DENVER - Andrew Romanoff, former speaker of the Colorado State House and now a candidate for U.S. Senate, likes to say he's more progressive than his Democratic primary opponent, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet.
"On health care, energy, the environment, financial reform -- my positions are not just more progressive," Romanoff says. "They're more aggressive."
So how did Romanoff manage on Tuesday to score an endorsement from President Bill Clinton, whose love of centrism is legendary?
The number-one explanation is that Romanoff supported Hillary Clinton, and ever-loyal Bill is returning the favor.
But here's a reason that likely contributed to Bill Clinton's endorsement of Romanoff. Before he launched his primary campaign against Bennet, and throughout his eight years in the Colorado State House, Romanoff wasn't the kind of Democrat, like he is now, who points to Sen. Paul Wellstone as the kind of U.S. Senator he admires most.
In fact, at the Colorado Capitol from 2001 - 2009, Romanoff operated a lot like Bill Clinton might have, if he were a Colorado legislator.
Romanoff frustrated Colorado progressives with his center-right positions on labor, crime, immigration, and other issues. He notoriously pushed passage in 2006 of a set of anti-immigration laws, denying basic services to undocumented immigrants, that immigration-rights activists saw as the among the worst state laws on immigration in the country.
In the mold of Bill Clinton, Romanoff in 2006 was state co-chair of the Democratic Leadership Council, a position he downplays now. But at the time he acted the part.
Romanoff counters that during his career as a state legislator, he got results by working with Colorado Republicans to free up money for education and services that were underfunded after decades of Republican rule here. Romanoff is proud that he built Democratic majorities in both houses of the state legislature for the first time in 28 years.
"I don't see it as a left-right debate," he told me. "I look at it as forward and backward. No one's worked more effectively to put Democrats in a position of power and then use it."
For this reason, among others, Romanoff was seen as a rising Democratic star, in a state that's elected a crop of moderate Democrats, like Gov. Bill Ritter, as it's turned from red to blue over the last six years. Romanoff was widely viewed as a key player in this transformation.
But his star fell in 2009 when Ritter passed over Romanoff, and appointed then-Superintendent of Denver Public Schools Michael Bennet to fill a U.S. Senate seat left vacant when moderate Democrat Sen. Ken Salazar became Secretary of Interior.
Bennet, who earned millions working for Colorado billionaire and Republican mega-donor Phil Anschutz, signaled his intention to run for the Senate seat when he was appointed in January 2009, and Romanoff entered the Senate race late by campaign standards, in September of the same year.
A former chief of staff for Denver Mayor and Colorado gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper, Bennet is endorsed by most of the Democratic political establishment in Colorado, including four of five Democratic U.S. House members, Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado's Secretary of State, and unions like the Service Employees International Union.
President Barack Obama came to Colorado in February on Bennet's behalf -- making Clinton's recent support of Romanoff a bit of a shocker to many.
Bennet's endorsers aren't taking a back seat in the campaign. For example, at a recent news conference a group of African-American leaders stood with Bennet, including the state's first African-American Speaker of the State House, Terrance Carroll, the man who replaced Romanoff.
"We're not here explicitly because Michael Bennet is African American," he joked as the pale-white-faced Bennet stood by, "but because Michael cares about the issues we care about."
Asked later why he picked Bennet over Romanoff, Carroll said: "There's very little daylight between them on substantive policy issues important to us. So I had to have a tie breaker. And the tie breaker is where they stood on education. For me, especially for my community, education is the great civil rights fight of our time, and Michael's consistently been with us." (Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, known for his right-leaning approach to education policy, also visited Denver to help Bennet.)
Former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, probably Denver's best-known African American leader said: "The question is, who is there now, what kind of job is he doing, and can he hold the seat? Michael [Bennet] is doing a great job and the answer is affirmative. He has the best chance of holding the seat."
Romanoff has no patience for Webb's argument, which dogs him, along with accusations that he's draining scarce Democratic dollars in a long-shot primary fight. Romanoff trails Bennet by double-digits among likely Democratic primary voters.
"I respect the governor's right to fill a vacancy," says Romanoff. "But governors don't get to crown senators for life. That's what's what elections are for."
Progressive author David Sirota goes further, calling the establishment Democrats' near unified support of the appointed senator "pathetic."
"The strange and sad part of this is that the Democratic power structure here is so top down, elite dominated, and deferential to the national party," he told me. "To unify around a person like Bennet, who's running against somebody who has been a part of their team, shows a breathtaking deference to national power brokers. That's what's sad. It's a sad commentary on the Democratic Party here in Colorado, its independence, its autonomy. It's a rubber stamp. It's really bizarre."
Sirota, who lives in Denver where he hosts a progressive talk-radio show, doesn't think Romanoff has a more progressive record than Bennet, but he points out that they have some differences.
"If you look at their records, they're very similar, in terms of ideological tinge," he says, adding that Bennet hasn't been nearly as destructive to the Democratic Party as Arkansas' Sen. Blanch Lincoln, who won a primary challenge over labor-backed Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, so there's "far less incentive for pieces of the Democratic establishment, like labor, to peel off and oppose Bennet."
"The contested primary has made Bennet more progressive at least rhetorically than he would have been," Sirota says, adding that this will help Bennet in the general election, if he wins the primary.
For example, after meekly endorsing the public option last year, Bennet suddenly became an outspoken Senate proponent of the measure in March, organizing fellow Senators to vote for it in the health care bill. (Romanoff supports the public option and a single-payer system.)
Both candidates have come out against the Arizona immigration law, which allows for racial profiling.
Bennet has major union endorsements, but has yet to join Romanoff, who's got the support of some smaller unions, in publicly backing the Employee Free Choice Act, without the card check provision.
During the campaign, Bennet took one notable sharp turn against the progressive agenda when he voted against the Brown-Kaufman amendment, which would have prohibited banks from becoming too big to fail. (In a statement, Bennet said the Wall Street Reform bill makes Brown-Kaufman "unneeded and counterproductive.")
Romanoff, who said in an interview that he doesn't attack Bennet but then immediately did so, has been hitting Bennet repeatedly on Brown-Kaufman and PAC-money issues, most recently Bennet's donations from big oil companines.
For former Colorado Senate Majority Leader Ken Gordon, Romanoff's decision not to take PAC money is "the difference between someone who really wants to do something about the biggest problem facing American democracy and someone [Bennet] who doesn't."
Romanoff took plenty of PAC money as a state legislator, but this fact doesn't bother Gordon who says, "The amount of money in the Colorado General Assembly is orders of magnitude less than in Washington."
"And whatever you say about the timing of Andrew's forgoing PAC money, he did it before Michael," adds Gordon.
So putting Romanoff's record aside, it's fair to say that Romanoff has now moved to the left of Bennet, but just how far to the left depends on your priorities.
For his part, Bennet has said the policy differences between the two candidates are "vanishingly thin."
At the Colorado State Democratic convention in May, I caught up with Bennet, who was thanking supporters in the hall before his speech to delegates from across the state.
Bennet's campaign had been putting off my request for an interview for over a week, so I asked him if I could toss a couple questions at him as he walked down the hall. He declined, and his campaign never made him available to me (though his spokesperson was helpful).
I did get a word with Bennet's wife, Susan Daggett, who chased behind Bennet and tucked in his shirt.
"That's not atypical," she told me, referring to his loose shirt.
In his convention speech, about an hour later, Bennet talked about his work as a school superintendent and briefly attacked positions by one of his possible Republican opponents, Jane Norton, who's called for the elimination of the Department of Education and who's slammed Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme." As a speaker, Bennet seems surprisingly shy, as if he's stretching himself a bit, which gives him a certain authenticity.
In his convention speech, Romanoff, a more polished and rousing speaker, said that when his campaign "wins a race like this - without a dime of corporate cash - our victory will send a shock wave to a town that needs one."
"And when we win, some other candidate, somewhere else in America - maybe someone who hasn't even thought of running for office yet - will take the same approach," he continued. "And when he or she wins, another candidate will follow suit, and then another, and another. You and I can chart the course not just of this campaign but of our country."
Romanoff's decision not to take PAC money may make for an inspiring sound bite, but conventional wisdom says there's no way Romanoff can win in the Democratic primary with the fundraising disparity he faces -- and even less of a chance of defeating the Republican in November.
At the end of March, Bennet had about seven times as much money as Romanoff did: $3.5 million, versus Romanoff's $500,000. (Political analysts say Romanoff's total wouldn't be much higher even if he were taking money from PACs, given establishment support behind Bennet.)
Given the war chest disparity, even if Romanoff -- a tireless campaigner -- shows up everywhere there's a crowd, Bennet is one place Romanoff is not: on TV. He's had ads on the tube off and on since March.
One recent Bennet ad features his three kids cleaning up their rooms and saying: "He's our dad, Michael Bennet, and he sure doesn't like a mess... My dad's been in the Senate for one year. He says it's the biggest mess he's ever seen." Then Bennet closes the piece with, "Now it's time to clean up Washington."
But Bennet's ads didn't win over party activists at the Colorado Democratic convention. After the speeches were made, Romanoff supporters dominated, giving him the party nomination with 60 percent of the vote, reflecting the vote at the Colorado caucuses in March.
Under the Colorado Democrats' rules, a candidate who gets 30 percent of the vote at the convention -- or collects a requisite number of signatures of Democrats around the state -- qualifies for the primary ballot.
Bennet did both, so he and Romanoff will square off again Aug. 10 in the general primary election, open to all Democrats, not just the ones who attend the caucuses and then the state convention.
Romanoff's victory at the state Democratic convention may not mean much. In 2004, the Democratic candidate who won at the convention went on to lose in the primary by 46 points to Colorado Attorney General Ken Salazar. Over the past 25 years, only a handful of candidates who got the nomination at the state convention won in the primary.
So, for Romanoff to succeed in Colorado, he's going to have to pull off a victory that would look way different than this state, which likes to elect center-right Democrats, is used to seeing. But his grassroots campaign, funded without PAC donations, would certainly give him the room, if he somehow made it to Washington, to be the progressive politician he hasn't always been.
Follow Jason Salzman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BigMediaBlog
Andrew Romanoff is a career politician that cannot be trusted. Whether it's Romanoff 1.0, or Romanoff 2.0, or Romanoff 3.0, .....
And all you're doing here is playing out the same old obnoxious politics-as-usual tactics: If a candidate's philosophy and positions on issues never evolve over the years, brand him as an in inflexible ideologue, but if he does grow and evolve in his positions, brand him as inconsistent.
Also the "career politician" label is just another Rovian attack meme straight out of the Fox News playbook. Why are you demonizing public service? Romanoff has a stellar record of shepherding good public policy through the Legislature, and he led the successful effort to gain a Democratic majority in Colorado after decades of GOP control. And you dismiss this with the "career politician" baloney?
People are tired of this kind of crap. Stop doing it.
(By the way, do you really want to compare what Bennet was doing while Romanoff was working as a "career politician" in faithful service to the best interests of the people of Colorado?)
Colorado deserves a more progressive candidate, and neither have been progressive enough for my taste, but both far exceed the competence of their Republican counterparts. Bennet, in my opinion, has the profile more likely to win in CO, if history is telling, however, I would be proud to support either Romanoff or Bennet in the general election. Bennet also has better campaign judgment, IMHO.
May the best moderate-leaning Democrat win.
True centrism is a genuinely moderate perspective rooted in a desire to do what's best for the people and build constructive consensus and compromise. We frequently saw this sort of centrism practiced by Andrew Romanoff during his work in the state Legislature, for instance in his successful shepherding of Referendum C, a monumental bipartisan achievement.
Corporatist faux centrism pretends to be rooted in laudable principles, but it's not. Faux centrists stake out a position for the purpose of enhancing their own personal power, play one side against the other, and then vote in the interest of the powerful corporate campaign donors that have a stranglehold on our government. We saw this from Mr. Bennet on health care (disingenuous balk on the "public option"), financial reform (voting against ending Too Big To Fail), energy policy (voting against closing Big Oil tax loopholes), and many other key issues.
Another fundamental error in Jason's column is the assumption that "progressive" is nothing but a vogue synonym for "liberal." That's not the case. You can't be a true progressive without a commitment to strive for a government that serves the best interests of the people, rather than corporate oligarchs. Andrew Romanoff demonstrates that commitment. The other candidate does not.
For anyone who follows the Clintons, there are of course other apparent reasons. Clinton continues to hold a grudge against Obama not only for opposing and defeating Hillary, but also for saying Clinton's presidency was not "transformative." The Clintons are known for long memories and getting even. We cannot expect Bill and Hillary both to find and act on many more opportunities to undermine Obama the president and the man.
Increasingly as Obama's poll numbers drop, as did Bill's btw at this point in his first term btw, the Clintons and their surrogates are probing to see if there is an opening for a Hillary challenge in 2012. It is evidenced in Carville's over the top criticism on the oil spill response, Hillary's "inadvertent" triggering of a firestorm in the immigration debate with comments about federal lawsuit against Arizona, Hillary's apparent encouragement of insubordinate general McChrystal, and Bill's involvement in Democratic primaries, contrary to the tradition of former presidents, bolstering Hillary loyalists (potential super-delegates?). Hillary 2012? time will tell
Romanoff's followers, need a dose of global realities. Audiences at stage shows don't vote-in actors for battle ground commanders. Andrew should first get the experience of generating profit, making success of something, anything, before wanting to represent commerce and job opportunities, families' (father's) choices, and global progress.
Selling promises is cheap. Painting dreams is free. Building something real, requires weighing priorities in battle. You don't get that on stage shows where there are no consequences.
Rajeev Rawat
Sunnyvale, CA
I have been in business my entire career and my family has a small business and I am tired of the protections that established big businesses are entitled to and granted by our bought and paid for politicians aren't you?
In Adult Medical cases this caused people to be thrown off of Medicaid who had cancer because they participated in society and worked so that their SSDI exceeded the SSI limit by a few dollars.
If they had never worked then they would have a few dollars less, but full medical.
I know this because I worked in Adult Medical and had to explain to people why they were losing their benefits at hearings.
That was a main plank of the DLC (i.e. Clinton organization) platform which carried Pres.Clinton to re election.
Many people died because of that bill.
So please save the bluster of how progressive the DLC was or is.
The DLC served a purpose, I suppose. There is nothing like certain Democrats today claiming to be "progressive" when in actuality they know that the only bills that can get through a filibuster are compromise bills.
Being moderate in politics means cutting deals so that something gets done rather than nothing.
Sad but true
But as voters we deserve those that we elect and we are responsible for demanding more from our politicians. And at the time that is exactly what the constituents demanded the Clintons do. We are the responsible ones for dropping the ball and not understanding the issues. Many people that vote these days if the truth be known vote from a place of fear and hate and when that is your motivation you will always get bad legislation when those you elected legislate.
That's why I support Romanoff because I trust him to do the right thing and to pass the best legislation he can muster from our pathetic and sometimes hate driven, greedy politicians that are only trying to please those that voted for them. We need to get real and wake up to what is being done to us.
The bogus polling data you reference may as well be from the Denver Post lunchroom for all we know.
There is simply no comparison between what happened in 2004, during a hotly contested Presidential election that was won by Bush, and what will happen in the Colorado primaries this year. Yes, anti-war guy Mike Miles squeaked by pro-war guy Ken Salazar in the caucuses, but was trounced in the primary. I remember it well, because I was a Mike Miles delegate. But war is just not going to be the salient issue in this off-Presidential election year's primary.
Bennet's out-of-state financed commercials will be a waste of money. Most people will ignore them in a non-Presidential election year. Moreover, Andrew Romanoff not only beat Bennet decisively in the caucuses. He is also way ahead of Bennet with likely Democratic primary voters in virtually every part of the state. That much I know from my own personal volunteer canvassing, as well as what I've heard from other Romanoff volunteers.
I am really going to enjoy the surprised reaction of so many pundits when Andrew wins this primary, and also when he wins the general election in November. Maybe then you will realize that Colorado is not for sale to the highest bidder.
that's some REAL reliable polling you got going on there! go ahead and bet the farm on that one!
http://coloradoindependent.com/24480/udall-bennet-join-blue-dog-group-of-moderate-democratic-senators
First and foremost, he's the darling of the middle-to-right wing Democratic Leadership Council, whose mealy-mouthed approach cost us healthcare in the 1990's, and in my view has cast a conservative pall over the Democratic Party. He joins Hillary, Bill, Blanche Lincoln, and all of the other conservadems of the party.
He championed the anti-immigration law that harmed families and children, and cost us plenty at the grocery store because farmers couldn't get their crops in from the field. That, in and of itself, cost him my vote in the primary.
If he wins, I'll support him in November. But sadly. I think we need real progressives operatin in the United States Senate, and I don't want someone who takes their marching orders from Bill Clinton.
Add that to him joining the Senate's blue dog coalition, and the progressive choice is clearly Andrew Romanoff: http://coloradoindependent.com/24480/udall-bennet-join-blue-dog-group-of-moderate-democratic-senators
However, I still will not vote for Romanoff in the primary. He's got too much baggage. If he wins, though, I'll support him!
With the DLC, we know that centrism is their goal, and it is no wonder that Romanoff downplays his many years as a member of that association.
As far as health care reform, Romanoff is staunchly for single payer, recognizing that the public option was indeed a compromise. Bennet was late to the public option party and I'm still waiting to see him introduce it again.
Who's the real conservadem? Sen. Evan Bayh formed a group of 15 senators "to keep President Obama in check and prevent him from doing too much, too fast". Michael Bennet was one of them, along with Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, and others.
Gov. Owens ordered the special session on immigration to be called. Owens threatened a truly draconian ballot initiative if they didn't pass something and in the political climate of that time, it might have passed. Romanoff supports the Dream Act and fair immigration reform.
I have been writing some fairly damaging articles here about Michael Bennet and Mr. Axelrod and the rest of the editors here have been more than fair to me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wade-norris/there-is-a-clear-choice-o_b_626280.html
Also,
The fact that Bill Clinton has endorsed Romanoff clearly shows that Bennet does not have
solid support in the base of the party - something that I have been arguing for over a year.
A Clinton endorsement hurts Romanoff with many of the Democratic party base in Colorado. You are ok with romanoff and Lincoln being grouped together by Clinton's support? Weren't you on here awhile ago pleading for Progressive groups to support Romanoff?
Clinton did not support the progressive candidate in Arkansas and he is not supporting the progressive candidate in Colorado.
huffington post was not impartial because Ethan Axelrod is an editor
see below:
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
colovoter 02:14 PM on 7/01/2010
0 Fans
Become a fan
Unfan
Denver Huffpost is a White House media vehicle - who is the editor? Oh yeah - Axelrod )
As far as PAC money goes, Romanoff acknowledges that he is not a perfect messenger. He created a PAC to help fund Democratic candidates and build a solid Democratic majority in our state. That is very different from pay to play politics.
Bennet's votes so far have shown a tendency to vote for big banks and big oil - and that's when he's facing a primary challenge. I'm afraid of what he'll do when he is elected for another 6 years. On the other hand, Romanoff has worked tirelessly for the people of Colorado and knows the issues of our state inside and out. I feel much more comfortable casting a vote for Andrew Romanoff to represent us in Washington.