CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
August 07, 2010 03:04 PM UTC

Weekend Open Thread

  • by: Colorado Pols

“Hope of ill gain is the beginning of loss.”



183 thoughts on “Weekend Open Thread

  1. Internal party battles have been a hallmark mostly of Republican primaries this year. But for sheer nastiness and personal ill will, few of those can match what Democrats are doing in Colorado.

    I have to agree – I honestly have not seen anything like this since I moved here in 1987.

    1. I have found over the decades that Democrats are more likely “eat their children” with internal debates and back stabbing deals than the Republicans who are usually in lock step with whomever is at the head of the party kowtowing to Rush, Cheney, and Beck these days. The Romanoff-Bennet campaign the last few weeks has been a mess, but I have to say, as one who has been there since the caucuses, the Romanoff people have been pretty consistent with the personal attacks on integrity, and the implied innuendos of corruption because of Senator’s Bennet birth, his family, and some of his campaign contributers..ALL WITHOUT A SHRED OF PROOF that Senator Bennet’s votes were up for sale. No, just a whisper campaign of the highest level of cynicism, especially coming from the so called Golden Boy of the Democratic Party.

      Bottom line? This all started with Ritter and his process. Frankly, Ritter has been somewhat of a coward in not stepping forward early on in this campaign, and answering questions about the selection process, and refuting rumors that Obama ordered him to appoint Bennet, etc. Like an experienced politician like Obama would pressure a Gov. to appoint someone with NO previous experience. The Colorado Democratic power brokers got their nose out of joint over Ritter not following their “recommendations”, and The Romanoff people have acting like spoiled brats, ticked off because Daddy didn’t get them the new Acura sports car they thought they were ENTITLED to. From there, you could see it coming from the Romanoff folks. I don’t know if Andy was in charge of this from the very beginning, or he just turned it over to some folks who let their feelings of resentment fuel a campaign Lee Atwater would have recognized.

      Senator Bennet’s campaign has done exactly the right thing..fight back. We all saw what happened to John Kerry when he tried to take the high road on the Swift Boat lies–he got rolled in the media, and his campaign never recovered. I am sure Senator Bennet wishes this hadn’t happened; that things like legitimate questions about the DPS pension, or the oil and gas vote could have been aired, and discussed, letting voters weight the facts and move on. Romanoff’s folks chose not to let that happen, and it was all downhill from there.

      We will see what happens next Tuesday. Whomever the Dems choose, the general election will be just as ugly from the Republican side if recent history, and recent events, are any indication.

      But, personally, I am enjoying the Republican’s self destruction so much….:*)

      1. So it could all be laid out in detail. They wouldn’t do it.

        I agree with you that it would have been better to discusses Senator Bennet’s votes in detail. But that had to start with Senator Bennet laying out why he voted as he did. And in more than a couple of vague sentences.

        Yes Romanoff attacked first (and second and third). But Bennet avoided the discussion in detail of his votes.

          1. Can you get him to explain in detail, including speaking to the questions that have been brought up on each:

            1. His vote against the various amendments to the financial reform bill.

            2. Why he thought reinstituting Glass-Steagal should not even be “on the table.”

            3. Why he voted against removing the tax breaks for big oil. Including exactly what the financial hit would be for the small producers here in Colorado.

            4. Why with all his talk of addressing the cost issue in healthcare he never introduced an amendment to do so.

            thanks – dave

              1. I asked to interview Bennet back when I was really bothered by his votes, before I decided to switch. The campaign was not interested. That was is a legit choice for them to make, I think they were focused on getting puff pieces.

            1. You know what I am a bit more concerned about the character of our candidates than their exact policy positions at this point.  If I trust a person’s chararacter I can support them. I know Michael and think very highly of his character. As a CFO for a company that employs 200 people most in the State of Colorado I also do not believe that the markets and capitalism are inherently evil.  You may diasgree with policy positions of Michael, but you know what he is not? A disingenuous liar.  

              1. But I think Bennet has talked one way while voting another. And that is a sign of poor character.

                ps – I also don’t believe markets and capitalism are inherently evil. I’ve spent my life in software startups and presently own one. When working properly markets provide society with amazing prosperity.

                1. ..out right lying about running a positive issues based campaign or out right lying about not taking PAC money a sign of? A sign of character that is acceptable to you?

                  That the two are so intertwined is even crazier. He lies about running a positve campaign and runs a smear campaign agianst Bennet for taking PAC money and then proves he lied again by saying he will now accept PAC money himself when everyone questions whether he can win in November without it.  

                  1. I think Romanoff has also exhibited lack of character with his flips on PAC money, using the word looted, etc. So yes, they both come out pretty bleah in the character department.

                    Everytime I compare the two I see major problems with both. What breaks the tie for me is I know we won’t see improvement with Bennet, but we may with Romanoff.

                    1. And for what it’s worth, I can understand someone looking at the two of them and selecting Bennet. I think that’s why this race is so close, there are differences but we each weigh them out differently.

                2. WHEN WORKING PROPERLY…

                  Ultimately it comes down to humans making decisions based on ethics, both personal and corporate, and their willingness to work with the constraints of the laws and regulations, or…dare I say..doing the right thing even if no one is looking. Recently…the free market has been a shambles when it comes to these issues, and it has led to what we have now…a bad economy, and a slow recovery.  

            2. Dave, I don’t know if you have worked on the Hill in DC, but it is amazingly complicated and constrained at the same time. Part of the frustrations that go with the job, as most politicians will tell the record.

              1. I would have to have specifics on the financial reform bill..which amendments, if there were poison pills in the amendments, which there often are, offered by Republicans looking forward to the November elections to use against any Democratic nominee.

              2. To be honest, I am not familiar enough with Glass-Steagal to speak to it for you.

              3. I recently posted an answer to this question. It had to do with the nature of Sander’s amendment, Sanders willingness to amend it to soften the blow on smaller oil and gas companies that typify Colorado’s Western slope, my knowing Senator Sanders and his at times maddening commitment to principal over pragmatism, and Senator Sanders’s lack of familiarity with the West and its special quirks and issues.

              4. I don’t have a good answer to this one either. What I can surmise is that, being such a huge issue for this Administration, the strategy and actual power to introduce amendments would be limited to senior Senators, not first time office holders. Again, it goes to the often arcane traditions of the Senate that drive even experienced politicians crazy. I suspect it simply came down to a question of seniority, a HUGE deal in the Senate.

              I would happy if other folks could weigh in with FACTS on the Glass Steagal issue…

              Sorry I couldn’t give you definite answers on your questions…nature of politics in my experience. So, sometimes it comes down to gut and trust feelings, and for me, Senator Bennet, as new as he is to DC, wins that over Andy Romanoff with the campaign he has run.  

  2. This is total number of times anyone in Colorado entered these terms, and the number of times people then went to my website. Lower than I expected (total searches – the percent going on to my site I am very happy with).

    Keyword Ad group Clicks Impr. CTR
    "ken buck"
    repub senate 2,009 22,231 9.04%
    "andrew romanoff"
    dem senate 578 18,008 3.21%
    "dan maes"
    repub gov 1,370 17,909 7.65%
    "jane norton"
    repub senate 975 17,703 5.51%
    "scott mcinnis"
    repub gov 487 11,976 4.07%
    bennet romanoff
    dem senate compare 628 10,420 6.03%
    "michael bennet"
    dem senate 214 9,110 2.35%
    norton buck
    repub senate 749 5,031 14.89%
    maes mcinnis
    repub gov 223 2,734 8.16%

    If we go by interest, the 3 challangers are doing much better than the annointed candidates. I don’t know if this means they are more likely to get a vote, or they are less known.

    1. means that a lot of folks are more interested with what’s being said about “bicycles”, “bullshit”, and “home sales” than they are about party propaganda concerning their annointed.

      interesting little article in yesterday’s NYT about Basil Marceaux, including a quote to the effect that folks have humorously embraced his candidacy as a way of giving their middle finger to the mainstream parties politics as usual.

      I’m not sure that this actually means that people are viewing these folks as persons they want as leaders, but there might be a some sort of message here in all of this.

  3. Hick makes a brilliant choice for LG that attracts front page headlines around the State.

    Hick vetted his choice without any word leaking out. A brilliant and well executed move

  4. Outlook for small business? sucks

    The National Federation of Independent Businesses monthly survey fell by 3.2 points as members cited “deterioration in the outlook for business conditions and ‘real’ sales gains.” The survey showed that more firms are looking at declining sales than are expecting higher sales.

    How’s the recovery going? Out of Steam

    “The recovery is so weak that it is not strong enough to generate new jobs for the new entrants in the labor force, let alone to find jobs for the 15 million Americans who would like a job and can’t get one.”

    Willingness to help the unemployed? not so much

    Republicans have insisted that domestic spending bills be paid for, but this week they nevertheless attempted to filibuster a bill to provide aid to states that would have reduced the deficit by $1 billion. And a few Democrats have said they do not support giving the unemployed additional weeks of benefits.

    Senator Stabenow has a bill to extend unemployment for those out of a job for 99 weeks – neither Colorado Senator has signed on and neither responded to a request asking where they stand on the bill.

    But a refusal to help the unemployed contrasts sharply with willingness to help the rich. “We’ve got people on the [Senate] floor now saying they believe there’s sufficient capability to eliminate the estate tax, to give billionaires very large tax cuts,” Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) told HuffPost. “A country that can do that coming through the deep recession that we’ve had ought to be able to help those who are chronically out of work, even beyond the 99 weeks.”

    Senator Bennet recently stated that his job is to worry about our jobs. I have to disagree with him on that – his job, and that of everyone in Congress, is to address the lack of jobs. Not “worry,” but “address.”

      1. News flash, the jobs picture is not a Romanoff talking point, it’s the biggest issue on most voter’s minds. I brought Bennet in on that final quote not to ping Bennet specifically, but because that seems to be the mindset of most in Congress – we’re concerned and that’s what matters…

        But good attempt to try avoiding the subject.

        1. by choosing not to answer it.  Thanks.  Many of us wondered how you could switch support to a candidate who has done little more than lie in his campaign.

          And do please spare us all the “I didn’t mean to slam Sen. Bennet, but . . . ” because clearly you did.  Otherwise you don’t need to mention him at all.  

          And your last sentence is a pathetic attempt to deflect attention from the fact that you chose not to answer the original question.  

          1. To his credit, David has been saying for months that the only issue is jobs and that the lack of private sector job growth is responsible for the lack of support for democrats.

            Give the man his due, whoever you are.  

            1. It’s a perfectly reasonable question, and many of us regard your stated reasons as unconvincing, as well as regarding your jabs at Sen. Bennet as beneath you.  We were mistaken in the latter.  

              1. So David took a little jab at Bennet at the end of his thoughtful post, and you make it the centerpiece of the world. Get a grip, Automaticftp.

                I was shocked to see how the current recession is playing out compared to all the others. This is really bad news.

                I am very concerned that the Democrats will be voted out and then we’ll really slip into a full-fledged Depression – because other than saying “no,” and insisting that we should extend the Bush tax cuts even though they’ll cost us trillions in the long run, the Republicans are utterly clueless.

                Paul Krugman was absolutely right a year ago, when he said we should have had a much larger stimulus.

                    1. I don’t see that in Romanoff’s message. He is clearly against letting the large banks continue unrestrained, but that is a good thing for every other business in the country.

        2. is that there won’t be anymore scumball lying ads from the Romanoff Rovian swiftboating machine and the second is that I’ll be able to go to this site without seeing an endless stream of you carrying on about how awful Bennet is and why we should vote for Romanoff over and over and over and over and over interspersed with a few posts congratulating yourself for one thing or another.  

          I’m sick of the nastiest Dem primary challenger I have ever encountered here in Colorado in all the years I’ve lived here, quite a few, most of my life. Miles was nothing like this, probably because he and Salazar had real and obvious policy differences and actual separation on the left right right scale whereas scorched earth and Rovian tactics are all AR has. But I’m even sicker of your posts. You make Wade look level headed, restrained and rational. I’m beginning to wish somebody had goaded you into losing it instead of Steve Harvey.  I’m taking a vacation from your posts so you needn’t bother to reply. Just venting. Now I feel better.

          1. about talking about the lousy job picture, the fact that the economy is stuck, and the unwillingness of Congress to address it?

            News flash – if Bennet is the candidate in the general and Congress is still viewed as not effectively addressing jobs, there is no way he can win.

              1. No money! And as nasty and disingenous as his campaign has been if he does win Tuesday I do not see a lot of Bennet supproters lining up to write him checks, myself included.

          2. David makes one little, almost joking, jab at Bennet and you become totally unhinged.

            I am a Bennet supporter. I do think Romanoff’s most recent ads have been rather slimy. But if by some miracle Romanoff pulls off an upset, I’ll support him, but he stands less of a chance than the more moderate and better funded Bennet does against either Norton or Buck.

            1. One anything.  I’m talking about weeks and weeks of so much of the same Dave crap I’m thoroughly sick if it and I couldn’t have stated so more clearly. Can’t say much for your reading comprehension skills or for Dave’s. One?!? Seriously? That’s what you think I said?  Wow!

              1. It looks like you call crap anything you disagree with. I’m not saying you should agree with me, but please entertain the possibility that someone could look at the same situation and come to a different conclusion.

                After all, life would be awfully boring if we were all the same.

          3. that is a mathematical and logical impossibility on a par with squaring the circle and trisecting the angle.

            You make Wade look level headed, restrained and rational.

            1. And it did make me feel better.  Dave’s inconsistencies do irritate me, this has been a very irritating Dem primary and one thing you can say for Wade:  He has a 100% shill consistency rating.  Doesn’t get to me at all.

              1. Hell, last night JO even returned after a long shill sabbatical.  Sharon Hansen checked in!

                Dracula has risen from the grave…

                 Come on, Tuesday, come on…

  5. As I understand it, they floated bonds to then dump a bunch of cash into the retirement fund, which I assume they will then invest.

    Since the money will be needed over time as people retire, couldn’t they have never done this and just paid into the fund at the same rate they were paying odd the bonds? And wouldn’t that have been cheaper & safer? Definitely no bank fees.

    Or was the bond money all spent this year?

    1. that this was done so that they could shore up an awful looking pension fund situation so as in order to make DPS appear to be a better partner for PERA — some nice shade of red for the pig’s lips, if you will.  A bit of a grift on some grifters.

      1. Wasn’t he in on the whole program to dilute the structural DPS spending/revenue problems by agreeing to sweep DPSs pension problems under the statewide bus of PERA?

      2. close to retirement who was looking for some reassurance on Bennet’s chances in the wake of the latest round of ads because she is convinced that Bennet saved her pension, a pension she has worked hard for most of her working life.

        Funny how borrowing to keep promises to working people of modest means is terrible while borrowing exponentially more from the Chinese to pay for unprecedented tax cuts for the rich in spite of a decade’s worth of track record proving the cuts don’t lead the rich to invest in a way that creates better jobs but in fact have been part of the growing gap between the rich and the rest, a shrinking middle and mounting poor, is not just great but absolutely necessary! Makes about as much sense as the UN bicycle thing.  

        1. Long-term, however, it almost never helps anyone’s cash flow to hand over a substantial portion of their investments to bankers in the form of service fees.

          More crudely put, it’s hard to stay healthy when you’re hosting a belly full of tapeworms.

  6. This is NOT intended as shill bait, and I’m hoping to get some legitimate response mixed in with the snark.

    Isn’t there some kind of mechanism on the editorial side of things that would’ve detected Andrea Merida’s accepting contract cash from the Romanoff campaign or Jeannie Kaplan’s donations to the same campaign before writing op-eds for the Post or pitching/being quoted in the New York Times? (Yes, I know this could have happened from the Bennet side or any other campaign, but these are the current top-of-mind examples).

    Obviously, Andrea’s admitted she should’ve disclosed.  Would either paper have done things differently if they knew?  Should the Post and the Times feel “taken” in any way or is that just part of the business?

    1. are inherently biased opinion pieces. Merida was already a public supporter of AR. That’s in fact why she would be asked to write such a piece or be accepted if it was one she voluntarily submitted.

      Does it make it somehow less authentic because she was also a paid consultant? I fail to see the connection here. And this lie that she was for things other than what she was in libelous in my view.

      1. Go look up all the comments anytime campaign staff said anything for Bennet or Romanoff or any other candidate in any other race.

        Of course it changes the perception of authenticity.  Do staff believe the good things they  say  and write about their candidate? Sure.   Would they say and write them even if they didn’t. Of course.

        Disclosing the relationship preserves whatever authenticity there is.  Hiding it is damaging.

        How you could pretend to claim otherwise is ….bizarre. But perhaps telling.

        1. and is an elected official? No.

          That she is also a paid consultant assisting with Latino GOTV efforts. Yes.

          The implication that something else underhanded happened there. Hardly.

    2. Writing an op ed without disclosing that you are a paid member of a campaign should be a no-no; writing an op-ed and disclosing your link to the campaign is entirely appropriate.

      Pitching a story to a reporter is entirely different. Campaigns are entitled to pitch stories about the opposition to reporters, to whom it is then left to research and decide whether there is a legitimate story there.  

  7. Just got the robopoll a minute ago.  Hung with it all the way to hear who was running it at the end.

    Polled on Gov and Senate races, favorability of each candidate, head to head races in the gov and senate primaries, head to head races in the general, and all permutations of the three-way for governor.

    Asked about support for Obama, health care, the Tea Party movement, and the direction of the Republican party.

    For splits, it asked for self-identification of party affiliation, gender, age, and self-identification as liberal, moderate, or conservative.

    It asked at the beginning to self-identify likely voter in the primary, and self-identify voting in the last Presidential.

    Should be an interesting poll.

    It was NOT a push poll.

    The only thing I didn’t like about it was that when it asked me to press 1 if I had a favorable opinion of Tancredo and 2 if I had an unfavorable opinion, it wouldn’t let me press 4.

      1. But an independent polling house will rarely announce who the customer is.  There doesn’t even have to be one.

        It felt a little Republican in that it asked a favorability rating for the Republican party and a couple of questions about the Tea Party.  Asking those questions doesn’t necessarily mean a Republican sponsor.  They’re a legitimate curiosity this year.

        But no way to know for sure.

        Last time they polled Colorado, which was in May, I think they polled as an independent.


        Incidentally, PPP is now polling for Kos,  replacing the fired R2K.

    1. by “Innovative Research and Data Solutions”, who’s President and CEO is Jim Pfaff according to their facebook page. Should see a slew of polls come out tomorrow or Monday.

      1. the Susan B. Anthony list supports pro life women, period.  They may limit themselves to pro-life Republican women.  It’s the sort of anti emily’s list.

        1. At least most of us are pro-life by our own lights.  Many who claim to be pro-life are all for the death penalty, denying care to those born to uninsured parents(once out of the birth canal I guess they aren’t so cute to the “pro-life” crowd anymore) bombing Mecca, torturing people alleged to be terrorists to death as if that’s a good way to find out for sure, killing thousands in wars of choice, things like that. Without across the board consistency, the term pro-life is too vague to have meaning.

          What is objectively the case is that, when it comes to a woman’s right to choose, there is pro-choice and anti-choice. That’s what it should be called.  

          1. .

            as much as we’re all pro-life, in Ralphie’s locution.

            God created you with inalienable characteristics (Free Will, e.g.) and rights (enumerated and not.)

            Paper or plastic.  It’s in your very nature.  

            You can choose Good or Evil.  Just because a choice is available, and being able to choose is good, that doesn’t make every available choice good.


            1. on the good and evil market and neither do I.  My objection, though, is to your side using the term pro-life when most of you are nothing of the kind except in this one specific area. That’s why, in reference to this one a specific thing and not as a meaningless generality, it should be pro-choice or anti-choice with you free to  judge the availability of choice, now the law of the land, to be evil and to try to end it through over-turning the Supreme Court’s decision.

              You don’t happen to be a vegan Quaker, do you? Now that would be a position with some serious pro-life credibility. And you need to be careful about throwing around good and evil with such assurance. Especially if you claim a biblical base for the distinction. It’s such a difficult and contradictory patchwork of dos, don’ts and strange “abominations”, like eating shrimp, having evolved over so many centuries and having been edited and re-edited so often according to the agenda of those in power at any given point along the way.

              And certainly you have little right to impose such smug self righteousness so secure in you and your church having the only correct answers with the rest of us being benighted heathens. With all respect, to my ancient people your religion would have seemed pretty heathen what with the central blood sacrifice of a deity, the  Lord Eternal in human flesh, born to a human virgin.

              Just sayin’. No offense meant. I’m certainly not a very observant Jew and make no claim for the superiority of my particular ancestral bundle of wisdom, eternal truths, myths, taboos and metaphors.  Some of them are clearly just as nuts as anyone else’s. Which is another great reason for no state religion.  

                1. but since you don’t believe any of us are evil I suppose I wasn’t too far off in assuming that you don’t recognize Barron as an authority on the subject. Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.

                    1. Find the the authority Barron presumes on moral questions irritating.  But at this point in this lousiest of all primary seasons I can remember, I’m easily irritated.

              1. are both wimp terms, what I call “accolade labels” chosen in hopes of framing the dialogue.  The real terms are pro abortion and anti-abortion.  

                 No one is fully “pro choice” any more than they are fully “pro life.”  Would I be “pro choice” if I said “I don’t personally approve of the holocaust but that’s a matter best left to a subject people and the psychotic dictator who controls their fate?”

                 to say that nobody is “pro abortion” ignores the fact that the term is shorthand for “I support keeping abortion legal” but as anti abortion means I want to outlaw abortion.

                 If you must, use a limiting term “I”m pro choice On abortion” or “I’m pro life on abortion.”

                 I favor keeping abortion legal and, as Saint Hillary said, rare, by providing the services to keep it rare.   I’m also in favor of the death penalty for those who really have it coming, like Ted Bundy and my no-good cousin Wendell, who still hasn’t returned the power saw he borrowed from me last summer.  And who LOVES the Oakland Raiders.  


                1. Most who believe that a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to complete a pregnancy, including women who have had abortions, don’t think abortions are just great and everyone should have one.  That’s the meaning I get from the term “pro-abortion”. I don’t know anyone who is pro-abortion in that sense and am quite sure that view would be restricted to a very tiny minority.

                  Most pro-choice advocates would be happy if a combination of education and wide availability of safe, effective birth control made abortion very, very rare. On the other hand, most anti-choicers are also against most effective forms of birth control and against science based sex education that would include accurate  information on all forms of birth control including but not limited to abstinence, reality being what it is.  

                  Pro-choicers believe people should have the choice of determining the number of children they want and would much, much prefer seeing abortion avoided as much as possible as a means to that end. Trust me,  little girls don’t grow up dreaming of having an abortion some day if only they  will be allowed to do so.

                  Anti-choicers demonstrate a belief that they and only they should be the ones to make that choice for everyone, as well as the choice as to whether and when people should have sex, who should be having sex, who shouldn’t, under what conditions and with whom.

                  I therefore stand by my wimp terms. I do think it’s about choice including the choice of whether we decrease the number of abortions through coersion, proved not to be an effective means, or by education and availability of birth control.  I also stand by my rejection of the term pro-life to describe the overwhelming majority of those who lay claim to that label.

      2. by American United for Life who picked her because of her work to defund Planned Parenthood which contains this curiosity:

        AUL, a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) that has never endorsed a candidate before, is able to officially throw its support behind Norton as a result of a portion of the landmark Citizens United Supreme Court decision, according to Yoest. In a controversial 5-4 ruling earlier this year, the court found that corporate funding of political advertisements in elections could not be limited. It also addressed the role of 501(c)(4) groups in political campaigns, hence, AUL’s foray into endorsements. The AUL does not plan on providing any resources to aid Norton in the final days before the primary.

        While I’m not an attorney, I am a 50(c)(4) board member, and my understanding is that c4s had been allowed to endorse, and contribute.  Anyone know what Citizens United changed?

        1. .

          The one who, speaking of a woman who had an abortion, published

          “[Abortion] will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death”

          That would be the one famous for advancing the cause of women’s suffrage.  Are you thinking of another Susan B. Anthony ?

          Granted, she never supported outlawing the practice; I think she thought that civilized people recognized the barbarity of the practice and eschew it.  If so, I agree.  


  8. Congratulations to Rhonda Fields, who was selected this morning to run as the Democratic candidate in HD42 to succeed Karen Middleton. She received a first ballot majority at the vacancy committee.

    She now has to beat some Republican, but it’s a D-leaning district.

    1. AR, “The difference is that I won’t gamble with our children’s future and I will not take a dime in special interest money”

      Unless of course it is from the DSCC special Andrew “Pure as Rocky Mountain Spring Water” Romanoff account.  

      What a jerk.

  9. Assuming that the vast majority of people who plan to vote in the primary have already do so by now, today’s pop quiz looks back:

    1. What two things do each of the following have in common: Arlan Specter, Jon Corzine, Creigh Deeds, Martha Coakley.

    1b. In light of the answer to 1., which of these names best fits on the above list: Michael Bennet or Andrew Romanoff.

    2. Which is more effective: a well-financed advertising campaign without a strong field organization, or a strong field organization without very many ads on television?

    3. Are the winds in 2010 blowing in favor of, or against, incumbents in Congress?

    4. Which scenario enhances a candidate’s image as a “man of the people”: (a) selling his house to help pay for his campaign; (b) writing a check to help pay for his campaign (assuming the amounts of money to be roughly equal)?

    5. In 2010, is it a net positive or net negative to be identified as a “former investment banker”?

    6. What is the popular perception of the state of public education in 2010, positive or negative? In light of your answer, is being associated with running a school system a net positive or a net negative?

    7. How closely do most voters follow primary elections? (a) very closely; (b) somewhat closely; (c) barely aware; (d) completely unaware.

    8. When they see political advertisements on television, do most voters (defined as the plurality) (a) believe everything they see; (b) disbelieve everything they see; (c) carefully analyze each, do research and fact-checking, and make up their mind; (d) take a break to get another beer.

    9. Do most voters (a plurality) think taking contributions from lobbyists is (a) a good thing; (b) a bad thing.

    10. Given only two choices, do most voters think political campaigns are more like (a) a Sunday school picnic; (b) a street brawl.  

    1. This will be simple and less clever then your questions.

      1. Should you support a candidate who has repeatedly lied about running a positive issues based campaign?

      2. Should you support a candidate who has repeatedly lied about not taking PAC money.

      3. What does Andrew “Not an Ivory Tower” Romanoff stand for?

    2. If you do win, do you intend to keep up the negative campaign defaming Michael Bennet and any Democrat to the right of Lenin?  Or will you come sucking up to us demanding money and support?

      I’m betting a victorioius Romanoff keeps up the negative attacks on Bennet.  I don’t think he knows how to attack a Republican — certainly, if he does, he hasn’t shown it.

      1. But campaigning in the primary against the general opponent would be stupid. Yes Bennet and Norton both did that, but I would call that hubris.

        But good of you to lay the groundwork for our coming together on Wednesday 🙂

          1. I actually support my family by working in finance. So I guess I have no place on the AR bus.  I am evil. By the way we employ 200 people in the US most in Colorado.

                1. you had to lay off those 200 people? And if, God forbid, half of them couldn’t get another job in the following 99 weeks? Do you think “capitalists” favor government controls over financial companies and welfare systems paid for by taxes?

                  I’m truly curious about the mindset of “capitalists” in 2010. The term seems more reminiscent (to me) of 1910.

                  But more to the point: you raise your defense of capitalism in the context of the 2010 Democratic Senatorial primary. Is the defense of capitalism an issue in this race, do you think?

                  1. So here is the answer. Andrew has run as an anti business populist.  I for one do not actually believe he is (interpreted: run left to win the primary, which is smart politics). Private business is the source of sustainable jobs in the US.  

                  2. Since your central theme, JO, is that anyone who runs his or her own business is evil….

                    Where did that come from?

                    Andrew has run as an anti business populist

                    Is regulation of business, especially finance, equivalent to being “an anti-business populist”? That sounds like a Republican talking point, does it not?

          2. painting yourself into the corner with Tim Tribbets and Ray Springfield- Andrew is such an inherently evil man that there couldbe no way for them (or you?) to turn around their vitriolic rhetoric and support him in the general.

            Maybe they want an R to win in November by the sounds of it. Do you?

            1. If Bennet wins, he won’t support him under any circumstances.  He wants a far right republican to win so that six years from now, a leftist Democrat can get the seats.  He said it, time and time again.  You didn’t.  He did.  That’s why he’s a shill and your a supporter.   I began by supporting Romanoff.  But I came to realize that he was running on terms so negative and destructive that, if he won the nomination, he would be unable to win in November.  I still think Bennet will pull it off.  But AR’s relentlessly negative campaign has alienated thousands of people he needs to win in November.  If he wins, fools like JO will learn it will take more than the words “Ken Buck” to put humpty dumpty and the Democratic Party back together again.  And the 11th hour assault here on pols, where everyone has lkong ago voted, only underscores the mean spiritedness and short-sightedness of the Romanoff campaign.  

               In the end, if AR wins, I’ll probably hold my nose and vote for him.  But it’s not automatic.  He has to do something to earn that support.  And as for money or campaign time, I can devote those resources to candidates of proven integrity.  So, yeah, I’d say I’m proud to be in the corner with Tim Tribbets and Ray Springfield rather than JO, Stryker, Wade Norris and Sharon Hanson.  God, even Sharon resurfaced this week.  How long, oh Lord, how long?

              1. Fingers crossed it won’t but since he’ll vote the same way Bennet would in spite of all his trying to position himself as something completely different, I don’t think it would be logical for supporters of either not to vote for the other.  But as I’m quite sure he can’t possibly raise enough to win a senatorial I will devote whatever spare change I can scrape up and my time as a volunteer to races that can be won and candidates that don’t make me gag.

                Too bad I keep running into Bennet volunteers now so disgusted with Romanoff they have gone from “Sure I’d vote for Romanoff” to “I can’t possibly” in the last two weeks and I’m not sure they will get over it in time for the general.  

                1. Actually, I’m predicting a Bennet win.  But either way, we’ll vote D in November.  But you nailed it:If AR wins,  I think I will put my time and money into races where we’re more comp[etitive and where I have total respect for the candidates: (Cary Kennedy, Bernie Buescher, Betsy Markey, Stan Garnett, Rep. Joe Rice, and others).  I originally favored Romanoff but switched when I realized he was running on terms that would make it very hard for him to win in November if nominated.  I still think that’s true.  

                  1. makes me feel better. I feel the same and hope we’re right. I’m trying to get my more furious Bennet supporter friends to cool down a little just in case.

                    1. bennet trails in the post poll by 3 points, leads another one by 4 pts.  But a good GOTV can add 5 points and Bennet counter-attack quoting post “politics at its most cynical” was effective.  Assuming worst case, bennet is down by 3 points, his GOTV adds five and he wins by two.  

                    2. I know lots of volunteers who have been working very hard and still are but I don’t know much about the Romanoff GOTV.

                    3. My wife has long been registered as a D.  I registered last December as D, after 33 years as an R.  Campaigns don’t always use the latest lists and I still get calls thinking I’m an R, while the D stuff does to my wife.  We have had six calls from Bennet people — even though we told them we’

                      d already sent our ballot to them.  Not one call from a Romo backer.

                        I did some door to door and some phone canvassing for Bennet, and saw how hard they worked to identify potential supporters.  I assumed Romo was doing the same. But the lists I worked from were raw registration, no way to tell the preference4 of a voter without asking him/her.  The strong Bennet follow-up vs. no Romo suggests that Bennet put a lot of his extra money into GOTV stuff, not just advertising.  

                       I admit my own family is an awful small sample.  But a 6-0 disparity in calls (mostly live plus the Obama robocall) strongly suggests that Romo’s resources were stretched too thin to cover this gotv effort.  

                    4. but have done a phone banking session a week for the past several weeks.  The lists we were working from were definitely targeted GOTV lists the past three weeks.  By the end of last week we were getting some people who were pretty miffed over all the calls. I know that the people we were calling all had at some point shown at least a leaning towards Bennet and had a history of past primary voting.

                      It takes a while for the lists to catch up with the returns so people do get called in the last stretch even though they may have voted already.  I know that in my county, Arapahoe, there has been a relentless effort to keep calling as long as there is any doubt as to whether the ballot has been returned.  I didn’t know if the effort was being matched by the Romanoff campaign.  I haven’t received Romanoff calls but I responded negatively very early on and may have been scratched as a definite no.

                    5. I told the caller we had just dropped off our ballots, and didn’t get another call.

                      Seems like the Bennet GOTV operation is very efficient.  Cross us off the list, move on.

                      Incidentally, we got no calls from Romanoff GOTV.

            2. …I said it would take some fence mending to convince me to give him money or volunteer for him. I am not so self improtant to think he needs to mend fences with me. But he will need to in general terms with the Party. And as has been pointed out by some AR supporters that is the noral course of business after any primary.

    3. …examples of “positive campaigning that avoids negativity” from Bennet supporters on this site.

      I will concede that I had not entertained the notion that Romanoff, once the candidate, would continue to focus on the person he has beaten, rather than turn to the Republican candidate, who will also be known after Tuesday.

      1. Romanoff’s whole campaign is “I’m the only Democrat that doesn’t stink.”

        Will he know how to attack a Republican if he gets the chance?

          So, go back to shill school and ask that question.  Hearing an AR hatchet man whining that his targets are getting “negative” is so typical of the vile campaign you’ve waged from day one.  

        1. 1. I’m pretty sure you don’t think that Romanoff, once nominated, would continue spending resources attacking Bennet, to what end I can’t imagine. And since I give you more credit than that….

          2. If you were confident of victory, why go on and on about an opponent you think is going to lose?

          3. The Pop Quiz wasn’t especially aimed at either side; it was intended to raise some generic issues that an outside observer might wonder about in thinking about the shape of the coming general election.

          4. I’ve repeatedly noticed that the term “shill” is reserved for Romanoff supporters, never Bennetistas. I vaguely wonder why users of the term (a) think it’s going to have an impact on anyone, anyone at all; (b) think it is useful to keep repeating it; (c) think that use of this term, like others of similar ilk (“jerk,” to cite one in this very thread), somehow makes clear that the Bennet camp is populated by “positivists.”

          5. “Vile campaign.” Possibly you didn’t hear State Senate honcho Shaffer say, at the Boulder County Assembly, “the one thing that distinguishes Michael Bennet from his opponent is Michael’s family.” IF that wasn’t offensive, then why did Shaffer come back to the podium a few minutes later and apologize for his remark–without saying what he was apologizing for? AND, IF Shaffer’s remark wasn’t part and parcel of the planned Bennet Ivory Snow campaign, how to explain Bennet’s use of his family time after time after time?

          1. …I did not call anyone on this blog a jerk. I called Andrew a jerk for breaking his promise to run a positive issues based campaign. He broke it so badly that it will take a while to put the pieces back together before he can ever worry about the Repugs.  If you have some how missed that point again you are hosed.

            1. …turning his tactics against the Republicans? Would you still be offended? Would you vote for Norton/Buck just ’cause you took offense at what you perceived as a “nasty” tone of Romanoff’s campaign against them?

              OR, does the perception of what comprises a low-down campaign that doesn’t focus on issues depend just a little bit on whether your candidate is on the receiving end or the sending end?

              1. JO thinks next time we’ll like his lies because he will have proven that lies can defeat the truth.   Give it up, shill boy.  You just nhever learned the first law of holes, did you?

                1. …I read some complaints about the venemous atmosphere on this site, I’ll remember to cite your comment, especially in the context of this nano-thread. Shill boy? First law of holes? Lies?

                  Your comments speak about you, not me. About your cause and your candidate, not mine.

          2. The Pop Quiz wasn’t especially aimed at either side;

              boy, you Romanoff shills can really tell a whopper when you put your mind to it.  


        2. can you refer to one piece of campaign literature or an ad or anything from the campaign at all that smacks of this “holier than thou” attitude you mention?

          No, you can’t, because if it fictitious rhetoric designed to impugn his character with baseless charges.

      2. …is that if Romanoff is the candidate there will some bridge mending to do before you even think about the Republican candidate. If you do not realise that you are hosed.  With very few exceptions the Democratic party office holders in Colorado support Michael. So if AR pulls out a win through grass roots support more power to him.  But he better find an agressive and succesful way to get the rest of us on board.

        1. “Ken Buck” or “Jane Norton.” One or the other will be right on Tuesday.

          Are Bennet supporters likely to support one of these?

          It’s the nature of politics to sling shit one minute and kiss-‘n’-make up the next. Not everyone gets over it the next day, or the next week — not even the next year. But mostly they do when attention turns to the next chapter.

        2. If somehow the voters respond to the negative tactics of Romanoff’s folks and he is the Dem candidate, I WILL be sitting this one out, and so will a bunch of other folks who otherwise would be gladly supporting the Democratic ticket. I am aghast at the scope and degree of negative BS the Romanoff campaign has chosen…let me repeat that..CHOSEN to engage in during this campaign. It would be bad enough if we had to send a candidate whose ambition clearly trumps principle to DC for two years, but for SIX? …Hard to swallow…

          1. Yes using the word looted in one ad was a lie. But aside from that? The ads drew very direct comparisons, they looked at things from Romanoff’s point of view, but that’s how comparison ads work.

            So what else has you this upset?

    4. …time to go throw some ultra-leftist anarchist communist bombs. Sorry that you didn’t answer any of the questions on today’s quiz. I’m sure you knew the answers, but no passing grades for blanks. Better luck next time. The next quiz will be given in, ah, 2014? 2016? Watch this space.

      I wish I could give credit for Avoidance Schemes in the Face of Defeat, but that’s a non-credit course.

      Look forward to seeing you in the next class: How to Kiss, Hug, and Make Up. Sunday mornings, 10 a.m., church basement.

  10. I’m not expecting Bennet to be a Sam Rayburn or LBJ in terms of getting things through. But when amendments come up, and as you say they are imperfect, he generally finds a reason to vote against the more progressive ones.

    So for starters, how about if on the votes he takes, he votes for these imperfect amendments because they are better than business as usual. (And at the same time, work to make them better.)

  11. I’m a 100% Hick supporter. My only fear is that whoever wins for the Republicans, their transgressions may fade come November and some sort of new dirt will be dug up on the Hick a couple of weeks before November.

    I have a feeling we’ll be hearing a LOT about Helen Thorpe from the crazy radical right.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

40 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!