It's been a week since the Colorado Democratic State Assembly in Broomfield. A recap for those of you who may have been vacationing under a rock: the delegate vote at the state assembly was 60% Romanoff, 40% Bennet. Team Romanoff was ecstatic. Andrew Romanoff deserves his congratulations and celebration. He had a decade of successes in the State House, and built an impressive grassroots following. No matter what happens in this Senate race, this victory was an important one. He will remain one of Colorado's adopted "hometown heroes" (he is originally from Washington, DC, and grew up in Ohio).
Romanoff is a decent, hard-working, principled man. He is extremely popular among many party leaders, particularly in the city of Denver and its neighboring areas. Countless people claim to be "good friends" with him. They relay stories about how he helped them get elected, walked with them for another candidate, made calls for them, did fundraising, etc. It is clear many Democratic party leaders owe Romanoff for past favors and genuinely love him as a friend.
Meanwhile, Team Bennet is also celebrating. But why? They know Andrew Romanoff will not win; newly appointed US Senator Michael Bennet will win his first race. Here's why:
- The people who voted at the CO state assembly are Andrew Romanoff's base -- known leaders in their precincts and districts. Most of them have been involved in the Democratic party for more than one or two election cycles, which is why they know Andrew Romanoff well. Andrew should have secured better than 60% of his own base.
- Michael Bennet's base is a blend of new Democrats, socially progressive independents, and decades-old party faithfuls. The new Democrats did not attend precinct caucuses in large numbers, and where they did attend, may not have been confident enough to volunteer as delegates. By and large, the same party regulars climbed the delegate ladder from precinct to state.
- The new Democrats (the Obama generation) will be pushed by Organizing for America to do the President's bidding. In smaller numbers (but with no less enthusiasm) than in 2008, they will get the job done, as they did two years ago.
- Team Romanoff may soon run out of money. Opening new offices requires plenty of cash. According to publicly-available financial records, Romanoff has very little money, and has vowed to turn away contributions from corporate donors who could help him. Rejecting PAC contributions reflects great principle, but is an unwise campaign strategy at this time, in this state, especially when the new Supreme Court ruling allows corporations to give unlimited amounts to campaigns in the form of advertising. Historically, Republicans benefit far greater than Democrats from corporate spending. Not taking PAC money at a time like this is akin to Romanoff saying, "Regular hockey sticks cause splinters. Your team can use them when we play in the Stanley Cup, but my team is going to use cardboard gift-wrap tubes." We must win the game first, then change the rules, and make them apply equally the next time to everyone.
- Andrew Romanoff's campaign team lacks competent leadership. Several of his staff members are well-networked grassroots organizers who work tirelessly and are respected in their respective communities (Douglas County's Susie McMahon and Boulder County's Diana Caile, for example.). Unfortunately, those are not the people in decision-making roles. Romanoff has hired and fired almost as many staff members as people Congressman Mike Coffman purged from voter registrations in 2008.
- Andrew has been unable to reign in some rabid supporters who make outlandish personal attacks on Michael Bennet and his supporters all over the blogosphere. Voters need only to read blogs on SquareState and Colorado Pols for a few days for plenty of examples. People who have known and respected Romanoff for a decade are disappointed he does not denounce fanatical behaviors, such as booing Michael Bennet and CO Senate President Brandon Schaffer at the Boulder County assembly. Zealots discredit Romanoff's campaign and his legacy. In stark contrast, Michael Bennet reminds supporters before every event to treat Andrew Romanoff and his supporters with respect... and voters on the fence notice.
- Romanoff has not made the case Michael Bennet needs to be replaced. Michael Bennet has voted consistent with the Democratic party 92% of the time, and has worked hard to reach out to voters all over the state during the last fifteen months. People are becoming increasingly more familiar with, and impressed by, Senator Michael Bennet's leadership.
- Bennet is fiscally moderate and socially progressive -- a winning combination to attract CO Independents in a general election. Independents make up roughly a third of the electorate in Colorado, and Bennet's savvy campaign manager, Craig Hughes, knows how to reach them. Ironically, Romanoff's record and reputation in the state house were more moderate, and he has been forced to run to the left of Bennet in the primary. Support from far-left radio talk show host David Sirota only helps to paint Romanoff as the radical fringe -- not a wise place to be in "Barney-purple" Colorado.
- Romanoff, like Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper who is running for CO Governor as a Democrat, has a strong "urban" image, which works against him in suburban and rural areas of the state. Both need to either strap on a hiking backpack or some riding pants, pet some cows, and be seen in a canoe in the national and state parks more often, in this voter's opinion. Think of Colorado's most successful campaigns. What comes to mind? Bill Ritter in his fishing waders, Mark Udall out in a grassy field, Ken Salazar riding a horse with his "Air, land and water" slogan across the screen.
- Bennet has done a great job in Washington as a new Senator, and has earned the support of the entire Colorado Congressional Delegation -- Betsy Markey, Mark Udall, Jared Polis, John Salazar, and Ed Perlmutter, as well as Governor Bill Ritter, Former Mayor Wellington Webb, Mayor John Hickenlooper and a long line of other famous CO political names. The only federal legislator in CO who has decided to stay neutral is Congresswoman Diana DeGette.
- We've been here before. Party favorite Mike Miles won the Democratic State Assembly in 2004, and his opponent Ken Salazar went on to win in the general election. Salazar was a fresh face with smart advertising and plenty of money to pay for it, not unlike his Senate replacement, Michael Bennet.
And perhaps the strongest reason of all:
- Andrew Romanoff jumped in the race too late. Enthusiastic post-Obama activists all over CO had already committed to supporting Michael Bennet, and Bennet amassed a huge war chest of funds by the time Andrew Romanoff decided to file as a challenger.
I remember a personal conversation outside a Bennet campaign "meet-and-greet" in Highlands Ranch in June of 2009 with a few health care activists and Bennet campaign's second-in-command, Adam Dunstone. Although it was a campaign event and not a town hall, approximately fifty tea-party activists from Colorado Springs and Douglas County showed up. Rather than turn them away, Michael Bennet invited them in, gave them the best seats in the house, and encouraged their questions. We watched in awe as, in the style of our President Barack Obama, Bennet calmly took them all on, one-by-one, convincing them of the need for health care reform, and specifically, the public option. The ones Michael Bennet didn't get to, Lt. Col. (ret) John Flerlage, candidate for Colorado's 6th Congressional district, did. Intellect, reason, and diplomacy ruled the day. The ultra-conservative, impassioned guests had been expecting a confrontation of mindless chants and inflammatory signs. Instead, they were educated. They left, confused, impressed, and humbled. It was a beautiful process to observe.
As we packed up to leave, I asked Dunstone, "There are some rumblings that Andrew Romanoff is still thinking of jumping in this race. Have you heard them?"
To which another Bennet supporter near me responded, "You saw what Michael did today. He does this all over the state. Romanoff would be crazy."
Because state Democratic party leaders declared a presumptive victory for Andrew Romanoff in the primary because of state assembly results, voters need to hear an analysis of the assembly results from another perspective. Michael Bennet will win the primary, and I believe, also the general election in 2010. Fortunately for Colorado, Senator Bennet, like Andrew Romanoff, is also a strong leader with integrity and a vision. Those who do not see that yet, do not know Senator Michael Bennet. Bennet has performed well in the US Senate and deserves an equal shot of earning Democrats' respect. He's not Andrew Romanoff, but he is a great new leader.
If Andrew Romanoff pulls a political "Hail Mary," I will be the first volunteer at his campaign office door the day after the primary election in August. It would take no leap of faith or compromise of values to support him. He is a good man, and I would be proud.
When Bennet wins, Andrew Romanoff can say he fought a noble fight, and he will always be respected by party leaders on Team Romanoff... and Team Bennet. His future is wide open, and he has learned a great deal about campaigns and fundraising. Hopefully, the next major office he chooses to run for, he jumps in at the beginning and demands from all of his staff and volunteers the same level of integrity and professionalism Colorado voters saw in him for eight years. And when he does, old and new Democrats all over the state should be there with him, cheering him on.
To my Romanoff-supporting friends -- please don't shoot the messenger.
***
My opinions are my own and do not reflect any office I hold, nor any organization with which I am affiliated.
Follow Nancy Cronk on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/Nancy Cronk
It is my sincere hope the Democrats in CO will be unified again soon.
"Bennet beats Romanoff 53 percent to 36 percent among likely voters."
"Both Bennet and Romanoff would lose to either Buck or Norton, according to the poll, though some of the results are within the margin of error. Between the current front-runners, Buck would take 46 percent of the general vote in November, and Bennet 43 percent. (The margin of error on that question was plus or minus 2.5 percentage points for both candidates.)"
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_15335820
The poll shows Romanoff has no chance of winning, and Bennet is within margin of era distance, so at least one of our guys has a shot at winning this thing. Maybe we should stop tearing the party apart and actually do something to build it up, because as it stands we'll have Buck as the next Senator.
I've had some time to think about this and that, and I recently had an idea I'd like to share.
One of Romanoff's main talking points is about how he wants to be a standard-bearer for 'cleaning up' the serious problem of Big Money involving itself with elections. The point he makes (correct me if I'm wrong) is that we can't see the true will of The People if all those dirty donations are muddying the waters.
But that's not the only thing making politics a nasty business that honest people shy away from. Have you ever tried to talk someone into running for even a minor office like County Clerk or Commissioner? Guess why they don't want to. Yes, it's expensive. But it's also ugly. They can see quite well they would be throwing open the door and inviting any crazy nutcase out there to make the worst accusations they can, either in public or anonymously, by slander on the blogs or a whisper campaign.
If Romanoff and his supporters REALLY want to see some clean politicking, I suggest they drop the mud-slinging and innuendo, and campaign strictly on their candidate's good selling points.
You know what I'm talking about. You know who you are.
I await your response with interest.
as in what NeonNurse just said, i.e.: "You know what I'm talking about. You know who you are."
Innuendoes are also "usually malicious"*
as in where NeonNurse not so cleverly tries to smear Andrew Romanoff by saying: "If Romanoff and his supporters REALLY want to see some clean politicking, I suggest they drop the mud-slinging and innuendo, and campaign strictly on their candidate's good selling points."
The malicious implications being that Andrew Romanoff and his supporters do not REALLY want to see some clean politicking, that they have been mud-slinging and that they have been engaging in innuendo.
My suggestion is, dear NeonNurse, that first you ought to take some of your own medicine before you recommend it to any others.
* http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=r1H&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define%3A+innuendo&btnG=Search
from Firedoglake.com
"Frosh Sen. Michael Bennet Won’t Offer Public Option Amendment
Still Seems Not to Understand How Legislative Process Works"
By: Jon Walker Wednesday March 24, 2010
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/24/frosh-sen-michael-bennet-wont-offer-public-option-amendment-still-seems-not-to-understand-how-legislative-process-works/
"In a moment of pure comedy,
Bennet states that he “will continue to fight for the [public option] until we get a vote.” Clearly Bennet doesn’t have the vaguest understanding of what the word “fight” means–because he doesn’t even need to fight to get a vote on the public option. All he needs to do is exercise his right as a senator, and politely ask for a vote on the public option by offering an amendment.
It is completely within his power to get a vote on the public option at this very moment because of the rules of reconciliation. All he needs to do is offer an amendment, and it will get an up-or-down vote in the Senate. In fact, a reconciliation that deals with health care is basically the only time Bennet can be assured to get an up-or-down vote on the public option.
I guess taking one very simple step to ensure that you get a vote on the public option, at the time when you most easily can,
is just too hard a fight for Michael Bennet."
That's OK by me, but probably not what you want to project.
And please don't play the "guilt by association" card. That has no place in the Democratic party. John has every right to express his opinions of any candidate, whether positive or negative. If you can refute any of his observations, please feel free to do so.
Big whoop. We desperately need real campaign finance reform, but until then why let the regressives have the advantage?
The point is, Weird, that neither of these things is very weird at all. Not at the precinct caucuses, nor even at the County assemblies. But thanks for sharing, anyway.
And you are definitely right that there are lots of controversies and questions surrounding Andrew Romanoff's campaign! Andrew wants to make big controversial changes, just like you and me, so naturally there are lots of questions.
It's awfully nice of Peter and Conductrix to answer your questions, don't you think?
Additionally, lots of questions surround the Romanoff campaign. How will Andrew Romanoff survive the facts that surround the mysterious job offer with the Obama Administration? What will happen when the candidate is faced with having to tell his supporters that he did not turn down a job with the Obama Administration to be the "people's candidate", because he never had a job offer - only a letter with a few opportunities after applying for the positions. Will party leaders who recommended Romanoff to the Obama Administration come forward, or will they remain silent to protect Andrew Romanoff's political career. Will Romanoff supporters continue to spew unsubstantiated falsehoods and accusations against Bennet even though their candidate has been caught publicly lying? What campaign trick will be up Romanoff's sleeve to deflect attention from his campaign initiated faux pas?
After this primary is done there will be no doubts why Romanoff wasn't appointed - a vindication for Ritter and others supporting Sen. Bennet. On the bright side Andrew can keep his smile- since integrity was lost the moment he ran for
So, what are Michael Bennet's "strong positions" that you speak of? You say he has a "strong" position on "economic reform." Technically, that's true. Mr. Bennet has a "strong position" on financial reform -- he's strongly against it. He voted against financial reform by voting no on the Brown-Kaufman amendment, which would have paved the way to ending "too big to fail." In other words, Bennet voted in favor of continuing this cycle:
http://static1.firedoglake.com/30/files/2010/06/Slide01.jpg
And are you seriously trying to make political hay out of the White House job thing? Are you aware that Romanoff is the only person in the whole overblown story who clearly did the most ethically upstanding thing possible at every step of the way? You understand the Republicans' allegations, don't you? -- that the White House tried to bribe Romanoff on behalf of Bennet -- that's what the Republicans are claiming. So why are you adding fuel to that fire? Weird.
Quoting ColoradoMike:
"debating the time line on when Sen. Bennet supported a public option is pointless.
Sen. Bennet still doesn't support a public option,
he has neither co-sponsored nor introduced legislation for single payer,
Medicare for All, or any other public option legislation as far as I know.
Please point me to the public option ammendments or bills he has offered, co-sponsored, or voted for, if I am incorrect."
In fact, when he had the opportunity to do so he didn't.
Creating a letter or a video
saying you support a public option and actually introducing legislation
and forcing votes to get one are two different things."
MICHAEL BENNET IS "NO HERO"
Vote for Andrew Romanoff.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-cronk/partners-in-change-presid_b_453031.html
The Washington Post tracks Bennet's votes and recalculates every MOC's record every single day. You can follow it here. Bennet has been consistently above 90%, and is now at about 92%, a more progressive record than Dennis Kucinich. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b001267/
I am familiar with the few times Bennet has strayed from the party. No legislator is perfect. a 92% rating is outstanding.
If a majority of Democrats are conservative, bankster Democrats, then Bennet votes with them 91.7% of the time. Maybe this rating puts Bennet firmly in the bankster Democrat column?
The That's My Congress rating giving Bennet a 48% Progressive and 6% Regressive score is more accurate, because it considers the contents of the actual bills rather than just how most Democrats voted. http://thatsmycongress.com/senate/senatorMichaelBennetCO111.html
By equating voting consistency with true progressive values, you are undermining the values of all progressives. By this logic when Bennet voted with most of the Senate to prevent funding for closing Guantanamo he and most of the rest of the Senate including the Republicans were casting "progressive" votes.
Are "social progressives" supporting Bennet simply because he stays with a herd of other not so progressive Democrats in Congress? Herds are good at protecting a group, but some individual members always get picked off during primaries and general elections.
I suppose this herding helps explain why so many members of Congress can get away with saying they would support progressive legislation, if only all those other members would go along.
::cue the deep chuckle::
My personal favorite from the Bennet Greatest Hits is the yes vote on the escalation of troops to the border with the McCain amendment. Obama only asked for 1200, McCain and Bennet vote for 6000. Now THAT's progressive!
That's My Congress gives Bennet a 48% Progressive and 6% Regressive score. http://thatsmycongress.com/senate/senatorMichaelBennetCO111.html
GovTracks rates him as a "Moderate Democrat" and a follower. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=412330
I'm just one really disgruntled voter who is paying attention. This was my second caucus and assembly, so I don't think I'm a long time party insider.
I got mad after trying to deal with Senator Bennet's staff about health care, and then got enraged after being told how to vote by OFA. I got still madder at the assemblies, when Bennet's proxies started lobbing personal attacks at Romanoff.
The real problem for Sen. Bennet's office / campaign is that for every one person who they have ignored or antagonized and is willing to post about it, there are 10 or 20 others who are not posting, but just complaining to their neighbors. I think the energy level of people with negative views of Bennet is very high, and would be high even if he had no primary challenger.
Romanoff isn't the problem with Bennet's campaign. Bennet is the problem with Bennet's campaign. Instead of trying to win me over, the campaign's tactics just keep making me more angry.
In fact, when he had the opportunity to do so he didn't. See these posts on FireDogLake http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/24/frosh-sen-michael-bennet-wont-offer-public-option-amendment-still-seems-not-to-understand-how-legislative-process-works/
and http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/25/bennets-office-lies-about-public-option-amendment/
Creating a letter or a video saying you support a public option and actually introducing legislation and forcing votes to get one are two different things.
But my point about the timeline is that he didn't even start *feigning* support for meaningful health care reform until he realized he was likely to face a primary challenge from Romanoff, so he had to "run to the left." That's actually not a minor point -- it yields key insight into Mr. Bennet's true agenda.
Of course, we should bear in mind that even the public option itself would have been a drastic compromise from the health care reform proposals that the D.C. Dems were supposed to be fighting for but never even tried to put on the table. (And what is "the" public option anyway? It could mean a whole spectrum of things that vary greatly in desirability and effectiveness as policy options.)
This blog has gotten very silly.
Single payer at the state level has serious economic issues. If Colorado enacted single payer without our neighbors people in neighboring states would visit every time they got sick. A national solution would work far better, especially since there is already a national health care system, it just excludes people under 65 working and paying the taxes which support it.
Romanoff has outlined his position on health care on his website: "Pursue a universal single-payer or non-profit model." http://www.andrewromanoff.com/issues/entry/making-high-quality-health-care-affordable-reliable-and-portable/
When I asked Romanoff if he would support single payer health care his response was "Yes".
Bennet's corresponding position on health care is here. http://bennet.senate.gov/issues/issue/?id=4b32cf00-ce00-4601-91b0-05534845f680
Bennet has no mention of a public option or single payer, except a link to a press release for his famous letter. Compare them.
When I personally asked the Bennet staff if Sen. Bennet would support single payer health care, I was called a socialist.
Single payer health care is part of the Colorado Democratic Party platform and has been for a while. I think everyone should have healthcare, and so do a lot of other Democrats.
I would respect Sen. Bennet much more if he was simply direct about his position on single payer health care. If he was running ads saying "single payer health care is socialist", at least we would all know his position.
Perhaps more than a percentage of votes, you should look at the actual list of items where Sen. Bennet voted against the Democratic party, here: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/b001267/votes/against-party/
There is an assertion that Sen. Bennet is socially progressive, but I just haven't been able to understand what that is based on. It doesn't seem to be based on his voting record.
One of the ammendments he CO-SPONSORED with Sen. Ben Nelson and 14 Republicans was to restrict funding under health care reform for abortions. http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=28314&can_id=110942
This doesn't seem like a progressive position to me, or are we just trying to redefine the word progressive so that Sen. Bennet fits? There are several Bennet supporters viewing this post, hopefully one of them can help me out with some of Bennet's progressive legislation.
(cont).