Friday Night US Senate Primary Fights: Buck Out, Romanoff to Challenge Bennet
by elpresidente | 10:31 pm, August 28, 2009 | 2 Comments
Well well well!
The battle for Senator Who?/Michael Bennet’s US Senate seat just got a whole lot more interesting, in less than 2 days.
Over the past 48 hours:
–the National Republican Senatorial Committee stirred a hornet’s nest of commentary and reaction from the grassroots when it was first rumored and then revealed that the NRSC was possibly looking to back a run by former Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton, as indicated by the registration of domains in her name by the committee
–Weld County DA Ken Buck is reportedly out:
Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck, the Weld County District attorney, is reportedly dropping out of the U.S. Senate race.
Sources told the Denver Post that Buck is expected to make his announcement Monday.
A family member today said Buck would not comment until Monday.
–And Andrew Romanoff, former House Speaker, could be jumping into a primary against the heavily-funded but apparently weak Sen. Bennet:
Former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff is poised to mount a Democratic primary campaign against Sen. Michael Bennet.
Urged to challenge Gov. Bill Ritter as he seeks re-election in 2010, Romanoff has instead turned his attention to the U.S. Senate race, sources told the Denver Post. One source reported that Romanoff offered a campaign position to a veteran Democratic strategist.
Romanoff could not be reached for comment on Friday night.
People close to Romanoff, 44, said the former House Speaker will make an announcement next month.
If true, Romanoff’s entry not only destroys the spin of the vaunted money advantage (if it doesn’t dissuade a primary opponent, especially a late-entry, then it may not be as big a hurdle to surmount, given a weak candidate) and reinforces the perception that not only is Bennet a weak candidate, but his appointment by Governor Bill Ritter was ill-conceived. A Bennet defeat in the Dem primary, though beneficial to Romanoff (assuming no one else–like Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper–enters as well), will cast an even more ominous shadow on Ritter’s own reelection.
Comments
Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"
- "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow
Featured Posts
- PPC Training for Activists
UPDATE: Something apparently got messed up with the PayPal buttons during this past weekend’s database glitch – fixed now. Yes, it’s that time again — PPC will be conducting training classes for center-right activists on Saturday, April 20 and Saturday, April 27, at Independence Institute in Denver. The tentative class schedule is as follows: Saturday, [...]
- Holder’s First Letter to Paul Precipitates the Best Filibuster Ever
- The Lamest Twitter Argument Ever Offered?
- Return of the PPC Re-Education Camps – You Know You Want to Be There
- Supreme Courts Blesses Warrantless Surveillance of Citizens in a Kafkaesque Farce
- GOP Elite and the Ruling Class
- Do We Now Get to Call Joe Salazar a “Rapist”?




August 29th, 2009 @ 5:10 pm
Ah yes, the Constitutional argument. Well, Perlmutter, that goes both ways. We can also say that Obamacare goes directly against the 10th Amendment of the Consitution. And quite frankly, there are numerous states that are enacting laws that will allow the citizens of those states to opt out of Obamacare, if it does pass. In fact Arizona will have that measure on it’s ballot for the mid-term elections. There are many of out here that are not just slightly informed about the Constitution, and can go around and around with him all day on the legality of a whole lot of programs that the federal government has incorrectly inacted, according to the Constitution. The federal government has overstepped it’s reaches in many ways, and has gone directly against what our Founding Fathers had in mind when the Constitution was enacted. And we must not forget, Obama stated more than a few times that the Founding Fathers incorrectly set up the Constitution to LIMIT government, and that it is a “negative” document, in that it does not let the federal government DO things. Well, we sure are seeing him try to make sweeping changes in that area!
August 29th, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Well, THAT comment certainly went in the wrong place. It was meant for the thread about Perlmutter’s comments yesterday regarding the Constitution.