This diary is serving to host a chain of emails specifially between School Board Member Jeanne Kaplan,Michael Bennet, Tom Boasberg, Theresa Pena and the rest of the school board. This is to expose the notion that the calls for an audit of the 2008 DPS banking derivative investment are being driven by 'politically motivated board members' - which the email chain below will prove to be factually wrong. In fact it appears Tom Boasberg's and Theresa Pena's opposition to providing an audit is politically motivated to protect themselves and Michael Bennet.
I have redacted the names and emails of everyone except former Superintendent Michael Bennet, current Superintendent Tom Boasberg, school board President Theresa Pena, and Jeanne Kaplan - however the names of the other board members are in the public record.
Everyone reading this diary on other sites will be redirected here to see the full list of emails.
The purpose of the emails is to get information on details of the finances pertaining to the Bank Derivative investment by the board in April of 2008.
The time line of these emails begins a full 15 months before there was even a primary and more astoundingly, 7 months before Michael Bennet was appointed to the Senate.
The last few days have been interesting to say the least in the Democratic senate race. Starting with the New York Times Financial writer Gretchen Morgenson's article, it only got more heated.
Bennet campaign spokesman Trevor Kincaid showed his Rahm Emmanuel ties by launching into a rather blunt response.
Fox News spoke with Bennet's press person, Trevor Kincaid. When asked if Bennet was going to issue a statement or hold a presser about the Times article, Kincaid said, "First of all the New York Times article is b******t." Kincaid went on to say the NYT reporter (Gretchen Morgenson) had obviously never attended a Denver Public Schools board meeting. As of this writing, the Bennet campaign has not issued an official response on the information contained in the article.
Somehow I'm guessing Mr. Kincaid has never been to a DPS school board meeting either, but it made for a headline grabbing fact-free response.
((guess this won't help win any popularity contests over at TOPB) - promoted by wade norris)
This Friday's New York Times investigation: "Payback Time: Exotic Deals Put Denver Schools Deeper in Debt" casts a laser focus on Michael Bennet's investment into a 'risky' derivative swap by as Superintendent of Denver Public Schools.
Pasts attempts by the Bennet campaign to deflect questions about this investigation are now laid bare and there are guilty parties involved.
Now, Colorado Democratic Representative Mark Ferrandino, Chair of the State Budget committee is calling for a bi-partisan audit by both the Colorado State House and Senate of this investment that has already cost Denver Public Schools 25 million dollars and counting. Listen here on local Progressive Talk show host Mario Solis-Marich's Friday show at about 1/3rd through the podcast.
Felicia Sonmez of Washington Post's "The Fix" compares two Senators facing primaries: John McCain and Michael Bennet, talking about what is working and what isn't.
McCain took an early, aggressive approach to his primary opponent, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R), hammering him relentlessly...by the time Hayworth went up with his first television ad in July, McCain had spent more than $15 million slamming him and had already begun pulling away in the polls.
Sonmez's point is that this tactic clearly works: McCain was at risk of losing his seat but now Hayworth is falling back.
So if you've spent any time on twitter in the last day you might have noticed a handle "Romanofflies" that tweeted anyone imaginable with a link to this site:
In case you hadn't noticed, there is a Senate primary in Colorado - pitting a Conservadem - Michael Bennet vs a people powered candidate, Andrew Romanoff - who has taken the Obama pledge to take no PAC money.
(Conservadem is not my label, Rachel Maddow gave Senator Bennet that name for joining Evan Bayh's coalition of conservative democrats)
Despite millions of corporate dollars being spent by Michael Bennet, Andrew Romanoff has taken the lead in polls with the Primary on August 10th.
Pundits have written that Romanoff's win will send a message throughout politics, that we the grassroots voters, can reverse theCorporate Stranglehold on Congress .
(when Romanoff loaned his campaign $300 K, Bennet supporters said it was a publicity stunt - and now? - promoted by wade norris)
Michael Bennet loans his campaign $300,000.
Frankly it's a bizarre move for the campaign that has touted it's fundraising as a reason to vote for him (Bennet supporters are quick to say that Bennet is the only one who can raise the money needed to win).
(There are other primaries to discuss - believe it or not! - promoted by wade norris)
This week I got the chance to interview HD 12 candidate Jake Williams.
HD 12 is in the County of Boulder including the towns of Lafayette, Longmont and Louisville.
In addition to his record of public service, Mr. Williams has the depth of knowledge necessary for solving the tough issues facing Colorado, such as fixing the budget, creating more jobs, and improving government.
Mr. Williams explains these views and the fundamental difference in philosophy on governing between himself and his primary opponent.
Recently in the Colorado Democratic Primary, Senator Michael Bennet accused former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff of voting to "privatize Social Security."
Upon further review of the record, it seems that Senator Bennet is taking a page from the Karl Rove playbook. Rove was infamous for attacking a rival's strength and where his own candidate was vulnerable.
Case in point - let's take a trip back to the fall of 2009, when I first wrote about the letter Senator Bennet signed that would have gone a lot farther towards privatizing Social Security...
(Crossposted at Square State, Firedoglake, Huffington Post, and anywhere else possible, so that everyone will know just what Senator Bennet will do to get elected.)
HD42 Aurora Rep Karen Middleton (D) has stepped down from her position in the legislature. Last session the talk of the dome was that she was best-poised to take become Speaker of the House after Terrance Carroll left via term limits. Since that's now out of the question, who will take her place in the very Democratic district of Saudi Aurora?
The Denver Post mentions Rhonda Fields as a potential contender.
But what about Pam Bennett? She could become the highest office holder of a transgender woman in the nation. Though she lost her bid for Aurora City Council, she's done a lot of work and with 48% of registered voters Dems, it seems like a good time to act.
Lately in Colorado, the Republicans have pretty much gone crazy - with
Tom "bomb Mecca" Tancredo launching an independent bid in the Governor's race and Republican Senate candidates Ken Buck and Jane Norton having a standoff about wearing high heel shoes.
I was hoping that we were going to stay civil on the Democratic side of the aisle, but in the Senate primary, Michael Bennet's campaign and his supporters are trying their level best at matching the Republicans' insanity with their tactics against Andrew Romanoff.
Tom Tancredo knows how to create heat. His quotes, everything from seeing President Obama as the number one threat to America to the desire to see Mecca bombed, have defined a man that is now running for governor in Colorado as the candidate for the American Constitution Party.
The Interview
When I asked him what platform he's running on, he stumbled a bit and answered: "Freedom. Freedom in everything."
In regards to his choice to run as an American Constitution Party candidate, he simply said that they are able to put him on the ballot and that the current race was a mess, but failed to elaborate on any details of the party's ideals that might have appealed to him.
I couldn't help but bring up the controversial statement Tancredo had made several times that President Obama is the "biggest threat to America, even more than Al-Qaeda." In an interview with Megyn Kelly of Fox News, Tancredo based the above claim on Obama's inability to keep our borders protected and safe. Here is a transcript of our conversation about immigration from this afternoon:
(Factcheck is neither a fact nor a check. Discuss. - promoted by Fong)
"You can have your own opinions, but not your own facts" is the trendy political quote of the year, it seems. Romanoff's biggest message in the campaign against Bennet is the accusation that Bennet can be "bought" and has been bought, by special interests. Bennet sat back and took the line for six months, not fighting back at all, but using as his message, "I've done a lot of good things in my year in the Senate and I want to do more."
Bennet finally threw back the mud on 7/20 with his own ad, educating voters that Andrew Romanoff was not above taking money from PACS for nearly a decade --including having his own PAC that was closed four months after he started campaigning for US Senate.
Romanoff bloggers went berzerk, claiming it was not true.
Yesterday, FactCheck.org, a neutral third party, examined the claims and checked their factual validity. http://factcheck.org/2010/07/c...
((sorry for the petty diary, but it had to be said) - promoted by wade norris)
Trevor, really dude? Even as Bennet's supporters are calling for civility between bloggers, ( http://www.coloradopols.com/di... ) you are poking your finger in the eye of civility.
And, that would not be so bad if you had not won an award for being one of the
"50 Most Beautiful People on the Hill"
who quote was
"Raised to be the quintessential Southern gentleman, nothing bothers Kincaid more than inconsiderate people..."
Michael Bennet reveals shocking secret...that Romanoff has been talking about for a year.
Last night Michael Bennet lost the battle to control the message. While his previous ads had been positive talking about himself, Bennet made the mistake of engaging on the one issue people can identify with Andrew Romanoff: campaign contributions.
The Bennet campaign released a new attack ad telling people what Andrew Romanoff has been saying since he started the campaign: that he has learned from his years of legislative experience and no longer takes PAC special interest money
Here's a simple question for all of you loud-mouthed Republicans who constantly complain about government spending: What would you cut from the budget?
Ken Buck can't seem to get it together and answer this question. How udderly shocking.
Buck: The National Endowment for the Arts. The National Endowment for Humanities. Subsidies for many programs - we've got to look at privatizing some programs. We've got to look at departments like the Department of Education and ask really what they should be doing and what we need to return to local control. The Department of Energy's mission was to make America less reliant on foreign energy. That mission was set in 1977. We're more reliant on foreign energy than we were before. So we've got to evaluate whether agencies and departments are really doing the job that we've set out for them.
So, anything that enriches society beyond a metric and has a greater potential to encourage people to question what's going on with their failing power structures, must be privatized?
:( All this time I thought Udall was a Boulder liberal :(
To the discerning, perhaps intelligent eye, it looks like Udall and Bennet first voted No on the amendment but when they saw there was a majority of sell-outs in the Senate who were also voting No, pandering to multi-billion dollar bailout recipients who used taxpayer money to "invest" in our "democracy", they changed their votes to Yes so it would go on the record that they were in support of it when in fact, it's possible, they never intended to support it.
And since it's the US Senate AND 2010, it was caught on tape.
Here's a simple question for all of you loud-mouthed Republicans who constantly complain about government spending: What would you cut from the budget?
