August 05, 2010 07:48 PM UTC
15 Shades of Grey
85 Comments- by: Raf
(Very well said and well written. Something all political activists, on either side of the aisle, should keep in mind this time of year. – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Earlier, Old Ben Kenobi posted a diary* that posited a theory of the campaign that I considered to be inaccurate. I wrote a long response as a comment, and I’ve decided to repost it as a diary. It follows after the jump.
*See, there’s the link! 🙂
“Bennet supporters will not see any inconsistency to these votes.”
I could say the same thing about Romanoff supporters not seeing any inconsistency with Romanoff’s record as a politician. The fact that many folks are willing to give him a pass merely on him saying that he’s reading from the right page in the prayer book is just as uncritical.
I’ve supported and worked for candidates like Mike Miles, Ned Lamont, and Paul Wellstone; it takes more than a deathbed conversion for me to grant you absolution, so to speak. Many of the things that Romanoff takes credit for now were initiatives advanced by other legislators, where he either came to the table late or not at all.
While I welcome his conversion to progressive politics, and, frankly, respect that he’s come this far waging the kind of culturally progressive campaign that we, all too often, pay lip service to, I can’t help but continue to wonder where this progressive champion was for eight years in the Colorado legislature; where this progressive champion of, for example, comprehensive immigration reform was when he rammed through legislation that could be rightfully considered the spiritual and philosophical father of Arizona’s SB 1070; and where this progressive champion will be if he is elected to the Senate.
These are all questions that, frankly, have been asked over and over and over again, for the last year, and the only answer we’ve gotten is that he’s seen the light now that it’s convenient for him to do. So you’ll have to color me skeptical on that.
“First, the presumption that this is his [Bennet’s] seat.”
Again, I could just as easily say the same thing about Romanoff supporters. Earlier in the piece, OBK referred to Bennet as an “illegitimate” incumbent. And while, when I challenged him on this, he quickly backtracked, one can’t help but think that had Romanoff received the appointment, very, very, very few people would have considered Romanoff “illegitimate”.
Without getting into the specifics again, suffice it to say that we are engaged in a great contest to ratify the choice that Governor Ritter made. This is as it should be. Both Romanoff and Bennet have had a year to make their cases before the Democrats of this state; in six days, we will render the verdict.
This is the process writ in law. We’re a nation of laws, not men. If people have a problem with the law, and not merely with the man, then there should be a parallel movement to reform the laws so that this doesn’t happen again. Sadly, I suspect that that won’t happen.
“Romanoff has no “political machine.” His supporters are the people he has talked to and worked with across the state of Colorado for the past 15+ years. Ironically, Bennet really did have a political machine working for him in the caucuses, Organizing for America.”
A number of things here. First, the idea that Bennet’s experience in politics is equivalent to Romanoff’s experience in politics is just simply laughable. Romanoff served on the Democratic National Committee, then spent eight years as an elected official, the last four as Speaker of the House. He’s the very definition of a career politician. To suddenly act as if he’s just a simple, down-home, just-folks kind of guy is insulting.
Moreover, it becomes even more insulting when Romanoff supporters turn around and use the very same record they just got done insisting wasn’t a mark of a career politician as proof that Romanoff would be more effective than Bennet in the U.S. Senate. Newsflash: you can’t have it both ways. Either he’s a man of the people, virginally unsullied by the mark of the special interest beast, or he’s a smooth operator who’ll excel in the halls of the Senate – but he can’t be both. Pick one.
As for the political machine known as Organizing for America: yes, it’s part of the DNC. It’s also composed of regular people who volunteer because they want to make this a better country. Furthermore, the claim that OFA is a political machine is an attack straight out of the Republican playbook. The claim is that Obama and his minions are engaging in dirty Chicago-style machine politics, as opposed to the clean politics that “real Americans” engage in.
What’s next – that ACORN and SEIU silently whispered to Bill Ritter that he should appoint Michael Bennet? One begins to wonder whether the Trilateral Commission will pop up, or maybe the fearsome Gnomes of Zurich.
For what it’s worth, having participated in Democratic Party politics for half of my young life, I can tell you that many of the Romanoff supporters that OBK sings paeans to as simple, good-hearted folk engage in dirty machine politics every bit as foul as those found in a Chicago alderman’s office.
The attack becomes especially rich when you consider that Romanoff will be the first person asking when the DSCC, OFA and other “political machines” will come to his rescue, should he win the primary. And, again, had he been appointed, no one would’ve been decrying his support by OFA. No one.
Let’s be blunt. When it comes to this primary, we’re looking at about 15 shades of grey. This idea that one guy is sainted, and the other is Satan, is absolutely ludicrous. Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff are, in this sense, just like the rest of us: highly gifted in some areas, highly flawed in others. More on this shortly, but I’ll segue to the last bone of contention here.
“The guy who follows Mark Udall around the Senate like a puppy dog?”
Bennet’s a freshman Senator. To be honest, all Senate freshmen have a certain puppy-like attitude about them. They follow people around, they ask a lot of questions – it’s what they do. The Senate, and more to the point, its procedures, are well-nigh impenetrable.
To be brutally honest, the idea that Romanoff is somehow going to waltz into the Senate and start on an orgy of legislating and policy-making is simply ludicrous. It’s also the corollary to the “career politician” point; that despite him being a simple guy who’s just interested in politics, he’s also a skilled legislative savant who’ll dazzle the world with his political legerdemain.
Yeah, not so much. If Romanoff gets elected to the Senate, particularly a Senate with a diminished Democratic majority, he’s going to do what Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer tell him to do, in exchange for which they’ll let him make floor speeches that have the policy substance of a jelly donut. If the Republicans are in charge, you can forget about even that.
That’s not Romanoff’s fault, incidentally; that’s how the system is constructed. In Senate tradition, freshmen are little seen or heard. And while Romanoff has the potential, if elected, to be a great Senator, the idea that he’s somehow a world-historical figure who’ll be the exception to the rule in the Senate feeds into my last point.
“Convert a zombie today.”
And here’s the problem, in a nutshell. No, not the zombie.
When you talk about belief, when you talk about conversion, you’re talking about something deeply personal. You’re also talking about something that anchors you down, and keeps you from going further. As Chris Rock said, you can always change an idea; it’s a lot harder to change a belief.
The other thing about conversion and beliefs is that they don’t really mix well with the free exchanges of a democracy (cue the “it’s not a democracy, it’s a REPUBLIC!” guys. Yeah, yeah. Listen, Patrick Henry called and wants his breeches, three-corner hat and musket back in 1774, ok? Thanks.)
We’ve gotten, lately, into a really bad habit of believing that the political leaders we support are imbued with all manner of good virtues and that the ones we don’t are Hell’s own spawn. You saw it with Barack Obama, and now you’re seeing it with Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff.
The problem with doing that is that it forces us to concentrate on the other guy’s flaws, and makes us ignore our guy’s own deep shortcomings. Furthermore, when another person attacks our guy, we feel deep down inside as if we’re the ones being attacked, so we go nuclear on the other guy and his supporters.
But that’s not the the worst thing. The worst thing is, when our guy fails to live up to the inhuman expectations that we place on her or him, we immediately call down the thunder on our guy and scream betrayal to the heavens.
Our guy didn’t betray us; we betrayed ourselves. We betrayed ourselves because we surrendered our power in a democracy to our guy. He didn’t take it; we gave it away, with a pretty little bow on top.
The only way we keep the power is by thinking critically and acting critically. There’s no way to do that if we’re talking about conversion and belief. And frankly, in this primary, we’ve done that to ourselves and each other far, far too many times.
We have to do better than that.
beautiful diary.
however,
while people may think Presidents in the past have gotten involved with primaries, it is simply untrue.
Every time a President has done so (the last being FDR) is has backfired – which is why Presidents stopped doing it.
http://www.politico.com/news/s…
Reagan’s 11 commandment about ‘speaking no evil of fellow republicans’ is borne out of that understanding of staying neutral in primaries.
And while you may disagree with the tone of the diary you have cited here, you can’t deny that Obama’s interference in primaries in New York, Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Colorado have been risky for him and for democrats.
At the very least, Obama has alienated base democrats and seems to have gushed over candidates progressives don’t like.
In Pennsylvania, he cut an ad for a lifelong republican who only switched parties to remain in office.
“I love Arlen Specter.”
How does it look now that Sestak has won?
Or, how does it look now that Lincoln’s polling virtually guaranteed that if she won the primary, the seat would be easily won by the Republicans – yet Obama gave his full force behind Lincoln, defeating Halter, a potentially more viable Democrat.
(polls have suggested similar scenarios here)
And, at the very worst, Obama has opened himself up to needless attacks from Republicans.
Darrell Issa – republican from California, has said that if the Republicans take back the House, which could happen, he will opened an investigation and subpoena the White House over the Sestak and Romanoff job offers.
Primary politics have their place, but a President getting involved risks alienating those voters who are loyal to their choice.
I wonder if Senator Obama would have appreciated this kind of interference when everyone was ready to crown Hillary Clinton as inevitable.
As I remember Raf, at the 2007 Colorado Netroots meeting, you proudly wore your Obama shirt, even though you were told by Clinton people that working for another candidate would ‘end your chance of ever getting a job in politics again’
Involving OFA and the White House was risky and unnecessary – no matter who you support.
So they stopped doing it because it was bad politics?
Which would be good for the opposition- i.e., your guy?
So where’s your objection? You should be glad Obama endorsed Bennet – when it backfires it helps your guy..
that I was a Bennet supporter – of course I would be thrilled in the President’s support – and let’s say you MADCO are a Romanoff supporter – how would you feel?
And besides our personal feelings, think about this from a Democratic-Republican viewpoint.
The Democrats who were loyal to another Presidential Primary candidate – say like Hillary Clinton – held out for her victory and finally joined Obama for the necessity of beating McCain. I’d imagine that olive branch of unity they have offered, if they then found themselves to be Sestak, Romanoff, or Halter supporters, would seemed kind of withered – which can actually depress midterm election turnout.
And – doesn’t it bother you that the Republicans are already planning subpoenas for the White House over the Sestak/Romanoff job offers – even though we all know nothing illegal happened?
These are all reasons for neutrality and for letting the local people decide who their candidates will be.
Tip O’Neil
that Bill Clinton is getting involved in primaries. Isn’t a former president supposed to be more dignified and above the fray than that? It’s quite unseemly.
and President Clinton’s split with the White House in this race points to how fractured Obama’s coalition is becoming.
It is quite similar to LBJ – (the last Democrat who also happened to be a War President)
http://www.politico.com/news/s…
our democratic unity is often fragile enough to be called ‘herding cats’ so a President that further fractures it does so at their own peril – the base must turn out in 2010 and 2012.
The rest won’t matter come Wednesday morning, let’s discuss it then.
serial party switcher Specter to Bennet?
The President endorsed Bennet.
Get over it.
but you can’t deny that Bennet joined with Lincoln to become a ‘conservadem’
We are in Colorado Wade, not New York. Your kind of Democrat would never win in this state
the balance of power in the House and Senate is decided by majorities, not by one state.
Dems have to win in particular states.
come down to 1-2 Senators. Hence the need to win in conservative states using a moderate progressive platform.
Somehow I don’t think the moderate voters in this state will be more attracted to Bennet because he rolled over for the banks. His vote on gun control – sure. But leaving the banks open to destroy the economy again, call me crazy but I think there is bipartisan consensus that that is a bad thing.
As a result of the Frank-Dodd bill there are a lot of checks and oversight built into the system. No one can be certain if the new levers will work, the only certainty right now is that you don’t have a clue what its impact will be.
Wish you had written this two months ago. This primary as well as some of the local primaries have been brutal.
This diary strikes me right, except it seems like “career politician” is being used in a derogatory manner.
In general, I think that the term “career politician” is thought of in a bad way by most people.
How would this diary read if you looked at AR as a career public servant? I’m sure that there are some who think that AR is a bad person, so that “career politician” fits. But I’d very much like to have career public servants in the highest areas of our government. Do you really believe that AR is just a “career politician”?
And in MB’s case, has he earned our respect as a career public servant? Once again, I know that this is idealistic, but I want good career public servants to move our country forward in government.
But I DO think he’s a career politician.
POINT 1: “The appointment is undemocratic!”
The process is what it is. You’re advocating the notion that Bennet is illegitimate while Romanoff isn’t. You can qualify it all you want, but that’s what you’re saying – at least, have the guts to admit it. The number of people who would’ve felt that Romanoff was an “illegitimate” incumbent can be counted in one hand, with fingers left over.
Like I said, the law is that the Governor appoints whomever he wants to the Senate to fill a vacancy, as long as they’re Constitutionally eligible. If you have a problem with that, then you should either change the law yourself through the initiative process, or you should talk to your local legislator to have them push through a reform of the law. Like I also said, I suspect this is less about the law, and more about the Governor picking someone other than whom everyone expected.
Had Romanoff been appointed, the appointment would’ve been every bit as undemocratic; it, however, wouldn’t have been as unpopular.
POINT 2: “The President appointed Bennet! Boooooo!”
Actually, no. The Governor appointed Bennet. But I see where you’re coming from.
When Salazar resigned, virtually everyone assumed that Ritter would appoint Romanoff. It seemed like the common-sense, safe thing to him to do. So when Ritter went with Bennet instead, people were trying to figure out just how in the hell that decision worked out.
In trying to make sense of it, a lot of folks settled on the idea that Obama somehow told Ritter to appoint Bennet. The problem with that is that it didn’t happen. Ritter’s already said how he came to the decision, and Obama wasn’t involved.
POINT 3: “People elect Senators! Bennet’s getting a free ride! There’s an uneven playing field!”
Whoa, talk about entitlement…Seriously. Listen to yourself.
Romanoff decided he disagreed with the choice Ritter made, and so he decided to run. Guess what? The election is happening! People tried to convince Romanoff otherwise, but once he made the decision to run, they didn’t try to arrest him, or beat up his supporters, or steal the election, let alone cancel it.
I have admitted there’s an uneven playing field in the primary. It’s just not uniquely or unfairly uneven – Romanoff faces the same challenges that every other primary challenger has faced, ever. Matter of fact, considering that he’s facing an appointed incumbent, his odds are better than most challengers.
I worked on Ned Lamont’s 2006 primary against Joe Lieberman in Connecticut. Are you seriously telling me that Romanoff faces a steeper challenge than Lamont did going up against a former VP nominee and 3-term incumbent?
That’s what I mean by entitlement. Romanoff is a primary challenger, which, by definition, means life sucks. Bennet is an incumbent, which means he’s going to get institutional support, regardless of whether you think it’s earned. That’s how the system is constructed, has been constructed, and will always be constructed.
POINT 4: “OFA should be out fighting for progressive causes, not involving itself in primaries using my donations!”
Two things. First, OFA is out there fighting for progressive causes. I worked with them on health care reform, they worked on financial reform, and I look forward to working with them on immigration reform, climate change and energy security.
You do have a fair point about OFA involving itself in primaries. That said, Presidents have involved themselves in primaries for as long as we’ve had them. Your complaint, again, is with the nature of the imperfect system we have.
Moreover, if you’ve ever shaken your fist at Ben Nelson or Evan Bayh, and wished that Obama would do “something” about those guys – then you can’t complain about OFA getting involved in primaries, because that would be the “something” Obama could do. Your problem, then, isn’t that OFA is getting involved in a primary; it’s that it’s getting involved in a primary in a way that you don’t want them to.
Let’s at least be honest about that, OK?
POINT 5: “Romanoff will FIGHT for the causes I believe in”
What’s your proof of that? Based on his prior record as a state legislator, as opposed to campaign rhetoric, what’s your proof of that?
As Speaker, Romanoff was the antithesis of a “fighter”. He was a cautious, moderate, go-along-to-get-along legislative leader. Many of the things that Romanoff claims to have fought for were actually initiatives that other legislators started, championed, and fought for, only to see Romanoff moderate those initiatives so that they could become law.
What’s more, one of the main legislative acts of Romanoff’s tenure as Speaker was an anti-immigrant legislative package that, while it headed off truly egregious initiative proposals, was nevertheless the worst such legislation until Arizona’s SB 1070.
I’m someone who’s marched against the Iraq War as a veteran, who fought for health care reform, and who’s campaigned against some of the most retrograde politicians in the country. So I know about fighting for causes I believe in. From my vantage point, when given the opportunity in the past, Romanoff hasn’t distinguished himself notably as a progressive champion. So you’ll have to color me skeptical about your claim that he’ll be a fighter.
Your turn.
And thanks for the compliments. I’m not much for diary writing.
This diary is fantastic. I haven’t read anything on this blog in a long time that even comes close to how well this is written.
Highly recommended.
That’s hindsight tinted by the primary challenge. Romanoff was running for the appointment like crazy, but Hickenlooper, Perlmutter and even John Salazar were considered equally if not more likely to be appointed than Romanoff.
I’m not wild on OFA putting our money into this, but otherwise yes. My complaint all along has been Bennet’s votes and efforts, not any of the things you listed.
And yes with Romanoff it’s a gamble that he might be better. But I take might over won’t.
Greater than AR1.0, 2.0 and even than 3.0, which I predict would be a lot like 1.1.
Raf, it has been a long, long time since I have posted on Pols, mostly because I don’t have the time to always follow along. You made some good points, but here are mine.
A candidate’s supporters are always willing to give their candidate a bit of a pass. Does that make Bennet’s votes right? Does what you said make Romanoff supporters wrong? For that matter, does it make Romanoff supporters right? No, no and no, but this is a campaign and both sides are trying to elect the candidate that we think will do the greater good. The problem I still see with many Bennet supporters is that they are supporting him because they think he has a better chance of winning the general election. Well, he’s spent $5.8 million and a ton of political capital and he can barely keep his head above water with Romanoff. So, why don’t we support the candidate that truly has fire in his belly in the election (and after elected) even if we might be disappointed with some votes in the end. After all, we can’t all think that any candidate is going to side with us on every issue. That’s impossible.
Maybe SOME things are, but he also did a lot for the state. He was a leader for Democrats and he should be respected for that. He was devoid of that respect when Ritter chose Bennet and he is being devoid of it now. In any case, I would rather have a senator who has had experience and a track record bettering the state, then one who has no experience doing that at all.
You know as well as I do that he had little choice and he did the best we could have hoped for in a tough situation (I doubt Bennet would have managed the situation equally as well). Bill Owens called the special session and Romanoff watered down the legislation as much he could. How can you say in one breath that he is taking too much credit for other people’s work, but in the next place all the blame on him for this legislation?
Romanoff put in his time and proved that he could do right by his constituents. There is no logical reason he shouldn’t have been appointed to this seat. So, it’s not really that Bennet was not elected by the people, it’s that Bennet had never proved that he deserved to be elected by the people, and with how poorly his campaign is being managed, I still don’t think he has.
Well, yes, we can.
Everything Bennet knows about the political process is Washington politics. His entire existence as a Senator is based on big-time political connections. What’s worse is that he is so much a part of that system, with so little political experience before, that he is infinitely more susceptible to being molded into whatever the Democratic Party leadership wants than being an independent thinker who attempts to be a leader.
So how can we have it both ways for Andrew? Well, first, I challenge you to say that Colorado politics is equivalent to the Washington political system. If it was, I argue, then Andrew would have been appointed our senator, because he would have been so connected. So, yes, Andrew is a political insider… in Colorado and not even enough of one to get appointed senator.
Well doesn’t this undermine Andrew’s argument that he has the experience to go to the US Senate and be effective? No, absolutely not. Colorado politics is not like Washington politics, but certainly his experience has given him knowledge of the legislative process, so he has a healthy understanding of what to expect and how to combat the pressure that is part of the DC system. In other words, he is much less susceptible to being turned into a party hack and much more likely to be a leader for Colorado.
I don’t think you have the place to tell us what OFA is. I was part of OFA. I tried to stay a part of OFA after the election. I, along with many others, wanted OFA to take a leading role in maintaining and building on the connections that were made to our community. I remember sitting in a meeting and straight up asking if this is what we could do and was told no; that OFA was only focused on supporting the President’s agenda. Listen, that’s great and all, but you do that by continuing to keep people involved, not by going door-to-door to get signatures in support of the healthcare plan.
OFA went dormant until the primary when it went from an organization of regular people, like me, to an organization of Bennet supporters. I’m not saying it’s a political machine, but the focus changed and it deserves the criticism it has received.
You’re damn straight, because Romanoff wouldn’t have had a primary challenger, because everyone and their mother in the Democratic party thought he should have been appointed. If there was a primary challenger against an appointed Romanoff, and OFA was supporting Romanoff, then I bet you there would have been plenty of people decrying their involvement.
As I argued above, he is more likely to be a leader than Bennet.
Unless their propped up puppets of the President.
I don’t think people are as delusional as you claim. I believe that the people that are supporting Romanoff think he will be a better leader for the state. Everything else is part of a strategy to get there; to do that. There will be ones disappointed with some of his votes, yes, but those are few and any claim otherwise is hyperbole. In fact, I think people are less inclined to be disappointed by Romanoff than Bennet, because we know Romanoff. He has a track record in the state. We know what to expect of him. We know his political maneuvering. Bennet? We didn’t know when he was appointed and we still don’t.
Chris Laughlin
Except for John Hickenlooper, Ed Perlmutter, John Salazar, Diana DeGette, Peter Groff, Polly Baca, Cary Kennedy, Alice Madden, and a few others. Remember the online poll that Romanoff won unanimously? No? Because he didn’t, even after asking everyone on his enormous mailing list to vote for him in it. It’s not even clear Romanoff was the front-runner in party circles, much less the unanimous choice.
That was hyperbole. But you must admit that a wide swath of the party thought he would be and it came down to him and Hick in the end. No one thought it would be Bennet.
So what, though? Bennet was mentioned as a possible Senate candidate as far back as 2006 on this very blog. It’s not like Ritter plucked Joe Schmoe from obscurity, he just wasn’t a name on everyone’s lips.
There was a reason no one thought it would be Bennet. He didn’t have the experience to make him ready to be a great leader for us.
Is that what we’ve been waiting for?
I thought we wanted a senator who could do some great legislating.
Leadership skills are ONLY gained in elected office. I keep forgetting that.
He didn’t have any experience working with the people of Colorado and therefore never developed the connection to know what is important to us. How can someone lead people he doesn’t understand?
stop digging.
MB was Supt of DPS, forcryinoutloud.
He still hasn’t connected with the average citizen in Colorado. Otherwise, as I told DevilishlyModerate, he wouldn’t be in a close race. I’m not trying to be an ass, but I really can’t see any other reason why he hasn’t crushed Andrew.
It was always going to be close. If AR couldn’t get 60+ at caucus (49.8)- he wasn’t going to get to 70 by assembly.
Despite Old BenBanobii’s claims to the contrary – Romanoff has history, D organization and contacts and a lot of D friends.
+/- 4% is all the margin either should expect unless turnout is really low (<80,000) or really high (>600,000) It was always going to be close.
Is that he thinks he’s entitled to every position. Let’s see, maybe he wants to be Senator and then Governor and then back to Senator. Well, there’s always Mayor.
He’s built up a lot of good-will over the years, true enough. That doesn’t mean he deserves any seat he wants. That’s a ridiculous assertion to make and a big reason why i jumped off his career wagon a long time ago.
but I’m saying that I (and many others) think he deserved that seat and he certainly had the credentials and knowhow to back that up.
Besides, I’d rather have someone who thinks they deserve a position because he or she put in the work building up the experience to deserve it than someone who has positions handed to them undeservedly.
Bennet is good and could be great.
AR was good – and I’m grateful for his service. But he’s not indispensable.
Yes, a lot of D’s thought he deserved the Senate appointment. Or the SoS. Or Lt Gov. Or something.
But that does not matter. Will Penny got that part exactly right – “Deserve has got nothing to do with it.”
secretary of state and lieutenant governor. Those were on his list too, until they fell through.
Romanoff of Perlmutter or Hickenlooper to the Senate Seat was a really popular thing to do.
That’s why Ritter’s second term will be so great!
makes him look petty and immature. Perlmutter wasn’t selected yet he endorsed Bennet, but then he is not a petty politician.
Plus, trying to run as a progressive, when nothing in his past has come close to progressive ( DLC conservadem ), just makes him appear phony. Why doesn’t he run on his record as speaker? Are there some things he would prefer to ignore that might tarnish his newly found progressive leanings?
after Bennet was picked
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
Ritter’s pick of Bennet a disaster?
Colorado Pols?
It’s funny how this site went from being a logical observer in this race to an overtly partisan site for Bennet.
It’s official, Bennet’s been a Senator for almost a year now. The experience factor is out of the question, i’d rather have a tested Senator than a uppity former state speaker any day of the week. Bennet has the same or better ID stats as AR after only a year whereas AR has worked over a decade in Colorado politics. I’d say I.D. and experience are non issues at this point.
Oh but I forgot, this was AR’s seat all along…
the race wouldn’t be so close. Michael didn’t have much time to get to know the people of Colorado, but I don’t even think he made an effort. The fact this race is so close is telling of that and contradicts your statements. We’ll see what happens Tuesday.
Also, he’s had a year in the senate being molded by the party leadership. I’m not saying his experience is bad, per se, but I think Andrew’s legislative experience in the state legislature is more beneficial. Personal opinion, of course.
Is that Dems have spent over 6 + million on a primary that did nothing but tear the candidates apart. These funds should have been put to better use; winning the Senate seat in the general, holding Colorado’s 4th congressional district, keeping control of the state house and senate (redistricting)and I can go on and on… That’s the fact of the matter, a guy who says he’s done so much for the Dem party is risking so much!
What’s that mean exactly? You keeps saying that Michael Bennet by being in the Senate has been molded by the “party leadership”. Who is doing this “molding” that we should be so afraid of? Are Dems now supposed to pull a Tea Party and turn on our own Party?
but is it too much to ask that our senator be an independent thinker, rather than someone who just does what he’s told?
… or 18 months, even!
Unless those first six months didn’t count, what with all the Jefferson Jackson tables questioning his legitimacy.
Perlmutter sulked about it for a while and was slow to endorse Bennet, but he got over it and got on with things.
I’ve seen this come up multiple times, and I am very curious as to where it started.
Again, I’m fairly new to Colorado, but from what I’ve read and heard, AR has been an active Democrat since the mid 1990s, and then in the state house for 8 years and also speaker. Doesn’t it make sense that he would seek state-wide office, and isn’t this the first time he’s run for state-wide office?
That just doesn’t strike me as somebody who would automatically feel entitled to a US Senate seat. Is there a quote where he’s said he was entitled? Are there some reliable sources indicating that AR feels this way?
This seems like a pretty childish thing to keep bringing up, because having AR seek state-wide office seems to be a natural progression to a career in public service.
On the flip side, I would be fairly confident that MB feels entitled to hold the senate seat. And I wouldn’t have a problem with that since it’s been his job for the last 18 months. So an entitlement argument for/against MB would not make any sense to me.
But with AR, it just seems contrived that people keep saying this (Karl Rove politics at its finest). Unless of course, there is pretty good evidence that AR really feels that way. If so, I’d like to see solid evidence, and it could influence my vote.
2008 – AR supported Hillary through the primary. Colorado went 60-40 for Obama. SoS Coffman runs for CD6 -a virtual lock. (No offense Hank. who?)
Obama wins, and in the transition all kinds of Colorado things start happening, some of which were public at the time, some not until later.
Example- In November Romanoff applied for several jobs in the Obama administration. But we didn’t know that until this year.
Coffman is replaced by Beuscher. A little odd – Bernie was seen by many as the logical next speaker of the House if the D’s could hold it. They did, but he lost his re-election. Romanoff wanted SOS which was public- and would have been a good choice I think.
Then Salazar gets DOI and Arne Duncan gets Education- where DPS Superintendant Bennet had been on the short list.
Ritter announces he’ll take suggestions for the Senate nomination and sets up an email address. Lot’s of people submit suggestions – Hickinlooper, Romanoff, Fitzgerald, Bennet, Webb, DeGette – lotsa names from lots a people.
There is some 3rd party campaigning for sure for Romanoff. A website, some other stuff.
Mid-December Ritter announces Bennet has the job – and within hours or days there is a website and a Bennet for Colorado campaign.
Then in the Spring of 2010 Romanoff puts a poll in the field. Never published but apparently it was to test a run for governor.
In May or June of 2009 (around the time Bennet started getting recorded publicly talking about his support of a public option – way before September) Romanoff has some conversation with Ritter about possibly becoming Lt Gov. The paper that shall not be named reported it last fall – I never understood how that was going to work, but it doesn’t happen.
Then in August the rumors start and in Sep Romanoff announces a primary challenge for Senate. A lot of people acknowledge they thought he should have been appointed in the first place – though I don’t recall Romanoff ever saying those words exactly.
But there is some public reaction from others that he felt like he should have been appointed. That he had done so much, and had a track record, and etc – and yet Bennet was appointed, who had never run for elective office, who had not been in the trenches at CODA or the State legislature doing all the things AR had done.
Oct Nov Dec – And in Jan Ritter announces he’s not running again. And for a few days there was speculation about Romanoff dropping out of the Senate challenge and running for gov…or even as Lt Gov. Romanoff explored the possibility – even called a press conference to confirm he was in fact not going to do it and would continue his primary challenge to Bennet.
Does he feel like he deserved the Seante appointment? OR any appointment? I don’t know- and I don’t care. I can see why people would get that impression. I can see why Romanoff and his supporters would want to perish the very thought.
I believe Romanoff wants to be Senator.
I also believe he wanted to be SoS, Lt Gov, Gov and that he would have accepted any of the jobs he applied for inth e Obama administration in the fall of 08.
Like I said- you would have to define “solid evidence.”
Romanoff should have been appointed instead of Bennet? Unbelievable. I’m not saying you have to agree with everything Raf said, I don’t think that was the point of it, but at least counterpoint it with actual substantive arguments.
You greatly overestimate Romanoff’s popularity as both the appointee and this election. You also seem to underestimate Bennet. Of course as a Romanoff supporter you should.
It just seemed strange to take the time to write out such a long “counterpoint” that was summed up as: “Andrew should have been the appointee cause he’s Andrew Romanoff”.
Please explain to me how these comments from my post support your claim that my argument is simply that Romanoff should have been appointed.
Emerald, I tried to make some real points about why I think Andrew is the better candidate, yes, then, but also now, and your only response is to try to boil down my comments into whatever preconception you have about Romanoff supporters. I’m interested in more substantive commentary, specifically, perhaps, why you think Bennet is the better candidate (and I believe general election electability is moot at this point). If you can’t do that, then spare me your thoughts.
because I think he was the right choice then and now.
I could see how this could be taken as I think Andrew thinks he deserve it. What I was trying to say is that if Andrew did think that and if Michael only had positions handed to him, I would rather have Andrew. I actually don’t think either are true.
EK was not referring to whether AR thinks he deserved anything or not.
EK was referring to whether you (and other AR supporters) believe he deserved it.
You do believe that.
So do others.
I don’t know what AR believes. And I don’t care- because as the man said Deserve’s got nothin to do with it.
What is wrong with me believing that. The man put in his dues. He got to know the state; the people. He was a leader. What’s the problem with me supporting him for those reasons.
Tell me, why do you support Bennet?
see
http://coloradopols.com/user/M…
There are comments too.
And before you get going- I know, I’m not a real D, not a real Coloradan. I still got to vote.
I figured you had probably already laid it out somewhere, but didn’t look for it.
I respect your opinion, but, of course, respectfully disagree with the overall argument that Bennet is the stronger general election candidate. The biggest evidence that a candidate is a good enough campaigner to win a general election is if they can win a primary. In Bennet’s case (just my opinion), I think he needed to win this primary big to keep the credentials of a candidate with more electability. I know you may argue that Romanoff always had the grassroots support that would make it close, but I disagree with that excuse. Bennet had the money and the means to win over the people of Colorado, including grassroots Dems, before Romanoff jumped in and long after, but he didn’t really make an effort. If he had, Romanoff would have been crushed long ago. God knows Bennet also had many more tools (money, political backing) at his disposal even as Romanoff lingered. But he didn’t take Romanoff seriously… potentially at his own peril.
I won’t say that Romanoff is the stronger general election candidate now, because I don’t think that we can predict that at this point. But I would say that there is not one that is stronger than the other.
You know why?
They are too similar.
I’m not saying there aren’t differences- there are.
But look at the website, or the media coverage or even Pols.
The differences such as they are – either no one cares about or those who care are a small minority.
It was always going to be close.
was boiling down my argument to that he simply should have been appointed. It’s insulting. He should have been appointed because he proved he was the right person for it and we should elect him now for the same reasons.
This is how many times you referenced how Romanoff and the appointment in your “counterpoint. It’s just about once in every single counterpoint. So every time you brought it up in your counterpoint you lost credibility with me. And unlike you, I don’t attempt to speak for anyone but myself:
Who is this we you are referring to? I certainly have been very inclined to be disappointed in Romanoff. I certainly have no idea what to expect of Romanoff were he to gain the Senate seat. Or was that more hyperbole on your part?
why you think that destroys my credibility. I’m not ashamed of saying that I think he deserved it then, just as he does now, because he had gained my trust with the work he did. I’m saying why I think it’s okay to support Romanoff in contrast to Raf’s points.
The point is, and always has been, I think he is the better person to represent us in Washington. How does that boil down to we should elect him now because he deserved it?
Yes, I was too general with the “we.” The “we” I was referring to are the people that are familiar with Romanoff, and I think there are a lot in this state, otherwise he wouldn’t be doing so well in this race. Did you not know him before this election? Honest question.
You still didn’t tell me why you support Bennet; why you think he’s the better man.
I did my homework. I looked at who endorsed which candidate. I looked at each man’s votes and what they were voting on. I looked at the votes beyond the titles, like consequences both intended and unintended. I put all that information in to the context of how Washington works instead of how I wish it worked. I leave it to others to idealize, I prefer being realistic. Finally, I watched both men run their campaigns, how they spoke about issues and how they spoke about each other.
After taking all that information in I tentatively supported Bennet. After joining ColPols and seeing how extreme Romanoff supporters were my support for Bennet became a little more firm. Once Romanoff went completely mudlingly negative I became a complete Bennet supporter.
My issue with Romanoff is that he wants to stand by his voting record while he was in the House and still run as a progressive. The two DO NOT match. Bennet on the other hand has never claimed to be a “pure” progressive. I have no problem with that as I understand that it takes moderates to form majorities to pass progressive legislation.
Not sure what your point of whether I knew Romanoff before this election of not was? I didn’t know Obama other than his record and his endorsements and still voted for him.
I was just curious. My guess was that you didn’t know him. That’s not bad, just a different perspective, which I can appreciate.
While there are a few implications or points I disagree with, I’ll spare you, as I don’t think they are relevant to the dicussion. Unless of course there is something you would like me to address…
“know” Andrew Romanoff have a different perspective than those who don’t. Some who know Bennet have a different perspective. And those who don’t know either made our decision objectively based solely on their record plus the political atmosphere.
I appreciate you sparing me. 😉
I’m always happy to have reasonable political discourse.
Not implying that you were thinking otherwise, but I do just want to clarify for you and whoever else that might be reading this that I don’t know Andrew personally. I have met him and spoken to him briefly a couple of times, but we’re not close by any means. I was speaking more about knowing his work and involvement in the state. When Michael Bennet was appointed, and this could speak poorly of me, but I had no idea who he was. In other words, I didn’t know him.
So you started a new thread. I guess you got tired of looking at those contradictory Bennet votes. I don’t blame you. You could have at least had the courtesy to link to the diary you are bashing: Zombies for Bennet. Must. Vote. For. Incumbent.. My initial response, which I had already put up when you started a new thread, is over there. I’ll respond line by line below.
However, in your screed you ignored several points about my diary:
1. You ignored the fact that Bennet seemed directionless and devoid of principle with his votes on gun control. It fact, it looked very much like he was playing politics, Bennet following the wind with Udall as Chief Wind Advisor. This is especially amusing since Daggett just announced the Bennet campaign does not play politics and does not act for political expediency. Daggett put Bennet on the very same high horse you are counseling against above, and Bennet fell off.
2. You ignored the fact that Bennet claims they are not negative when in fact they have been mocking and attacking Romanoff and his supporters since day one. I’m sure you recall the days here on ColoPols when Romanoff supporters were dismissed by the Bennet Groupthink Spin PAC as “Mike Miles dead-enders.” All that animosity that you — YOU — helped create is coming back to bite you in the ass. The evidence of Bennet’s negativity is in the emails. And if the emails aren’t convincing enough, just get a transcript of Trevor Kincaid’s greatest hits. Again playing politics and all about political expediency. Again putting themselves on a high horse and again falling off.
3. You ignored the fact that Bennet has various tremendous advantages as the incumbent, yet is still in severe danger of losing. Will you acknowledge this race is not being played on an even playing field? To make matters worse, Bennet is the beneficiary of incumbency advantages without having ever been elected to anything. This offends me as democrat and a Democrat.
What will it take for you people to realize Bennet is a weak candidate? I think if he accidentally burned down the Senate chamber you would blame Romanoff and call Bennet a genius.
ColoPols said of Raf’s piece, “Very well said and well written..” Wow, some pretty low standards, ColoPols.
Raf is saying, “Let’s dodge the issue of Bennet’s gun control votes and move on to something else.” By the way, Raf, those gun control votes weren’t too progressive, were they?
No, I didn’t. I explained what I meant. I referred to Bennet’s “incumbency” as being “illegitimate” which you took to mean I was saying his “appointment” was “illegal.” In fact, each of those four words has a distinict meaning.
You’re right. For the reasons I laid out in Ritter’s Gamble.
On an uneven playing field due to Bennet’s incumbency advantage, which is obvious to every non-Bennet Groupthinker in Colorado.
Channeling Thomas Jefferson? Wait for it…
Yes, like the law that says the people elect their Senators. The law doesn’t say, “The President shall appoint Senators.”
I’m not opposed to career politicians. I’m not trying to have it both ways. Politics is the only field where it’s not an advantage to be great at what you do. I would say on the spectrum of career politician-hood Romanoff is more of one but Bennet is certainly one also. To call someone a “career politician” in politics is a cliche used in political campaigns when the candidate has nothing substantive to say. And nobody uses cliches more than Bennet’s campaign, cliches that are an insult to any thinking person. Yesterday, the Bennet campaign called Romanoff a “dishonest career politician” and today they called him a “career politician” who is duplicitous. Is that them continuing to not play politics?
So when Bennet’s campaign talked about Romanoff’s political machine in emails dated 2/27/10 and 3/13/10 it was an attack straight out of the Republican playbook?
I did not make that claim…
…but you just did, didn’t you?
Again, something I never said.
Interesting excuse for Bennet’s lack of a spine.
Again, nobody said this.
No, but I know he’ll fight for reform instead of sending letters. He won’t need to ask Mark Udall how to vote. He will lead instead of follow.
My use of the word “convert” was a tongue-in-cheek reference to converting zombies back to sentient beings, but you go ahead with your discourse on the nature of God and Man.
Again, never said Bennet was even a bad person, let alone Hell’s own spawn. He’s just weak and not a leader and did not get to where he is today on his merits. I can paraphrase the rest of your piece as follows, “I’m now going to disguise this lengthy attack on Romanoff and Romanoff supporters by concluding with some pedantic nonsense about about peace, understanding and the American Way.”
So you’re saying this is all fan fiction?
Because that’s what you did. I tried responding to you on the level, and all you did was stick your fingers in your ears, and go, “LALALALALALALALA”.
Responses like yours are why I hesitated to engage you in a discussion. Because, like so many other folks, there’s no way that you’ll admit you’re wrong when you’re wrong. And whenever I point out an inconsistency in your logic, you dance on one foot, wave one hand, and yell something about zombies or group-think.
Look, for the last ever-loving time:
1. Does Romanoff have an uneven playing field against Bennet? Yes. Is it more uneven than any other primary challenger has faced ever, in the history of American politics? No. Yet, you and other Romanoff supporters continue to insist that this is so, despite the lack of any evidence to the contrary.
Again: tell me how Romanoff is more disadvantaged than, for example, Paul Wellstone going up for the Senate against Rudy Boschwitz in 1990? Or Barack Obama going up against millionaire Blair Hull and State Comptroller Dan Hynes in 2004? Or Ned Lamont against Joe Lieberman in 2006?
You can’t, because it’s not true. Romanoff faces the same challenges that any other primary challenger faces in a U.S. Senate primary. He’s had ample time and opportunities to make his case before Democrats. There’s a reason you don’t see that many primary challenges – because they’re incredibly hard to pull off. This isn’t something unique to Andrew Romanoff; it’s the very nature of the system.
For what it’s worth, speaking as someone who’s engaged in his fair share of them, I think primary challenges should be easier, mostly because it’s how we as a party decide what direction to take.
2. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: where are you folks getting this notion that the President appointed Bennet? The Governor did. I suspect that you’re getting it from the fact that Ritter said he talked to people about the kind of person whom he should appoint to the vacancy, which is how he came to appoint Bennet.
By that standard, had Romanoff gotten the appointment, would you say that the President had appointed him?
Regardless, you keep on blitzing past the point which I’ve been patiently making, which is that Senate appointments are the law in Colorado. If you think it’s a bad law, change it. I’ve already said that I’d support such a change! Moreover, the appointment isn’t permanent; in case you missed it, Bennet is facing an election against a guy he beat out for the appointment! You’ll have every chance on Tuesday of telling Ritter to go jump in a lake!
It’s a strange kind of oppression that gives you, OBK – and every other Romanoff supporter out there – the opportunity to cast it off freely through the ballot. Oh, that’s right…because it isn’t.
One last time: if you think Governors appointing Senators is such an onerous burden, change the damned law. I’ll be the first person to sign on in support. Somehow, I suspect that this is nothing more than a convenient cudgel, rather than a deeply held sentiment.
3. Political machines and legitimacy. I’m sure that when you were referring to Bennet as an “illegitimate” incumbent, it was with the purest of intentions; and when you name-checked the OFA political machine, it was merely as a technical descriptor.
Look, buddy – I know denotation and connotation, probably as well as you. You can hide behind the denotation of the words you used, but your connotation was clear as day. You clearly intend for people to think of Bennet as someone who is in office by foul means, and you clearly intend for people to draw a negative impression about OFA. So, before you accuse me, take a look at yourself.
4. Fighting for reform. Again, what do you mean by this?
I mean it. What does that mean? It’s empty progressive ad copy. How do you know that he’ll fight for reform? In other words, where’s the damned beef? You’ve got 8 years of a respectable, but moderate, record to contend with. Where’s the evidence – besides rhetoric – that Romanoff is going to go into the Senate and “lead instead of follow”?
What’s he going to do? Put Mitch McConnell in a headlock? Apply a sleeper hold on Tom Coburn? Cane Jim DeMint? What? Tell me.
That’s why I made the crack about orgies of legislation – see, I can do humor, and better than you, considering it flew right past your head. Also, I knew that you were being tongue-in-cheek about the zombies; I just didn’t think it was funny, so I chose to make it a teachable moment. You’re welcome.
Oh, and when you try to name check just how it is that Romanoff will lead, not follow, please try to remember that he’ll be at the bottom of the totem pole in terms of Senate seniority if elected, and that given the current political realities, the chances of any of his legislative proposals becoming law are less than zero, no matter how worthy. Which means you can’t use them as examples of leadership.
Look, OBK, you seem like a decent guy. I’m trying to have a conversation with you. I goofed when I didn’t link back you, so I’ve fixed that. I didn’t address your contention about gun control because, frankly, it’s not a major issue anymore – regardless of whether it should be – and because it wasn’t germane to what I was writing.
Speaking of that, I don’t care whether you think I’m pedantic or not. I’d submit that your original piece is a pretty good example of pedantic writing, in that it wanders around in search of a point, while at the same time ponderously instructing others in the Immutable Truths Inherent Within (see, more humor!), but I’d just be cruel.
And if you think that was an attack, you have a peculiar notion of what an attack entails. Suffice it to say that I save my venom for the people that sent my brothers and sisters in arms to a war that wasn’t worth fighting; for the people that over the last eight years took a booming economy and cast it into the abyss much like Leonidas did to the Persian in “300”; and for the people who, each day, seek to appeal not to the better angels of our nature, but to the darker demons that also lie within.
Respectfully, Andrew Romanoff isn’t one of those people. Neither are you, and neither are his supporters. I may disagree with you right now, but that which unites us is greater than that which divides us.
Now, can we all have a group hug? Please? Puppies and kittens are crying, Zorro among them.
Any disadvantage he had in this Primary was his own doing. We discussed this many times in the last 18 months. Nobody forced Romanoff to wait until August to announce his candidacy, by which time he was already millions of dollars behind in fundraising. He could have jumped in the race in March, when he first polled on it, and it would have made a huge difference.
but I was there in September when Colorado Pols
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
Credibility is a hell of a thing to lose Colorado Pols, and Tuesday is fast approaching.
Indeed, Wade, indeed.
You suck at …this.
I mean you’re not at the Sharon Hanson, JO or BJ level of suckitude, but, really don’t quit your day job.
why don’t you come over to the diary and defend Colorado Pols’ position of attacking Michael Bennet’s appointment and defending Romanoff’s primary challenge all the way until October 2009, when CoPols suddenly did a 180 degree turn and started attacking Romanoff?
http://www.coloradopols.com/di…
or better yet, defend Bennet’s decision of DPS’ retirement money into a risky banking deal that even the New York Times is calling out?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08…
What else ya got?
invitation for you to support Andrew Romanoff after the 10th.
Many many times.
In fact, I’ll go one further – he’ll have my support after Tuesday even if he doesn’t win.
not sure what value that support has by the way Bennet is doing now…
never mind, if the joke has to be explained…