Andrew Romanoff, You’ve Gone Too Far

Former state Sen. John Beno (D), a Catholic priest later accused of sexual abuse.

The Colorado Sun’s Jesse Paul and Jennifer Brown reported this week on the expanding probe into sexual abuse committed by Roman Catholic priests in Colorado over the course of many decades. Attorney General Phil Weiser released a report in October finding that at least 166 children were abused by at least 19 ordained Catholic priests, and announced a process for theoretically unlimited reparations to be paid by the Church to victims:

Former Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman says she would have preferred a criminal investigation of child sex abuse in the state’s three Catholic dioceses and that she talked to former Gov. John Hickenlooper about the prospect of launching one…

Coffman says she spoke with then-Gov. Hickenlooper about the possibility of the governor authorizing an investigation that would have given her office subpoena power through the statewide grand jury. However, she never formally requested that Hickenlooper sign off on launching an investigation…

“As the AG herself has said, she did not make that recommendation to the governor,” Melissa Miller, a Hickenlooper spokeswoman, said in the statement.

Hickenlooper, however, endorsed efforts to continue digging into the church. “It’s clear that further investigation is needed so we can hold accountable both perpetrators and those who covered for them,” Miller said.

Andrew Romanoff.

The tragedy of widespread abuse of children by priests has rocked the Catholic Church globally, and almost everywhere the Church has a presence it has been necessary to reckon with this ugly history–and its longtime concealment from the public and authorities by the Church acting out of self-preservation first, and concern of victims secondarily at best. These allegations have been in the public consciousness for many years, and the grinding pace of justice for the victims is unfortunate but certainly not unique to Colorado’s cases.

Ordinarily this is not a subject we would have occasion to write about in this space, other than perhaps to approvingly note AG Weiser’s role in moving the process toward disclosure and reparations to victims. But we were shocked today to see this issue being taken up by a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, Andrew Romanoff, to attack the frontrunner in that race former Gov. John Hickenlooper:


To politically weaponize the issue of abuse by Catholic priests of children over the course of decades in a Democratic primary, or for that matter any election, is objectionable in the extreme and shouldn’t be tolerated by any decent person regardless of who they support in the Democratic U.S. Senate primary. Most importantly Romanoff’s attack on Hickenlooper is factually off base–since AG Phil Weiser himself says a grand jury isn’t the likely way forward. And unless there is some evidence of deliberate action on Hickenlooper’s part to forestall justice for the victims of clergy sex abuse in Colorado, it’s simply outrageous to attack him for an issue that has been going on for far longer than Hickenlooper has not only been governor, but on this Earth.

We’re not sure who is giving Romanoff the advice to throw the wild haymakers in this race we’ve seen mostly since Hickenlooper’s entry made his odds of winning the nomination unlikely. Romanoff’s smack talk to Chuck Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is amateurish, but what Romanoff is doing here would be objectively wrong no matter who was doing it. This attack is very similar in terms of factual deficiency and desperation to the baseless claims by 2014 gubernatorial loser Bob Beauprez that Hickenlooper somehow was responsible for the tragic murder of Department of Corrections chief Tom Clements.

We don’t care who you are or how fervently you believe it’s “your turn.”

If this is how you campaign, you deserve to lose.

37 Shares

66 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. The realistThe realist says:

    ColoradoPols, "you've gone too far." You're just off base. But I (still) get it – you're doing everything you can to push Hickenlooper's candidacy which these days seems to amount to no more than "trying to destroy Romanoff" instead of "talking about Hickenlooper's superior qualities." 

    I have the Romanoff email, I've read the Colorado Sun article – your characterization is just not correct. First of all, the decades-long massive abuse of children by priests has been horrifically handled not only by the Church but in many respects by elected officials and law enforcement. Why has it been okay for so many to be abused by these trusted religious leaders? Every single one of these (mostly) men should have been prosecuted in a timely way. Most have been able to live a full life while their victims have had to live with their victimization (and I know from my own career that these are lifelong negative impacts). The individual church leaders have gotten away with disgusting crimes against children for decades, and the Catholic Church as a whole has mostly gotten away with its decades-long cover-up. I have zero – ZERO – sympathy for what the Church has done to children.

    Now to the email – Romanoff asks folks to sign a petition to urge "the General Assembly to 

    1. Authorize the attorney general to initiate criminal investigations without waiting on the governor; and
    2. Lift the statute of limitations for filing lawsuits in child sex abuse cases."

    Those seem to be admirable and necessary goals. 

    I found one sentence in the Romanoff email that references the former governor: "Why didn’t the state launch a criminal probe when these allegations surfaced last year? The answer, at least in part: because Gov. Polis’s predecessor failed to do so." That appears to be a factual statement based on what the Colorado Sun article says.

    Please, if you want to promote Hickenlooper's candidacy above all others, tell us why he would be the best candidate to run against Gardner. Don't try to destroy the other candidates – any of them.

     

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      Thank you realist, for responding to this absurd and specious hit piece in such a clear and direct manner. You provide a good example for the hot heads among us…ahem,.

      All I saw in Romanoffs' tweet was a relevant question. Why indeed?

      As for Alvas' breathless outrage, I have no problem with Frackenloopers' shills embarrassing themselves. You would think they would know better

      Heck…they will probably start banning me and Michael and the other Romanoff supporters on here before long.

      • MichaelBowmanMichaelBowman says:

        Andrew is well within bounds asking the question. 

        Pols employed a certain word earlier this week that applies here (just not to my candidate). 

        It rhymes with an all-black, passerine bird. 

        I say this as a member of the Denver Diocese.

        Beauprez’s attack on Hick was vile; Tom was a good man and his death had a profound effect on JH, as it did many others. Apples v. oranges, and I’m sad you felt the need to drag the tragic death of a public servant into this conversation about holding our clergy accountable.

         

      • bullshit!bullshit! says:

        You really think Pols will ban you for supporting a Democrat they don't like? I've been reading this blog since 2007. They let people comment all the time who should be banned, but never for political disagreements.

        Jesus Christ, Democrats are going to lose their fucking minds in this primary aren't they? Just like 2010.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          No…I don't really think Pols will ban me. It was a joke…sorry you didn"t get it.

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          Duke/Carlos has already been a bit over the top when it comes to drama on here.

          "Democrats are going to lose their fucking minds in this primary aren't they? Just like 2010. "

          Absolutely. I've made the comparison before and I will do it again. Our Tea Party on left is not a bunch of morons like the Tea Party on the right but they can be just as fanatical in their beliefs as their counterparts. Better to be pure and lose than win with a moderate.

          • kwtreekwtree says:

            Rinse and Repeat doesn’t like the politics of most Polsters on here. He sees himself as the voice of pure reason, while he scolds, mocks, belittles and insults 90% of those who venture to disagree with his self-styled “moderation “. He has a dozen weirdly-named straw puppets, with whom he has very successful arguments, in which he always declares himself victorious. 
             

            He may want to look in the virtual mirror the next time he accuses a Polster of being “over the top”. 

            • RepealAndReplace says:

              So kiwi starts her attack on me by name calling ("Rinse and Repeat"), then declares that I belittle and scold the 90% in here who disagrees with me. 

              Sadly, MJ's 90% figure is about as accurate as Elizabeth Warren's math when it comes to paying for MFA.

              I did criticize as getting a bit overly dramatic. But Duke is a big boy and can defend himself.

              OTOH La Pomposa cannot help but make it all about her.

              • kwtreekwtree says:

                And you, too, are a big boy, Rinse and Repeat. Since you seem incapable of responding with logic or arguments, we will see how well you do in taking the same abuse you continually dish out to those who dare to disagree. So far, it looks like your response is to “whine and whimper.”

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      “. . . talking about Hickenlooper's superior qualities." 

      Hmmmm . . .

      well, . . .

      and, . . .

      . . .

      . . . OK, then, we’ve pretty much covered that one in full, ad infinitum.

       

      Next up, Hickenlooper’s many accomplishments (after being elected) . . . 

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        Uhh, actually, that " being elected" thing is kind of important.

        • JohnInDenverJohnInDenver says:

          Yep … and if Hickenlooper doesn't want to talk about ALL of his record as Governor (and have good answers for some of the actions which DID cause problems) during the primary, he'll have a VERY hard time when facing the campaign of Cory Gardner and the various PACs and superPACS of the general election.

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          "Being elected" is nice but isn't purity more important for some?

          • Diogenesdemar says:

            I always thought that doing something might be kind of neat; maybe even sort of an important reason one might have for being elected??  Is that having too much “purity” . . .

            . . . But, by all means, keep slinging that purity pure nonsense over and over and over and over and over; it might even get a little less ridiculous with another dozen, or three, repetitions.

            Also, please bitch some more about Romanoff supporters, it really does improve Hickenlooper’s record.

            • RepealAndReplace says:

              "I always thought that doing something might be kind of neat"

              Me too. And the most urgent task to do in 2021 is to reverse everything that has been done over the past three years.

              "please bitch some more about Romanoff supporters"

              Andrew actually is a nice guy. And would make a good senator. I supported in 2010. If I lived in CD 6, I would have supported him in 2014. But he just can't seem to close the deal in a statewide or CD-wide race.

              But if Andrew is the nominee, he will need a lot of financial support from the national party. That is money that Hick would not need and which could be sent to Iowa, North Carolina, Arizona and Maine where it could make the difference between Dianne Feinstein or Blanche DuBois being chairwoman of the judiciary committee.

              If Trump is re-elected, he's already announced that Amy Coney Barrett will be Ruth Bader Ginsburg's successor. Would you rather see Feinstein block the appointment or Lindsey Graham rubber stamp it?

              This is not rocket science.

              • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

                You are right it isn't. Your post ends by posing a question of the type for which you and some of your colleagues are renowned. It is , of course, absurd because it assumes that if John Hickenlooper is not the Democratic party nominee, we will wind up with another RWNJ SCOTUS justice. Unless you are suggesting one or more of the non-anointed candidates would vote differently from Hick on the matter….no, of course you aren't.

                So far, I have not seen Hickenloopers' campaign try to sell me on why he will be a better senator than his competition. Should we really put a senator in office because he has the most money? Let the DSCC handle its problems. 

                Coloradans need a senator whom they can trust to protect their interests and help their families thrive. Let's elect a senator for the people…not the powerful.

                Remember…Abraham Lincoln lost 8 elections…but he never gave up. ( I figure if you can use historical comparisons, so can I. )😁

                • RepealAndReplace says:

                  It's not just about the money, Duke.

                  Hick has a track record of winning, especially among unaffiliated voters in suburbs. Andrew, not so much.

                  I appreciate your comparison of Andrew with Honest Abe and his 8 election loss record. But does this mean we need to endure six more loses by Romanoff before he wins an election again?

  2. PseudonymousPseudonymous says:

    That ellipsis is doing a lot of work.

    But as Coffman worked to find a way last year to account for priests’ behavior, she realized the most realistic route was an independent review with the cooperation of the church. She couldn’t initiate a criminal investigation herself — only the governor could have done that through executive action.

    “My preference would have been to have investigative authority through an executive order,” she told The Colorado Sun. “But I recognized the realities created by time and pending elections and changes in administration and the need to move forward with an investigation.”

    Coffman, a Republican who left office in January after opting not to seek a second term, initiated the process that led to the recently completed independent investigation into child sex abuse in the state’s three Catholic dioceses. The review found that at least 166 children were sexually abused by at least 40 priests in Colorado since 1950 and that the church had a culture of “reluctance to admit wrongdoing” and “self-protection.”

    Coffman is now urging the legislature to give the Colorado’s attorney general expanded power to launch criminal investigations. Currently, the attorney general needs the OK of the governor to open a grand jury probe in most situations, though that power is rarely sought or given.

    Coffman also said that given the findings of the independent investigation, a statewide grand jury investigation should be launched.

    “I think there are a number of indicators that there is a broader conspiracy to hide the truth of what happened to these and other victims,” she said.

    Weiser however, is more content trusting the church.

    Without a grand jury, however, the state lacks legal power to demand information or compel witnesses to testify.

    However, Weiser said he’s confident the church won’t hold back information.

    “Any lack of cooperation will be cited and called out in the report, thereby providing what I believe is a very powerful check and force of accountability,” he said.

    Weiser was asked whether he think he needs — or wishes he had — the power of a grand jury.

    “We have a process that we’ve now come to,” he said. “I want to see us implement this process, and at the end we can evaluate how it worked and what, if any, lessons should be learned.”

    Hick ain’t gonna skydive his way into this bitch.

  3. Here, Pols, I think you dropped these. You may need them again for your next hit piece.

    Pearl Necklace

  4. kwtreekwtree says:

    Other denominations have similar issues- the Episcopal Diocese is only now confronting decades of  sexual abuse by priests. My sister is a part of  a class action lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Denver for ignoring her complaint of groping  in the 1970s. If you want to see how widespread the problem is, check out this database of accused priests. 742 named individuals, and that’s only the people who have overcome shame and come forward. Thanks, #metoo. 

    Yes, Hick could have done more to stop sexual abuse of children from priests- but so could Ritter, Owens, Lamm, or any number of Governors and Attorneys General. I wouldn’t expect any courageous stand from Hickenlooper- he’s more of a “Check which way the wind is blowing and calculate political advantage” kind of politician. 
     

    This article is merely another Hickenlooper shill piece from Pols. Nothing new here.

     

  5. Genghis says:

    Note to self: donate to Romanoff campaign.

  6. bullshit!bullshit! says:

    Okay, let me see if I've got this straight.

    You all hate Hickenlooper so much you think he covered for rapist Catholic priests? Are you seriously willing to just completely assassinate this man's character because you oppose him on fucking fracking?

    You should be ashamed of yourselves (commenters NOT Pols), and this is why I fucking hate primaries. Seriously, every single one of you go to the nearest mirror and ask yourself why you hate this man so irrationally. It's ridiculous.

    This is the most disgusted I've been with the left since the Bernie Bros.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      Note to self:  what Genghis said.

      . . . What a load of horseshit Bullshit illogic and misrepresentation!  Auditioning to work shill for Alva?

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      With all due respect, bullshit, that's bullshit.

      Your rhetoric sounds an awful lot like that coming from the Whitest House. Tell us why we should support Hickenlooper over another qualified candidate…other than his complete inevitability, of course.

      You act like we don't know the guy. We do. Did you see one of us do an unprovoked hit piece on Hickenlooper? I don't think so. All we are going to do is call out Pols, or anyone else who writes such obvious political claptrap.

      I don't hate the former governor, but I sure don't respect him and I don't think he will serve Colorados' people and environment as well as will Andrew Romanoff.

      No…I don't hate him…he is just WRONG.

       

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        Cue "March of the Oily Boyz"

        • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

          Boy, You've got a theme song for everybody, don’cha, V/ What's mine?cheeky

           

          • VoyageurVoyageur says:

            Still working on yours, your lovliness.  For Duke Carlos we have, to the tune "Marching to Pretoria"

            (Bagpipes swirl)

            We are marching with the Oily Boyz

            the Oily Boyz

            the Oily Boyz.

            we are marching with the Oily Boyz

            the Oily Boyz today.

            We'll frack with you, you'll fra ck with me

            and we will frack together

            through ruin and rack together.

            toting our pack together

            as we march along.

            we are marching with the Oily Boyz

            the Oily Boyz

            the Oily Boyz

            We are marching with the Oily Boyz

            the Oily Boyz today.

             

  7. MADCO says:

    I hate primaries.

  8. Conserv. Head Banger says:

    Rinse and Repeat, instead of Repeal and Replace…….. With all due respect to R & R, and he deserves an astronomically high level of respect, I do find that a bit funny. As for me, unlike mamajama55/kwtree, I've tried to be good this year. I haven't used the term even once, I think, of Passionate Prune to refer to Mr. Pear. Since he's not here, this doesn't count.

    But, I do need to thank kwtree for her fabulous inspiration. I just looked up the Hickenlooper campaign; signed up for e-mail alerts; and made a financial contribution. Yep, I still like Cory somewhat, but don't care for him being just another one of Trump's lapdogs. And once removed, also being a lapdog of Vladimir Putin. So thank you, MJ. I feel great about my decision.

    And for Duke, can't leave you out. When I sign off for the evening in a few minutes, I'll be opening a bottle of my favorite white wine in your honor: "Laughing Cat Sweet Baby White," from Carlson Vineyards in Palisade.

    Have a great evening, all.

  9. bullshit!bullshit! says:

    Alright this turned into another Colorado Pols pissing match, and I have a policy against engaging in these. You're all well-intentioned people and I respect your viewpoints. I have no connection to the owners of Pols and the idea that I would suck up to them to curry favor is fucking stupid.

    This attack on Hickenlooper by Romanoff is totally over the line. I'm glad the press didn't pick it up. A lot of you don't know but Romanoff sent a nasty press release in addition to the email both blaming Hickenlooper for priests abusing kids. Romanoff is way down in all the polls and is desperate to land a punch on Hickenlooper. Pols is right, this was too far.

    I was not committed to any candidate but after this sleazy episode I believe Romanoff does not deserve the nomination. Romanoff is NOT a liberal stalwart, he is a double talking technocrat who OPPOSED single payer health care when he ran for Congress, OPPOSED Polis' anti-fracking initiatives in 2014, called for a federal balanced budget amendment (have fun paying for the GND), and in 2006 spearheaded an anti-immigration special session that was so fucking bad Tom Tancredo praised it. The anti-immigration bills Romanoff passed were REPEALED BY HICKENLOOPER.

    Now that Romanoff has gone to the gutter, I'm going to do what I can to make sure every Democratic voter knows Romanoff's real record. I'm not going to let this turn in to another 2010. He is selling himself as something he is not, and now he is lying to smear the likely nominee, and FUCK THIS. It crossed my line. I might even blog about this, I've done it before when things became too stupid to remain silent. This is one of those times.

    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

      Or, you could sit back and sip some of those fine wines Duke is recommending.  And dream of the :Broncos slipping into the playoffs at 10-6.

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      I also respect your well-intentioned opinion, even though I feel it’s a far mountain-out-of-a-mole-pebble stretch to interpret Romanoff’s tweet as an attack (beyond noting, as so regularly happens with Hickenlooper, his silence on a matter that he could have made a difference in, but either chose not to or decided that offense-avoidance and being silent was a better option than risking upsetting powerful influencers or a voting block.)

      And, yeah, I admit that it may be seen by some as unfair to point towards someone’s inactions, the implication being that your actions would have been different in the hypothetical.

      I hope that in addition to a “real record” blog on Romanoff, that a “real record” blog of Hickenlooper’s actions and inactions will someday be written by someone . . .

      . . . but I’m not really holding my breath.

      Sincerely,

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Wow, Bullshit!

      I didn't like the hit piece blaming Hick for the sexual abuse cover-up by the Catholic Church but you are much more animated about it.

      You did remind me of a few policy position changes Andrew has taken over the past decade in his quest to go to Washington. When he first ran in 2010, wasn't he a DLC-type Democrat? And didn't he enjoy the support of both Bill and Hillary Clinton then? And then there was his opposition to a single payer health care system.

      And then, there was the balanced budget amendment and Pat Caddell! Now he has come full circle and is promising to help deliver free stuff for all. At least until after the primary.

      I had forgotten the anti-immigration legislation that they passed in 2006 when he was speaker. Of course, in my Machiavellian mind, that may have been a necessary evil since the anti-immigration right wing nut jobs were promoting something far worse and Both Ways Bob would probably have jumped at the chance to ride that issue. (Remember the dust up over agricultural trespass plea bargains in the Denver DA's Office during Ritter's tenure?)

      At least Hick cleaned up Andrew's immigration mess.

      • bullshit!bullshit! says:

        A lot of 2006 Dems thought "outflanking" the GOP on immigration was a good idea. They were horribly wrong. It helped cost Romanoff election against Coffman in 2014. And he deserved it.

        If you go on Twitter right now, you'll find Bernie's spokesman David Sirota basically doing the messaging for Romanoff. They're trying to make Romanoff into a "progressive champion" and it is absolute fucking bullshit. Romanoff's record doesn't hold up, and trying to take down a much stronger candidate by PRETENDING to be more progressive makes he want to puke. If he was just trying to flip flop it would be one thing, but Romanoff is trying to flip flop and pretend he was always more left than Hick.

        And yes I did take offense to Romanoff attacking Hickenlooper over priest abuse. Hickenlooper has no reason to cover for priests and the problem of priest abuse is fucking global. It's a sleazy attack and it broke me for Romanoff.

        Romanoff was already going to lose. Because of what he did here I want to see him punished.

        • Diogenesdemar says:

          No one, no one, no one, said Hickenlooper was “cover[ing] for priests” — where in the heck do you come up with that fevered nonsense?

          And, because, as you just noted, “the problem of priest abuse is fucking global”, how is asking just that one question “Why didn’t Gov. Hickenlooper request a grand jury investigation?”, not a fairly valid and reasonable one? The problem being so widespread, and Colorado and Hickenlooper being sort of on the globe and all? I mean, wouldn’t you have to be kind of an idiot not to do one something about a “global” problem that also affected you locally if it were in your power?

          One question. No “sleazy” charges of covering, or abetting, or participating, or anything . . .

          Seriously, get a grip, Alva dude.

          • bullshit!bullshit! says:

            I don't agree with you so you think I must be Alva?

            I've never had a reason to say this to you before, but if that's how you reason through life you're a fucking idiot. Either way you can shove your stupid conspiracy theories up your ass. I have more important things to do than write a blog, no offense to the hosts.

            Excuse this bullshit all you want because you hate Hick like a Tea Partier hated Obama. That's cool. You can do what you fucking want. Next summer I hope you have the good sense to shut the fuck up and help Hick beat Gardner because despite what Romanoff is telling you, Hick and Gardner are not the same.

            Just like fucking 2010. Very disappointing.

          • bullshit!bullshit! says:

            And for fuck's sake, when Romanoff sends out a press release blasting Hickenlooper by name, asking "didn't he convene a grand jury" when the AG he's praising didn't either, he is accusing Hick of covering for priests. You people need to either own what Romanoff did or denounce it, but don't try to gaslight me about shit I can read with my own eyes.

            • Diogenesdemar says:

              Press release? One tweet. A link to a Colorado Sun article he didn’t write.  No praise for Coffman.  No accusation, a stretch to even claim innuendo; but, congratulations on your extreme, um, flexibility. 

              I don’t hate Hickenlooper, just have been too many times disappointed by him.  I do like Romanoff.  Either would be light-years better than Gardner.

              I’m not going to personalize what you’re reading, or your reading ability, or anything else about you.

              Thanks for your opinion of me.  

              I’m sure we agree on way more than we disagree.

               

              • bullshit!bullshit! says:

                I guess you're not on Andrew's press list. He DID send a release, it just wasn't picked up because I'm pretty sure reporters were as disgusted about it as I am. Go ahead and ask the campaign or a reporter.

                If a Republican had launched this smear, or if it was against someone you didn't already irrationally hate, you would be upset too. The fact that you are not means you need to check yourself. The hatred of Hickenlooper on this site is idiotic groupthink. Andrew Romanoff doesn't deserve your blind loyalty. 

                This is my last response on this topic in this thread. But I think I will have more to say soon.

        • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

          You want to see him punished?

          Such outrage was in there long before these incidents. Why don't you tell us your personal beef with Andrew, instead of hyperventilating over perceived slights?

          You are not doing your candidate any favors by defending him with a Trumpian axe. This isn't personal, Ludwig…its politics. You get pissed off…you lose. 

          It’s an old rule…I didn't make it up.

           

  10. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    Look, it's pretty much settled that Hick is our candidate.  But a lot of good people wanted other ones and we'll need their support to fend off a fascist Senate.  Lower the rhetoric.  Raise a glass of fracking fluid for the good days to come.  Romo is not a monster, nor is hick. And anyone who thinks Cory is easy to beat should check in with mark udall.

    Yes, I preferred Alice Madden for Senate.  But Hick will do in a pinch.

    • bullshit!bullshit! says:

      I like Alice too. A lot. Under different circumstances she might have had my vote. 

      Alice would never have stooped to this.

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      When you use the word "our", V., who are you talking about?

      It is not "pretty much settled". Let's do the process and let the voters decide…whattaya say?

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        I say that when it's duke and dio as the voice of sweet reason, we've come to an interesting pass.

        I have a c-note that says hick is the nominee.  Any takers?  No?  Wise choice.  Yeah, hick is the likely nominee.

        But surely we can disagree on things like romo/hick without assailing anyone as a "fucking idiot."

         with friends like bullshit, hick doesn't need enemies.

        Hang in there Dio and duke!  You'll live down the shame of praise from me in time.

  11. ModeratusModeratus says:

    Watching the far left blood feud with the moderate left is going to be awesome. This is what the next eight months look like for Colorado Democrats. Romanoff is the socialist soul of the Democrat Party and Hickenlooper is the wishy washy moderate Democrats used to successfully scam Coloradans with. Not anymore. The far left is in charge off the Democrat Party.

    • RepealAndReplace says:

      Put your KY and Kleenexes away, Fluffy. You need not get so excited.

      When the dust settles after the primary, we will all be all in for either Hick, Romo, Angela Williams, or hell, even Lorna Garcia or Trish Zorno vis-a-vis Con Man Cory Gardner.

      Stay the course senator! Your retirement is fast approaching!

    • unnamed says:

      C'mon Fluffy.  Tell us Cory Gardner is going to get re-elected in a landslide.  Add a "Mark my Words" for good effect.  

      It worked for Still-Congressman Mike Coffman, Governor Cynthia Coffman, and Attorney General George Brauchler.  

      It also worked with the spate of recalls you so vociferously championed.

      • ModeratusModeratus says:

        Why would I do that? Cory Gardner has a hard road ahead. Everybody knows that. He's a superb politician, though, and with Democrats at each other's throats (see this blog) it's looking better every day.

        • unnamed says:

          Why wouldn't you do that?  You've done it before. 

           

          And, we may fight, but we know who the traitors to this country are, and the fact that you don't even want to act overly confident about Gardner's chances like you did in the past shows how little confidence you have in Gardner.  Like you know your policies are unpopular.  You guys can't even sell a tax cut.  Then again, it wasn't really a tax cut, unless you were rich.  If you weren't rich, it was the opposite.  

    • Diogenesdemar says:

      One thing we’ll all agree on, now and later, Fluffy . . .

      . . . you’re a complete waste of protoplasm.

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      R&R is correct here, Fluffyboy. The most popular phrase used by Democrats will be "Vote Blue…No Matter Who."

      Fuck off, sore loser.

       

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.