U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Michael Bennet
(D) Phil Weiser
60%↑
50%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
60%↑
40%↑
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) J. Danielson
(R) Sheri Davis
50%
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(D) Jeff Bridges
(R) Kevin Grantham
40%
40%
30%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
March 03, 2009 10:39 PM UTC
32 Comments
He’s taking his time trying to figure out where he stands before it comes up for a vote and you think that’s a bad thing? I appreciate the fact that he’s not instantly towing the party line (even though I support EFCA) without seeing whether he actually supports the law himself.
One of the things I always liked about Ken Salazar was his willingness to vote the way he felt was right. He often supported things that didn’t please the party activists, or even the party establishment (or hell, even me) but he supported them because he believed in them. That is what representative Democracy is all about.
I also don’t see you attacking Mark Udall–who has been equally ambiguous on his support–but then again he’s in office for the next six years and you can’t score any political points by attacking him.
And just how does Andrew Romanoff feel about the EFCA? Oh right, he doesn’t have to declare a position because he’s not in office. Have you asked him if he supports it? With all of his business allies, somehow I doubt he would be jumping all over it like you expect Michael Bennet should be doing. Again, this is an area where I doubt he and Bennet have a huge policy divide.
One last thing. You can’t say:
What you should say is:
“You know I support Andrew, so I will post this website which is in no way endorsed by or affiliated with Andrew Romanoff in any official capacity.”
I’ll leave it up to you to edit that part.
and you are right, Udall hasn’t committed, and has no need to make a statement because he is pretty damn safe in his seat. Romanoff has not stated his position on the issue either.
But, this issue I believe, will create tangible pressure for Bennet, in that it does create space for a difference in position for a primary candidate.
the question is now, who will have the stones to step up to the plate?
Or, Bennet could announce his support and somewhat close the space.
what i like the most is that there is a discussion that we can’t even have without the threat of a primary.
Not sure that’s entirely right. Remember the heated, lengthy discussions a year ago about Salazar’s position on FISA? Democrats can ALWAYS have discussions about how their reps ought to vote. Just sayin’.
Every freakin’ day at Kos it’s “Let’s primary the bastards” over and over and over… Sure, maybe some folks need a primary scare…but over Bennet thinking about a single bill that makes some of them cream their Howard Dean emblazoned shorts?! Get over it.
The other day part of their crowing was about Rep. Ellen Taucher’s “indecision” on EFCA and how she needed a primary challenge. Have these people never met the Dem establishment in NorCal? Hell, Markos himself lives all of 15 minutes from her district…NO ONE in their right mind is going to end their career by challenging her.
Bennet will announce his decision when he announces his decision. Is EFCA even on the Senate Calendar yet?
And what in the sweet name of Christ is so “brave” about Darcy Burner?
Huffington Post
Will Colorado Senator Mike Bennet Stand with Workers?
it’s cute how Green says:
The only “bold” announcement he could make is saying he’s against it…then you could ramp up the “primary now!” talk. If he comes out in favor of it (which I’ll bet just about anything that he will), you’ll change the subject and find another reason to primary him. But hey, get on with your bad selves, primaries are fun…
And it’s David Canter, not Cantor. Easy mistake, just lettin’ ya know.
and if so, who would support it first, Udall or Bennet?
(or a primary challenger)
last year in the House, so would have some real explaining to do if he changes positions now (when it finally has a chance of getting signed into law).
For a reason I don’t fully understand, there’s a lot more caution among Democrats on the Senate side about EFCA (not just in the Colorado delegation).
If I had to bet, I’d predict Udall lets Bennet come out in support first, so it won’t look as though he’s following Udall’s lead. But that’s just a guess.
I think some folks like to ignore the fact that Udall already voted for EFCA in 2007…so I guess he wins this race to support it.
I also think people like to ignore the fact that not a single Dem in the Senate voted against EFCA two years ago either. Why would that magically change?
Once we have Franken, that’s most likely 59 votes in support. If Arlen Specter supports it again (as he did in 07), we’ve got the 60 votes we need.
Ultimately, pure politics will going to tell Bennet to vote for this. He doesn’t want to be the guy that keeps it at 59 votes.
and no, it hardly matters who blinks first (to use a favorite phrase of the Senate Minority Office) … but it could be a consideration. And there are other Senate Dems now wavering, so I think it would be a mistake to count to 59 (or 58 without Franken yet). You’d think the 2008 election would make it easier for Udall (and others) to support what they supported in the past, but no one said this all makes logical sense.
But you’re also right, Bennet is almost certainly a yes vote, and for the reason you describe.
Because I value your prespective Dabee…do you think Bennet is trying to figure the bill out, or trying to gauge what is politically expedient?
On some level I imagine he has issues with EFCA…I know I do. But more importantly, regardless of what the Wade or Kossacks or HuffPosters or anyone else thinks, this really isn’t something that should be completely on his radar yet.
In his 40-odd days in office there have been a lot of real issues he’s dealt with and taken positions on. EFCA hasn’t even been introduced yet! It’s not on the Senate calendar! Reid and/or Pelosi talked about “late spring or early summer,” which translates to, “maybe before the August recess…maybe not.” The White House has been less than demanding on the issue thus far as well. Granted, it’s only been 40-whatever days…we’ll see if that changes.
As I said above, ultimately, political expediency will make his decision for him. He really can’t come out against it unless there are mass defections from moderates in the Senate…and I don’t see that happening. And even then he’d have to worry about a Primary…which he might have to worry about anyway…
It seems pretty clear to me what’s going on: Bennet is testing the waters to see what is going to be best politically, and Huffpost doesn’t want any of that since they want him to vote hard left. So he’s stuck between a rock and a hard place. His vote on this matter will either alienate moderates in the state but shore up the base, or piss off the base and cement a primary challenge.
The ironic thing is that Romanoff, Hickenlooper, or even Perlmutter (but not as much) wouldn’t be in this situation because they are well known and popular enough to where they are not going to be defined one way or another by this vote. Bennet doesn’t have that luxury.
Is EFCA really going to be the be-all and end-all when it comes voting records getting judged in 2010? I agree that, as things stand now, a yes vote from Bennet may make it the #1 attack line against him in the election.
I just think it’s too early to say whether or not Bennet’s vote on this will define his short appointment.
At this point, it is hard to speculate but I can see some circumstances where this could define his short tenure in the Senate. And IMHO, it’s not an unlikely scenario.
Whatever Bennet does is going to be remembered by both sides. A “no” vote is going to antagonize lefties to no end, and the calls for a primary will probably grow louder. Since this is a real threat to Bennet, that’s not good.
A “yes” vote is going to be the first impression that many will get of Bennet because it is a high profile vote. Many people are too busy to follow his record from there, and if the first impression they get is “that Bennet guy is just some appointed liberal hack”, he will be in trouble.
Remember, the “yes” scenario wouldn’t be an issue with some of the other appointments. Romanoff, for example is well known and respected. Since many people have already formulated their view on him, a yes vote could be looked at it as “well, maybe he knows something I don’t. He’s a smart guy….”
and I think I just spit coffee on my screen for agreeing with a conservative 🙂
Here’s the thing: right now, EFCA is all inside baseball, and the unfamiliarity with labor issues in a low-union membership state like Colorado actually works to the pro-EFCA advantage. Chamber dumped $5 million worth of IE ads on Udall about EFCA, and it didn’t move the needle a bit because no on knew what the hell they were talking about.
So unless the GOP can find a message point that explains the issue – and with Michael Steele at the helm I doubt it – I don’t see them making much headway.
Right on point 1, but on point 2 I don’t think so.
Hickenlooper is not a super pro-labor guy. Perlmutter is, like Udall, very much interested in representing the body politic where possible even if it conflicts with his own personal views, and Romanoff would be doing the same thing as Bennet because he doesn’t take a dump in the morning without making sure he has the political cover to do so.
Bennet is waiting to see who his champions are. If advocates for EFCA use only negative pressure tactics and threats, I don’t think they will get very far. In a tricky state like Colorado where the political winds change in mysterious and unpredictable ways, it takes more sugar and less vinegar to sway our representatives.
I think you’re right, and I like that.
Can I borrow it?
That’s the whole point, it’s unknown.
But asking your question in a diary that’s about his position being unknown — that really drives the point home.
Sounds like he is rudderless, like an overturned 21 foot fishing boat floating 35 miles offshore, a drift without and plan.
gee a Senator on the job a month has yet to translate any of his ideas into policy?
What a slacker! now if he only keeps it up for 143 more months he’ll meet Sen. Allard’s record!
And hasn’t “gotten anything done” as a weakness-but I do think this sort of thing is sort of an embarrassment to Ritter, given the fact that his appointee was ill prepared to tackle this sort of issue. Perlmutter would have a stance on it, and I suspect Romanoff would too (I don’t know about Hickenlooper though). I suspect that the only reason Udall hasn’t taken a stand on the bill he supported in the House is to give Bennet a little cover while he gets his ducks in a row.
…a stance on this bill before the appointment? A sort of litmus test for the job?
If I were vetting someone to be a US Senator, I would at least determine whether they had views on major pending issues. On certain issues that were important to me, I would want to know where they stood. If this issue was important to Ritter, I would hope that he at least asked about it.
Doing that does two things. 1) It give the prospective appointee an idea of what they’ll be facing and 2) give you an idea if they have there ducks in a row.
If Ritter didn’t have a laundry list of issues he talked to Bennet about, that shows to me that Ritter didn’t make an informed (and as such, the best) choice. And if he did have such a list and this issue wasn’t on it, it shows so gaps in Ritter’s homework in fully understanding the implications of his appointment.
At the end of the day, this is just another drop that shows how Ritter could have done better. I think Ritter threw away a good opportunity for Dems, and gave us Republicans a serious opening.
If we can find a candidate
But if I may, I’m interested in your take on your own question…
and how do we know what issues Ritter and Bennet discussed?
I mean, we know that discussions along those lines had to have taken place right? How else would Ritter have known that Bennet would be a team player at best or not a total embarrassment at worst.
But I doubt the details of such discussions will ever be known. It’s off of most people’s radar, and anyone privy to those conversations would stand to lose far more then they would stand to gain.
Exactly like that — except maybe more like an overturned 18-foot fishing boat floating 45 miles offshore — let’s be precise in our strained, overheated metaphors here.