. They are NOT allowed to use their title, party resources, or office to endorse. Thus, an invitation to a Romanoff campaign event spread through an individual’s Dem party officer email account using VAN-obrained email addresses is illegal and inappropriate. If the same person wants to send one using personal email to their friends saying, “I am hosting a campaign event for my friend, blah, blah, blah…”, fine.
Disclaimers are always a good idea. “My opinions contained herein are my own and do not reflect any office I may hold in the Democratic party…”, for example.
Barack Obama is a private citizen, too. When he flew in, the Bennet campaign paid for everything. I understand it was a very expensive thing to do.
I think we need a consensus on the terms “Public Official” and “Party Official” actually mean.
To me, a “Public Official” is someone who has been elected to an office by the voting public. From City Council to the State Senate, to the Governors office. These people are fully within moral codes (In my opinion) to endorse as they choose.
A “Federal Public Official” is someone who has been elected, or yes, even appointed to an office by the voting public or the Governor or POTUS. A “Federal Public Official” must be serving in Washington, or working FOR Washington. (Congressman, Senator, Cabinet Member etc.)
A “Party Official” is someone who sits on the executive board or holds a title specifically with a political party. For example, a State House Rep, is not a “Party Official” they are a “Public Official” who happens to belong to a political party.
Local state “Public officials” have always endorsed candidates, knowing that a State Rep from Anywhere Colorado is probably not going to actually sway the decision of a Primary. It helps, but not to the same level that a Federal Public Official can. THAT is what is not appropriate in my eyes. Federal Officials, and more importantly, the President, should not be endorsing in a Primary.
The President is NOT a “Private Citizen.” Having the name Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama etc. takes away the whole Private Citizen thing.
The defintion of the word is as follows,
private citizen – a citizen who does not hold any official or public position
I highly doubt that the President flying in on Air Force One, with Secret Service, White House Staff, having the police shut down highways, flying into an air force base and being introduced as uh, The President of the United States made him a “Private Citizen” on that day.
As to someone using their Party Title to endorse a candidate, it is inappropriate, but since I do not know about the situation you are referring to, I can’t argue it. Because frankly, it may just be completely made up. But if it did happen, you are correct, it shouldn’t have.
But it is also inappropriate for the CDP to place their logo on the invite for the Bennet Fundraising travesty with The President.
Since a lot of party officials are endorsing the Romanoff side (or are at least pushing for him behind the scenes) and a lot of higher elected officials are endorsing Bennet, this seems a bit lopsided. To his credit, Romanoff himself is not listing party endorsements.
When I served as a county Chair, I stayed strictly out of primary races, title involved or not, except to pull the lever. It’s too thin a line to say that private citizen me is fine but party chair me is not; every active Dem in my area would know who I was, and the activism would be taken as favoritism, and that favoritism would lead to division and rancor within my local party and perhaps beyond.
As far as elected officials go, again, it is not and has not been unusual for Senators to endorse their fellows in other states for a primary, nor for out-of-state Representatives to support their own POV to get a fellow legislator elected to bolster their position.
It is, IMHO, relatively unusual for two Presidents (Obama and Clinton) to get involved so heavily in primaries. (Clinton is involved in keeping Blanche Lincoln’s campaign afloat in Arkansas.) I think the President should normally be above that fray, and as nominal head of their party it only adds to the sense of inappropriateness. The Governor doesn’t serve the same role and I have little issue with his endorsement.
The Governor in my eyes, is totally appropriate in endorsing, especially considering he made the appointment in the first place. Any “in state” (meaning, doesn’t work in Washington) Public Official should be free to endorse as the choose.
This is what I said,
What I should have said is,
But it seems inappropriate for someone who is in a highly elected office, Congressman, Senators and President etc. to make an endorsement in a Primary. With an exception being the Governor in this case as he is the one who actually made the appointment and his endorsement would go without saying anyway.
I should have double checked that before posting. Sorry!
Why on earth is it OK for state elected officials to endorse in a Senate primary, but not for federal? What possible rational basis is there to draw the line just above the level where Romanoff has the bulk of his endorsements? Is it OK for the state treasurer to endorse, or should she be sanctioned too? Members of Congress are not “higher” than the Senate (just ask them), either.
You’re right, though, the president is in no way a private citizen, ever.
on the issue of the Gov. But, otherwise, I still feel that higher ups and well established electeds, particularly the Prez, should butt out, for the reasons so well stated by Phoenix Rising, among others.
First off, I have to laugh at the Casa Bonita Reader. I think I may apply for a reporting job for them. It would be great to have articles on the newest cliff jumper of the week.
Secondly, using targeted media releases for comments on being single? I’d like to see the release, if its true, its right up there with the Repubs going after Kagan. I’m not going to repeat the despicable things that they’ve said because I just don’t think we have any place to ask that information. If true, its just going to piss me off.
I really didn’t think they’d fall for the Casa Bonita one but figured I already had a few more legit angles in there so thought I’d try it for a laugh.
I do want to be clear about the being single attacks. I’m not aware of any press release about that going out in writing. What is undeniable is that several of their surrogates at County Assemblies (including Brandon Schaffer who was booed and had to apologize) did use exactly that point. I also personally overheard a low-level staffer on the same day tell somebody “I don’t know what the reason is that he’s not married. I don’t think it should matter but the Republicans will make an issue of it.” Multiple other people have told me they overheard very similar things that same weekend. Could it be coincidence so many people started saying that the same weekend and just before Bennet went up with a tv ad showing his family? Sure, it could be coincidence. And Dick Cheney’s connection to Halliburton could just be a funny coincidence with the war and all of their contracts.
Except in JTB’s paranoid dreams.
What was being said the day of The Boulder County Assembly was this.
Brandon Shaffer said he didn’t know what he was reading and didn’t even know about the “family” comment until it came out of his mouth.
What he was saying that day was that he had been at home when Michaels campaign/office called him and asked if he could be Michaels surrogate to the assembly since Michael could not make it. Brandon asked what he was meant to speak about and they said they would email a speech to his phone.
Shaffer then said he was in such a rush that he didn’t even read the speech beforehand and read it spur of the moment. (I find this odd, who doesn’t read a speech before they give it?) When the comment came out and he was booed, I was told by many people who were there that Brandon was very upset. Apparently when he apologized, he said he didn’t even agree with the statement and then explained that he hadn’t even read the speech and didn’t know what it said. I felt bad for Brandon, especially after hearing how upset he had been I believe him when he says he didn’t know.
If it is true (and I don’t know why Shaffer would make it up) then the Bennet campaign absolutly did give out talking points about how a benefit of Bennet over Romanoff is his family.
I didn’t post points I got from Bennet, and you’re a lying sack of shit for saying I did.
This is a serious accusation you’ve made against me (that I’m a campaign shill), so I ask you to back up your accusation: Please point to what posts of mine have “striking” similarity of “word choice” to something from Bennet. I can save you a little time: you can’t, because you just made up this accusation against me, you lying asshole.
Frankly, I have no affiliation with any campaign; I’m only marginally a Bennet supporter, based in large part on my distaste and disappointment with Romanoff’s campaign and the asshole nature of the Romanoff supporters I read here (you, otoole, JO, et al.)
… more power to folks who DO rise above it, but when someone makes a false accusation about me, I respond.
… so because you apparently didn’t graduate from 8th grade, let me learn you some English. I know you think “there are two Bennet’s” is a really clever turn of phrase, but a plural doesn’t take an apostrophe; it’s “Bennets” rather than “Bennet’s.”
You’re welcome.
but this is all HORSE SHIT.
Ray Springfield speaks for Ray Springfield. I don’t know who the Hell the other Ray is. I speak for myself. I have no connection to the campaign other than I support the Senator (a little more everytime this kind of nonsense comes out on the blogs.)
The person who accuses Romanoff (she can identify herself if she wants) of being anti-Latino, speaks for herself. That is her area of expertise, not mine. I told Andrew no one I have ever talked to has called him a racist, when he called me two months ago. (Do we really want to get that story out on the blogs — how Andrew’s campaign called the police on a teenager who came to volunteer allegedly because he was “underage” and unaccompanied by his Mommy for one hour, but the real story was he happened to have a parent who was a Bennet supporter and therefore he was not welcome in the building? Hmmmm…? Do you really want a retelling of that? Pat Waak and plenty of others can help fill in the details, if you like.)
The “whisper campaign” never happened, except in the minds of paranoid Romanoff-supporters. Michael Bennet has cute kids. Big deal. As our VP would say, “Big freakin deal”. If Andrew has trouble with Michael having cute kids, let him rent some of his own for six months — I don’t care.
I have never heard Michael Bennet say one negative thing about Andrew Romanoff. Why? Because he is busy being one of 100 SENATORS WHO ARE $%^&* RUNNING THE COUNTRY with the POTUS in Washington! Get a clue, Mr. TrueBlue. This primary is a nuisance, but not the only thing on a US Senator’s mind when there are little problems like the biggest freakin’ oil spill in US history, global warming, wars raging in several countries, an economy only beginning to recover from the biggest recession since the great depression, etc. Not to hurt Andrew Romanoff’s feelings or anything, but I suspect he isn’t even in the top ten of things world leaders worry about.
As for Trevor — never met him, and yeah, “The Casa Bonita Press” is a good one. Probably tastes better than their food. Hahaha. You pulled a joke on a kid from out of state. Congratulations. You got some supporters’ email to ten friends. My — aren’t you clever?
I don’t know what kind of medical marijuana you guys are smoking over there, but you need to all lay off the wacky weed a bit. You are becoming paranoid and delusional.
Maybe you need to come down out of the mountains for awhile, Jeffco Truly Blue. You might have pine beetles in your brain.
If you seriously think that Michael isn’t concerned about Romanoff then you are a fool.
The best strategy for an incumbent, is to show complete dedication to the job and ignore your opponent, somehow supposedly showing how you care more about the job then the race. It’s bull. Trust me, Michael is a GREAT politician, he plays the game very well.
Of course you haven’t heard Michael say anything bad, he has people to do that for him so that he can continue looking like he doesn’t give a shit. Sadly for him, many people already know he doesn’t care about anything but bankers.
Anonyomous Romanoff backers that hate like you and conductrix reflect beautifully on your candidate.
It’s rather clear by his out and out accusing Michael Bennet of bribery that Romanoff supports such attacks.
The man is not a civil rights advocate,
His only thin claim is a 3 month internship at the SPLC at age 21.
Michael Bennet’s position on immigration doesn’t match mine. I believe that anyone without a felony should get a green card. NAFTA has driven manufacturing jobs south, and agricultural jobs North, as prices for Mexican produce have collapsed.
I also believe in ending prohibtion for the lost war on drugs. Inner city life would be safer. Prison populations would decrease. Id theft would decrease. More taxes would be raised. Discrimination would fall. A tenth of what is spent on incarceration and interdiction could be spent on rehab. The cartels would be broken. Those aren’t Michael Bennet’s postions. Those are mine.
Nevertheless, Michael Bennet tells the truth about his reasons for supporting his positions. His supporters don’t hide behind anonymity.
I respect Wade Norris for posting under his own name.
I’ve stayed away from saying anything about Romanoff’s private life. I even defended people from attacking Jane Norton for weariing dresses.I don’t like her politics, but dissing a woman for wearing a dress is wrong.
You know nothing of my background nor life experience,I’ve been called a lot worse than anything the Romanoff hateful supporters can come up with.
Give me your best shot. Go ahead and break out the slurs that you clearly want to use.
I’ve stayed away from saying anything about Romanoff’s private life. I even defended people from attacking Jane Norton for wearing dresses.I don’t like her politics, but dissing a woman for wearing a dress is wrong. My reward was that I was told that I use politics to just hit on women as my Fb profile says that I’m single (divorced twice) and interested in women for friendship, dating,and networking.
Andrew Romanoff told one of my friend’s brother that he was a civil rights lawyer and could advise Elvis about a defamation of character suit at the pipefitters hall last fall. ROmanoff hasn’t passed the bar,
For the record I referred Elvis and his wife to long time friend Walt Gerash, Elvis rather foolishly chose a les expensive attorney and I don’t think that he will win the case. Nevertheless, I found it appalling that a non licensed attorney would approach anyone that way,
Andrew says that he supports CIR now, and if he does that matches Sen Bennet. That’s progress. A pro politician passes legislation like in 2006. A cicl rights advocate would never have crafted such a document.
What is it with you, with this constant backpedaling about the Elvis conversation with Andrew about being a civil rights lawyer? You yourself said once that he said no such thing. I even complimented you on telling it straight. And here you are, AGAIN, with this bullshit story.
Can you for one second make up your mind?
As far as Andrew supporting CIR “now,” consider the Rocky article of January 2007, where he says:
Here’s the link: http://www.rockymountainnews.c…
And also from August 2006:
Link: http://www.rockymountainnews.c…
Oh, and btw, Bennet’s supporter named “peacemonger” is “hiding behind anonymity. Let him/her. It’s a free country.
So WTF are you carping about NOW?
Go join the tea party in Arizona. It’s where you belong.
And please Ray, correct me if I am wrong.
Romanoff supporters who blog under their real name, or at least their first/last name on either Pols/SquareState/Huffington. (That I have seen, that’s where the please correct me comes in)
Christopher Scott (On Huffington)
Melissa
Sharon Hanson
Peter Fisk
Wade Norris
Fong
And uh, RomanoffForColorado
Not to mention pieces written for Huffington by Andrew himself.
Bennet supporters who blog under their own name
You.
Nancy Cronk (on Huffington)
Not saying that either campaign necessarily wants some of these people blogging for them. It seems a weak argument to say that Michael “aw shucks” Bennet’s Supporters are so open with their bios is bull when it is obviously not true.
Should everyone blog under their real name? In a perfect world, yes. But we don’t live in that perfect world, people can lose their jobs over blogging. Lose friends etc.
I know facts don’t really matter to you, but thought I would try. Can’t help it.
You know Ray, I also appreciate how you responded to Conductrix with a valid argument and evidence to back up your claim, instead of just insulting them and calling them names. Way to class up the place.
I said I discouraged Elvis from filing a Supreme Court complaint. I did that at the suggestion of Steve Harvey. I ‘ll sign a deposition, as will Elvis Boling.I was present the day it happened.
I introduced Elvis to Ed Perlmutter, Jared Polis, and Michael Bennet that day. Elvis introduced himself to Romanoff. He came back to the table all excited stating that Andrew said he was a civil rights lawyer and could help him. I told him flat out that it was a lie. I had to show him the SOS site later showing that AR had no license to convince him.
Elvis then called Walt Gerash on my suggestion. Walter agreed to take the defamation case, but Elivis stupidly balked at the 5k retainer and hired different counsel.
It happened. The relevant posts are still here. You’ve convinced me with your disgusting hate to advise Elvis otherwise. I hope that he does at this point.
You can’t hide from the truth. You’ve gone to far in your fanaticism/
You should join the tea party.You’d fit right in.
I quote:
Remember that? I do. You said back in April that your friend was mistaken. Can we cut the crap now?
That relates to Vincent Rousseau’s claim that AR practiced law for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which Vincent apparently got from your staff.that did never happen happen.
That has nothing to do with the Adams County chili cook off where AR said he was a Civil rights attorney.
You are full of it and delusional.
oh well, some points are worth repeating,
Come out of the shadows and own your words.
And there it is, folks. Ray Springfield is cutting and pasting in talking points!
I am glad to see you guys are having fun too. 🙂
Romanoff is clearly standing by his anti-immigrant record since he hasn’t disavowed it. I don’t understand what this outrage is driven by.
you’ll leave him with nothing to say. Nevermind — he’ll just create more random lies.
I get that the pro-Romanoff folks, and even some Bennet folks, think he’s too strident — but I don’t recall him ever lying about anything (unlike JeffcoTrueBlue, who lied about several of us in this very post).
let’s start with the ridiculous story that Romanoff was going around offering legal advice. That’s been one of Ray’s favorites lately (he even uses it in this thread). You really think a candidate for the senate would be trying to pass as a pro bono lawyer? Come on — it’s absolutely ridiculous.
Another of my favorites was Ray saying there was no way that Romanoff could have taught English in Central America, because he’s spoken with him and he doesn’t think his Spanish is up to snuff.
Stay klassy Ray.
Andrew no doubt has said tha he never said he was a “licensed” attorney.
Conversation goes like this;
Elvis: I’m Elvis Boling good to meet you.
Andrew: Good to meet you.
Elvis: I have a problem with what I feel is a civil rights case involving my wife, who is Phillipina, and I feel that I have a defamtation of character suit.
Andrew; i’m a civl rights lawyer and fight for people like you and your wife.
Elvis: that’s great.
elvis then returns to the table and tells me that Andrew is a civil rights lawyer.
_________________________________________
A suppporter of his has said since tht Andrew never told anyone that he was a “LICENSED” civil rights attorney.
__________________________________________
In my humble opinion if a lawyer isn’t licensed then they are not a lawyer.
_______________________________________
Guess you weren’t around in 2006. Not sure how that is everybody else’s fault. In terms of progressive politics, Andrew Romanoff’s record on immigration is anything but. Calling people “liars” for raising uncomfortable history like that just makes you a nutless blowhard.
I always love this whole “Romanoff’s special session” crap. You might check the documents that govern the state government: the Gov, in this case Owens, called the special session. Romanoff was the one that had to stop them from passing AZ style laws. Guess what — he did it.
Almost as priceless as Polly Baca trying to blame HB 1023 on Joan Fitz-Gerald. When the criticism of Arizona is for creating a culture of fear, it’s a bit rich coming from a candidate who did exactly the same thing with his bill HB 1023.
Luckily for Team Romanoff, it’s pretty clear a little cognitive dissonance won’t get in the way of the thin skinned, sanctimonious, fact-challenged bitterness that has been the hallmark of that campaign.
Tell us how you really feel.
Legislating to get the best possible outcome is
a) a good thing- as you argue AR did in the 06 special session on immigration.
Or
b) a sign of weakness and failure to adhere to principals and ideology – as you argued about Bennet and single payer and the lack of a public option.
That Romanoff single handidly turned the state blue. Tell that to the Dem poiticians and volunteers that actually did the work and got the job done.
Andrew helped lead that fight. And he was successful at it, along with many, many others (many here on Pols included I’m sure).
I forget. What was Bennet doing during all that time? Oh, yeah! Lining his pockets working for Anschutz.
What a great model for Democratic leadership. Buy your way into all the top slots. It’s the time honored tradition of the political machine.
And, oh! How the machine howls when the lowly workers toiling in the streets for the party actually try to decide for themselves who they want to nominate.
“No! Andrew’s a bad man! Don’t do it! We already have our Senator! Now go back to your knitting and let the big boys and girls decide what’s best for you.”
Pathetic!
but many of us lowly workers that are very turned off by the entitlement issues AR has. This was not his seat to be given to him. Someone else was chosen so stop whining.
Twist it anyway you want, but many rank and file Dems do not like or appreciate the way AR has run such a nasty and pathetic campaign.
The rancor always seems to come much more strongly from the Bennet camp IMHO.
And Andrew has NEVER implied this was his by some pre-determined right. He is fighting for the seat and thinks as I do that it should be won, not annointed.
Spin it any way YOU like, but that is the truth of the matter.
The whole gist of AR’s campaign is that he should have been the one appointed. Had AR been appointed, how would he have reacted if someone had chosen to primary him? HMMM
Like it or not , but the nasty campaign being run by AR has shown a huge lack of maturity and has turned off many rank and file Dems.
The whole gist of AR’s campaign is that he should have been the one appointed. Had AR been appointed, how would he have reacted if someone had chosen to primary him? HMMM
Like it or not , but the nasty campaign being run by AR has shown a huge lack of maturity and has turned off many rank and file Dems.
but it doesn’t hold water. He has more rank and file supporters than Bennet by a mile and he inspires them in ways Bennet can’t begin to do with his supporters. I was there at Denver County Assembly and the difference in response between the two candidate’s speeches was palpable. Bennet was a dud, Romanoff was a rock star. Money can’t buy that kind of stuff. Sorry about that.
Andrew is a passionate and committed Democrat, not a Johnny-come-lately like the sitting Senator.
I’m not convinced- esp outside Denver- but let’s assume you’re right.
Why do you think Ritter didn’t appoint AR? Ritter is a long time Denver D – but he appointed a new guy. Why?
I’ve heard Ritter and others express opinions. Why do you think he did it?
and I wonder how closely it might be related to his not running for reelection?
I’ve heard him answer it- and his answer sounds right…truthful. And it doesn’t sound like it had much to do with his own election decision.
I should have guessed.
People will almost invariably stand behind their decisions, good or bad. It is not saying much to have Ritter say he thinks he made the correct choice.
Maybe you think he might jump out and say “What an idiot I was. What was I thinking? Michael Bennet? What has he done for Democrats all these years besides writing big fat checks? And why did I ever run for Governor in the first place knowing the extraordinary strain such a commitment would place on my personal life!”
People generally aren’t like that.
Romanoff’s crowd raised the roof because they lean a little more towards the sports fan mindset, where they cheer like mad when their team comes on the field, touches the ball in any way, drops a kleenex, etc etc etc. Not that there is anything wrong with that (although I am not at all a fan of Cheer Wars, like the kind that kept breaking out last year at State between the Clinton and Obama supporters.)
If the level of cheering is what wins the game, football teams wouldn’t even have to play. They could just come out and get cheered for, and the team with the loudest cheerers would win!
Apologies in advance if this makes no sense…I’m a little loopy because it’s been a crazy week that ended in our Lamar Days parade. I don’t cope with only 5 hours of sleep as well as I used to. But the parade was worth it. Lots of great crowd response! I think Dems are going to have another good year, despite all the cat-fighting within and the doom and gloom sayers without.
so patronizing and condescending all the time? It really is unseemly.
are you so paranoid?
(Those who don’t get the joke should Google ‘Nathan Thurm’. Hope that suggestion is not too patronizing and condescending.)
even paranoids can have real enemies you know!
Besides, I was diagnosed with reverse paranoia. I was always afraid I was following someone…
Actually, I realized just after the nick of time that I got Nathan’s classic line wrong. He was always saying, “I’M not DEFENSIVE! YOU’RE the one being defensive!”
One of Martin Short’s best characters.
As I often say, “I’m so old I remember when Saturday Night Live was funny.”
🙂
No, seriously. Mike Miles had more rank and file supporters than did Ken Salazar. They were much more inspired than Salazar’s supporters, too. I saw firsthand the difference at my small county Assembly, and also at the Jeffco Assembly, and then again at the State Assembly.
Money didn’t buy any of it, and in the end, money buried the Miles campaign at the primary level despite his success within the party activist network.
No spin there, just history. Don’t get caught thinking that the caucuses and assemblies are reflective of the primary voter mix – they’re two separate races, and winning the one is very different from winning the other.
is NOT Mike Miles. Andrew has a record of achievement in electoral campaigning which Mike never had, and he has a record of legislative achievement which neither Mike nor the sitting US Senator in this race has either.
I had to read that more than once to get it.
I thought you were just call the guy a nut. And a blowhard.
But you actually went another direction altogether.
Would probably have achieved greater ironic effect and with more literary flair. Oh well.
He has never been anti-immigrant in the first place. How does a person that goes to teach English in Costa Rica and Nicaragua do so with an anti-immigrant stance? I mean, if you were anti-immigrant, wouldn’t that be helping those little brown folks to swarm our country easier?
Some of your camp like to call him a racist. So how do you go to a foreign country to help people learn English if you’re a racist?
Which is it?
Good legislators work with what they have and accomplish the best possible out come (Romanoff’s special session on immigration)
or
You get the best legislation by overreaching and doing what can’t be done? (Romanoff’s fantasy of single payer and bashing Bennet for the lack of public option)
You are an ass.
You challenge the Bennet campaign, particularly Kincaid, and all of his supporters for voicing similar opinions. But you have 11 diaries here on CoPols- 10 bashing Bennet, and one deriding some R mystery quote you got from a friend of a friend. Or something. Where’s your diary about why Romanoff deserves my support? Where’s your diary about why Romanoff, despite a widely panned campaign to date, is better able to hold the seat? Post it – your groupies will surely rally behind you and make it somehow a slam fest on Bennet, as they oddly attempted when you were writing about the mystery quote about R’s and immigrants.
Does it really surprise you that campaigns would have one style and focus in public press releases and another for supporters? I’v always assumed that most successful campaigns have multiple levels of message and communication styles from the inner circle all the way to the public announcements. If it is a surprise to you – wow. Ok, well, get over it. If, as I suspect, it’s no surprise just a weird way to try and smear Bennet; seriously? That’s a reason to choose your guy?
I don’t know your last name- and wouldn’t bring it up if you hadn’t – but immigration policy cannot be about last names. It also better not be about how many generations you can trace in the US. Ask my cousins who live on Pine Ridge. Hell, ask Romanoff- I’m pretty sure he doesn’t count five generations.
But that’s exactly what got us into this immigration mess for 200+ years: The recent arrivals get pissed on by the prior wave of recent arrivals. Over and over. Immigration credentials are neither established nor trashed by how long a family has been here nor by your last name. You and I both know people who don’t care- but should. And people who have no immediate personal reason to care and do.
I’m pretty sure neither Kincaid nor the Bennet campaign is waiting for your permission to make an argument about Romanoff’s immigration record.
Why don’t you make the argument ? Write the diary about why Romanoff is your preferred candidate. Include whatever
spininformation you want about the special session and his legislative record on immigration, healthcare, financial regulation, bankruptcy reform, water storage, TABOR, whatever.If you want, when you do you could even address the questions about why a candidate’s marital and family status affects his electability. I don’t think many D voters care, and I sure as hell don’t believe the team Bennet cares at all. Address the question from the point of view of why so called “values voters” make such a big deal out of trivia like this. For the record – I assume Andrew is single because he chooses to be or just hasn’t met the right person yet. Either way – I don’t care. But I think it’s naive to think there are no Colorado voters who do care.
I know, I know – I’m not a real Coloradan because I pronounce place names as the words they are and not local tradition and and I’m not a real D because ….well, because someone who prefers a different candidate has said so. But I’m not talking about me. I’m talking about the millions of registered voters who will vote in Oct. And the experienced Colorado politicos who know that it can matter.
While you are doing any of that (or doing whatever it is you do) remember that this 2010. And whether you want to see it or not, we’re in a dog fight to keep the seat D. Primary ballots are in mailboxes in 8 weeks. General ballots 12 weeks later. I’ve previously said I’ll support whomever wins the D nomination, as I’ve previously posted about how and why I believe Bennet is the best D candidate to do so.
Mail-in ballots can go out October 12. Early voting begins October 18.
http://www.sos.state.co.us/pub…
Hit a nerve with tis one!!!
Oh wait- you were being rhetorical.
Well- 40 or so comments approx 1/2 of the “I know you are but what am I” theme. Doesn’t feel like a struck nerve.
what about the heat?
I’m touched by your attention MADCO
These threads are so entertaining. Keep up the drama, dear friends…see you at the state assembly.
I’ll be out of town on business. Any Romanoff alternates out there want my slot? I’ve been reading, so don’t try to sandbag me Bennet supporters…
If you are from Denver County I’ll be happy to fill your slot.
I really hate seeing our primary digress into this name-calling back-stabbing death match.
I feel both Romanoff and Bennet are decent people and either one will represent Colorado well in the US Senate.
I also believe a primary was necessary. As Democrats, we have to be sure our best and strongest moves forward to take on our true opponents, the GOP, in Nov. A primary is really the only practical means of determining that.
But that does not mean we have to test our candidates with baseless accusations and “behind the back” inuendos. That is the hallmark of the Republicans.
So Democrats: please stop acting like the GOP and show respect for your opponent. They have both deserved it.
(since you are both Romanoff supporters)
I wasn’t sure if I would make the assembly so I gave them my name so they would know. I don’t really understand all of the state’s seating rules, but I’m sure the campaign can explain how seating alternates and all works and if directly transferring is an option.
But to rehash, I believe seating of alternates at the Dem State Assembly is done on a first come, first accepted basis, limited by candidate and county. I’m not sure if there’s a way to have a specific alternate seated, or if there’s a way for a delegate to “back out” without waiting for the normal seating of alternates…
A few counties use a process of seating specific alternates for specific delegates, but most (Denver included) use the first there, first seated method.
Alternates are seated within county so each county establishes its seating process within certain guidlines: alternates must be seated for like-preference delegates until such times either all delegate spots for a certain candidate are filled or all present alternates are seated for that candidate. Only then can is it possible to be seated for the opposite candidate.
opposite candidate alternates weren’t seated, that the seats were just lost. Or is that a per-county thing, too, or am I misremembering?
if they can’t find any other alternates from within the county. That’s one way Obama did so well at caucuses through assemblies, he turned out his alternates and they took Clinton seats.
Obama only did well because of that? My caucus went 90% for Obama, no need to steal Clinton’s seats, what few there were.
Calm the hell down, jp. Obama did even better in caucus states because he minded the alternates. I’m not just talking about your overwhelmingly Obama precinct. Either Senate candidate could benefit from turning out delegates, it’s not a Bennet thing or a Romanoff thing.
That reaction was a little over the top RG. And Obama won overwhelmingly statewide, as will Romanoff.
Interesting parallels there… Now if only we could raise more money. How DID Obama do it?
take it easy MADCO. No reason to get all nasty like that…
OK, so there’s the money thing and the strategic vision thing.
Funny though how being populist is somewhat compelling on its own. Andrew is striking a chord with many Democrats (and Republicans and independents I believe). There really is an enormous tide of disaffection sweeping both parties this year and being an incumbent is simply not that compelling on its face either.
I know all the Bennetistas here think Michael is doing a superb job in DC, but I think it is a shallow analysis of his performance. He says the right things (usually after figuring the political winds…), writes the nice letters, votes the “correct” way on a lot of things (but misses key votes or forgets his previous commitments…). But he isn’t exactly authoring legislation yet (who would so soon?). And he is not really leading so much as following.
I think many of us who supported Obama are willing to follow him through Hell if it means getting further away from the GWB legacy. I just don’t think so on this one. I think we can make reasoned cases for and against both men. I simply hold the view that Andrew is the better legislator and would make a far superior Senator.
Go for it. That would be great.
Do it as it’s own diary. I look forward to it.
I’ll let them know at campaign HQ that I can’t make it and you want to be seated in my place. Thanks!
Denver did not allow direct replacement. It is on a first come, first serve basis. I am staying in the hotel across from the assembly (I’m working there for the party Friday night) so I will be able to line bright and early so I should get seated.
I’ll just let the office know I can’t make it so they can call others to make sure all possible R delegates will get seated. Thanks again.
This is the same 8 people every single day, day after day, after day, saying the same bullshit attacks on each other. Don’t any of you have jobs, or something better do do? Conductrix, is this what you do full time —hate on Bennet supporters?
This is the first time I’ve actually delved into a Romanoff/Bennet diary in a while. For the most part I completely avoid them because it’s nothing more than immature “my guy is the best and yours sucks” bickering on both sides. When I do get involved, it’s usually because the debate migrated into the Open Thread or some other tangentially related diary.
I think a few years ago we essentially banished pointless debates like this into their own threads so that people could ignore them if they didn’t want to see them. I’m happy that mostly occurs on its own now; I’m tired of seeing the spillover – I can’t imagine how disillusioned I’d be with the whole process if I read every diary and comment.
I don’t see that much. Sure there are some energetic posters on both sides who do not separate the process or the campaign from the candidate. But most of us have been more focused on issues (where they differ very little), process, and the ineffective campaign moves of either one or the other.
Just above I posted a critique of this very diary and acknowledged I would support AR if he gets the nomination, did not slam AR and only directly abused the author once and then in a minor and confrontational way.
we do agree about something it seems.