Romanoff And The Balloon Boy?

In case you didn’t think Colorado was interesting enough, there’s more.

But first, let’s recap some of the more interesting news in CO this past year:

– A family hides their young son, and then gets the entire country to believe he is inside a giant “Jiffy pop”-looking balloon flying loose over CO, causing widespread panic on international news station, CNN.

– Pastor Ted Haggard, the drug-using, homophobe from Colorado Springs, opens a “gay-friendly” church.

– A Grand Mesa woman crashes her car, saying she was fleeing a “vampire” .

A woman in Boulder gardens publicly in nothing but a thong but police cannot arrest her because Boulder does not have a law against it.

A real bear goes into a car to take a peanut butter and jelly sandwhich, the door closes behind him, and he takes the car for a joy ride.

And in political news:

– CO’s Senate candidate Jane Norton attacks opponent Ken Buck’s “manhood” on television.

– In response, Ken Buck says he doesn’t wear ladies shoes.

– Conservative groups paint Ritter and Hickenlooper in zebra stripes, and Hick finds it so funny he runs with the theme, dressing in zebra stripes at the Dems state convention.

– McInnis is charged with plagiarism, a crime usually committed by 3rd graders (3 times, in fact).

– Tancredo is fighting with the tea party (who have now become too “main-stream” for the likes of Tom).

And now Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, in a desperate media grab, will loan his campaign $325,000 from the sale of his $360,000 home in Washington Park, according to a story in the Huffington Post.

Law school graduate and former CO Speaker of the House Andrew Romanoff, the same candidate who attacked Senator Michael Bennet for taking money from PACS while he actually had his own PAC, wants voters to believe he can fundraise enough money to fight Republicans in November. He is so sincere about it, he is apparently willing to become homeless for the cause.

Homelessness is a serious societal problem, causing immeasurable pain to it’s victims. Homelessness is not often used as a campaign gimmick — Coloradans will not stand for it.

Voters will want to know, “If Romanoff is so destitute he has to sell his home in upscale Washington Park to loan money to his campaign, how did he afford to travel to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Nigeria in 2009? How has he paid his bills since he left the Colorado State Legislature?”

This story could go either way for Romanoff. If the media grab is legitimate, and Romanoff really has spent his entire life savings leading up to this campaign for the US Senate, voters will find his sacrifice admirable, and it might solicit sympathy from potential donors (and more contributions). If he has money put away somewhere that could have used to loan his campaign before having to sell his home, this story may ultimately end up in the same category as… “balloon boy”.

This should be interesting, but then again, it is Colorado.  

Will this media grab work for Romanoff?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

83 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Barron X says:

    .

    I would like to disagree with the notion that Tancredo is in a tiff with genuine Tea Party activists.

    His conflict is with stealth GOP organizations that CLAIM to be the Tea Party, but command no loyalty from the independent-minded liberty enthusiasts.  These phony “Tea Party” groups are led and funded by the likes of Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, Richard Mellon Scaife and Koch Industries.  

    .

  2. Ray Springfield says:

    Mutual funds are still there. Hard to pack and campaign at the same time. Perhaps he’s renting from the new landlord? Is there a buy back clause?Or is he, as I think, simply preparing to leave under any scenario?

  3. DavidThi808 says:

    Romanoff is putting a large chunk of his personal wealth in – that’s something to respect, not denigrate.

  4. FAKE Michael Bennet says:

    Peacemonger — I thought we were friends.  I mean FAKE Susan Daggett calls you whenever we need crazy people on the blogs; I remembered your name long enough to make you think we were friends.  What else do I have to do to be included in your piece?

    Well since you forgot me, here are a few things.

    Remember when my Senate staff was found to be trying to make political hay out of an FBI probe?

    “Bummed we missed this – I was under the impression we were being asked not to talk – looks like everyone else did and will lieky [sic] get the press,” wrote Sarah Hughes, Bennet’s deputy chief of staff. “Lesson learned for next time.”

    Or how about when I admitted to talking to Rahm Emmanuel about trying to bully Andrew Romanoff out of the race?  I mean I’m especially proud of that one.

    “Yeah, I was aware,” Bennet said. “Right.”

    Or the stories about how well trained my interns are?  I mean they don’t let people near me unless they are willing to pony up at least $2400

    Or the whole “voted against it before I was for it” thing that David Sirota kept harping on?  I mean I really didn’t have a good explanation for that at all.

    Or all the information coming out now about how all those teachers lost their pensions so my buddy Phil and I could make a few extra million?  I mean that should really deserve a mention in your article — I don’t think my friends at Goldman Sachs could have done better.

    In the end, Bennet profited mightily from the same flavors of financial manipulations that destabilized Wall Street and led to the crash of 2008, and the loss of millions of jobs and billions in lost productivity. And while Denver taxpayers will take years to climb out of the mess at Denver Public Schools, will voters keep an experienced corporate raider in an appointed United States Senate seat?

    There’s a few I think you could have included.  I’m hurt that you forgot about me.

    • Ray Springfield says:

      If you want personal attacks to escalate then you are asking for it.

      You are just plain fake like Andrew has become.

    • Steve Harvey says:

      he does not deserve to be so dishonored as he is by your “advocacy.” You are only doing him, yourself, and the Democratic Party a disservice. If that’s your goal, then pat yourself on the back and have at it. If it isn’t, then you might want to rethink your strategy. Because anonymity only hides your identity, not your repugnance.

    • peacemonger says:

      Your post looks like a psychopath’s journal. You are scaring me.

      In order of your links.

      1. They missed the ball on a story and admitted it. No story there.

      2. Bennet didn’t say he talked to Rahm Emmanuel about anything. He said he “heard about it”. HUGE difference. Your intrepretation is not supported in fact.

      3. Bennet removed the volunteer who screwed up. If he didn’t, you’d also be all over his case. He did the right thing and you still rake him over the coals for it.

      4. Anschutz and Bennet are not “buddies”. They’re politics is 180 degrees apart. That’s one of the reasons Bennet took a massive pay cut to work with John Hickenlooper, who really is his good friend.

      Telling lies over and over does not make them true.

  5. bud says:

    Why didn’t his supporters clean out their bank accounts to donate the max to his campaign?  

    What are those teaching jobs and how much do they pay?  

    Maybe he’s already taken that job in Washington with a September start date.  

  6. MikeD1970 says:

    I’ve stayed out of many of the arguments that fill this site, instead posting diaries with news stories, but this piece made me respond.

    You may not like Andrew Romanoff and prefer Michael Bennet — that’s your choice as a voter.  You may disagree with his message and go with another candidate — again that’s a valid conversation to have.

    But to attack a man who so fully believes in changing Washington that you make fun of him for risking everything he has — selling his home — to help the cause is disgusting.

    You think this is for media attention?  You think that a man who has lived in his home for years and is a staple of that community would abandon that for a day of headlines?  Disgusting.

    And now Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, in a desperate media grab, will loan his campaign $325,000 from the sale of his $360,000 home in Washington Park, according to a story in the Huffington Post.

    And then you mock him?

    Homelessness is a serious societal problem, causing immeasurable pain to it’s victims. Homelessness is not often used as a campaign gimmick — Coloradans will not stand for it.

    I’ve donated to Andrew’s campaign.  I’ve made phone calls to voters.  Vile disgusting crap like this diary make me all the more resolved.  If I can say one nice thing here, it’s thank you for the reminder to send the campaign whatever I can.  If nothing else it’s a way to show that people respect the dedication the man has to his ideals.

    • Automaticftp says:

      Sense of humor failure . . .

      Don’t worry–it’s a common problem among the AR faithful.  Soon it will be cured when Sen. Bennet wins the primary and frees AR to move wherever he wants.

    • peacemonger says:

      If this is sincere and he really needs the money, I will admit I was wrong and apologize.  If it turns out he has money stashed away in a trust fund and this is just a shameless media grab, then you can apologize to me. Sound fair?

      • MikeD1970 says:

        you think this is some media ploy?  prove it.  You think this is anything but a genuine move from a man who believes in his cause? Find some evidence.

        You want to float some rumors out there?  Try backing it up with some shred of evidence.

        In the meantime I stand by my statement.

        • Aristotle says:

          Up to this point, he’s kept his word on challenges like this. He’s free to voice his suspicions – he’s not asserting anything, so he doesn’t need to prove anything.

          So, why don’t you take up his challenge?

          • ajb says:

            One of the things I like about the CoPols community is that when somebody starts talking smack, the usual response is “You got a link for that?”  If they do, then great. If they don’t, the usual response is “Meh. Come back when ya got sumthin.”  So MickeyD is right to challenge the assertion.  

              • ajb says:

                PM didn’t MSU. He just gave it the worst spin he could based on unfounded assumptions. When challenged, his response was “prove me wrong.”

                And who says that Libs can’t emulate Fox News?

                • Aristotle says:

                  that I’m not even going to waste any more time on this. Just know that you’re wrong.

                  • ajb says:

                    Time to move on.

                    🙂

                    • peacemonger says:

                      I just asked questions.  

                    • ajb says:

                      The diary is titled

                      “Romanoff And The Balloon Boy?”

                      Balloon boy was a hoax.

                      It follows that your inference is that Romanoff selling his home was a hoax, done only for the free media it would generate, based on the fact that he seems to live on a very small income, yet managed to travel overseas.

                      Sure, you presented your argument as a series of questions.

                      Voters will want to know, “If Romanoff is so destitute he has to sell his home in upscale Washington Park to loan money to his campaign, how did he afford to travel to Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Nigeria in 2009? How has he paid his bills since he left the Colorado State Legislature? [my emphasis]

                      But you maintain there is no inference there. No attempt to sow rumour.

                      It doesn’t look that way to me.

                    • peacemonger says:

                      How did he travel all over in those countries if he is that broke? Voters would love to hear it.

                      He wants us to vote for him and believe he is good with money — kind of an important thing for a legislator, right? We (speaking as a voter) have a right to know how he ended up in this mess if he wants our votes.

                    • ajb says:

                      His campaign needed money.

                      He sold some assets (his house) to generate cash to loan to his campaign.

                      Why his house? I dunno. Maybe the tax benefit (no capital gains). Maybe that’s all he’s got. Ask him.

                      But I don’t see a mess.  

                    • MADCO says:

                      Sale of house netted $235,000 and then he got another $100k from personal funds and loaned $335 to the campaign.  

                      As discussed yesterday – he also has his trust fund. You could look it up on his amended FEC financial filing at the Colorado SOS site (or my post yesterday had the link).

                    • ajb says:

                      Where’s the mess?

                    • MADCO says:

                      The Gaza is pretty screwed up.

                      AfPak – mess.

                      Tancredo shredding his party for no discernible reason- mess.

                      The Rockies – big mess.

                      Broncos – mess.

                      Gangs, the border wars, the Gulf of Mexico, that oil spill in Michigan (Michigan?), the state budget, the national debt – mess.

                      Oh, yeah there’s a contested D primary for the US Senate saat form Colorado.  Mess…. well pia, anyway.

        • peacemonger says:

          Secretary of State website, that is. Look it up.

    • Voyageur says:

      I’m getting sick of Romanoff shills making vicious personal attacks on Bennet and his family, including his wife (see above) then squealing like stuck pigs when Bennet people reply especially when, as Peacemonger did, they do so with humor and creativity.  Pimp for AR all you like but keep your vomit off PM.

    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

      to talk about selling his house. If this wasn’t a media grab, he should have made it clear that he was there to talk about the campaign and not his house.

      I mean come on. He did this for the media. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. Two birds, one stone. He needed money for his campaign and he needed to reach voters. It was a smart calculated move.

      Of course he got the Chris Matthews treatment on Hardball. Not sure he walked away from that interview intact. May have been a wash.

        • EmeraldKnight76 says:

          I’m just saying…who cares if it was a media stunt? How is it a bad thing? Personally, I think it shows a real political calculation we haven’t seen from him before.

          Whether it turns out to work for or against him depends on whether he was ready to sell or not (I doubt anyone would willingly sell in this market after roughly 11 years) and whether he WINS. Either way it was a bold move that he deserves credit for making.

      • MADCO says:

        He comes off ok.

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30

        But Chris was more ready to interview him this time than any of the national media have ben before.

        • EmeraldKnight76 says:

          individual donations from big oil and big business insiders was a good one. Andrew seemed really thrown off by it. His answer seemed like a total dodge.

          Anyone know if this is something easily checked into?

          And before I get attacked, I am in no way accusing. I am just wondering.

          • MADCO says:

            FEC.gov

            But it is not that easy.

            And then you gotta wonder- so what if he gets a donation from some O&G guy?

            • EmeraldKnight76 says:

              that questions was that some politicians say they aren’t going to take PAC money from a certain group i.e. O&G but get donations from the executives who then get reimbursed. It’s an end run around the system.

              I doubt this is being done by Romanoff but I think it is a fair question to be asked and hadn’t seen it brought up on here before.

              • Tom says:

                at least before Citizens United was illegal. It’s probably still illegal to be reimbursed through PAC funds. Direct corporate reimbursement would be answerable to the shareholders on some level if it’s at all legal as well.

                The problem with executives giving personally to someone that has refused PAC money is the bundling.  Even a maxed out donor will only get so much respect from a candidate (actually less over the short term since they can’t be tapped again) but when somebody holds an industry fundraiser or shows up with a handful of checks then they get to sit in the drivers’ seat.

                If we could have more transparent record keeping, then that sort of thing would be easier to ferret out but quarterly paper reports makes it impossible to pinpoint a single day money dump by pharmaceutical executives or oil & gas insiders.

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.