The Denver Post is reporting that Korkowski who has dropped out of the Senate race he could not win has announced his run for HD 61, a race he should win.
The only question really is what took him so long.
The legislation attempts to create rules and limitations that do not require a Constitutional amendment first.
from Senator Bennet:
The legislation I’m co-sponsoring will:
– Keep foreign governments and foreign corporations from using the Supreme Court’s recent Citizens United decision to buy ads that influence U.S. elections;
– Prevent government contractors and TARP recipients from using that decision to use big money to influence our elections;
– Require corporate CEOs to stand by the ads they are using shareholder funds to finance, forcing them to appear on camera to say they “approved the message,” just like candidates have to;
– Require top corporate and organizational donors to shadow groups like 527s to appear in the ads they fund;
– Ensure full and timely disclosure of campaign expenditures so organizations can’t mask their electioneering activities; and,
– Prevent organizations from coordinating their activities with parties and politicians.
This would be a step in the right direction and we should all get behind it.
I’m listening to the Grammies, writing something for work and reading something, while also watching the FEC for an update for Romanoff’s 4Q fundraising.
And it occurs to me the Romanoff campaign has never disputed certain facts that they apparently want to wish away.
It reminds me of great dialogue from a great film.
Sure, we all remember Colonel Jessup bellowing and bloviating. But Santiago was murdered and Dawson and Downey did do it. And in the end they lose and all Caffey’s dazzle was just so much show.
Fact
Romanoff wanted to be appointed to the Senate seat vacancy. He didn’t think the appointment process was bad then, though he has since implied the process was flawed.
Fact
Senator Bennet promised to be and has been a strong supporter of President Obama’s agenda. Romanoff supported a different presidential primary candidate and never endorsed Obama nor pledged to support the President’s agenda.
Fact
Romanoff put a poll in the field shortly after that appointment. He clearly wanted to get a sense of the voters then.
Fact
The Denver post reports that over the summer Romanoff had conversations about somehow becoming Lt Gov. They claim he wanted it.
Fact
Several months later, Romanoff announces his primary to challenge Senator Bennet for the nomination to run for the Senate, with no cash on hand, and no ready source.
Fact
Romanoff has publicly provided precisely two minor policy differences with Bennet: referencing votes on bankruptcy reform ( cramdown) and some gun vote .
(mini-Fact: Neither vote ultimately mattered: cramdown failed to pass by several votes. And the gun thing was defeated by several.)
Fact
Romanoff took donations from PACs and other corporate donors when he was a State rep, in a safely D seat. It was apparently ok then.
Fact
Romanoff recently put out a campaign piece that said PAC donations should be returned, but has yet to return the donations he received.
So, we have a primary challenge by a candidate who:
has implied that the appointment process was flawed, though he wanted that appointment;
attempted to negotiate a back room deal to be LtGov though he has since decried back room deals;
has raised very little money (through Sep 30 2009) compared to similar Senate races;
has only pointed to two minor votes as policy differences with his D opponent;
decries taking PAC donations now, though he did before;
has suggested other candidates return PAC/corp donations though he hasn’t returned any, and;
never endorsed the president nor pledged to support his agenda.
These are the facts and they are undisputed.
fork, please.
Since some of us were speculating about Romanoff’s 4Q fundraising due out any minute now, but as of 2:45 pm Sat Jan 16, nothing has been posted at FEC , DenverPost, or on the Romanoff site (or apparently leaked elsewhere) a betting poll.
How much?
When will we know (comments)?
For comparison, Bennet has raised more at this point than either Salazar 04 or Udall 08, and in approximately the same proportion of in-state, out of state and individual and corp/PAC as both campaigns.
Udall 08 spent approx $13 million, in a year when he had very long D coat tails and was the unopposed D nominee, which resulted in early and effective DSCC in-state support.
Yesterday I predicted $434,000. I’ll stick with that and suggest he’ll report upon one or more of the following conditions:
– as soon as the campaign knows for sure, it’s hard counting all that yang.
– when everyone is asking and he’s captured some big earned media.
– when the checks clear.
– whenever the campaign damn well feels like it.
– when the campaign can figure out a credible message that money just doesn’t matter.
– when the campaign is certain whether or not the cash can be transferred to a campaign for any other office.
– when the campaign has booked the best venue for the end of campaign party.
Loading ...http://www.senate.gov/legislat…
Think wayyyy back to 6 weeks ago when John McCain was robocalling into Colorado, targeting seniors to tell them to reject health care reform and contact their Senators and insist that Medicare be left alone.
Senator Bennet drafted and introduced Bennet Amdt. No. 2826 which stated unequivocally that Medicare was not being cut and in fact was being financially stabilized for an additional ten years. Actuarial forecasts had Medicare becoming insolvent in 2017, which has been pushed out to 2027.
The Amendment passed 100-0.
Two observations.
First, this is exactly the kind of bi-partisan vote I would have expected. 100 Senators agreeing that Medicare is a good thing and isn’t going anywhere.
Second, Senator Bennet made the statement recently that this could be the most bi-partisanly supported health care legislation to ever pass. I guess it depends on how you define that – if something passed with 50 Ds and 50 R’s would that be more bi-partisan since it had more R votes?
Anyhow, it’s the first that actually is more useful.
Health care reform (or whatever it’s called – HR3200 and S 1679) is going to come out of conference in a few days. And then it will get some headlines as various crazy D’s grab their headlines, and the R’s make one last shot at delaying.
Several people will make the claim that since it isn’t exactly what we want it should be scrapped and we can star over. This will sound reasonable but it’s disingenuous for two reasons. First, and foremost, is the R’s who say this just want to embarrass the President and make this his Waterloo. The actual reason it’s disingenuous is there is absolutely nothing in the final bill that cannot be altered, repealed and otherwise improved later.
A lot of the required changes are phased in anyway. And since the R’s believe we are seeing an R resurgance and the D incumbents are out in the Fall, great. Let it pass, resurge yourselves, and then repeal it anyway you see fit. If not after 2010, then surely after 2012 when Obama will be out in this R resurgence.
For a snapshot of some highlights that should survive the final version see http://bennet.senate.gov/issue…
Oh, and death panels are not expected to make it in the final version.
So I got to thinking about the math in a modern CO statewide race.
You can cut the pie several ways but the most basic picture is not encouraging for those voters who want candidates to campaign west of the divide or in the flats way out east.
Colorado Voter reg as of Dec 09
In the most basic analysis…
assume that turnout is the same everywhere and across all party affiliations.
The SOS data shows that over 80% of the voters are in the front range.
Assume that in a R – D split, C-Springs and Pueblo cancel each other’s totals.
I think a candidate who does 70%+ in the rest of the front range wins. Maybe even a little less.
In 1998 Gail Schoettler lost by less than 10,000 votes.
http://www.elections.colorado….
I estimate she did carry a bit more than 70% in the metro area and it wasn’t enough.
It would be this year.
So: Bennet*, Hickenlooper, Kennedy
You must win Arapahoe, JeffCo and Adams by a big margin. You will not win ElPaso county. And while you might win Park and Chaffee (don’t count on it) win big where the the biggest number of registered voters are and you win.
I’m not suggesting that the Governor, Senator, Treasurer or other statewide elected official doesn’t have an obligation to represent the whole state – they do. I’lm just saying you gotta win first to represent anyone at all.
* presumptive potential nominee
Upcoming Events with Michael Bennet:
Tuesday, January 12th
What: Meet and Greet with Michael Bennet
When: Tuesday, Jan 12th at 8:00AM
Location: Cafe Luna, 800 Coffman St. Longmont, CO
RSVP: Ben@bennetforcolorado.com
What: House Party with Michael Bennet
When: Tuesday, Jan 12th at 10:30AM
Location: The home of John and Karen Ericson, 413 Pawnee Ln. Estes Park, CO
RSVP: Lisa@bennetforcolorado.com
What: Meet and Greet with Michael Bennet
When: Tuesday, Jan 12th at 2:30PM
Location: Santiago’s Mexican Restaurant, 901 W. Platte Ave. Ft. Morgan, CO
RSVP: Lisa@bennetforcolorado.com
What: Meet and Greet with Michael Bennet
When: Tuesday, Jan 12th at 6:00PM
Location: Michael Ray Performing Arts Co. 975 Platte River Blvd. Unit K. in Brighton
RSVP: Garcia@bennetforcolorado.com
What: House Party with Michael Bennet
When: Tuesday, Jan 12th at 7:30PM
Location: The home of Joy Castillo, 13837 Elizabeth St. Thornton, CO RSVP: Garcia@bennetforcolorado.com
Saturday, January 16th
What: Meet and greet with Michael Bennet
When: Saturday, Jan 17th at 11:30AM
Location: The Broadway Café, 225 Broadway St. in Eagle
RSVP: Kathryn@bennetforcolorado.com
What: Meet and greet with Michael Bennet
When: Saturday, Jan 17th at 2:00PM
Location: Glenwood Canyon BrewPub, 402 7th St. in Glenwood Springs
RSVP: Kathryn@bennetforcolorado.com
Ask the hard questions.
Take notes.
Report back
“…cordially invited to attend an open house at “your house,” the state capitol, room 202, on January 13th…”
I think I’m going to attend and know I will likely spend the time networking with those I know, who will mostly be D’s.
I’m hoping we have a D candidate for gov by then so we don’t have to talk about that.
Amendment 23
Higher Ed
Roads
TABOR
Tax exemptions and progressive taxation (FASTER is regressive as hell)
What else?
But I cannot.
Let me just say this: I have detailed facts about something that happened in the past 30 hours that would support opinions I and others have expressed on CoPols.com in the past year.
I will post when one of three things happens.
Someone attempts to deny it for any reason: directly to anyone involved, in response to someone else posting here or elsewhere, as a preemptive attempt to frame the story, as a way to get out in front of it, whatever. Leave it alone and I will too, unless;
Anyone attempts to use the story to embarrass, annoy or otherwise hurt* my friend. (The main reason I’m not posting now is I can’t write it in a way that precludes that).
Events render it meaningless. As defined by me, of course.
I’ve written my account. I’ve confirmed it with multiple, separate, documented sources who will confirm my account now and in the future. Email and text messages live forever. I will reference this post if or when I ever post it. And for those involved who do not count me as friend, I have nothing against you personally. I may not even know you. I am frustrated it happened, but politics is a contact sport and it is not surprising when contact occurs, especially when people play it poorly. But don’t fuck with my friend, you a-holes. Good people are good people and when you screw with them you have earned the blowback, no matter how disproportionate the shitstorm may appear to you.
*”annoy, torment, pester, plague, molest, worry, badger, harry, harass, heckle, persecute, irk, bully, rag, vex, disquiet, goad, beset, bother, tease, nettle, tantalize, or ruffle” ht: SD zoo
net neutrality
paraphrased from Wikipedia
principle that advocates the Internet have no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed… if a user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to anything on the internet at the subscribed level of access
Some arguments for and against
http://www.google.com/search?h…
And a chance for you and all of you friends to comment to the FCC.
Dear Friend,
Big telecoms would like to inspect and filter the Internet content you
access, block Web sites and applications they don’t like, and overcharge
you for using the Web. But the net neutrality rules proposed by the
Federal Communications Commission would prevent them from doing that.
The public comment period for these rules ends on Thursday, and the phone
and cable companies and their phony front groups have already flooded the
FCC with comments objecting to net neutrality.
We need you to speak up because there has been an all-out lobbying effort
by the telecommunications industry to kill net neutrality. Even before the
FCC proposed their rules, 18 Senators (all Republicans) sent a letter to
the FCC opposing net neutrality. One Republican senator even announced an
effort to prevent the FCC from spending funds to enforce the new rules
once they go into effect. Separately, 72 House Democrats sent their own
letter to the FCC opposing net neutrality rules.
I just wrote a personal letter to the FCC explaining why I support net
neutrality. Please join me by clicking on the link below before the
comment period ends on January 14.
http://act.credoaction.com/cam…
This was almost discussed recently on CoPols.com
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
But it’s a big deal – imagine if Comcast decided that CoPols.com was just too much bandwidth to allow Comcast users to get here. ANd instead directed us to the MSNBC.com posting section when Comcast users tried to get here. I pay for bandwidth not help in deciding how to use that bandwidth.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the dominance of the two major parties. In general this duopoly leads to some bizarre and undesirable affects. (more on that later)
But more specifically I’ve been thinking about why I am currently a registered D. And why it matters.
The easy answer is that after an adult lifetime of being registered “U” or equivalent, I wanted to caucus in the last presidential cycle and the exclusionary, partisan caucus in CO forced me to register.
My politics are not now nor ever have been a perfect fit for any party. Not exactly. D fits much better, at least currently. I think if I had been voting age back in the 50’s I’d have liked Ike – though later in that decade Abner Mikva was awesome. Likewise, if I was around a hundred years ago, I’d have gotten behind TR.
Instead of having a party that feels like a perfect fit, I have always prioritized my issues in any election and then found the candidate that went my way on my highest priorities.
In the Fall of 07 when the announcement was made that CO caucus was going to move up to Feb 08 (early is better, though in 08 later would have gotten us more national press) I added a couple of important items to my To Do list:
– do Presidential and other political research
– understand the caucus
I made the “due date” Thanksgiving weekend and set my reminders for weekly reminders until complete. So during Oct and Nov I researched every announced Presidential candidate of all parties and some of the big name possibilities (Bloomberg, Dean, Gore etc) to see if I wanted to change my registration to affiliate with a party to caucus for or against any candidate.
So I registered D that fall, organized and canvassed and stuff for caucus. Read the DNC and CO Dems delegate selection plans, caucused as one part of the record setting turnout, attended County, CD and State assemblies. Organized, canvassed and stuff again for the general and then went to DC for the inauguration.
At no time in the process did I re-evaluate my “candidate first, party second” approach.
And I find myself asking Should I now? I know D’s who will write me off because of this. Lunacy to think I can have a voice just now passing my 2yr anniversary with the party (when do I get the swag?) Heresy to question the value of our party. Worse than heresy to have the apathy or to get in there and “build the party.” I know, I know somehow showing up at “all those chicken dinners” has real and lasting value. I value the party building, I’m just not motivated to do it.
So while there has been a fair amount of implied, inferred and even some overt defense of the D party here on CoPols.com, I remain issue and candidate driven.
I realize that the party – in this case D – is especially necessary and important in Colorado. You have to win to govern and only the major party candidates win here. Mostly true elsewhere, but apparently always true here.
And then we get to the ideological and purity filters that I do not understand. “Big tent” metaphors aside, what is a real Democrat? When we have a caucus or ballot primary (having both seems stoopid to me) should we be choosing the candidate most likely to win? more aligned with our priorities? best able to “build the party”? most progressive? most Democratic? more or less anything?
And then do we agree with each other to support the nominee no matter she/he wasn’t our preference?
Because a candidate must win to govern, i.e., 85% of something is wayy better than 0% of nothing, I do prioritize electability. It’s why I joke about candidates like Dennis Kucinich (right about everything except that he could win) or Hank Eng (“Where’s Hank ?” instantly became “Who’s Hank?” – a great guy who couldn’t win).
I get that there is no rule, that we all get to decide for ourselves. And I also get that people make irrational choices all the time, potentially in any area of life. I also get that while I may feel I have earned the right to complain, complaining rarely solves anything even when it feels good.
So, I’m a D because I wanted to be included in the caucus and the D affiliation fits better than anything else at present.
Why are you registered the way you are?
Although I believe it’s highly unlikely he could win my vote.
And it makes little sense to me for him to comment on policy and process that has nothing to do with the Treasurer’s Office, he did and he should explain it as he promised.
Example- it would not matter much to me one way or another if the Colorado Treasurer was for or against the Iraq war, or NAFTA, or closing GITMO because the Treasurer has nothing to do with any of those things.
Likewise, the Treasurer does not have much if anything to do with legislating in Colorado. So if I think the road budget can be cut to avoid cutting prisons or education, why should I care what the Treasurer thinks?
Indirectly, promoting someone to Treasurer may lead to that person holding other office later, so of course that concerns me. But back to MAH.
I definitely support the Doug Bruce Initiatives
…..and come early January, I’ll be ready to articulate that opinion solidlyTABOR4LIFE
by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 01:44:14 AM MST
And then in early Jan –
I proudly support 60, 61, and 101
(did Gertie read that?)I support 60, 61, and 101 because taxes and fees on cell phones, pagers, satellites, etc, should go to a statewide vote under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights
In addition, the increasing fees on car registration should also go to a statewide vote
Lastly, any monies collected from the Mil Levy Freeze a few years ago, again, should go to a statewide ballot
If government officials want this extra money, then they should ask permission for it as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights requires, and I believe that Jon Caldara said it best by saying –
“COPs were a construct of the Supreme Court, the same thing with the mill levy freeze, which was a blatant violation of the Constitution,” Caldara said. “These would correct those disastrous decisions by the Supreme Court, who apparently have redefined what English words mean. How certificates of participation are not debt is insane; how the mill-levy freeze is not a change to public policy is insane, too. These things wouldn’t be necessary if our Supreme Court used English the way the rest of us do.”
Again, I’m a TABOR4LIFE Republican, not a Ref C Republican….
TABOR4LIFE
by: Muhammad Ali Hasan @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:44:08 PM MST
To restate your conclusion MAH, your main logic is that everything that creates an increase in revenue to the state should be put to the voters. Lesser point s that the CO Supreme court has been wrong and you know because Caldera said so.
I don’t want to quibble much, so I’ll leave aside for the moment challenging whether the above should count as “articulate that opinion solidly.” And it’s not especially relevant to the Treasurer, so I’l leave aside the obvious question about if the Legislature cannot create a budget nor the means to fund it, why do we need them.
Would you say that FASTER was required to be presented to the voters? If not, how is that any different from cell phone fees?
If so, as Treasurer what would you do to get decisions and actions such as this on the ballot?
The mill levy rule always struck me as a dumb controversy.
So the voters of property taxing entity X decide by vote to de-Bruce, in part because of Gallagher and in part because the state would backfill any loss of funding to the school district.
The state decides to stop backfilling and to change the state law that resulted in the mill levy float- effectively freezing the mill levy rate- and now jurisdiction X has a choice. Allow their mill levy to stay the same until they vote meaning that their dollar value of taxes will go up as their property vales go up. Or they could vote to lower their mill levy. In fact they could vote to automatically lower the actual mill levy so the dollar value of their taxes stays the same or goes up, but less than the rise in property value or goes down with rising values or whatever they want.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the CO income tax rate doesn’t change from year to year. So if my taxable income goes up (I hope and pray) then my income tax bill goes up and the state collects more revenue from me. I don’t get a TABOR vote in that instance – do you think I should? Or said another way, if everyone’s income went up and hence their income tax bill, should we get a TABOR vote on that increase?
And, of course, as Treasurer what would you do to get decisions and actions such as this on the ballot?
As for the CO Supreme Court and Caldera.
Caldera is a hack. Now, hacks are not necessarily always wrong. Though, sadly unlike clocks, they are not necessarily right twice a day. In fact, there is no reason to guarantee they are ever right. Hacks aren’t about being right or wrong in the sense the rest of us define those terms. They are only concerned with ideological loyalty.
And Caldera doesn’t even trust the voters so even if the voters had voted for the mill levy freeze, he would have said it should not be done anyway. Which is exactly what he said about TREX and SCFD and FaSTrax and every other public trasnportation issue. Yes, the voters approved it but they were wrong, they were lied to, they are idiots, etc. (Never mind that TABOR failed more than once before passing by a narrow margin, nothing to see here, quick make it a single subject from here on out).
So, another poster summarized quite well why I do not support your candidacy and you should not be elected. I’m just tired of letting the debate be framed inaccurately and you said you support the CO budget killing ballot issues, and would “…articulate that opinion solidly.” in early January. Which is now.
welcome back.
care to explain CO O&G business to me?
“O&G bottom line is the regs effected production in this state and theFrasier reports reflect it. So chant all you want about commodity rates…”
Re: O&G bottom line is the regs effected production in this state and theFrasier reports reflect it. So chant all you want about commodity rates but the facts are there. Sure rates did play a role. Finally, I do actually have a copy of the budget and will get specific. Be patient, there is still time. Thanks again David. I suspect no one is baffled any more 🙂
by: amaesinggov @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 15:03:22 PM MST
[ Reply ]Maes interview follow up
In the interview you said “20% of our rig count drop is directly attributable to changes in regulation.” How did you make that calculation? Which regulations are you in favor of altering?
You also said we can cut 4,000 state employees, without specifying where or how exactly,You said “CO has one of the highest ratios of state employees to population in the country” What are you using as your source?
I’d argue that the “small states” are going to be over represented in the top of the list but Colorado ranks 29, and if you take education out of the mix: CO ranks 29.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/And then you said “CO is ranked 6th in the country for state employee pay rate” What is your source for that?
Colorado ranks 28th. http://www.taxfoundation.org/
What worries me is my friends on the left who are buying into the ‘inevitable GOP resurgence’ – or helping it for misguided reasons. JeffcoBlue Jan 2 2010
by: MADCO @ Mon Jan 04, 2010 at 21:13:03 PM MST
[ Parent | Reply ]Answers
Frasier reports provided me reflect 50% reduction in 22 other producing states while Colorado’s was down alomost 70%. I call that a direct correlation to the regs. Repeal all new regs and start from scratch. In the interim we get things jump started again.
4k employees TBD. Biggest group would be higher ed as they represent @ 40% of employees. My own executive branch will see the ax as well. Again, we are still a bit early for specs with caucuses 2 months away.Regarding employee and pay ratios I quoted another republican candiate’s numbers. I appreciate your information and will check my facts.
It’s hard to get extremely detailed in a first interview. this is one reason forums and debates are so valuable. Too bad there are none as all have been cancelled since Penry’s departure.
I welcome your challenges and questions.
by: amaesinggov @ Tue Jan 05, 2010 at 17:50:54 PM MST
Senator Dodd announced last night he is not running for the D nomination for re-election as a Senator from CT. This seat was a possible R pick up before- not now.
Blumenthal is as popular as any Democrat in Connecticut right now, with sky-high name recognition and a decades-long rep as a corruption fighter. The NRSC and the state party had been pulling their punches for weeks in hopes that Dodd would retain enough of a pulse to stay, wounded and ripe, in the race. That’s over. While Dodd and GOP Gov. Jodi Rell tanked over the summer with below-40 percent approval ratings, Blumenthal happy number was hovering around 80 (!) percent.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/…
Whaat? How can it be? Didn’t some banker donate to him? Doesn’t that have to mean that he’s against regulating the banks?
From a release from Bennet about investigating New Frontier Bank
“I urge the Department of Justice to investigate these serious allegations thoroughly and expeditiously,” said Bennet, a member of the Senate Banking Committee. “In the meantime, as the Senate begins its work to reform our financial system, we need to look for ways to fill the gaps in our current regulatory structure.”
How can it be ?
Later, I’ll be shocked, shocked ,I tell you to find out that the Senator favors the creation of the CFPA and is nice to dogs and old people.
Screw The Past and Focus on the Future; Like driving in Rome, what’s behind you doesn’t matter.
Here’s what’s going to happen in 2010 Colorado politics:
The economy will continue to recover, painfully, slowly.
– R’s who want to bash Ritter and other D’s with jobs/jobs/jobs and the economy will relapse to “government had no part in the recovery, it was all the market”
– For R’s who will want to continue whining that it’s not recovering fast enough, or if the recovery stalls and doulbe or triple dips, R’s wishing to bash Ds will claim the D’s in office “havent’ done enough” and claim that they would do better, but will not offer specifics nor details of what their newfound desire for Gov’t intervention would do.
CO R’s will be reenergized. All CO elections will be won or lost on turnout, turnout, turnout – not ideas, not policy differences, not personality and likeability.
– ArapCo will be a 50/50 R/D toss up
– Jeffco will be much closer to 50/50 R/D than it was in ’08.
There will be more and louder R posturing to cature the real, but minority Tea Party and far, far away right
Social issues will intrude, though not just because of the Tea Party but also because of the ballot initiatives (see below).
Because of this posturing to reach out to the TeaParty and FFA R’s, there will be some bizarre fractioning for the R. The D’s will react two ways, neither of which will be helpful. a) By overreaching to the left, to their peril from the right and the middle. Or b) By not reaching at all to their peril from the left, though most CO D’s will not have a challenge from the left. If the D’s fractionate because it appears the R’s are muddled and split, the R’s will win.
CD1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, locked – no change, barring surprise retirement or HTA (hiking the Appalachian) in which case most emerge with the same affiliation.
CD4: depends on D turnout. (see below)
Gov
Ritter v Mcinnis
R turnout will be large. D turnout is questionable.
If McInnis runs to the wacky FFA Right, displays his mean temper and there are enough bizarre 527’s, the D’s and U’s who lean D will show up: Ritter wins.
If McInnis is reasonable, moderate, facty with details (budget and policies) and can remain distant from the bizarrest 527’s and ballot initiatives- McInnis wins. And the low D turnout hurts Markey, the D Senate nominee and D’s in real races.
Senate
The R nominee will be Wiens if he shows real money from the 4Q numbers out in a few days. Norton is not exciting and her base is tainted as both the R machine and the R traitors who brought us Ref C. Wiens has equally solid R credentials and is presentable both to the FFA R and the middle. He’ll seem practical and harmless- even though his populist spin is going to feel weird at first, it will resonate.
In any case, the R nominee won’t have to run against the D nominee: The race will be against Obama and the Socializing of America.
Plenty of voters already think they prefer Congress and the President to be of different parties, so the R nominee just has to run as “I’ll never be #60” (or said another way I’m 41! I’m 41!)
Ballot measures. SOS site – thanks Bernie.
In addition to the Caldera/II anti-health care proposition talked about yesterday,
link there are dozens of others, some of which are sure to GOTV. And almost all of them favor R candidates, either simply by motivating R turnout or by aligning with the R platform.
The three Bruce initiatives (property, motor vehicle , income taxes and fees and debt redefined and limited
Helps all R candidates by motivating turnout in parts of the state that lean R.
Gay Marriage
Helps all R candidates by motivating turnout in parts of the state that lean R.
Firearms
Helps all R candidates by motivating turnout in parts of the state that lean R.
Definition of Personhood
Motivates turnout in general- but because it is perceived as hopeless tilting at windmills, it motivates more on the anti-choice side.
Verify Employment Eligibility
Split: it could be a pro-labor move, but it won’t be spun that way
Beer & Wine in grocery stores
May motiavte younger voters to show up- they generally lean D
Earlier this week in a reply* I posted to JO and Sharon Hanson I disputed their claim that no one at CoPols.com has posted any reasons to support Bennet. In that same reply I challenged JO & Sharon to explain why they are for Romanoff beyond they are against Bennet. I didn’t bother to ask if they will support the D candidate whomever it is, because they have been challenged on that so often adding another seemed off point.
I promised I would repost my reasons for supporting Bennet and offered to let them go first. I hoped that one of them would lay out a pro – Romanoff postion beyond dislike of Bennet.
Nothing.
(Which by the way has also been their consistent reply to whether they will spport the eventual D nominee.)
And so now I’ll agree with Jambalaya “Ready your next round of fire at Senator Norton, y’all.” — Jambalaya”
Except that it’s not just Norton, it’s Norton, Wiens, Buck and the NRSC and the rest of the CO R organization that is already mobilized and energized.
*
I like Michael Bennet and support his candidacy to retain the seat. Later this week I’ll look it up, I’m sure it was in Sep and Oct that I first posted typed it here.
You claim type to not have seen any reasons why anyone supports Bennet.Yet I have never seen either of you provide type a coherent summary of why you support Romanoff. Sure, plenty of typing about why you dislike Bennet. Innuendo and implications about realDemocrats and dues paid. And now a glimmer of an electability argument from JO.
So, I promise I’ll re post type my reasons for supporting Bennet.
But you first:
Why do you support Romanoff?by: MADCO @ Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:40:07 AM MST
Just below are are two pro-Bennet posts I made in Sep/Oct.
In addition I agreed with others who posted some reasons to like Bennet So rather than either claim credit for their words, or bother to post my “ditto” or “agreed” – I’ve posted their posts.
Senator Benent supports the President’s agenda
and
I agree with Bennet’s votes (except one),
and
Electability
The more I think about Udall’s numbers in 08, the more I think AR has a tougher, maybe much tougher, time in the general than MB. Forget that I like both of them too. Forget that AR has won elections and MB has not. Forget that MB came out for the President’s agenda a long time ago- something I have never heard from AR. Forget endorements- if no one turned it over to DC, surely no one turned it over to Denver.
Just think about the electoral math. You don’t have to carry Wray or Frederick or Steamboat to win. You do have to carry the metro area by a wide enough margin and get at least close to 40% in C-Springs/Ft Collins. And then not get crushed in the ROS.Udall won in Jeffco & Arapahoe with just over 50%. He also won in Larimer (barely) and had a decent showing in Weld with almost 45%. He got less than 40% in El Paso.
And lost in Park- though Obama carried Park to a tie. Outside of Denver- Udall didn’t do as well as Obama anywhere in the front range.
Why will AR? Udall had some track record and a US Rep gig. AR has less track record and only local gigs.
Some believe the same, or more damning could be said for MB- except a) he’s the incumbent b) he’s not as threatening to Business c) he’s more of an outsider and d) Obama endorsed him. I would expect this to bolster turnout in the areas where Obama did well over McCain- especially in those areas where Udall won but didn’t do nearly as well as Obama, or where Obama won but Udall didn’t or where there was significant President/Senate undervote. (overvote? I always get those mixed up- I mean where the Presidential turnout was higher than in the Senate race- like Arapahoe.)
Add to this that in 08 we had a generally apathetic (and perhaps somewhat pathetic) R organization in CO, certainly in Arapahoe and Jeffco. Like in 96 when Dole carried CO not Clinton- I would expect a more energetic R party in 2010. I’m not saying the R’s will topple Degette or Polis, nor that the R gubernatorial nominee will carry Denver. Just that R turnout will be higher than otherwise expected in a non-Presidential cycle.
I’m not even sure how this affects Ritter – I never looked at county by county numbers for him form 2006. But he’s not in a primary (yet) and so I don’t care.
But if the R’s field a reasonably reasonable Senate candidate, there will be a race. A race I think would be easier on MB.
And I like Andrew, not all the other MB supporters do.
by: MADCO @ Wed Sep 23, 2009 at 16:40:23 PM MDT
…
Initially my personal political analysis was more helpful getting behind the Senator than any policy consideration.
I think 2010 will be a much more difficult Senate election cycle in CO for the Ds than was 2008. 08 we had large and motivated turnout. Caucuses set records all over the key locations- esp suburban Denver. (ArapCo, JeffCo,)
And in the general- Udall did really well in JeffCo & BoulderCo- which I would have expected for him. He barely carried Arapahoe 52 or 53% – where Obama won by 14%.
I think in 2008 the county R organizations were …complacent. CO R’s weren’t that excited about McCain, everyone had some GWB fatigue and in 2010 that isn’t going to be there. The R’s will be (are so far) more energized, and the turnout should be down. I’ve posted more before- but I’m not going to dissect the state anymore.As for policy- the most important consideration to me last winter was the governor appoint someone who would be a strong supporter of President Obama’s agenda. Senator Bennet is and has been.
Beyond that, I would have said make it someone who is electable in Colorado, smart as hell, and who thinks like me on most if not all issues. Senator Bennet appears to be electable, is a smart guy and, so far, apparently thinks like me on most things.Then add in 10 months of voting – and I’v disagreed with him on one significant vote. (You and I agree on cramdown- I would have preferred it passed and therefore that he voted for it even in a losing cause- the votes weren’t there.)
If the governor had appointed Senator Burris, I’d have been calling for a primary. Or if he had appointed someone who didn’t meet all of the above, same. I like Speaker Romanoff. And if he had been appointed my analysis would have asked the same questions. I have some questions about his electability- he’s never had to win a state wide race (much larger fundraising, it’s different campaigning in ElPaso & Grand Junction, not to mention the suburbs) so assuming he would have voted exactly has Senator Bennet has (not that voting is all there is to the job) I’m not sure how I would have reacted.
…by: MADCO @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 16:24:56 PM MDT
This wasn’t really cross posted at CoPols.com – if it was I couldn’t find it.
And again, dear lord
I didn’t want to have to run down the list for you. You can teh google I presume, but here you go:
1. Co-sponsor of the DREAM act
2. Voted yes on President Obama’s stimulus and budget.
3. Visited all 64 counties in Colorado.
4. Making the hard sell on other Democratic legislation like cap and trade to farmers in rural Colorado.
5. Held town hall meetings in areas of the state a little less friendly than HD-6. Making the hard sell on Obama’s health care reform plan to the people who need to be sold on it.
6. Strong supporter of public option, before Romanoff was even an afterthought.
7. Strong supporter of CHIP re authorization, which provides health care to millions of under insured children.
8. Voted yes on the Lily Ledbetter Pay Act.All of that is in just 8 months of being in the Senate.
But just to turn it around: in the time that Bennet has been in the Senate, can you give me a list of Romanoff’s accomplishments? Hell, I’ll even give you the last year and a half since he’s been out of office. He graduated law school, got a DLC fellowship (howprogressive!) and started running for Senator. That’s about it.
“Ready your next round of fire at Senator Norton, y’all.” — Jambalaya
by: redstateblues @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 09:04:25 AM MDT
a
s
d
f
Though my promise was to repost my posts that gave explicit pro Bennet reasons, I also looked for AR supporters’s expressed reasons for supporting AR besides just bashing Bennet.
Romanoff will be a much better representative for the people of Colorado. He’s dedicated and cares.
What I like most about this is that it sets a great example for other incumbents to see that if you don’t tow the progressive line you’re out. We’re fed up with politics of the past we need real change.Romanoff you rock! This is a great showing for your first month of fund raising.
by: Sharon Hanson @ Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 20:03:58 PM MDT
[ Parent | Reply ]
I have never said I supported Romanoff because he should have been appointed. I knew some elected Democrats that felt he should have been appointed but I have never said that is the reason I support Romanoff. I would have supported Joan Fitzgerald had she stepped up to the plate and I think Diana DeGette would also be a strong candidate and I would support her as well.
I don’t support Bennet because I don’t trust him. And I don’t trust him for two reasons; he was appointed by Ritter who I now despise because of what he has done to the union and our safety workers. I originally voted for Ritter as the lesser of two evils because I didn’t like his views on abortion rights. And here’s the one that should be no surprise he voted no on the cram-down legislation.Now whether you realize it or not I believe by the time 2010 rolls around people will be so pissed at banks they will vote for anyone who comes out in favor of a massive overall of the banking and investment industry. This includes regulating them and putting some away for a long time and although I believe Colorado is a state that prides itself on its ignorance of the issues I believe Colorado voters will have had enough and they will want a new Senator. But it’s not Bennet even if he did vote yea on new Credit Card reform legislation it was a weak excuse for not voting for the cram-down.
by: Sharon Hanson @ Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 18:49:56 PM MDT
I may have mentioned this anecdote before about Romanoff. I saw him do something at the 2008 State Dem Convention that I’d never seen an elected official or candidate do before, and don’t expect to see anyone do it the same way in the future. Romanoff literally spent several HOURS working his way slowly around the World Arena in Springs stopping at each section to talk to a number of people, and have his photo taken with a number of people. He talked to everyone who wanted to talk to him, and it was hundreds of people. It was amazing to watch. It’s Romanoff’s connection to Dems around the state that some folks just don’t seem to know about, or don’t want to recognize.
by: The realist @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 11:02:49 AM MDT
I don’t think that there are a lot of “committed” Bennet
supporters. Plenty of folks were willing to support him against a Republican when he was the only person running. But, I think AR has more loyal backing.
And, there is a huge difference between simply knowing the rules of the caucus and really knowing what it takes to win in that process and making the one on one connections with the people who are important to do that. You have to know who the influentials are at a very detailed level, what arguments who in a caucus setting, and how the rules and the reality differ (often regionally).Jared Polis is no fool and has a long standing involvement in Colorado politics, but seriously fumbled some of his caucus process meetings. On the other hand, Obama’s campaign, a newcomer to Colorado, did a brilliant job in that process relative to Clinton’s campaign.
by: ohwilleke @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 11:00:53 AM MDT
The Latino vote in Colorado is the swing vote. I believe Romanoff will appeal to them much more than Bennet. Romanoff’s Spanish is impeccable and will very much impress Latinos even if they are not bilingual. It worked for Salazar, it will work for Romanoff.
“To be a patriot, one had to say and keep on saying, my country right or wrong and urge on the little war. Have you not percieved this as an insult to the nation?” Mark Twain 1906
by: Mike Collins @ Mon Sep 28, 2009 at 13:00:54 PM MDT
Re: Andrew, he did organize and campaign for amendment 59 to cut the state’s fiscal Gordian Knot, though since it failed that can’t be counted as an accomplishment. It was however the kind of difficult bipartisan work for which he is known.
I’m sure both guys would be decent Senators, but Bennett doesn’t strike me as the bold leadership type. He’s had nine months of OJT, and he could develop into a very good Senator. Or not. Everyone I know who has met him says he’s intelligent, thoughtful, sincere and passionate. Those are great qualitites, but not in themselves sufficient for being a good politician.
Andrew has a track record, and Bennett does not. It’s only reasonable to question what he’s accomplished besides getting up to speed.
” Don’t worry scrote. There’s plenty of ‘tards out there living really kickass lives. My first wife was ‘tarded…Now she’s a pilot.”
by: DaftPunk @ Tue Sep 29, 2009 at 12:12:59 PM MDT
But mostly because we who post make it so.
A few days ago – a long time in CoPols.com land – I promised to research some old posts and report back later this week. Then by happenstance sxp151 did a thing last night that got me looking even further into the past posts.
A few observations from a relative noob, in no particular order.
Some of you are quite brilliant and some of you can write really well. Not always the same posters and not always the ones I agree with. And, no, not all you know who you are.
The underlying architecture of the site is what it is.
Example- when you change your signature line, it changes on every post for that user name for all time. So all of a sudden that post from two years ago looks weird with some comment about balloon boy or triguardian.
Here’s something that surprised me: there is no way to close comments on a diary. And there are a few posters that post well after the pack has moved on. Sure they get the last word, and their comments are recorded, but it just seems….dumb. Find an old post getting no traffic and then post a response that makes it look like the lack of reply defeats the original. Touché, mon ombre. I haven’t looked back into old posts much and when I do, I don’t post. Where’s the wisdom in getting the last word when no one is listening?
Why do some posters consistently fuck up the mechanics of the site?
Eg: huge, unnecessary white space between post and sig line? Consistently posting replies to the wrong post? C&P quotes from other sources with no accompanying link?
The site architecture is what it is, but these kinds of netiquette failures are just us. Sure they are minor compared to the auto loading audio we used to sometimes get, or the no warning autoload images that no one wants to see, but it’s our community.
SH, TFO and others calling for civiity and moderation in language- you are right on.
Some posters here have been complete a**holes- worse than pointless invective and name calling. Worse than pointless because it distracts and excludes. If political discussion is useful (it is) and the political process is valuable (it is) then distracting from the discussion in a exclusionary, mean spirited way is not funny, it’s just wrong.
In following the “volume poll” and my little research project for more recent posts, I was curious about my own potential obnoxiousness. In 1755 posts I can recall calling one poster a “dickhead ” and another a “misinformed, arrogant nut job”. I wish I could consistently engage in more useful discussion. Though both were accurate characterizations in context, neither was especially productive communication.
I’ve been thinking about DT’s idea about candidates being able to “own the web.” A site like this that provides a recorded memory of who said what when can be a part of that. That said, searching the past on this site is a painfully awkward process. And because real world identities are not always available and trolls, sockpuppets and other blogonalities are easy enough to manage and manipulate I don’t see sites like this really playing a major role.
You did such a great job explaining reconciliation* and the Senate filibuster rules**, can you explain the conference committee?
Now that the Senate and House have passed healthcare legislation, but not the same healthcare legislation, can you explain what happens next?
I read the “conference committee” entry on wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C…
But now what?
Who will the members of the committee be? How are they chosen? Do they get t-shirts or hats? What can they do? When they’ve done whatever they do, is there another vote in the House and Senate? Would that be a 60 votes required in the Senate, or regular old majority rules?
Thanks
*reconciliation
http://coloradopols.com/showDi…
**filibusted
http://coloradopols.com/diary/…
( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
Conference call with Senator Bennet tonight.
He spoke briefly- mostly about healthcare. And then answered questions. He tends to ramble a little, but he does not dodge questions.
Highlights:
Senate is close to complete on health care. Another vote overnight tonight and then once more before Christmas, and healthcare should go to conference committee.
President expects conference committee to work over the break and be complete just after the recess.
Senator Bennet expressed frustration and disappointment that the public option is out.
And gave a quick summary of the better things that are in:
Immediate ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children. Health insurers will be immediately prohibited from excluding coverage of pre-existing conditions for children.
Quality of care in Medicare is preserved. He co-sponsored an amendment that guarantees Medicare will not be cut and in fact is stabilized for an additional ten years based on current actuarials.
Multi-state option. Health insurance carriers will offer plans under the supervision of the Office of Personnel Management, the same entity that currently oversees health plans for Members of Congress. At least one plan must be non-profit, and the plans will be available nationwide to promote competition and choice.
Insurers will be required to spend 80% or more of premium revenues on clinical services with less going to administrative costs and profits or pay rebates to policyholders. These stricter limits will continue even after the Exchanges begin in 2011, and apply to all plans.
Health insurer’s participation in the Exchange will depend on performance. Insurers that jack up their premiums before the Exchange begins will be excluded.
Insurers will have to protect choice of doctors and ensure access to emergency care.
Ensuring access to care. Annual limits on benefits will be tightly restricted to ensure access to needed care immediately, and will be prohibited completely beginning in 2014.
Guaranteed opportunity to appeal coverage denials. All health insurers will be required to implement an internal appeals process for coverage denials, and states will ensure the availability of an external appeals process that is independent and holds insurance companies accountable.
Free choice vouchers. Workers who qualify for an affordability exemption to the individual responsibility policy but do not qualify for tax credits can take their employer contribution and join an exchange plan.
Vulnerable populations. A range of new programs will tackle diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and children’s congenital heart disease, will improve the Indian Health System, and will provide support for pregnant teens and victims of domestic violence.
Community Health Centers. A substantial investment in Community Health Centers will provide funding to expand access to health care in communities where it is most needed
It is not clear to me where portability fits nor how how involved the President will be in the conference committee.
The current health care bill has been scored by CBO as producing savings of $130B in the first ten years.
He didn’t talk about it, but what is not in the bill: No death panels, no cut to Medicare, no golden clinics in Nebraska, no weakening of Hyd Amendment, no gov’t intrusion into dr/patient decisions, no government take over of healthcare, no Medicare buy-in.
He concluded by asking for feedback to him and the campaign staff on what he could be doing better. I saw him speak once last Spring – and he concluded the same way. If you think he could be doing something better, tell him. I believe he wants to hear from you.
( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
As far as I can tell there is no such thing as the Mensa Invitational- but some of these are pretty funny.
Here is the Washington Post’s Mensa Invitational which once again asked readers to take any word from the dictionary, alter it by adding, subtracting, or changing one letter, and supply a new definition.
Here are the winners:
1. Cashtration (n.): The act of buying a house, which renders the subject financially impotent for an indefinite period of time.
2. Ignoranus: A person who’s both stupid and an asshole.
3. Intaxicaton: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you realize it was your money to start with.
4. Reintarnation: Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
5. Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
6. Foreploy: Any misrepresentation about yourself for the purpose of getting laid.
7. Giraffiti: Vandalism spray-painted very, very high
8. Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn’t get it.
9. Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
10. Osteopornosis: A degenerate disease. (This one got extra credit.)
11. Karmageddon: It’s like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it’s like, a serious bummer.
12. Decafalon (n.): The grueling event of getting through the day consuming only things that are good for you.
13. Glibido: All talk and no action.
14. Dopeler Effect: The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.
15. Arachnoleptic Fit (n.): The frantic dance performed just after you’ve accidentally walked through a spider web.
16. Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito, that gets into your bedroom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
17. Caterpallor (n.): The color you turn after finding half a worm in the fruit you’re eating.
(Likewise- I don’t believe WaPo has anything like this, but it’s still funny.
The Washington Post has also published the winning submissions to its yearly contest, in which readers are asked to supply alternate meanings for common words.
And the winners are:
1. Coffee, n. The person upon whom one coughs.
2. Flabbergasted, adj. Appalled by discovering how much weight one has gained.
3. Abdicate, v.. To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.
4. esplanade, v. To attempt an explanation while drunk.
5. Willy-nilly, adj. Impotent.
6. Negligent, adj. Absentmindedly answering the door when wearing only a nightgown.
7. Lymph, v. To walk with a lisp.
8. Gargoyle, n. Olive-flavored mouthwash.
9. Flatulence, n. Emergency vehicle that picks up someone who has been run over by a steamroller.
10. Balderdash, n. A rapidly receding hairline..
11. Testicle, n. A humorous question on an exam.
12. Rectitude, n. The formal, dignified bearing adopted by proctologists.
13. Pokemon, n.. A Rastafarian proctologist.
14. Oyster, n. A person who sprinkles his conversation with Yiddishisms.
15. Frisbeetarianism, n. The belief that, after death, the soul flies up onto the roof and gets stuck there.
16. Circumvent, n. An opening in the front of boxer shorts worn by Jewish men
I brainstorm with nothing but net praise and admiration for this site. By FAR it blows away the discussion boards and blogs at DenverPost and other print papers online. It’s better than any other political blog focused on Colorado, of which I am aware. There may be others.
But I think some minor improvements could be made.
In no particular order
– when a diary and it’s comments get long, it’s hard to find just the new comments. there should be a way to either skip just to the new ones, or to make the red “new” searchable by my browser
– It would be great to post audio sometimes.
– In addition to the Bold, Italic and Quote, it would be nice to have buttons for underline and hyperlink.
– chat function for members signed on might be good, only if the recipient could opt out or block some users
– the “search” should allow multiple screens: Eg, search comments by MADCO, made in September 2009, including text Lieberman
– Threads should close at some defined point. Every now and then I follow something into the past and see comments made weeks after the original thread was energized Start it over man, not way back in the archive
– likewise polls
– sig lines shouldn’t change all the way back to forever
–
Attend a house party with a conference call with Andrew Romanoff on Tuesday, 12/15, 6-7 pm. Call to find the one nearest you.
I got invited several times from different sources. I accepted several times, but it took awhile to get the call-in information.
The call was late to start and then said nothing.
To recap: Romanoff was introduced by I have no idea who. The actual candidate part of the call was approx 5 minutes: 10-city tour of western Colorado the past 3 days, he fixed rural schools in Colorado on his watch in the House, 1000 volunteers, 95% of his donors are in Colorado, happy birthday to some kid in Douglas County, happy holidays and out.
I am offended. Brevity can be good, but where the hell is the campaign? What does the campaign stand for?
The bar is not set that high: have a reason to challenge your own party beyond “I am not the other guy” or “I really, really wanted this job.” And then execute a campaign.
What he said:
The past three days a 10-city tour in western CO.
What I heard: 10 west slope cities in mid-Dec is far too little, way too late. No talk about how energized and excited everyone was and no talk about what’s next. Because they weren’t and no one knows.
What he said: 1000 volunteers; thanks for the support. 95% of my donors are from Colorado.
What I heard: no plea to get more, no call to action, no call to make calls, no request for support nor money, he can’t raise the big dollars for this kind of campaign. It sounded like the start of a concession speech, like he was done; like he wasn’t asking for money or more volunteers because he knows he is going to pull the plug sooner not later.
What he said: rural schools in CO needed fixing, I fixed ’em.
What I heard: He should be running for Governor.
What he said: half the D’s in the CO legislature are behind my campaign.
What I heard: They know him and like him and they’re too polite to question his campaign to his face.
What I did not hear:
A campaign manager to introduce him.
A campaign manager to introduce.
An introduction and some excitement about newly hired field staff.
Any advance or release for media.
I also did not hear:
Any differentiation from his opponent. No reason to get behind him nor to persuade others to do so.
I heard no policy positions about national Senatorial issues: nothing about AFPAK, nothing about financial regulation, nothing about green energy nor independence from foreign oil, nothing about climate change, nothing about immigration reform, nothing about labor.
I heard no call for donors, no “let’s make some calls and find some donors and more volunteers.” What it sounded like: it’s almost over, so let’s not get any more invested or involved.
This seat is at risk. The 2010 CO election cycle will not be like 2008 with record D turnout and a lackadaisical R organization.
D’s and progressives and moderates and Colorado voters that aren’t supportive of Buck or Norton or Wiens have to unify and start running against them. Now.
The AR campaign is offensive. Not offensive like the Colts or Saints – offensive like what the hell are you doing to the party? And the longer it stays that way the more at risk the seat is.
I didn’t know Senator Bennet before he was appointed. I am not employed by him or his campaign. And to repeat what I’ve said many times before- I like Andrew. But until someone, preferably him, explains why I should care about his campaign, and really, really makes the case for him, I am going to remain supportive of Senator Bennet. At some point in time one of the D candidates is going to have to do the right thing for the good of party, for the good of Colorado and the nation and exit gracefully, the sooner the better. I don’t say this to be dismissive of Andrew. If he was appointed and anyone primaried him this poorly I would be supporting him and saying this about that challenger.
But if (when) the campaigns become divisive and mean, we increase the risk of losing the seat. And I hate the thought. The voters have had their chance to speak up and write checks. They haven’t because they are not going to.
In the DenverPost Sunday Nov 29
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_1…
Q: Do you think Scott realizes the gift that was handed to him? The cliché lead here is “Christmas came early for Scott McInnis.”A: He does. No question in my mind. Scott in these last two weeks has shown an openness and a genuine humility. Anyone at these meetings can tell you that.
The left-wing blogs and objective observers are saying the Republicans’ chances of taking back the governorship and regaining other ground we lost just increased by orders of magnitude.
Q: Orders of magnitude? O-r-d-e-r-s? What does that mean?
A: (Laughing) Say it increased by a lot.
Q: Those same left-wing bloggers keep reporting you were pushed out. There’s talk that some high-roller donor backing McInnis approached you or your people and threatened to spend a fortune attacking you.
A: Those bloggers are also sitting in their underwear in their grandmothers’ basements. They’re making stuff up out of thin air.
All bolding is mine.
So, first we’re worth quoting ’cause he agrees. Then we’re in our grandmothers’ basement in our underwear.
Well- hmpph.
I am not in my grandmother’s basement nor do I make stuff up out of thin air.
A-hole. I hope he loses his Senate leadership position- though I have no idea who could challenge him.
I especially like the sympathetic commenters (you gotta read through a lot of loons) who advise the young Senator to go get private sector resume building experience.
