Other headlines of note this morning:
"Santorum Lubed Up for New Hampshire"
"Romney, Santorum and Paul in Three Way"
"The Second Coming of Rick Santorum"
"Santorum Is On Everyone's Lips This Morning"
"Santorum Pulls One Out After Messy Race"
(Weinergate may soon be topped here, folks. If you have no idea why these are funny, google the definition of Santorum.)
But, what does all this mean?
1. Obama for America is giddy from the possibility they may only have to beat a pro-life Tea Party candidate. Then again, Iowa remains a deeply socially conservative rural state, and what happens in Iowa might just stay in Iowa.
2. Ron Paul is so close, he is the real story here. Young white males flock to him like flies on soda cans, and both the GOP and Obama will have to deal with that reality. In my experience as a progressive with an extensive network, Ron Paul also appeals to many young males who formerly voted for Obama, as well. The power of the anti-war platform cannot be underestimated.
The military-industrial complex power brokers will be launching a war against Ron Paul to save their puppet, Romney. Paul won't know what hit him because they will do it in the shadows.
3. Gingrich "has a rusty knife" and based on last night's speech, fully intends to use it against Mitt Romney. This could get very interesting.
I gave up watching my alma mater play an important game last night (Michigan football) because the real game was in Iowa. The "clown car" race keeps getting more and more interesting everyday.
It was just a couple of nights ago that Keith Olbermann was challenging us, in one of his "Special Comments", to rise up in the streets and take back this country.
He pointed out that the only way those on the left were going to be able to fight against those who are looking to get all "Tea Party" is to be as angry and as organized and as aggressive as the Tea Party community, and if we're smart, we'll take him up on that challenge.
But if you really want to push "professional" Democrats to the left, most especially this President, and you want to do it in time to impact the '12 cycle, the only way to do it is to run a candidate in primary contests that either moves the conversation your way...or leaves you with a surprising new Candidate.
And right here, right now, we actually have a chance to do exactly that - and that's why, in today's discussion, I'm going to challenge Olbermann right back.
A passionate and rancorous primary is behind us. A tough general election is ahead of is. It's time to rally behind our Democratic candidate for the U.S. senate.
There are many reasons for supporting or not supporting a candidate in a primary race. I could cite many reasons to support either Andrew Romanoff or Michael Bennet -but for Democrats there is really only one thing that they should know about this primary.
It's that Michael Bennet can't win against the Republicans. From the Hill:
Sen. Bennet faces uphill battle if he wins the primary The troubling news for Bennet - and other Democratic incumbents - is that only 42 percent of the Colorado voters polled approve of him, and 44 percent disapprove. Moreover, asked whether they wanted to elect a new person or reelect their incumbent, just 34 percent would vote for their incumbent, while 55 percent prefer a new person.
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.
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 .
First, as a former frequent poster on that other political blog (TOPB, from now on), and soon-to-be frequent poster on this one, I thought I'd start with a little introduction of myself as a blogger. One thing that is a bit different about my approach is that I am more focused on fundamental principles, systemic structure and dynamics, and, in general, overarching abstractions, than I am on the particular vessels and driftwood floating on their currents. Some of my posts frame typical political fodder in this way, and some don't get to the fodder at all.
I'm writing that disclaimer because this diary, for the most part, is of the latter variety. It's not about the hot events of the day, the battling candidates, the particular policy proposals in the pipeline, but rather about an overarching principle, one which we forget in the heat of our passions and the hunger of our will.
(with the week Bennet is having, this is not the time to give the impression that you are day dreaming in the Senate - promoted by wade norris)
Volunteers for Andrew Romanoff are busting their behinds day in and day out and Mr.Romanoff himself is crisscrossing the state connecting with voters and making his case for their vote.
Michael Bennet, a freshman Democrat from Colorado, said, "Sit and watch us for seven days-just watch the floor. You know what you'll see happening? Nothing. When I'm in the chair, I sit there thinking, I wonder what they're doing in China right now?"
uh, what? You have a primary - Guess your day dreaming is happening on the campaign trail too and Andrew Romanoff is taking advantage of it - and is surging in the polls.
(sorry to mention the blog who shall not be mentioned:) - promoted by wade norris)
There is a new poll showing Bennet 'has a lead' (41%-37%) even though this is within the polls' own disclosure that it is within the 4% margin of error.
http://www.politico.com/static...
I am calling it now - that Colorado Pols will trumpet this as a big deal and Team Bennet as well.
The Denver Post was more even handed with its title about Romanoff going up by 3% - 48% to 45% in the Survey USA poll -
by saying
(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.
(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..."
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?
There was a fairly heated argument recently saying Bennet never said he would support Romanoff if Romanoff won the primary. I said he did say it -- I've heard him.
Here is a quote (I promised I would find one for Peter).
Colorado Statesman: "Is it safe to assume that, if Andrew Romanoff wins the primary, that you will support him?"
In light of the latest round of polling showing that Andrew Romanoff continues to be the better General Election candidate vs. Republicans, I have a question.
What happens to Senator Bennet's war chest should he lose the Primary race to Andrew Romanoff?
Does Senator Bennet get to keep the money for another race or does it go into escrow or does it have to be returned to the donors?
What's more important, would Senator Bennet donate any of his funding to the Romanoff Senate Campaign?
Would Andrew Romanoff accept that money if it came from PAC's?
Or would it no longer be PAC money once Bennet is no longer a candidate?
Kelly Maher at WhoSaidYouSaid attacks Romanoff first by connecting his Russian-sounding last name to to the word "czar" and then goes on to write about how it's governments fault that businesses spend so much money to influence representatives in our democracy.
So first, I want to make sure you get Kelly's thought processes, Romanoff is Russian-sounding and Russians are like, communists n stuff so czars are like Romanoff who MUST be a commie, er something, like, whoa.
But that's not even the really stupid part: she quotes one of Romanoff's speeches (copied below) and then check out her response in bold.
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?
