May 19, 2010 02:46 PM UTC
Leadership, Romanoff v. Bennet
48 Comments- by: oldbenkenobi
In his Governor’s race stump speech, Mayor Hickenlooper says he does not like negative campaigning. He looks at campaigns as a job interview and thinks it’s his job to sell himself, not say bad things about the other guy. Great approach for a candidate. But in this metaphor, we the voters are the would-be employers. It is the employer’s job to look at each prospective employee’s strengths and weaknesses and then pick the best person for the job. So it is entirely appropriate for us as voters to look at each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, especially when one of those candidates is a guy who has never been vetted by any voters in any election. The idea that we cannot criticize a fellow Democrat is a relic of the days of blind partisanship that we are trying to put behind us. The change we are trying to create in Washington — that President Obama ran on — is that we start to judge people objectively, not subjectively or emotionally based on their party.
Yes, I am offended that Ritter passed over several fine candidates like Hickenlooper, Romanoff, Kennedy and Perlmutter. It’s amazing how deep a bench Democrats have in Colorado, and how shallow a bench Republicans have. But it’s equally amazing that Ritter passed over our A-listers to pick Michael Bennet. I think he still owes us some answers. What’s done is done, but we voters still have a choice and that choice is between Andrew Romanoff and Michael Bennet.
So let’s take a look at leadership, Romanoff v. Bennet.
We have witnessed and been the beneficiaries of Romanoff’s leadership for years. Every politician says they are going to take on the tough issues. We know that Andrew Romanoff is one of the few who do. He took on TABOR and he took it on when others were saying, “It’s not the right time.” When is it not the right time to take on the biggest issue facing Colorado? He also traveled the state and mounted a campaign to fix Colorado schools. And he led the effort to help Democrats regain the driver’s seat in Colorado politics, something that was mentioned over and over at this year’s JJ Dinner by nearly every speaker including Secretary Salazar, though Romanoff’s name was conspicuously absent. Romanoff has a strong record of FIGHTING for the people of Colorado and for Democrats.
Now let’s look at Michael Bennet’s leadership, specifically on the issue which got him so much press: the public option. Health care may be the biggest issue facing the United States. And the public option is arguably the most important element of health care reform.
Much has been made of the fact that Bennet has long-supported the public option. The Bennet campaign put up a post here on Colorado Pols showing his past support of the public option. Their video montage shows him supporting the public option from 7/11/09 to 8/28/09. He took office on 1/21/09. So where is the video for January through June 2009? I don’t know. Did he hear footsteps? Apparently the first public reporting of Romanoff’s intent to run was on 8/29/09. It was in the rumor mill before that, no doubt.
But the argument over how long he has supported the public option obscures the real question. And that is, who will be more than a mere supporter of the public option, who will FIGHT for the public option?
The Bennet campaign left an important part out of their tribute video. From the 8/29/09 Denver Post article on the 8/28/09 Pueblo Town Hall meeting:
Bennet said that he favored a so-called public option, which would provide an alternative insurance source for those who can’t get private insurance. “But as I stand here today, I think it’s very unlikely that the public option part of this will pass.”
He conceded the fight before the battle had begun. What kind of leadership is that? Imagine Drew Brees in the locker room before the Super Bowl: “Guys, I really want to win this game but to be honest with you, I think we’re going to lose. However, I promise to write a letter to the NFL a few months after the game.” Bennet should have said, “It’s going to be a tough fight but I’m going to the wall for the public option.” And he should have gone to the wall but he did not.
On 10/26/09, Senator Harry Reid said the Senate bill would include a public option. From the 10/27/09 Denver Post:
Colorado Democratic Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet applauded Reid for including the public option and a state opt-out plan in the bill, emphasizing that they support a plan based on negotiated physician and hospital reimbursement rates rather than Medicare rates.
This is the moment when we needed Bennet to fight for the public option like a starving, cornered wolverine. Yet it would be four months before he sent his much-praised letter to Majority Leader Reid, the letter that asks Senator Reid to include the public option in the reconciliation bill. Which Reid had already included in his bill four months earlier!
Then Bennet made a big splash when he vowed he would vote for the health care bill even if it meant losing his seat. From the 11/23/09 Denver Post:
The Colorado senator made the remark at the end of the opening segment of CNN’s Sunday morning program “State of the Union,” appearing to surprise host John King, who quipped, “All right. That tape will be held.”
Bennet faces a tough election next year in a state that polls suggest is increasingly unhappy with the Democrats’ expansive agenda.
King asked him, “If you get to the final point and you are a critical vote for health care reform, and every piece of evidence tells you, if you support that bill, you will lose your job, would you cast the vote and lose your job?”
Bennet replied simply, “Yes.”
The beauty of this bravado is that it is almost meaningless. At the time, it seemed impossible the hypothetical would ever come to pass. It is “taking a stand” with zero political cost. It got him great press but it seemed unlikely he would ever have to pay the piper.
Then Scott Brown won in the Massachusetts Senate race on 1/19/10.
And Bennet did not wait long before wilting on health care reform. The Denver Post Spot Blog headline on 1/20/10 was, “Bennet joins chorus urging Dems to slow down on health care.” To be fair, they don’t have a quote that has him saying exactly that, though it seems to be his intent. The article says:
“Last night the voters of Massachusetts’s didn’t just elect a Senator, they sent a message to Washington,” Bennet said in a statement Wednesday. “I will continue to fight against the backroom deals and special interest handouts and hope the rest of Washington will join me.”
I like that Bennet threw in his standard cliches about “backroom deals” and “special interest handouts.” This is the guy who got appointed to his seat and the Democratic power structure from the President on down wanted us Democrats to give him a pass-through in the primary. But he wants us to be against backroom deals and handouts.
And by the way, the incongruity between Bennet’s vow and the Brown election is not a secret. The Republicans are well aware of it so I’m sure we’ll be hearing about it again. See David Harsanyi’s opinion piece on the Denver Post’s The Spot, also on 1/20/10.
A few days later, according to the 2/3/10 Denver Post, Bennet had some words on health care reform that were not exactly stirring:
“I think it’s impossible to pick it right now,” said Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., when quizzed on which of the ways forward now being discussed he preferred.”
Hardly a profile in courage. Jared Polis was not so stymied. On the same day Bennet’s “impossible” was reported, Polis sent a letter to Reid signed by 120 Representatives urging Reid to include the public option in reconciliation. It took Bennet two weeks to mimic the Polis strategy. On 2/16/10, Bennet sent his now-famous letter to Senator Reid.
About this time — I could not verify exactly when — GOP TV ads appeared saying Bennet was a supporter of the public option. Perhaps those ads helped Bennet decide his public option stand was going to hurt him in the general so he may as well get the most out of it in the primary. The polling mentioned in the above Polis article no doubt helped him along too.
Not surprisingly, the President’s final health care reconciliation plans did not include the public option. How could it be otherwise? Reconciliation alone was a difficult sell. To add the public option was a pipe dream. I think Bennet knew it would not be included in the reconciliation bill and the famous letter was nothing more than a Cover Your Ass effort and maybe that is why Udall, a supporter of the public option, did not sign on.
Bennet’s attempt with the letter much too little, much too late. Bennet supporters continue to build him into somebody he is not because he has a ton of money. He’s a genius! He’s doing a fantastic job! But think about most Bennet supporters’ reaction to his first debate with Romanoff. Of Bennet, they said excitedly, “He wasn’t as bad as we thought he would be!”
We can do better. And we don’t have to look too far. Colorado already has a great leader who is more than ready for prime time, he is a veteran of prime time. We have known him for years and he has led Colorado Democrats for years. He is Andrew Romanoff. Let’s elect a Senator who does more than write letters, someone who FIGHTS for the causes he believes in.
Thats a lot of words.
Two questions:
I didn’t realize until the recent public debate on HCR that it’s possible for states to create their own single payer system. Hawaii and Connecticut, for example. If AR is such a single payer advocate, why didn’t he take it on when he was Speaker?
(Speaking of Bennet and the public option.)
I’d say there’s a big difference between a savvy political assessment and conceding a fight, but YMMV.
When campanoff talks about the 2006 special session on immigration they defend it by pointing out that the Colorado R’s were going to put a bunch of stuff on the ballot where it would be harder to undo. And that when AR announced 1023 as the toughest illegal immigration law in the country (I’m paraphrasing closely) that it was ok because it was making the best of a potentially worse political situation.
So which is it – making the most of the political situation is leadership and a good thing, or it’s conceding the fight?
Since Andrew Romanoff was taking so much money from insurance corporations at the time, the answer could be very important.
Bennet was creating megacorporations at the time, wasn’t he? Maybe going back in time doesn’t work too well for your candidate.
Did Bennet oppose Iraq after the fact or at the time?
Bennet was finishing up as Hickenlooper’s chief of staff and then was superintendent at DPS when Romanoff was speaker. Maybe going back in time works better if you keep your timelines straight.
Bennet opposed the Iraq War before it happened. Romanoff supported it after the invasion. Go figure.
My point is that there is no way a guy who created megacorporations like the Regal Theater Group, and was proud of it, can possibly be considered a progressive hero. This country does not need more megacorporations. We Democrats can all agree on that, can’t we?
Under 2 years ago, Romanoff was “DLC New Dem of the Week” and he proposed the following unimpressive, Ben Nelson-like centrist health care proposals:
“… to work to cut the cost of health care, reduce the ranks of the uninsured, put a premium on preventative care, and help provide healthy surroundings. Specifically, he proposed ensuring that all children have health coverage. In addition, Romanoff wants to offer standardized ID cards and claim forms in order to streamline the process to verify eligible and credible providers and simplify procedures for authorization and appeal.”
So let’s be clear: Andrew Romanoff consciously and consistently pitched himself as a “new Democrat” in league with DLC centrists.
And oldben: it’s odd that you’d write such a long post but admit “I don’t know” when asked about the Google-able history of Romanoff’s positions, which don’t support your post at all.
Romanoff backed it with resolutions in the state house.
… because, like Colbert, oldben knows what his gut tells him — Romanoff is a single-payer hero! — even if the facts say otherwise (that Romanoff was a DLC hero pushing a very moderate, stunded version of health reform).
I’m increasingly sensing a lot of Colbert “truthiness” in the Romanoff forces. The pisser is that I initially leaned Romanoff, but the sheer bullshit from R and his supporters has turned me off horribly.
I haven’t lied about a thing.
I’ve found the more I tell the truth (and I do) the more some people hate me and call me a liar.
So I’ve stopped responding to most of the crap.
Is it documented? Did anyone care what his opinion was back then?
…but there was a lot to say.
You want to give credit to Bennet for a savvy political assessment of the public option in August 2009. What was February 2010 then? A not so savvy assessment? Or a political ploy?
I went to a Catholic school for the early grades. And we had a nun that I remember because she taught us that it was rude to answer a question with a question and her methods were memorable.
First, June comes before August. And June was when Bennet indicated he supported the public option and that he was skeptical it had enough support to pass.
I refuse to speak for the Senator- but I think in Feb he thought it was worth trying, that perhaps there was more support than he previously thought. I think it was a sincere effort to jump start the discussion.
So- I answered you.
How about you answer me?
… and crickets seem to be oldben’s response to being called on most of his bullshit
Sorry, I am not camped out on the ColoPols server. But the crickets are appropriate as that’s all we heard from Bennet on the public option for 5+ months while the health care bill fight was raging.
MADCO, don’t believe everything nuns tell you. I answered part of your question but you went off on an immigration tangent (apparently since that is this week’s anti-Romanoff talking point).
I did not go off on an immigratin “tangent”.
Andrew Romanoff: Lauded George W. Bush after invading Iraq.
Michael Bennet: Said invading Iraq was a mistake and the wrong thing to do.
Because it raised taxes on the rich.
If you want to make Jared Polis the bellwether for health care reform leadership, please go fuck yourself.
I suggest you watch more Bugs. I am not making Jared Polis the bellwether for anything. But if you read more carefully you would know it was YOUR candidate Michael Bennet who made Jared Polis the bellwether by adopting the Polis strategy.
to agree to vote against the bill until his own personal taxes were lowered.
Wait, what do YOU think the Polis strategy was?
If you’re referring to the letter the Congressman wrote telling the other legislative body to do something, I don’t think that was much of a strategy. It was welcome, sure, but Bennet took more of a risk by writing a letter to his own leader and trying to get cosponsors.
Is it at all possible that he wanted to take time to gain a thorough understanding of the issue before coming to a conclusion?
The Public Option, unfortunately, was never a realistic goal. Are you suggesting we shouldn’t support Michael Bennet because he couldn’t single-handedly get us a Public Option? That’s just ridiculous.
1. Conceding the fight before it began.
2. Not fighting.
3. Acting lost after the Brown election, saying it was “impossible” to know what to do.
4. And finally, coming in way too late with a meaningless letter everyone knew wouldn’t do jack shit.
Bennet is by all accounts a very nice guy. But he is not a leader.
Because if so, you can’t count to 60.
from Ezra Klein, who also cites a number of experts on why reconciliation wouldn’t work to create a public option (in short, it requires too many rules and regulations that are non-budgetary and therefore wouldn’t have gotten through the reconciliation process):
Raymond1, I agree there was no chance of the public option being in the reconciliation bill. That is why Bennet’s public option letter was such a mockery.
As to whether there could have been a public option in the health care bill, we will never know because the President and the Senate Democrats did not fight for it!
Ok, lemme explain it more slowly: once it became clear that there was no way Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman were going to vote for the public option, the public option simply lacked 60 votes, no matter how much “fight” Barack Obama, Harry Reid, or a theoretical Senator Andrew Romanoff chose to fight.
Seriously, do you not get this? Why must you cling to a fantasy that if only Dems had more “fight,” surely we’d all have the more progressive public-option-included bill we wanted? Or do you actually think Andrew Romanoff is possessed of such Special Powers that he could’ve “fought” Nelson and Lieberman (and Lincoln, etc.) into voting for the public option?
Do you concede Bennet’s public option letter was a meaningless political ploy? What else could it be, if in your opinion there was no possible way the public option could pass?
as this state’s biggest Star Wars fan, but I think Ben Kenobi might be wrong. (Ow!)
I think raymond1 is wrong as well.
The public option could have passed via reconciliation. The rest of it (as Ezra Klein notes) wouldn’t have passed via reconciliation, but that’s OK, since it passed under standard cloture rules anyway.
Bennet did the right thing, in the midst of an atmosphere of extreme cowardice among Democrats. It was too late, in the grand scheme of things, but I can’t imagine any useful thing I could have suggested to Bennet to do differently.
… but pressing for 50+ Senators to sign on to the public option, and conceding ultimately that it failed, is a lot less bullshitty than insisting, as you and Andrew “fight” Romanoff do, that the public option could’ve happened if only Dems knew how to “fight” more.
First off, I have said out loud and in public, whenever I get the chance, that Romanoff is a good man and has accomplished a lot of good things that have helped Colorado. The reason I’m going to the state convention Saturday as a Bennet delegate is because I think Bennet is also good in these ways, plus he can win the primary because he isn’t sticking a daisy in the rifle barrel of the GOP fund-raising weaponry, which, 10 out of 10 for good intentions, but minus about 10,000,000 out of 10 for good sense. (H/t to Doug Adams for that numerical concept.)
Here’s something I don’t recall having seen anyone post. People often lambast Bennet for not being elected, and for assorted slow starts, stumbles, and changes in his first year. For crying out loud, guys — it was his first year in office EVER! Did you ever hear of a learning curve? Didn’t you ever start a brand new job and, no matter how much training, education and life experience you had, have to figure out the actual reality of doing it as you went along?
Bennet’s first year looks even better when you remember he was brand spanking new to politics and the Senate. Same for his campaign. Quibble about his perceived ideas, beliefs, stances and actions — that’s fine. But could we back off on the picking up any old stick to beat the man with?
Romanoff had his learning curve in the state legislature. He is ready to go. And you have to wonder why Bennet needs a learning curve. He may not be a “career politician” but he is a “career politico.” He worked for the Ohio governor, the Clinton Administration, Hickenlooper, and was Superintendent of DPS. He is not a political neophyte.
didn’t include running an intelligent campaign or perhaps he has never had to run a competitive campaign.
For being ready to go, serving in the state legislature and having so many contacts state wide, why doesn’t he poll better?
Could it be many Dems do know AR and are turned off by his campaign?
Even if Romanoff does win both the primary and the general, he will still have some learning and adjusting to do in DC. Colorado’s State House and the US Senate might both be apples, but they are very different varieties, and one size of skillz do not fit all.
My point was more that there is some inherent hypocrisy in using both the argument that Bennet had no legislative experience (so he’s no good) AND that his first year doing the job was not a gleaming unicorn of magic perfection (so he’s no good). I mean, choose one, eh?
“And he led the effort to help Democrats regain the driver’s seat in Colorado politics, something that was mentioned over and over at this year’s JJ Dinner by nearly every speaker including Secretary Salazar, though Romanoff’s name was conspicuously absent.”
Yeah, I pointed that out after reading the Blueprint.
As a matter of fact, the only times I have ever heard the claim that he led the cause was by himself and his supporters.
Must be a big conspiracy or sumthin.
and AR had a PAC, accepted PAC money, directed PAC money and taught and encouraged others how to get PAC money. He was certainly part of Colorado’s blue wave, but his story now and his history from then are at odds.
But he was one of the key leaders and he deserves credit for that.
He certainly has, he led off the second debate with claiming it and he led off his JeffCo assembly speech claiming it.
I just keep pointing out that he is claiming to have led the effort and neither the book I read about it nor the others at the JJ dinner seem to give him the credit. So they are all wrong, or, he is?
But that’s just one of his stands that seems so insincere to me, there is that whole PAC money thing as well. And immigration, and health care, and…..
That is the truth.
Well, maybe stuff by otoole or GOPwarrior would give oldben a run for his money… but what we have here is an 8 million word post that (a) is admittedly ignorant of Romanoff’s history of supporting lamely conservative health reform that was far less liberal than what Congress just passed (oldben in the comments admits not even knowing what Romanoff had supported before this race), and (b) is premised on a moronic premise that Bennet should’ve “fought harder” for something (the public option) that simply didn’t have the votes — a simple “I can count” fact that no amount of stupid demagoguing by oldben, or Romanoff, can change.
But hey, feel free to try to persuade people by whining enptily, “he should have gone to the wall” or “who will FIGHT for the public option?” etc blah blah. Who care about the facts of your newfound liberal messiah’s conservative history, or the fact of lacking 60 votes to pass the public option — you can say FIGHT in ALL CAPS!
…and FIGHTING for a cause, you don’t know much about politics.
Aren’t all you Bennet GroupThinkers the same people who have for months been saying there are essentially no policy differences between Romanoff and Bennet? Now you are trying to thread needles on immigration and other issues — when you are not ginning up firestorms about website banners.
The biggest difference between the two candidates is that Romanoff is a proven leader and Bennet has shown he is not a leader, as evidenced by his lame leadership on the public option.
No one’s threading needles on immigration. Romanoff led the charge to pass the toughest immigration laws in the country, no doubt about it. That’s leadership for you.
But when Romanoff gets legislation that is not as good as we would want, he was making the most of a bad situation.
When Bennet votes on legislation that is less than what we want, he’s a corpratey follower who isn’t fit to hold office.
See, Romanoff has legislative experience because he was the CO House speaker where he led the fight for single payer, got Bill Ritter elected, returned all his PAC donations, raised the CO minimum wage to the CO Living Wage and improved working conditions for Colorado workers. Ahh- good times.
A primary is always a good thing.
A primary is always a good thing.
A primary is always a good thing.
A primary is always a good thing.
A primary is always a good thing.
Being all logical and stuff is really boring.
Because if you just FIGHT, you’ll always win — whether it’s the public option, single payer, etc. Right, oldben?
Meg Ryan in You’ve Got Mail after being advised to go to the mattresses dancing around shadow boxing. Cause she was ready to “FIGHT”
Cute and feisty, but not a lot else there.
You draw a moron analogy to football, saying Bennet circulating a letter for signatures is like a football player circulating a letter rather than playing the game — but dude, the way laws pass is that a Senator supporting legislation collects other Senators’ sigs until s/he has enough supporters. They don’t just “fight” in some way you don’t actually define. Though I suppose it sounds more impressive when you say FIGHT and FIGHTING in all CAPS, as you repeatedly do, to show that you REALLY mean it!
But after a like 80,000-word post and multiple comments, you still haven’t explained any fucking way that a Senator Romanoff could’ve conjured the votes to pass the public option. You’re a bullshitting demagogue, insisting Romanoff as Senator could’ve accomplished a liberal goal that just didn’t have the votes, because he is possessed of liberal “FIGHT” that Tom Harkin and Bernie Sanders presumably lack. Riiiight.
And please explain away Romanoff’s DLC-era press for milquetoast conservative “reform” not long ago…