Andrew Romanoff - The most qualified candidate for US Senate

[krsteinb]

Don't be misled by the one-sided coverage by the Denver Post of this Primary election. The endorsement of Michael Bennet, while no surprise, is, nonetheless, disappointing. The Post commends Andrew Romanoff for his "leadership on various statewide issues," but cannot claim the same for Michael Bennet, noting instead that we have not yet seen his "independent streak emerge in the Senate." The best the Post can conclude is that he is a fast learner and probably no one would dispute that. Unfortunately, he has barely stayed in any job long enough to capitalize on that learning! Yes - I too expect that, if he is elected, we may see him act more forcefully - those large corporate donors will expect that he will now openly represent their interests!

Andrew Romanoff represents and always has represented the interests of ordinary Coloradans. He will continue to do so in the US Senate. His is a grassroots campaign, the contributions to which come from ordinary citizens. In the next three weeks, we will see him on TV, just not as frequently as his opponent, whose ads are funded by large out-of-state contributions. Let's show the nation that, in Colorado, an election can be won by the candidate most qualified to lead rather than by the one who can raise the most money!

Denver Post editors: How about posting at least of few of the many letters you have received in support of Andrew Romanoff's candidacy?

KR Steinberg

[WanaCare]

I had contacted Mr. Romanoff and he never answered my email, whereas Senator Bennett did, even though he has never been courageous enough to come out and public take a stand about the issues that are imperative to a democracy. Those issues consist of not locking people up for years in solitaire when they have been scheduled for release from incarceration as has the father of the UK family, Shaker Aamer.

If Mr. Bennett doesn't know as Mr. Kucinich does that the war in AFghanistan has been futile, genocidal and has added to the economic and social depression of our country than I think he missed a very important part of his job.

Some people say that you should vote for the person in the party you believe in that will win. I think what if a Dictator, War Monger, or a man of no integrity were running would I have rather had him win than to have cast my vote for a loser. No my vote is my voice and for the last few years I have been against the war and the abuses thereof including the torture in Abu Ghraib, the men beat to death in Bagram, and the 3 beat, rags stuffed down their throats & hung in Guantanamo, not to mentioned the 1,000's of surrendered &then shot & suffocated in Sherbergham.

I am voting for a man who is courageously saying he is against these abuses and the war and believes there should be a myriad of investigations taking place and agrees with Mr. Kucinich about the war ending. He is Bob Kinsey with the Green Party. He may not make it since we know the TV channels are all censored and do not allow this party a true part of the campaigns, since we have heard the Rep. & Democrat candidates accuse each other of having money & Mr. Kinsey has little, but I will not vote for men who stand for what is right above what is "popular", powerful, or prosperous, because I then know he will stand for me & my family citizens when I am trying to do what is right.

The following has to do with the Wikilinks, which in this censored day of supposed news have received less than the media it should have. During Nixon's administration, the documents ended the war.
President Obama's Press Secretary Gibbs stated that the Wiki Leaks documents released did not have anything new in them, but I had not heard about the 7 children in one house killed, I hadn't suspected that the US had a "killing Group" that had shot a deaf man, or that 100's & maybe 1,000's of innocent people just driving by with their families had been killed because then the US military didn't need to worry about not getting dangerous or suspected "bad" guys in the area. I think Mr. Gibbs is wrong about the news not being new.

I think he is also wrong about the concern for the safety of people, including US citizens. It is absolutely not safer for the Afghanistan population to have military personal able to kill at will and never have it revealed, it becomes a laws, terrorizing and often massacring mission. Not only is this unsafe for the military soldiers in another country, but what happens when these young men return to their families. There were definite rules of engagement for my step father, and still he was alcoholic who cried almost every night over the terrors he experienced at war, which made for a borderline abuse childhood for myself and siblings. Also the violent experiences that the soldiers are experiencing have already resulted in a huge population of people committing suicide and in at least one case a man waterboarded his 5 yr. old. ing their; how do we know there will not be other violent cases against community, spouse and family members upon the return of the soldiers who have been free to assassinate anyone they "suspect" to be an enemy.

Also there used to be talk in the US of helping the people of Afghanistan, but it has been stated not only by these incidents, but also by the previous parliamentary member of Afghanistan that though life under the Taliban is harsh and sometimes their are barbaric stonings; which is still considered better than what has happened to many who have been shot in their cars, by drones, in incarcerated, tortured and murdered in Bagram, Sherbergham, and Guantanamo.