I can't help beating a dead horse: Romanoff, Immigration, Arizona

Baca is fairly right though

I can't imagine if Romanoff and his crew hadn't stopped what the Republicans were trying to do back then.  It wasn't unlike what passed in AZ -- requirements to show ID to use any public service (i.e. libraries/parks), citizens being able to demand it of each other, etc.

I know there are some on here that want to say Romanoff's recent statement on AZ is different from what he did a few years back, but I really see it as tied.  He fought against these police-state initiatives before and he's doing the same now.

Was I thrilled with everything in the special session?  No.  The Governor called it; Romanoff did everything he could to make sure it wasn't a nightmare.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Wed May 05, 2010 at 22:13:49 PM UTC

See, here's the thing, though: it *was* a nightmare.

Even if you maintain that what happened during the special session was better than what would have passed through the referendum/initiative process, it still caused an unnecessary amount of hardship.

Case in point: me.

I was in the process of leaving the military and entering civilian life when the legislation took effect, and the result was that it took me over a year to get a Colorado ID. I had to visit the DMV seven different times, each time getting a different answer as to what was required of me.

Here are the documents I had to produce:

- Birth certificate from Puerto Rico;
- U.S. Passport;
- My Social Security card;
- Old Ohio ID;
- Military ID

I can't imagine what I would've had to do had I been unable to secure any one of those documents.

As it stands, I'm going to have to re-order a new birth certificate this June because the commonwealth of Puerto Rico decided to void all the existing ones (because they tend to be forged in order to allow undocumented immigrants to get licenses, etc.). I'm not going to hold my breath, considering we're talking about 20 million birth certificates, or thereabouts, and the Puerto Rican government ain't exactly a model of efficiency.

I have to do all that, and be extra vigilant, simply because I committed the crime of being born Rafael Noboa y Rivera in San Juan, PR, instead of being born John Smith, in Denver, CO.

I'm offended by anyone dismissing what happened during the special session  as "doing everything they could to make sure it wasn't a nightmare." That's easy to say when there's no bloody chance that the laws passed will ever apply to you.  

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Wed May 05, 2010 at 23:14:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

racist laws like Arizona

could have more effect on me than you imply.

That's easy to say when there's no bloody chance that the laws passed will ever apply to you.

I have no interest in proving I'm a US citizen if some redneck cop doesn't like the look of me.

That's not the relevant point though to be honest.  It's not about how it would/wouldn't effect me -- or you -- or any one particular person, but how it affects our society at a larger level.  Yes individual stories are important, but there is a really large picture RE: destruction of civil liberties here.

Romanoff stopped some really bad sh*t from going down.  He has my support and I know he'll do the same in the Senate.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 15:34:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Excellent point, Stryker

That was supposed to be one of the lessons of the 1930s, that we would never again make the mistake of thinking along the lines of: "Oh, that doesn't affect me, ... I'm not a Jew ... I'm not a homosexual ... I don't live in Poland  ... I don't live in France ... I don't live in ---"

The Arizona law is a threat to all of us. We must stand together against this thing.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 16:46:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you on the civil liberties piece

That said - the way you feel about Bennet's vote on cramdown is exactly how I feel about Romanoff's actions in the special session, with the added bonus that there's nothing I can do about my being Latino.

The laws that were passed in 2006 were directly aimed at people like me. Let's not pretend that what happened that summer was aimed at white folks, because it wasn't.

That's what I'm getting at. The laws may affect you, but they have certainly affected me, and will continue to do so. Again, you want to give him credit for being less bad than the other guy, and I'm saying it doesn't work like that.

I don't know how else to make this clear. I don't think Romanoff's a bad person. I think he made a bad decision, and I'm not going to give him credit for stopping bad sh*t from going down. I needed him to stand up for people like me, and he didn't. The fact that Latinos were thrown under a truck as opposed to a bus doesn't change the fact that they were thrown under.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 17:06:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

don't make assumptions

I'm not bringing my ethnicity into this -- please don't make assumptions based on it.  This is the wonders of the anonymity of the blogosphere -- maybe I'm a quadriplegic African-American Lesbian.  Maybe I'm a German Midget.  Who cares.  We're talking about issues.

Romanoff did stand up for Latinos.  He blocked really bad things that the radical right was trying.  Was it perfect?  No.

This shouldn't turn into a "My Latino supporter is more correct than your Latino supporter" -- Polly Baca lives in this state too and she seems to have no problem with Romanoff's actions -- clearly she praises them.  So if you want to talk about issues at hand, let's talk about Bennet's lame statement regarding Arizona v. Romanoff's -- Andrew came out swinging, standing up for what's right.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 18:34:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's precisely the point

I'm not bringing my ethnicity into this -- please don't make assumptions based on it.  This is the wonders of the anonymity of the blogosphere -- maybe I'm a quadriplegic African-American Lesbian.  Maybe I'm a German Midget.  Who cares.  We're talking about issues.

It's impossible to talk about this issue without bringing ethnicity into it. The laws that were passed in 2006, let alone the ballot issues that they supposedly turned away at the gates, weren't aimed at blond-haired, blue-eyed children of the Nordic lands.

They were aimed at people like me. And pretending like that wasn't the case just makes you look ignorant at best, insensitive at worst. This isn't a dry, grad-school bull session. We're talking about laws that are aimed at who people are, not what people do.

That's a small difference, you might say. To me, it's all the difference in the world. I can help what I do. I can't help what I am.

Given a chance to be not just a political leader, but a moral one, Romanoff failed utterly. And what's more, even allowing for political expediency in 2006, the fact that he did nothing to address the blatant flaws in the legislation in 2007 and 2008, when we had a Democratic governor in the big chair, says volumes about his supposed leadership on this issue.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 18:48:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

of course AZ law is about ethnicity

I never said it wasn't.  Of course it's a way for police to target Latinos.

My point was that I don't want to argue on the basis that I'm Latina, or Anglo, or Asian.

On the note of Colorado, as we both discuss below, this issue needs to be handled at a federal level.  The state could pass any number of good things, but unless the feds allow/support, it's all meaningless.

I'm glad to see you agree on that.  Romanoff has said as much -- that the feds need to take it on or get out of they way.  Right now they are doing neither.  If he gets to the Senate, I believe him that he'll try.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 19:11:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Question

It's impossible to talk about this issue without bringing ethnicity into it.

So does my opinion matter less because I am not Latino? I don't mean to be aggressive on that or put words in your mouth, that is just the sense I get from this and if I am wrong, please clarify so I do not make that mistake again.

I was horrified by the legislation of 2006, but what more was he supposed to do? If he refused to bring the house in, the Governor would have brought in someone who would. Romanoff's actions, though unfortunate and most assuredly not perfect, were done with the best of intentions. Thanks to him, we do not have legalized racism permanently planted in our state constitution.

That's a small difference, you might say. To me, it's all the difference in the world.

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:11:08 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

It doesn't matter if your name is Smith or Noboa

The laws that came from the 2006 Special Session did not encourage racial profiling like the AZ law.

The 2006 special session resulted in legal citizens being required to provide some sort of identification in order to receive public benefits.  And it applies to everyone, no matter what color your skin is or what country you were born in.

Legal Latinos were no more affected by the 2006 Special Session than anyone else.  According to HB06S-1023, if my name were John Smith and I were born in Denver, but lost all of my identification, I wouldn't be able to receive public benefits until I proved my lawful status either.  

So yeah, the 2006 special session limited public benefits for unlawful citizens, but it didn't encourage racial profiling.  Had Andrew Romanoff not brokered this compromise, CO could very well be in as bad a situation as AZ is now.

I'm not defending our current immigration laws, and you won't see Andrew Romanoff defending our federal immigration laws either.  And that is why he's proposed a strong federal immigration reform plan.  He has also said what he will do, as U.S. Senator, to fix the current problems in AZ.

http://www.andrewromanoff.com/...

If this is your only reason for not supporting Andrew Romanoff, you may want to reconsider, and actually read the legislation from 2006.

http://www.leg.state.co.us/cli...

---

by: DenverDonkey @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 01:32:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not sure what you're aiming for with this piece

Even though HB 06-1023 caused/causes lots of turmoil, I know that Romanoff is no racist and tried every ace up his sleeve to get Bill Owens to stand down.

So let's stop beating the dead horse already.

---

by: conductrix @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 04:19:43 AM UTC

I think that's precisely the problem

You're referring to it as "turmoil". I mean, what do you care? It's "turmoil", and it doesn't affect you, so what's the big deal?

That said, I don't think that's what the OP is referring to. It's certainly not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is the fact that people are trying to brush off what happened in 2006 as so much water under the bridge.

It's as if I, as a Latino, should be grateful to Andrew Romanoff for deigning to recognize my humanity. What I'm pushing back against is this attitude that people like myself are supposed to give Romanoff - and Democrats as a whole, for that matter - credit. And not just credit, but extra credit, to boot.

Well, eff that.

You don't get credit for doing less than the bare minimum. What Romanoff and the Democrats should've done is stand up for people like me who don't have a voice, who are under attack, day in and night out.

Instead, what we got was both parties ganging up on us for breathing while Latino. And don't try to pretend like that's not what happened.

Seriously, I didn't fall off the turnip truck last night. I know that there were political considerations. But this attitude that "Romanoff was a hero" is condescending to the extreme to me. What happened during the 2006 special session was political and moral cowardice.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 05:10:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

bullshit

And I'm no romanoff fan but it was better than what Owens could have passed. It was the best strategy for the time which blows but if we don't keep majorities in both chambers, we'll see schultheis reneg on his promise to not run and we'll see 50something approval ratings for another 1070

And how do you know conductrix isn't Latino?

---

by: OH!4CryingOutLoud @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 07:01:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Screw you

There, now we're addressing each other on level ground.

On a serious note, no, I don't know conductrix isn't Latina. That isn't the point, though.

The point is that some things are intrinsically wrong. In 2006, we essentially told people that yes, undocumented immigrants are evil and squicky and scary. It doesn't matter that it was "better" than Owens could have passed, or what would have been on the ballot.

It was wrong, just as referring to blacks as 3/5ths of a person in the original Constitution was wrong. It drives me crazy that people here - progressives! - were perfectly willing to sell people like me down the river for political profit. Hell, it's still wrong.

You know what makes me even angrier? The fact that I'm having to actually justify how I feel. I mean, give me a damn break. I'm an American. I went overseas and shed my damn blood for this country - and, suddenly, that wasn't worth a damn, merely because my last name was Noboa instead of Smith.

And I'm supposed to be happy about the fact that Democrats weren't hating on me as hard as Republicans?

Spare me. I don't owe anyone my thanks. Way I see it, you all owe me an apology for scapegoating my ass in order to keep power.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 09:21:41 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

What else was he supposed to do?

I bet your voice would have wanted this out of the constitution, he did that.

I bet your voice wouldn't have wanted our own version of SB 1070 being passed in the state, he did that.

I just don't understand what more he should have done. If he would have pushed them any harder, or done anything any different, I can't see the situation turning out any better than it did. Please, tell me what he could have done.

If you were him in 2006, what would you have done, and what result would your actions have achieved? We can all play Monday Morning Quarterback, but I just don't see another way.

Be mad, be angry. I don't blame you. It was not a good thing. But don't villainize someone for trying to make the best out of what was a very shitty situation.

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:19:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

well said

n/t

---

by: ray springfield @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:14:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

no he didn't

He's not a racist, but he did very little to stop this bad law. Civil rights activists use civil disobediance and don't praise discrimantory laws.

On a digresion, I'm interested in what year he taught English in Nicaragua. You mentioned this on pols.

A little light on that subject matter would be interesting.

---

by: ray springfield @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 19:10:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Did little to stop it?!?

Ray-

You know that's a total lie.  You can criticize what did go through (and I'm sure you will), but you can't say with a straight face that Romanoff didn't do everything possible to stop the AZ-like initiatives the right was trying to put into the ballot.  And yes -- Romanoff stopped it.

On the note of your digression, I'm sure you want to start screaming that he's lying about that too, but here you go.  You can read his bio here.  He was down in Central America after college.

You won't catch fire by looking at his site I promise.  

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 19:18:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If he would come out for overturning it then maybe things would be different

Have him put out a statement and call for overturning it.

We'll see how committed he is to doing the right thing.
I expect silence on the topic.

The issue isn't goiing away.  

---

by: ray springfield @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 19:23:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

he did come out against the AZ law

In fact, his campaign posted his statement on this site


Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 19:35:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

We are talking about the 2006 law

Politicians that crafted anti-immigration legislation in 2006 in Colorado (which are very harsh) should denounce the law if they really feel they stand for immigration rights.
After he stated what a great day it was Colorado, he has a lot to explain, The approach now is that he favored his version of what amounts to a ...Jim Crow law to stop the Republican Jim Crow law. Funny, he didn't mention that in 2006.

To answer the question, I wasn't in the state house.I opposed it, but very few people vote on what my postions are.

I have lived with campesinos and was married to a woman from Vera Cruz.

I've spoken Spanish with Andrew before and his Spanish is broken. I'm still interested when he taught English in Nicaragua and to whom.

I doubt that I'll get an answer.

---

by: ray springfield @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 19:42:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ask him

Ray,

Rather than making up random accusations that Romanoff is lying about his background (which you would think someone would have noticed if he was), why don't you show up at one of the many public events that he routinely has?  I'm sure he'd be happy to talk to you about his time teaching in Central America.

Failing that, I assume you will be at the State Assembly?  I have a sinking suspicion Andrew will be there too -- kicking Bennet's ass among the Democratic base.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 19:52:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know Andrew

I know he embellishes his record, too.

The main way  I discovered this is when he was telling my friend Elvis Boling that he was a civil rights attorney and could give him advice about a defamation case.

Elvis hadn't made up his mind yet in the Sente race.
Turns out that Andrew isn't licensed as an attorney as he hasn't passed teh bar, and his claim to fame on civil rights dates to when he was 21 years old and did a 3 month internship from oct 87 to dec 87 at the SPLC.

I'd say that his 2006 Jim Crow law overturns his 3 month iinternship.

He should come out against the law he passed publicly.

Bennet will make threshold, so we will see what happpens in August. I can guarantee you though that Andrew's plan to fund the general from Bennet backers is not going to happen.
Openly insinuating that  your opponent is corrupt and sells votes (disproved by the Stateman)in a debate,  is no way to get Bennet backers to back your candidacy.

The money will go to Hick or down ticket if Andrew should win the primary.

---

by: ray springfield @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 20:49:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bennet backers funding Romanoff

is way more likely than Romanoff supporters working hard for Bennet.  You and other Bennet shills coming on here every day calling him a liar and a fraud isn't exactly going to win the hearts and minds, you know?

Bennet contributions are coming from people who give to the candidate...regardless of who they are.  Notice the high percentage from out of state?  They couldn't care less about Bennet.

Romanoff will have the money he needs if he wins.  Will Bennet?  Did you notice that Bennet spent almost every dime he raised last quarter?  Bennet is spending his millions on bad TV and still getting his ass kicked in the polls.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 21:23:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bennet have money?

Bennet has raised 6million with 4 in the bank.

I haven't seen any ROmanoff commercials. I don't expect to either.

Romanoff is the one saying he's dependent upon Bennet backers to fund a general. He did that on thiss blog with Sarah here yesterday.

As for shills, you and your cohorts are the ones that still practice anonymous attacks. It reminds me some organization that the SPLC opposes.

Delusional. That's all I can say. If we lose this seat the party can blame none other than AR. He will then try to say that he was forced into running a very dirty campaign by somebody else, no doubt.

You know he throws you folks under the bus, too.
He told Donovan Odell that staff doesn't matter.

---

by: ray springfield @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 21:48:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If Bennet is the nominee

you can bank on losing the seat -- and don't blame Romanoff for it -- the fault is with Bennet being a terrible candidate.  No matter how many bad TV ads he runs, Bennet continues to get his ass kicked in the polls.

Also, are you again comparing Romanoff supporters to Nazis?  Because that's what

It reminds me some organization that the SPLC opposes.

sounds like.  

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 22:10:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

No he didn't

I don't believe that for one second. With the crazy accusations you throw out I'm not surprised.

Announcement for SquareState viewing pleasure/gagging:

Ray Springfield actually just compared Romanoff supporters to the KKK. And yet he rails on about how Andrew is doing negative campaigning? Disgusting.

Congratulations Ray, now you can lose the respect of all of those Facebook "Friends" you are so proud of. Get back on your meds Ray, you have officially lost it. I am sure Michael is so thankful to have such a class act working for him.  

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:30:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hers' why conductrix's claim is pertinent

On May 1, 1985 Reagan issued an executive order that imposed a full economic embargo on Nicaragua, which remained in force until March 1990.
In 1982, legislation was enacted in the U.S. to prohibit further direct aid to the Contras. Reagan's officials attempted to illegally supply them out of the proceeds of arms sales to Iran and third party donations, triggering the Iran-Contra Affair of 1986-87. Mutual exhaustion, Sandinista fears of Contra unity and military success, and mediation by other regional governments led to the Sapoa ceasefire between the Sandinistas and the Contras on March 23, 1988. Subsequent agreements were designed to reintegrate the Contras and their supporters into Nicaraguan society preparatory in preparation for general elections.

(It's possible that it was during this period, except PRoject Cure delivers medical supplies and has nothing to do with teaching English)

Post-Sandinista period
In a stunning landslide defeat, where ABC news had been predicting a 16 point Sandinista victory, the FSLN lost to the National Opposition Union by 14 points in elections on February 25, 1990. At the beginning of Violeta Chamorro's nearly 7 years in office the Sandinistas still largely controlled the army, labor unions, and courts. Her government achieved major progress toward consolidating democratic institutions, advancing national reconciliation, stabilizing the economy, privatizing state-owned enterprises, and reducing human rights violations. In February 1995, Sandinista Popular Army Cmdr. Gen. Humberto Ortega was replaced, in accordance with a new military code enacted in 1994 by Gen. Joaquín Cuadra, who espoused a policy of greater professionalism in the renamed Army of Nicaragua. A new police organization law, passed by the National Assembly and signed into law in August 1996, further codified both civilian control of the police and the professionalization of that law enforcement agency.
________________________________________

So it would be interesting to see what year Romanoff did work in Nicaragua. If we add 3 more years to the that would mean he was 24 when he would have been permitted by the US government to do business there as an individual. Perhaps he was working with Project Cure as early as 1988.  

I'm not saying that he didn't. At some point he went to Harvard, and showed up here in about 1994.

Daniel Ortega returned to power in recent years.

I suppose the state department would have these records.
________________________________________________________

And on the KKK point: Anonymous posting with false attacks fits the modus operandi. Let's call Morris Dees and ask him if approves of the tactic. For those of you don't now who he is, he heads the SPLC. Julian Bond is on their board. WE could ask him, too.

Post under your own names and own your words, or mirror hate group tactics.

Hiding behind anonymity is shameful.

---

by: ray springfield @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 16:45:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

OK, I just had my people call Morris Dees on a secure line ...

and he claims to have no knowledge of covert Sandinista Klansmen operating in Colorado. So that can mean only one thing: Dees is in on it too.


------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 17:52:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ridiculous

I doubt that you spoke to Morris, and  if you did then you didn't ask him if he dissaproves of anonymous attacks on blogs. Ask him if he approves of any anonymous  tactic.

You folks can't handle the the truth that Andrew dissembles, and you can't handle the truth that his people use tactics which resemble anonymous phone calls, anonymous hate mail, and do practice anonymous hate blogging.

I've experienced plenty of prejudice in my life as I've lived among minoroties my since age 5.

I'll call Morris. I'll ask him to put a statement on how he feels about anonymous personal attacks.

You get Andrew to say when he taught English in Nicaragua. His Spanish is flat bad. I've spoken to him before in Spanish and he couldn't carry a conversation. I would bet that if he did teach English then he was teaching businessman that already spoke some English. His Spanish is not good enough to communicate with campseinos.

It's not my falut that Andrew puffs  his resume.Ask him how long he's been licensed to give advice on civil rights cases? The answer is never.

He could come out for tea party policy and his group of core supporters would cheer him.

He better come up with a different plan for fundraising because Bennet backers will send their money to candidates that don't call them corrupt for supporting the  candidate in the field that tells the truth about his life experience.

---

by: ray springfield @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:11:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Actually, his Spanish is pretty good

Case in point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Very grammatical, even properly using the subjunctive, which stumps most non-native speakers.

And you'll note that it's totally unscripted.

I don't think Springfield speaks Spanish.

---

by: conductrix @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:47:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

well, he can't carry a conversation

You are the one that says he taught English in Nicaragua.
I ask a simple question of when, and you go off the deep end.

I assume that he told you that he did so , but with anonyomous postings no one can tell. Perhaps you jut made it up.

---

by: ray springfield @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:54:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hey, Ray -- Oliver Stone is on the line

He wants to adapt this thread into a screenplay.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 19:24:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've put in a request to the SPLC to get a position on anonymous posting

Tell Andrew to tell the truth.
You can quit lying too, Peter.You didn't talk to Morris.

Tell your hate filled cohorts to use their own names.

It's obvious that you;ve never been a target for hate in your life.Then again, I doubt that you've ever done any civil rights work.

At least you post under your own name and aren't a coward like your friends.

---

by: ray springfield @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 19:36:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Let me get this straight

You want the Southern Policy Law Center to chime in on whether or not they approve of anonymous postings?

Don't they have Nazi-busting to do?

---

by: conductrix @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:35:17 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I've been involved them with for a long time

They'll give me a postioon on it.

Unlike a person  that has a  claim to fame of a 3 month relationship with the SPLC when he was 21 years old (an internship no less:info provided by the SPLC about 10 days ago), relationships matter. They do much more than just go after the Klan or right wing radicals. The Teaching Tolerance program provides ethnic studies in schools as an example.

Let me get this straight. You are afraid to post under your own name.

Now I know for a fact that Andrew makes stuff up about his legally being able to give advice on civil rghts matters as he has no license. He also makes stuff up about Sen Bennet selling votes. He then comes on this blog and says he expects Bennet's big backers to give him money when he's been calling their candidate, and them, corrupt for 9 months. It's not going to happen. He's even backed himself into a corner on having 527's (PACs by defnition) giving him television money.

But as a point of fact on civil rights,  when he had a chance to stand for civil rights in 2006,  he chose to side with corporatists and crowed what a great day for Colorado it was that his modern day Jim Crow law passed. Bill Ritter was elected by a large margin that year. He should have let the legislation go to the voters. The Ppeaker had the pwoer to kill it.

You are the one that brought up his teaching English in Nicaragua. I suspect that perhaps he delivered some medical supplies with Project Cure, if he had any dealings in Nicaragua at all.

You still refuse to answer the question. It's releveant.
The public has a right to know if Mr.Romanoff tells the truth about his resume.

What year did he teach English in Nicaragua?

---

by: ray springfield @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 00:03:32 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The legal license thing

I praised you for once being honest about the fact that he never made such a representation.

And here you are, backpedaling on this again.

So you think that SPLC is going to take time out from all the wonderful things they do, as you listed, just to tell us all that they don't condone anonymous postings?  

---

by: conductrix @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 00:11:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yes, they will

Just as they gave me his dates of internship: October 1987 to Desember 1987.

Andrew Romanoff dissembles about his opponent, about his own record, and about his resume.

That's the difference in this race. Michael Bennet tells the truth. People may not agree with his reasons, but he doesn't make stuff up.

You are the one stating that Romanoff taught English in Nicaragua.I assume that you got that from Andrew.Now you appear to be back pedaling and admitting you made it up yourself? You refuse to answer the question

Holding the seat doesn't matter to Romanoff. It's all about him.  

---

by: ray springfield @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 10:51:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No. You were talking about anonymous posting

You said:

I've put in a request to the SPLC to get a position on anonymous posting

You didn't ask them how they felt about anonymous posting?  

---

by: conductrix @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 13:35:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Who should play Ray in the movie adaptation?

Thoughts?

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:42:33 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Bobcat Goldthwait

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 00:24:38 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Conversation?

Maybe he couldn't get a word in edgewise through the conspiracy theories.

Show me where I said he taught English in Nicaragua.

---

by: conductrix @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:33:52 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What conspiracy theory?

I know. it's a conspiracy that you and Andrew Romonaoff tell the truth.

I don't believe that one.

---

by: ray springfield @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 00:06:04 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I know you are, but what am I?

This sounds like Bart Simpson, blog post commenter.

---

by: conductrix @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 00:12:50 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't worry

I got it, I laughed. It was funny.

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 23:40:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dude, CHILL

Anonymously attacking someone with claims they are mentally ill chips away at any credibility you wish to have in this community. Can't you find a better way to do it? You're going overboard and whenever someone tries to attack a candidate via that candidate's supporters by saying "I'm sure Michael is so thankful to have such a class act blah blah blah I'm an anonymous prick" makes you look stupid as fuck. I don't agree with a lot of things Ray says but seeing you come here and showboat your arrogance makes me skip what you say. I think this is the first comment of yours I've ever taken the time fully read. You're like Libertad.  

---

by: Melissa @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 17:17:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you were paying attention

You would realize that comment isn't so far off base. Don't come on here when you clearly know nothing of the situation. Ray continually rants on about how Andrew is doing negative campaigning and continues to repeat lies that have been proven as false, make up things Andrew supposedly said to make him sound bad, and now actually compares his supporters to the KKK. That doesn't sound like a mentally stable person to me. But I don't know him in real life so I have no idea if he is actually crazy or not, but I would not be surprised.

Showboating my arrogance? Adorable. You really need to learn to take a joke. Or perhaps, phrase your accusations with clearer lingo then "you look stupid as fuck." How would you know anything about me if you don't read anything that I post?  

And how does that comment attack Michael? I think you need to familiarize yourself with the word Sarcasm. I am sure Michael is ashamed to have people compare his opponents supporters to the KKK. He's not a despicable man and I know he would be appalled.

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:02:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

God you're dumb

And super self aware.

You're a joke.  

---

by: Melissa @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:15:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh!

Now everything is clear! You answered my questions so well and actually made a valid argument instead of just insulting me. After that verbal smackdown you just rained down upon me I think I will go hang myself for the emotional blow I have suffered. Some random Melissa called me a joke on the internet, how will I ever recover?

And since I apparently need to point it out to you, that was sarcasm. As in, not to be taken literally.  

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:42:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Please don't kill yourself

instead, click on the ads to the left.  

---

by: Fong @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 19:15:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

LOL

Will do Fong.  

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 19:36:20 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mario Solis-Marich has written a relevant column at HuffPost

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

... In the US Senate races the dissonance is dramatically experienced in Colorado as incumbent Democratic Senator Michael Bennet tells Latino activists that he is better on immigration issues than his primary opponent but fails to move aggressively on immigration reform and on condemning the Arizona hate bill. Bennet cannot win without a clear Latino super majority. It seems that in politics as in life Latinos are charged with doing the heavy lifting for little pay back.

In stark contrast, Andrew Romanoff spoke out promptly and clearly against the Arizona law, and he staunchly supports comprehensive immigration reform:

http://www.andrewromanoff.com/...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | APR. 27, 2010 | ROMANOFF FOR COLORADO

U.S. Senate Candidate Andrew Romanoff today issued the following statement:

The passage of Senate Bill 1070 marks a terrifying turn of events, not only for Arizona but for the United States as a whole. Anyone who lives in or visits Arizona may now be stopped if a law-enforcement official has "reasonable suspicion" to believe that he or she is unlawfully present.

As the son and grandson of immigrants -- and as an American -- I am outraged by this decision. Arizona's new law invites racial profiling and puts police officers themselves in an impossible position, by requiring them, in effect, to violate the rights of citizens they are sworn to protect.

This law is unwise, unsafe and unconstitutional. Indeed, it is un-American.

Arizona's action cannot stand:

  1. Today I ask the U.S. Department of Justice to file for injunctive relief in federal court to prohibit the enforcement of the Arizona statute.
  2. I urge the Attorney General to dispatch a legal team to Arizona to defend the Constitutional rights of those affected by this reckless law.
  3. I call on Congress to replace Arizona's misguided effort with federal action -- now long overdue.

We need comprehensive immigration reform. What Arizona has enacted is a poor and dangerous substitute.

Comprehensive reform means securing our borders. It means enforcing the laws against drug running, smuggling, and human trafficking. It means providing a path by which individuals who are willing to work hard, pay taxes and play by the rules can enjoy legal status in a society that benefits from their labor. (Read my 10-point plan.)

The haphazard enforcement of our immigration laws -- and Washington's failure to reform them -- have split families, sown fear and confusion, and undermined respect for the rule of law itself. While Congress dodges the debate over immigration reform, states are expected to pay for mandates they cannot afford and to address a problem they cannot solve.

We deserve better. We deserve a fair and practical system that preserves our nation's security, strengthens our economy, and reflects our values. That is the approach I will champion as a member of the U.S. Senate.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 17:00:17 PM UTC

Oh, spare me!

This is what really incenses me. It's not enough that I'm supposed to give Romanoff credit for "stopping bad sh*t from going down" in 2006. It's that now, I'm supposed to celebrate Romanoff as an immigration champion.

Seriously - as a Latino, reading this makes me spitting mad. I'm going to stop before I say something I regret.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 17:12:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Civil rights champion

This isn't necessarily about immigration.  It's about basic civil rights.

You don't have to like the difficulties of 1023.  But you can't escape the fact that sometimes legislators simply have to do the best they can.

Andrew Romanoff talks about the discussions he had with Owens at the time.  He says he asked Owens to come together, to assemble the Ref C team to beat anti-immigrant hysteria.  On more than one occasion, Andrew says that Owens' reply was, "Why on earth would I let you take away the strongest political tool we have," referring to Republicans.  

With that kind of push back, I'm surprised 1023 is the only thing that came out of that special session.

You can be pragmatic or not.  You can be satisfied with incremental change or not.  I say Andrew Romanoff stopped constitutional racism at the pass.

---

by: conductrix @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:20:10 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm pretty sure

Romanoff wouldn't want to be personally celebrated. My overriding impression is that he's simply a good man who genuinely wants to do good things for the betterment of society.

I'm persuaded by Conductrix and others who are extremely knowledgeable on the subject, that Romanoff's work in 2006 mitigated right-wing efforts to implement a far more onerous policy and was the best available course of action at the time. There's certainly room for disagreement of course, and I respect your positions and the courtesy with which you state them.

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 17:31:31 PM UTC

(This was a response to rnoboa's "Oh, spare me! ")

------------------------------
"Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that." --- Britney Spears, September 2003

---

by: Mucius Scaevola @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 17:32:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You're very kind, thanks

If I'm intemperate about this issue, it's because it's affected me personally in the past. So, my apologies if I've offended anyone.

Furthermore, it was watching this issue, and then seeing the results, that made me not just a stalwart on comprehensive immigration reform, but a stalwart on reproductive rights and LGBT rights and labor rights.

What I'm getting at is that I'm fully cognizant of the fact that, perhaps, what happened in 2006 was at the limit of what was politically possible and achievable. I disagree with what happened, but I recognize that maybe that's all that was possible.

What galls me is that nothing was done in 2007 and 2008 - with a Democratic governor, and expanded majorities, no less - to ameliorate the legislation passed in 2006. Nothing! To then claim, with a straight face, that you're a champion of immigration reform is disingenuous, to say the least.

That's my real objection in this, the inherent righteousness of this legislation set aside.


ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 18:38:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

it needs to be federal

I mean AZ has shown us what a state can do bad, but we still have problems of overarching federal law that trumps anything good an individual state can do.

I hope that Obama and Congress pick up this issue and actually do something good, but I worry that I don't see it happening.

Sorry Michael Bennet, but I'm a real person too

---

by: StrykerK2 @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 18:44:54 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On that, I wholeheartedly agree (n/t)

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 18:49:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I hate that you've been personally affected by 1023

I really am.  I'm reminded that Cerbo and Marshall brought forth anti-racial profiling and watering-down of 1023 legislation in 2007.  It's helpful to know that the Democratic caucus was still trying to push back.

---

by: conductrix @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:52:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I'm not and neither are the majority of immigration rights activists

He could have attended the rally on Saturday and had a 10,000 plus audience.

He avoided it.

I don't think he understands the issue and its impact on the community.

As an example, he was against tuition equity.

---

by: ray springfield @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 19:16:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

cite

Do you have a quote from Andrew Romanoff saying he was against tuition equity?  I'm just curious.

As I remember when it was discussed, it never made it out of committee so it never hit a floor vote.

Also, was Bennet at the rally you mentioned?

---

by: Firewalker @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 23:11:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, I want to field this one!!

Val Vigil, just this week, states:

Of the four times the bill made it to the floor once and we took two different recorded votes on the bill, Andrew Romanoff voted for it both times.

Read more here:  http://www.facebook.com/note.p...

I guess nothing more needs to be said about this bullshit tuition equity myth.

Can you STFU now?

---

by: conductrix @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 03:23:07 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry Conductrix

Ray Springfield just compared Romanoff supporters the KKK, I have a feeling that even direct references to actual fact won't sway him. He has clearly lost his mind so he will undoubtedly continue to spilled hate filled lies all over the internet. I feel bad that he has so lost touch with reality. We should pray for him.  

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 06:35:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fantastic idea, actually.

You have captured the situation perfectly.  ;-)

---

by: conductrix @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 15:01:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't have bothered passing legislation.

I'll admit it: that may not be the politically expedient position. To my lights, though, it's the morally correct position - and from a long term perspective, it's the politically correct position.

When I say that you can't talk about this issue without bringing ethnicity into it, I don't mean that only Latinos can talk about this issue. I mean that laws like Arizona's - and ours - are aimed at singling out, targeting, and using the state's power against an unwanted minority.

You can try to convince yourself that the 2006 laws weren't aimed at Latinos, like DenverDonkey has; at best, you're being willfully obtuse, at worst, you're cloaking your racism with the law's dry legalisms.

The brutal fact is that the next time Tom Tancredo and Dave Schultheis refer to "illegal immigrants" and by that mean people from Norway or Scotland will be the first time. You and I both know that when folks like Arizona's Russell Pearce or Kansas' Kris Kobach are talking about "illegals", they're talking about Juan Valdez, not John Smith.

Passing legislation in 2006 didn't solve the problem, because the problem isn't legislation. The problem is that folks like Tancredo and Schultheis have an intrinsic problem with folks like me - regardless of whether we're here legally or illegally.

The same mentality that gave us the 2006 special session is what saddled my gay friends with DOMA in 1996. That same mentality is what sees Democrats curtailing, bit by precious bit, a woman's right to choose.

All you're doing is executing a tactical retreat. All you're doing with laws like the 2006 special session - and DOMA, and abortion restrictions - is trying to appease an unappeasable beast.

I'm saying, enough. At some point, we have to draw a line, and say no more. Drawing that line becomes harder to do with each tiny compromise. Each time we do that, we negotiate away a tiny portion of our conscience.

In 2006, we did to people like me what was done to the Irish, the Italians, and the Chinese in the 19th Century. There's no political expediency to be had here. There can only be right and wrong.

You can try to defend the indefensible. Just be honest that that's what you're doing. When you defend those laws, you're in essence saying that I'm less of an American than you are.

Again, I'm not saying that my position is politically expedient. It's not. That's because this isn't an issue that you can be politically expedient about. And anyone who voted for these laws, or supports these laws, is essentially saying that they'd be willing to sacrifice people like me on the altar of political expediency.

It may be politically smart. But it's morally wrong.

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 01:43:28 AM UTC

Let me pose my question again

I do not disagree with the fact that the law was bad. Horrible in fact.

But I have asked this a few times and no one seems to be able to answer me.

What else was he supposed to do? Please, answer me. I want to know.

As I said before, If he refused to bring the house in, the Governor would have brought in someone who would. Romanoff's actions, though unfortunate and most assuredly not perfect, were done with the best of intentions. Thanks to him, we do not have legalized racism permanently planted in our state constitution.  

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 02:31:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hear, hear.

But I'm not even sure the law was all that bad, especially since undocumented residents aren't entitled to certain benefits anyway.  They KNOW they're not, so they don't try, which is why the state has spent all this money and not found anyone fraudulently collecting the benefits.  

I hate to say Romanoff told them so, but he told them so.

---

by: conductrix @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 05:06:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't care about his intentions!

At this point, we're talking past each other. Besides, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Romanoff's actions helped legitimize what Tancredo and Schultheis do, by giving it the cover of bipartisan support. There's nothing that Romanoff could've done, short of refusing to bring the house in, that would've satisfied me.

Again, you're coming at me with an argument based on political expediency. I'm saying, you're sacrificing people like me at the altar of political expediency. There are some things that are bigger than political expediency. This is one of them.

We may not have legalized racism permanently planted in our state constitution, but it's certainly planted deeply, and dare I say it, permanently, in our state code. And the fact that they're still on the books proves my point. You guys aren't affected by them, so who cares?

ad astra, per aspera // keep calm & carry on

---

by: rnoboa @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 05:19:19 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't make assumptions about whether it affects me

I get that you've been negatively impacted and that you're angry about it.  You have no idea what connections we may have to this issue.  Don't presume to know who we are.

Still, your Puerto Rican birthright gives you access where other Latinos do not get.  It's not really the same for you.  You can go where the undocumented resident from Mexico or Central America cannot.  You're treated as just another Latino American citizen.

Now, I've already said that people tried in the following legislative session, 2007, to get rid of the laws or at least soften them.  Cerbo and Marshall did this.  Romanoff, as Speaker, had within his power to deny the bills to be brought forth.  This is power that Terrance Carroll used even THIS YEAR by not allowing a new tuition equity bill to come forward.  Want to know what his excuse was?  It was an election year.

Further, Val Vigil, the Latino that sponsored a tuition equity bill four times says this:

"I sponsored the in-state tuition bill four times...Of the four times the bill made it to the floor once and we took two different recorded votes on the bill, Andrew Romanoff voted for it both times. The last time I ran the bill it died in the appropriations committee (the democrats were in the majority at that time). The Governor had sent me a message that if the bill got to his desk he would veto the bill, so I killed it in appropriations. I didn't have the votes on the floor to get it out and I ran the risk of putting members (who were in vunerable positions) of the caucus on record that would hurt their re-election (emphasis mine)."

So why is "political expediency" ok for a Latino, but not for one of our most important allies?  I'm sorry, hermano, but you are being way too sensitive.  Y esto te digo como tu hermana de raza.

The good news is that these are just statutes.  They can be overturned.  Let's work hard to get the right people elected now.

---

by: conductrix @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 05:54:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thank you

For actually being able to give me an answer. You said,

There's nothing that Romanoff could've done, short of refusing to bring the house in, that would've satisfied me.

Ok, finally, an answer. But there is a problem with this, if he would have refused to bring in the house, the Governor could probably would have either kept calling for the session, until the legislators who refused to show up were removed from office or possibly arrested (Admittingly, that would have been going rather far, but for the people running this bill, you can't believe it's not possible) for refusing to respond to The Governors call. Or removed Andrew and replaced him with someone who may have done a lot more damage. I have searched the State Constitution and I cannot find any info on what happens if someone refuses the Governors direct order in the Legislature, but these options do not seem far fetched.

This still bothers me.

There's nothing that Romanoff could've done, short of refusing to bring the house in, that would've satisfied me.

So there is literally nothing he could have done that would have made you happy? That doesn't seem like him being a bad guy, or being uncaring, it makes it sound to me like he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I see this as he made the best of a very bad situation. I don't understand how anyone sees it as anything else.

Believe me, I understand your anger at the legislation, but I do not understand your anger at him.

Senator Buck will give me a great sense of "Buyers Remorse" in the way that it would feel like my Senator was screwing me over.  

---

by: thegreatandpowerfuloz @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 07:18:18 AM UTC

[ Parent ]