A few months ago, I appeared on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now to discuss the Colorado U.S. Senate race. During that appearance, I reiterated what I had been saying on AM760 in the weeks leading up to the Democratic primary: namely, that Democrats risked losing the Senate seat if Bennet was their nominee because Republicans would be able to run a left-right campaign against him. Specifically, I said they would be able to use his shady Wall Street/Denver Public Schools deal to flank him on the populist left.
Now, in the final stretch of the campaign, they are doing just that in a new statewide television ad:
With Denver Public Schools both the biggest school district in Colorado and my own personal school district, I extensively reported on the original story behind these allegations. You can see examples of that coverage in the AM760 podcast archives, or here and here. In short, this is far more than a political campaign-season story - this is a story that quite literally threatens the education of my soon-to-be-born first son.
Which, of course, is why this Republican ad is so predictably powerful. Regardless of whether you are a hard-core Democrat or a partisan Republican, and regardless of the fact that this ad comes from an insipid 527 group, the substance in these charges is very important and has very serious real-world consequences outside the realm of political junkies and the politics-as-sport crowd (for partisan Democratic denialists, see Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Gretchen Morgenson's expose on the DPS/Wall Street deal here if somehow you don't believe this is a hugely substantive issue).*
Obviously, I am not excited at the prospect of Senator Ken Buck, nor am I advocating voters support Buck over Bennet. But I am saying that this was entirely predictable - and that this is exactly what the Democratic Party gets when it uses its top-down Beltway and Colorado Establishments to crush progressive primary challengers.
Remember - that's exactly what happened here in Colorado. The White House and the D.C. Democratic Establishment lined up for Bennet and against former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff, despite Bennet's shady record as DPS chief and despite his troubling ties to the financial interests who made big money off his DPS deal. That support was the whole difference in the primary, as Romanoff narrowly lost, despite being hugely outspent and outgunned by the national Democratic Party. Had the party stayed out, he likely would have prevailed - and Democrats would have a Senate nominee here who wouldn't be susceptible to a devastating left-and-right attack on his record.
Certainly, any Democratic nominee would have been hit from the hard right on issues like taxes, spending and regulation. But because of Bennet's record and his connections to the Wall Street faction of his party, he is now - clearly - wide open to being attacked from both his right and his left, thus allowing the Republicans to portray themselves as the true economic populists.
That leaves progressives in Colorado mostly with bad news, but also with a sliver of good news.
First, the bad news: Because of Bennet's record, Republicans will be able to pretend to be protect-the-little-guy populists when in reality they are anything but. Yes, the idea of Ken Buck as some sort of anti-Wall Street populist is laughable to those who are watching this race closely. But for a casually interested independent voter (ie. the majority of voters in this election), the image may seem perfectly credible in comparison to Bennet and his record.
Now, the tiny sliver of good news: When Republicans embrace a progressive-themed criticism of a Democratic politician - even if that criticism is entirely motivated out of opportunism and unprincipled hackery, it provides bipartisan credibility to the underlying questions being raised. To put it in Colorado 2010 election terms, when the national Republican Party says we should be worried about Michael Bennet's DPS/Wall Street deal and about his too-close-connections to Wall Street, the Republican Party is effectively validating the overall progressive critique of DPS-like Wall Street schemes and politicians' penchant for being too close to financial industry interests.
This, then, helps create political capital for progressive policy changes - for instance, perhaps for bipartisan state legislation to ban municipalities and school districts from putting taxpayers into the hands of Wall Street's predatory lenders. Or, perhaps for stronger campaign finance laws that prevent politicians from raising cash from the industries they do favors for.
Sure, you can call this pie-in-the-sky thinking. But I'm under no illusions - I'm not stupid enough to think Republicans are serious in their criticism of Wall Street. I am, however, far-sighted enough to see that the parameters of the public policy debate matter. When Republicans validate progressive themes, no matter what the GOP's motivation, that helps legitimize those themes for the long haul.
That this may hurt the Democratic Senate nominee in Colorado was predictable. Maybe the "We Know Better Than Voters" Democratic Establishment both in Colorado and Washington, D.C. will take that under advisement in a future election.
NOTE: Be on the lookout for Bennet sycophants to insist that Buck is parroting attacks from Romanoff - the preposterous assumption, of course, being that Romanoff is somehow responsible for the DPS/Wall Street story, not Bennet's actions and/or the New York Times Business Section. This assumption is more than silly - it posits that the Republican Party has no opposition research staff and therefore wouldn't have found this story on its own. The assumption is also grotesquely anti-democratic - it suggests that Democratic primaries shouldn't be an informed debate about candidates' public records, and that negative parts of candidates' public records should be withheld from primary voters for the sake of party unity.
Follow David Sirota on Twitter: www.twitter.com/davidsirota
Romanoff looked OK and Bennet is weak sauce. We know this.
But has either one of them told a rape victim that she was asking for it and that he won't press charges in their professional capacity as weld district attorney? Then threatened to reveal embarrassing "facts" about her personal life in court if she doesn't back off?
http://coloradoindependent.com/63491/bucks-refusal-to-prosecute-2005-rape-case-reverberates-in-u-s-senate-race
Caught on tape recorder by the victim:
http://coloradoindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Ken-Buck-transcript.pdf
No. No they have not.
That creature can not be allowed to become a Senator.
Claim: "Facing a $400 million shortfall, Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet pushed the school board into a "risky" deal with Wall Street bankers. The result: Millions lost, and Denver taxpayers paid $115 million in interest and fees. "
American Crossroads, in a television spot "Shortfall"
Facts: In a deal supported by Bennet and approved unanimously by DPS's board, the district refinanced $750 million in debt with a complex financial instrument that uses variable rates to close a $400 million pension gap and put an anticipated $20 million per year into schools. When markets seized in 2008, the deal proved costly for the district. But district officials now say it has saved taxpayers $20.6 million. Also, DPS was able to merge its retirement plan with the plan used by all other districts in the state. The district says the deal continues to save DPS about $1 million a month over its previous financing structure.
Read more: Political Polygraph: A fact check on Sen. Bennet - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_16283265#ixzz11tlBBHhF
Our Colorado Primary was Stolen by Obama for Bennet and we offer the following evidence to support our belief:
Gov. Ritter appointed Bennet even though none of the recommendation emails that Ritter asked for mentioned Bennet even once. The Denver Post said that the Obama White House pressured Ritter to appoint Bennet.
Prior to our primary vote:
Obama endorsed Bennet prior to our Caucus, County Assemblies or Primary vote.
Obama directly raised Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars for Bennet in Denver.
Obama Personally Campaigned for Bennet in Colorado and elsewhere.
Obama caused 460,000 Robo-Calls to be placed to Corado Dems with his endorsement.
Obama Joined a 20,000+ telephone conference call to Colorado Dems with his endorsement.
Obama caused thousands of Telemarketing Calls to be made to Colorado Dems From Washington DC, just prior to the Primary on Aug. 10.
Our corrupt State Democratic Party leaders allowed OFA to officially organize for Bennet and do it out of the State Democratic Party offices.
The DNC and DSCC gave all their Colorado Senate race money to Bennet, thus financially handicapping Romanoff and removing him from prime individual donor lists and preferential media treatment,
A huge Breach Of Trust With Rank & File Colorado Dems.
To get our Honest Primary back send a strong message to our Corrupt State and National Party Officials by
WRITING-IN "Romanoff"
or
Just Leaving the Space next to Bennet's Name "BLANK"
We need and Honest Primary in 2012.
When Democrats fail to draw a distinct enough line between their relationship with Big Money interests and that of Republicans, it allows Republicans the space needed in the empty vacuum to stake claim to the angry political energy of fed up Americans. Now we find ourselves in a situation where the far right has gained the political energy created from the failed policies of their own ideologies. Ironic.
Sirota represents the segment of the progressive population that values independent thought and deeper analysis more than what can be found from Democratic Party water carriers and apologists. These water carriers are cleverly depicted as the "Sensible Liberals" in the cartoon below:
http://www.salon.com/entertainment/comics/this_modern_world/2010/06/29/this_modern_world
The Sirota wing of progressivism has repeatedly been correct on the issues over the apologists and "pragmatists" who supported NAFTA, CAFTA, deregulation, and the Middle East wars. This line of thinking demands a clear representation of the public interest over corporate interests from our elected leaders and suggests that they need to be held accountable when they fail to wage a good faith effort to fight for the campaign promises they were elected to enact.
I don't want Democrats to lose. I want them to change. That will not happen until the "sensible liberals" out there put down the pom poms and demand courage and conviction from our leaders. Of course you should still vote also.
We can keep carping or we can start working together against the entrenched interests.
How I can work against that kind of entrenched interest, on the part of such Dem candidates, in the Dem Party?
If you want the Dems to change, then how do you propose to make THAT happen if you just always support whatever the Dem Party instructs you to support? Where, in that, is there any change, or dissent with what the Dem Party say I 'oughta do?!?
Yes, I know, Obama, say I ought Buck Up -- well, right back at him!
I'm tired of the Dem leaders and Dem Party acting like there were a bunch of Repubs! (or any other group whose motto is: Don't you DARE ask questions! Just do as you are told, damn it!!)
And, to a degree, they act like cult folks do when you dare to question their "precious leader / super-star" -- how could you DARE ask The King that?!? How COULD you question Sarah?!? ;-)
With both parties, the longstanding tradition has been that if their incumbents step up when called upon and doesn't do anything to mess up, the incumbent gets automatic support -- and, yeah, that means soliciting donations from the rank-and-file, who have the freedom to say NO, and explain their money will go to a challenger.
And, yeah, that means the President is usually expected to show his support for his party's favored candidate -- in this case, an incumbent who didn't do anything not to deserve it.
That doesn't mean challengers don't have a chance to still win the primary. The rank and file still get to vote in the caucuses, and Andrew Romanoff had the edge. His campaign had the same opportunities to get his message out -- his ads, interviews and debates with Bennet were neck-and-neck.
Romanoff made a bad decision -- to run on a distorted version of his rival's record rather than his own quite decent one of public service. The charges were easily debunked by various Colorado news media outlets. His campaign contributions fell. Even Bill Clinton did only the minimum.
There is no proof that Bennet was ever "bought off," and if you've got better stuff than was fed to the New York Times by a covert Romanoff supporter, trot it out. Colorado Dems were not dazzled by DNC support, or even President Obama's support. They were turned off by a bad campaign.
The only ones helped by this continued pouting are Republicans.
Well, then the only solution is to leave the Democratic Party. No change can occur within.
I am in CO and can confirm Sirota's entire post. Romanoff was clearly a more progressive candidate to the point that the establishment didn't like him because he wouldn't play their game of begging Big Money for campaign cash and then pretending like he owes them nothing in return. Romanoff got nearly 90% of his money from individuals in CO and did not take PAC money.
Although he had a history of being more right leaning years ago, there is no question that Romanoff was a much superior, more progressive candidate. The force of the Beltway and party machine certainly played a large enough role to get Bennet elected in the primary, just as it did with Blanche Lincoln.
If Andrew Romanoff had run on his own record rather than a distorted version of his rival's -- and I didn't see a single credible Colorado news outlet back up any of Romanoff's charges -- he might easily have won. He has a decent record of public service, he lead the primary, and he had just as much opportunity to get his message heard. He squandered it.
Calling people who voted for Bennet "sycophants" is a gratuitous insult and designed to be, because you're still angry and out to hurt the people who dared to think and vote differently from you. That's unfair and ludicrously immature.
Being divisive does nothing for our state, our country or progressive values. You may as well be working for the RNC.
Colorado Democrats voted against Romanoff's Republican-style shenanigans at least as much as they voted for Michael Bennet having been a perfectly acceptable (for the Democratic party) incumbent.
recess, as he felt there was more work to do. FYI, the deficit has been reduced by 8%, and he also
voted for a Bill that would make election funding more fair. Romanoff ran a sucky campaign, and only has himself to blame. President Clinton endorsed Romanoff, and you didn't hear a bunch of people screaming and yelling about Clinton's endorsement. Bennet even sent out an appeal to his supporters to donate to Romanoff so he could pay off his campaign debt. Pretty classy if I do say so.
Did you read the article? Note the quote above, "...being that Romanoff is somehow responsible for the DPS/Wall Street story, not Bennet's actions and/or the New York Times Business Section." Stay awake, man, stay awake!
You are right -- no credible Colorado news outlet covered the DPS scandal worth a penny. Why, well the Denver Business Journal guys had 48 hours to write a story. Michael MacDonald at Bloomberg got 48, too. The Post... I forgot, you said credible. Gretchen Morgenson at the NYT? She took at least 4 months. Amazing what a little investigative journalism will turn up when the time is taken and the facts are actually checked, huh? Try this -- The Bond Buyer is the go to trade rag for the municipal bond market. Guess who they agree with? She is a Pulitzer prize winning journalist from the NYT...
Oh, I forgot, you'd rather sleep while you read. Don't forget to set the alarm for November 2nd. All of us Democrats will feel really good that day.
Bennet's been prominent in high-profile business deals, private enterprise as well as public affairs, long before he became a senator. Thus, Colorado journalists have been aware of, and reporting on, Bennet's doings and his record for much longer than any out-of-state news media outfit.
Which is why they didn't have to put a lot of time into debunking Andrew Romanoff's hyped-up charges against his rival.
The New York Times piece was written by a reporter who did not come to Colorado to investigate Michael Bennet, and who relied quite heavily on DPS board members who had issues with Bennet; one in particular who did not reveal her active support on behalf of the Romanoff campaign.
I've in journalism for at least 20 years -- what the NYT reporter did was not good journalism. There hasn't been another credible news media outlet that has backed up that report. Romanoff was utterly unable to come up with better evidence than what was debunked as exaggerated, misleading or outright false.
THAT is why Romanoff lost a race that was his to win when he came out of the primary. He chose a very wrong way to distinguish himself from his rival, and Colorado Dems didn't fall for it. They shouldn't be subjected now to childish insults by some Romanoff supporters. it only foster divisiveness and RNC wins.