DPS board member Andrea Merida on Romanoff payroll, claims no disclosure needed, who else?

(Does it happen? Sure. Should it have been disclosed? Uh, yes. – promoted by Colorado Pols)

Denver’s largest remaining daily newspaper reports that Andrea Merida has been on Andrew Romanoff’s payroll since at least May and has received $5000 for “consulting,” including the writing of a published commentary attacking Sen. Bennet.

When asked why she did not disclose her position as a paid staffer, Merida took a page from Scott McInnis and said “It’s immaterial to disclose it.”

How many other AR supporters here will turn out to be on the payroll?  

0 Shares

154 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. MADCO says:

    So Andrea Merida gets paid to campaign against  Bennet and for Romanoff.

    How could she not think this is a material disclosure?

    Her opposition to Boasberg and anyone else associated with Bennet is now called into question.  Does she really fail to understand DPS  financial transactions or is she just trying to campaign?  Does she really think Boasberg was a bad choice or is she just campaigning?

    Andrea Merida, StrykerK2, jpsandcl, conductrix,  and a ozen others.  Are they here as paid staff campaigning?

    If I had thought I could get paid to post here and in other online forums, I would have tried. True, I’ve never been elected to anything, so perhaps being elected to the DPS school board was a prerequisite.    Maybe that’s why she was in such a hurry to get sworn in last year.

    • Libertad says:

      The Bennet campaign has paid $4,000 to Webb’s consulting firm for help on minority get-out-the-vote efforts, not to Webb directly, Kincaid said.

      • MADCO says:

        So what?

        He’s a former mayor.

        Now he is a consultant- it’s what he does.

      • TimothyTribbett says:

        The payment was made to Webb’s consulting firm not directly to him and it is for get out the vote efforts especially targeting minority voters. This is part of what he does.  All candidates at this level pay for get out the vote efforts. Paying sitting elected officials to trash your competitor (without disclosing you were being paid)is a bit different.

    • jpsandscl says:

      Andrew’s deep pockets. Haven’t you heard? He doesn’t have money. He just has lots of people who believe in him and are willing to express our support for him.

      Now you on the other hand MADCO, I think maybe you are paid by somebody for something related to politics. Is that right? I’m just guessing, but you strike me as the old guard, conservadem Colorado Democratic party insider, right?

      And this is not an attempt to out because I have no idea who you are in the real world outside Pols, I just think you’re shilling for someone.

      • MADCO says:

        I’m not overestimating  AR’s  budget.  I didn’t dig through the FEC reports to see who was paid how much. And I didn’t report it.  But someone did dig through those pesky FEC reports and report what he or she found that seems worthwhile.

        I’ve never been paid by anyone anywhere to do anything political. Not unless you count the occasional t-shirt or donut.  But I’m better at it that Ms Merida- so I should get paid. Oh, wait, I was never elected to public office.

        Well- when I am I’ll have to get right on that paid political “consulting” or whatever she calls it.

        Why don’t you ask Sk2 or conductrikx or oldben or any other AR hacks supporters.

    • peacemonger says:

      she trashed me a lot on S2 with an anonymous name, (now I learn) all the while being paid by Romanoff. I called her out for being her own sockpuppet there and was reminded not to give information that would result in an “outing”. (I agreed with the fact she shouldn’t be outed.)

      I can’t imagine Michael Bennet saying, “Here’s five thousand bucks. Go trash everyone who doesn’t support me on the blogs.” MFB does the opposite in fact, saying things like, “Keep your eye on the prize” and “No matter what, be respectful”. I’ve heard him do it while I was there as a volunteer.

      I don’t think much of Andrew for paying loose canons to spread their vitriol. Why not pay people to do fundraising instead?

      • peacemonger says:

        I cannot “prove” it was her, but the words she used were the exact same ones her husband shouted at me at the Dem. convention. In all fairness, it might have been her hubby.  

  2. Laughing Boy says:

    Is just off to a flying start.

    No wonder none of these freaking kids graduate.  Look at how much more everything is about the board members and their politics than about these kids in DPS.

    • Automaticftp says:

      I do give Baca credit–she seems to have fully and consistently disclosed her position.  

      But your bigger question is exactly correct–why are DPS board members publicly taking sides in a U.S. Senate primary in the first place?  I want them working on improving DPS, not running around supporting or attacking primary candidates.  And yes, that goes for Ms. Pena as well.  

      • TheGreatAndPowerfulOz says:

        “Why are sitting US Presidents publicly taking sides in a U.S. Senate primary in the first place?  I want them working on improving the USA, not running around supporting or attacking primary candidates.  And yes, that goes for Mr. Obama as well.”  

        • TimothyTribbett says:

          AR’s Don Quixote run at this seat has wasted money, wasted effort, divided the base.  The President leads the party.  Are you kidding me.

          • gaf says:

            Lincoln is wasting money, wasting effort, and divided the base in what is going to be a losing cause, but Obama supported her over a guy who had a better chance of getting elected–and was better (not great but better) on the issues. Obama shouldn’t have. Should have stayed out of this also. “Sitting Senator” is a sorry rationale.

            • Ralphie says:

              Only needs to appeal to people in her own district.

              It doesn’t matter what you think.

              • gaf says:

                Of course it doesn’t matter what I think about Lincoln. Yes, she only needs to appeal to people in her own “district” (as in “state”). Facts are she doesn’t.

                TT claims Obama was justified in getting involved here because AR was wasting money and effort, etc. I simply pointed out that Lincoln is wasting money and effort [and, for God’s sake, she also voted against many of Obama’s initiatives!] but Obama is supporting her anyway. “Sitting Senator” is a sorry–and stupid–rationale. My point is Obama should have stayed out.

                While it does not matter what I think about Lincoln, ultimately it does matter what I and others think about Obama. It is hard to stay enthusiastic about someone who gets involved in a campaign against someone who would support his agenda, but supports a candidate who has repeatedly knifed him in the back. I guess that is why I could never be a political strategist–common sense tells me that such short-sighted action is long-term stupid if you want to build a movement.

      • jpsandscl says:

        I thought we had already had the argument about whether incumbent elected politicians can support candidates in a primary. What does it matter whether paid or not.

        By this argument, I could say the same thing about Obama- I want him fixing the energy and environment bills. I want him solving the issue of sending all our jobs overseas. I want him to close Guantanamo and get us out of Iraq.

        I don’t want him involved in primary election politics. So when Andrew wins, will he come and campaign as vigorously to keep the seat Democratic in the general campaign?

        • EmeraldKnight76 says:

          As to whether he will actually come here to campaign vigorously? I really doubt that. Not as a slight to Andrew but only because there is only one President and quite a few candidates running. With the House making a lot of noise (rightly so) about Obama not giving House Democrats in tight races as much attention as he’s give Senators, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say the Prez’s schedule is gonna get filled quickly.

          • jpsandscl says:

            HA! That’s rich!

            If we Dems get trounced in November, I believe it will be for this yntinking worship of all things Obama. I think he’s great, but I am willing to say where he and I part ways.

            Many on this blog have stated the reason they support Bennet is because Obama does and they support our President. Such blind allegiance scares me a little.

              • jpsandscl says:

                I would say it is the Bennet followers who are showing blind allegiance.

                I like Andrew, both personally and politically. I am supporting his campaign. But I am not a mindless robot slavishly devoted to him. In fact, there is no one on this Earth I would say that about.

                (Now my Venusian overlords… that’s something different…)

                🙂

                • denverco says:

                  a much superior campaign.

                • MADCO says:

                  I have criticized Bennet when I have disagreed.

                  I don’t recall you criticizing AR for anything.

                  • jpsandscl says:

                    I have said the money thing is a problem in the general. If all those who are so ardent for Bennet on CP turn away from Andrew when he wins the primary, that too could be a problem. many here have burned their bridges to Andrew (Ray Springfield chief among them, but also peacemonger, raymond1 (if that isn’t actually Springfield, they sound so much alike) and others)

                    He will need to do much better at grass roots fundraising to keep his no PAC money commitment.

                    And the Dems establishment will have to get over this Bennet thing and actually support him when he wins the nod!

                    • Automaticftp says:

                      Buck win than Romanoff at this point.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      a clear admission of blind rage at a good man who has served Colorado admirably for years.  

                    • denverco says:

                      and behave the way he has. But not to worry Bennet will win the primary. Will you be supporting Bennet?

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      But the point will be moot in a couple of days when Andrew wins. Will you support Andrew?

                    • denverco says:

                      you would know that I have said severl times thst if he were to accidently win, which he won’t, that yeah I will vote for him in this senate race.

                      I’ve also said that i would never support him in anything again because of the nasty campaign he has run.

                    • raymond1 says:

                      1) If Ray Springfield really wanted to create another, secret identity, do you really think he’d pick another “Ray” name?

                      2) If you really were the scholar of my posts you purport to be, you’d probably have noticed that I’m a lawyer (I post some seriously law-geeky stuff from time to time); nothing against Ray S., but he’s not a lawyer.

                      3) When you make up bullshit accusations (like calling me a Ray Springfield sock puppet), do you think you sound clever, or do you think you sound like an ignorant, bullshitting asshole?

                    • MADCO says:

                      to be both clver and an ignorant bullshitting asshole.

                      jpsand is apparent;y not both.

                      but I think it might be possible to be both.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      whatever you say. You’ve put our plenty of bullshit accusations yourself against Andrew, so I guess you are something of an expert in the matter. I’ll defer to you expertise in bullshit.

                    • raymond1 says:

                      In all seriousness, I’d been on the fence between Bennet (whom I instinctively liked more) and Romanoff (whom I thought might have more political skill to maximize odds of keeping the seat Dem rather than Tea Party). But the overwhelming majority of Romanoff folks on this blog have all been such assholes (jpsandscl, Stryker, otoole, JO…) that I said screw it, I can’t join the all-asshole team. How does it feel to know that by opening your mouth you’re actually losing votes for your guy – does it make you feel like a complete loser, or are you too stupid to know you’re a complete loser?

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      It would have made more sense for you to respond in the chain the comment was made in than in another diary unrelated to the original comment, but here is one example.

                      “nobody trusts anyone … why”? Maybe b/c AR is a crook bribing…

                      … sitting corrupt officeholders like Merida to be his sock puppets?

                      Now, please sit down and shut the f*ck up yourself. Accusing someone of a felony is bold talk. Got any proof of that? If so, go to the DA with your evidence. If not, you may be committing libel. (or is it slander?)

                      But I’m no lawyer. I just like to watch “Law and Order” on tv.

                      🙂

                      Casting aspersions on the Romanoff supporters on Pols is a tried and tested tactic of the Bennetistas here, it just doesn’t carry much water. I have never attacked Michael personally the way many here attack Romanoff. I have gone after his supporters when they make spurious claims, but I think Bennet is a decent man. I just think he has been handed too many jobs with too few qualifications from the day he was made DPS super. And it carries over to the Senatorial appointment.

                    • andreamerida says:

                      libel: harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast.

                      I was very grateful to Ray when he came and walked a precinct for me.  He seemed to be a brother in the labor struggle.  But when he learned that I wasn’t supporting the Senator, it went south.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      that you can accuse someone of a felony. You may make a lot of negative comments, but there are still limits even for public figures.

                    • jpsandscl says:

                      I’d say that is about as clever as he gets. Using hois own name would seem original to him.

                    • MADCO says:

                      Yeah, that’s what I thought.

                      He’s almost too outgoing

                      It’s no that he’s too smart and thoughtful, but he sometimes spends sooo much time thinking about issues…

                      Gp ahead and criticize him. It’s ok.  He’s not perfect. Bennet is not perfect.

              • DavidThi808 says:

                I was a Bennet supporter until he rolled over for the banks. And then I was undecided until recently. So I support Romanoff but it’s a decision, not blind allegiance.

                In fact, you could say Bennet drove me to switch from him to Romanoff.

            • EmeraldKnight76 says:

              completely ignorant “worship” Obama comment. As I told BJ, we admire Obama we don’t worship him. It’s insulting when you use RWNJ attacking points.

              As to your “but he has all this time for a primary” comment? All what time? He showed up for a speech quite awhile ago and did a robo-call. I hardly call that “all this time”.

              I also happen to agree that Obama should not have gotten involved in the primary. I will however, defend Democrats against a right wing smear of Obama worship. We admire Bennet, we admire Obama. I assume you admire Romanoff.

              It’s statements that I expect from Republicans coming out of Romanoff supporters that confirm I’m voting for the right guy.

              • jpsandscl says:

                the comment refers to many I have read here on Pols that they support Bennet in large part because Obama supports Bennet and they support their President.

                I support Obama in the main as well. I walked the streets and knocked on doors during the election. I made phone calls. I made my measly financial contributions. But I am not a lock-step automaton in doing so and I find those kinds of statements unthinking.

                Obama himself told us to hold him accountable for what he says and does after the election. That is the right thing to do. And I think he is very wrong in this race both on his support for Michael and for entering the fray before the primary is decided. It smacks of a crass political calculation that a sitting US Senator will have the better chances electorally in November than a challenger. I also think it was the wrong political calculus in this time of strong anti-incumbency sweeping America.

  3. caroman says:

    Just what you’d expect from a career politician.

  4. hung like a donkey says:

    nowhere does it say anything close to

    Andrea Merida has been on Andrew Romanoff’s payroll since at least May and has received $5000 for “consulting,” including the writing of a published commentary attacking Sen. Bennet.

    But I guess if you want to talk about full disclosure and honesty in reporting, shouldn’t they also mention Theresa Pena, Treasurer for Michael Bennet?  As treasurer she is a corporate officer and financial agent of the campaign.  She is often reported in the same rag as “supporter.”

    • Voyageur says:

      Gee, an AR shill account created this very morning to deflect from his latest scandal.  Who’d a thunk it?

      Actually, if you read the story in the Unmentionable, it discusses Pena.  She has always disclosed her ties to Bennet — and she’s not paid.

        So, create another sockpuppet account and try again, Hung like a shill.

    • TimothyTribbett says:

      She is a volunteer like me.

      • Ray Springfield says:

        I knew better

      • TimothyTribbett says:

        It just occcurred to me that I have done this whole political candidate volunteering thing all wrong from the start.

        I am a volunteer for Bennet and I routinely send him checks. Just sent one this AM. But I just realized I have never recieved one from him. I have really screwed this concept up somehow.

        Thanks to Merida for showing me the light of how this should work.

  5. hung like a donkey says:

    Alan has been highly critical of Andrea in the past, but jumps to her defense today:

    Some people will jump to the conclusion that Merida has been raising questions about the Michael Bennet-led refinancing of the Denver Public Schools pension debt because she was paid to do so.

    Even though I disagree with Merida on a lot of issues, I’m sure this isn’t the case.

    http://blog.ednewscolorado.org

    • MADCO says:

      So yes, it smells a bit funny and feels unseemly, but in my mind does not cross an ethical line. It does make the Post look foolish for having run a guest column by Merida on Tuesday that criticized recent statements by Bennet and DPS board member Theresa PeГ±a, Bennet’s unpaid campaign treasurer.  Mike Booth’s excellent story in the Post today mans up and mentions the column. And to be fair, the whisper campaign about Merida’s financial ties to Romanoff began in the wake of her column. But still…

      This incident is the latest sad piece of evidence that the Denver school board, which until recently had been less tainted by politics than most big-city districts, has devolved since last November’s election into just another urban school board. That’s the real, and depressing, lesson from this story.

      Of course Ms. Merida is free to consult for fee for anyone she wants. She is likewise free to campaign for or against anyone she chooses.  

      But it is sound logic questioning her credibility and it’s relationship to her paycheck (s).  

      What exactly does she do for fee?

      Is it limited to the D senate primary?

      Does she have other fee for consult clients?

      If so, what does she do for them?

      And don’t her constituents have a right to expect her to focus on running the DPS?  

      • du945 says:

        I couldn’t disagree more.  It is about ethics and Merida continues to fail the ethics test.  This back room deal with the AR campaign is the very reason people get turned off by politics and why we need honesty and transparency in our politics.  

        This isn’t the first time Merida’s ethics have come into question for me.  She has always subscribed to the scorched earth style of politics.  Her first DPS board meeting, the numerous whisper campaigns she continues to generate against fellow Democrats and now pretending to be a volunteer for AR when she’s was actually a paid to do a hatchet job!

        I would call on every candidate the Merida has endorsed to denounce her actions and cut ties between her and their campaign.  I will not vote for any candidate who does not do this and I would encourage others to do the same!

  6. EMRosa says:

    If this was a newsroom–or more importantly, a campaign war room–I’d fire someone in a second for knowingly publishing propaganda and not disclosing said payments. It’s not that fact that people are getting paid for shilling for candidates (Lord knows that nothing new), but you–no matter who you are or what you’re political agenda is–gotta disclose a glaring conflicts of interest like that, especially when writing in a newspaper. And yes, I suppose the leading daily in Denver dropped the ball a bit too. I mean, I wouldn’t have had a problem with her writing the commentary, so long as I knew where she was coming from.  

    • MADCO says:

      It’s why I don’t read that particular publication very often.

      I read the Denver Bus Journal, Westwood and count on other sources for local news.  Meanwhile,  that particular publication has compromised it’s integrity over and over.

  7. dwyer says:

    I am really pissed that she did not disclose the payment.  I don’t get paid for anything.  Now Merida should introduce a resolution on the Denver Board of Education calling all board members to immediately resign from any campaign position, disclose any and all monies received from any campaign and pledge to remain noncommittal and accept NO monies or any other consideration.

    Everyone on that board is supporting  either Bennet or Romanoff….that is the basis for the 4 to 3 split on every major decision.

    The problem is after the November elections, we will have municipal elections in Denver….this  will never stop.

    We need school boards not only to be nonpartisan…which they are….but it should be considered a conflict of interest if any board member is actively involved in ANY campaign, other than their own……I think this will take some kind of legislative action at the state level and I would support that.  Right now what Merida and Pena have done is perfectly legal.

    • dwyer says:

      This does politicalize the whole situation.  

    • EmeraldKnight76 says:

      politics interfere with what needs to get done at DPS.

    • Hayduke says:

      While I have had my problems with Merida, and agree that she really should have disclosed her professional relationship with the Romanoff campaign, Dwyer’s idea for “board members to immediately resign from any campaign position” is kind of silly. State legislators, mayors, members of Congess, they all take sides in primaries. Sometimes (shocked, shocked!) they even take paid positions. Taking sides in a primary doesn’t equate to a conflict of interest. But even if Merida wasn’t legally required to disclose her paid consulting role, she should have done so.

      • dwyer says:

        DPS is a district where the Board  and Board members are constantly making decisions which impact individual students and schools.  The participation of Board Members in partisan or even non-partisan elections could create the impression that citizens who support the same candidate(s) as the majority of the Board’s members, may receive favorable consideration because of that.

        Now, the Denver Public School District s is divided into districts for the purpose of electing members to the school board.  Plus, with the new teacher accountability law in effect, there are many opportunities for Board members to be influential, and for citizens to decide it would be prudent to support the same party/candidates as their board member.

        I am not for a moment suggesting that that has happened.  I call for legislation to make absolutely sure that that appearance is eliminated.  I would just like to take school politics out of mainstream politics as much as possible.

        This is my concern and my solution.  I don’t think it is silly.  You may disagree.

    • DavidThi808 says:

      But I don’t agree with making it a requirement. School board is a political position and that means we will usually have them involved.

  8. Middle of the Road says:

    went to this not so subtle opus on Pols on July 3rd?

    If she pulled this shit were I lived, there would be a recall to remove her as a School Board Director.

    “It’s immaterial to disclose it,” Merida said late Thursday. “In my opinion, one has no bearing on the other.”

    I can’t figure out if she’s really this disingenuous or utterly clueless. Either one makes her unsuitable and unqualified for the DPS Board.  

  9. bud says:

    When the Post published a commentary from Merida, her paid position with the Romanoff campaign should have been disclosed.  Merida put the Post in the position of providing free advertising to the Romanoff campaign.  In return, the Bennet campaign should get their free advertising from the Post.

  10. Ray Springfield says:

    I’m not saying that anyone else is involved.

    Hypothetically, though, if radio personalities did the same without disclosure it would bring into play payola.

    We need an independent investigation under sworn testimony.

    A Grand Jury would be appropriate.

    • JeffcoTrueBlue says:

      OK Ray, put the tinfoil hat back on and it will all be ok. But if we are going to hold hearings, maybe we should get Bennet under oath about the transactions at DPS. While we’re doing that how about Boasberg? Maybe we should get Pena under oath to answer whether she ever discussed how she was voting relating to the DPS pension stuff with Senator Bennet. Maybe we could have Teresa, Bennet, Boasberg, Merida, Susan Daggett and a few teachers who taught Bennet’s kids all on Jerry Springer and get to the bottom of the grand conspiracy and soap opera. You could play a supporting role don’t worry and we’ll keep those government listening devices blocked.

      • Ray Springfield says:

        You are the lunatic. If you don’t think an independent investigation is in order then you are in favor of obstructing justice.

      • raymond1 says:

        Fact: Romanoff paid a sitting elected official $5K to make public statements, and publish in the mass media, praising him — without disclosing the pay.  I don’t know whether this technically violates any on-the-books law, but paying sitting officeholders for support without disclosing it sure is ethically questionable enough that election lawyers and DAs should crack open the ol’ law books to see whether it does violate something.

        • JeffcoTrueBlue says:

          Ray you need to stop connecting dots on the sidewalk and coming up with the Illuminati. By your logic, Michael Bennet has paid staff. Some of them went out to drink. Therefore, Michael Bennet paid his staff to go out and get drunk and harass people in public.

          Here are the actual facts: Romanoff paid Merida. Merida is a DPS Board member who was critical of Boasberg long before she joined Romanoff’s staff. There is no evidence that she was paid to attack Boasberg or Bennet. You connected dots into a web that has not been shown to exist. My understanding is that Merida is a field/community organizer organizing Latinos and voters in the neighborhoods she represents and knows people. In the promo  for his show Mario Solis said she’s going to be on so maybe you should listen or if you’re the big brave man who boasts about posting under his own name, you could call in and ask her yourself.

          I wrote on here that Merida was out of line, should have disclosed and that both she and Pena should leave the respective campaigns. Your flat out lying and making shit up that she was paid to bash Bennet is based on facts that only exist in that special place you go in your head when Raymond talks to Ray and they vote unanimously that they are indeed out to get you.  

          • bud says:

            Whether Merida was paid to publicly bash Bennet in the press and at public meetings, it sure looks like she was.  In these situations, the disclosure should always be made to avoid the look of impropriety.

            • Ray Springfield says:

              DPS out to have some by laws to check.

              Other elected officials may have the same problem.

              An unbiased investigation is the only ethical thing to do at this point.

              If it gets swept under the rug it would be no surprise. It’s just another incident in a long line of unethical behavior displayed since January when Jambalaya posted Romanoff is really angry.

              Corruption in Colorado local politics has a long history since the states inception.

              I wonder who negotiated the price? He may have paid for too much.  

              • DavidThi808 says:

                But I don’t see any way it’s illegal. You need to understand the difference between a crime and a sin.

              • andreamerida says:

                Go back and see whether any votes I have cast might have any advantage in the slightest to Andrew Romanoff’s campaign.

                All our board meetings are held in public, and they’re all recorded.  The record will show that I have never even uttered the Senator’s name in these public settings.

                Anyone that actually pays attention to the issues at DPS knows that we just passed a resolution for comprehensive, age and culturally appropriate sex ed; a NW Denver community-driven process for feeder patterns; the renewal of a few charters; the approval of new innovation schools…things of that ilk.

                Here’s a link to the last budget discussion.  http://vimeo.com/13157590

                It’s over an hour long, but it would be helpful for you to understand how far off base you are in your libelous statements.  Once you do review this clip, please report back on how this has any bearing on the Senate race.  

            • peacemonger says:

              Merida is on Romanoff’s payroll.

              Merida does not volunteer fact she is on Romanoff’s payroll.

              Merida and husband attack Bennet and staffers on blogs, facebook, etc. http://www.squarestate.net/dia

              Hmmm…. where are these dots NOT connected already?

          • raymond1 says:

            … and you think it’s “making shit up” to call that paid support?  I think calling it “paid support” is the most logical and reasonable inference; you may disagree, but that doesn’t make my (stronger) inference a “lie.”

            Why you’re hilarious: You admit she was “out of line,” so it’s not even quite clear what you’re denying.  My sense is that (1) you can’t defend her ethical lapse but (2) you still want to attack her critics, so you quibble with whether she’s:

              (a) a sitting officeholder who was unethically paid for supporting a candidate, or

              (b) a supporter who was unethically paid while a sitting officeholder.

            I see little difference, but feel free to keep ranting that the difference between concluding that it’s (a) rather than (b) makes me a liar, etc.

            I honestly have been thinking about voting Romanoff because I think he’s far more skilled than Bennet at politics, and thus possibly more likely to keep the seat Dem — but Romanoff supporters like JeffcoTrue, StrykerK2, JO, oldbenkenobi have uniformly been so lame, and such assholes, that it’s proving really hard for me to join that side. Your success at dissuading rather than persuading potential supporters is part of why I view the Romanoff campaign as incredibly lame and jerky, even if the man himself may well be the smarter choice for a candidate.

          • MADCO says:

            I think you have mixed up the Ray’s

            And what do say to Dwyer’s suggestion that this kind election/campaign stuff from a Board memeber could lead to a damaging perception tht residents who agree will get better treatment than those who do not.

            … understanding is that Merida is a field/community organizer organizing Latinos and voters in the neighborhoods she represents and knows people.

             So her community knows she’s a Romanoff supporter. And if they are paying attention, they now also know she is paid Romanoff campaign staff.  Are they really going risk making her mad to support Bennet?

        • jpsandscl says:

          you don’t know what she delivered to Romanoff for the $5000. You assume it was the op-ed. Get your facts lined up before you make these huge leaps of logic.

  11. JeffcoTrueBlue says:

    I don’t think Merida’s questions and harsh words for Theresa Pena, Tom Boasberg or Mike Bennet had anything to do with her being on Romanoff’s payroll for a couple of months but I think she definitely should have disclosed in her letter that she works for Romanoff. Saying she has been public about supporting him in the past is not good enough in these times. It is fair to point out that she has been raising questions ever since her first day on the DPS board.

    Theresa Pena should also disclose any time that she comments on DPS matters that she is Mike Bennet’s treasurer. For that matter the “concerned community members” who wrote a letter in the paper attacking Romanoff on immigration should have disclosed they are part of the official Latinos for Bennet group, have endorsed him and contributed to him.

    The Denver P*&t should also have asked Merida and they should have done some – I don’t know – journalism. They should also disclose when they quote Pena or Boasberg or a litany of other people like Mike Stratton or Jack Pommer that those people have raised money for and endorsed Bennet. In covering DPS disputes, they should disclose all of the relationships.

    The most problematic for me are Merida not disclosing and Pena acting like she does not have a vested interest.

    I think both Pena and Merida should resign from their positions with both campaigns and they should also both abstain from any votes at DPS that would help or harm either candidate.

    Also since Merida posts on here, i’d like to hear directly from her and in writing where she can be held accountable: Did the Romanoff campaign in any way direct or encourage you to write that piece in the Denver P(*st attacking Bennet?  

  12. BlueCat says:

    basing their entire campaigns on the purity of their squeaky cleanliness.  Nobody believes that any pol is that pure and nobody really selects a candidate based on purity even though people sometimes say that they do.  That’s why we see people jumping all over the most minor alleged ethical flaw in their opponents while jumping to the defense of their own candidate over much more major missteps.  

    I leave it to the others here to debate how major or minor the  Merida story may be.  My point is only that those who really have grounds for a serious claim to righteousness never lay the claim, don’t run for office and certainly don’t become career politicians.  They’re too busy with things like quietly working with lepers in Africa.  

    Maybe next time out, Andrew ought to bear that in mind before hanging his entire campaign on self righteousness. We all know that pols aren’t pure as the driven snow, not our guys, not the other guys.  Nobody is going to vote for you because they honestly believe you to be the one pure pol who ever lived.  Any pol who  bases his campaign on expecting such a belief to exist in the first place and then to make it through an election unscathed and get him or her elected is a fool.

  13. caroman says:

    Romanoff (paid?) shill is strangely silent.

    Hmmm.

  14. joanp says:

    I don’t see why everyone has their panties in a twist about this. Yes she is a paid consultant. But honestly don’t you think that there will be a job for Pena if

    Bennet gets elected? So you get paid up front or you get your payback later. And anyone who thinks that the DPS board is about the kids and is apolitical has never been to a board meeting.  

    • BlueCat says:

      is running as Saint Romanoff. That’s all.

    • PERA hopeful says:

      And on the blogs, I don’t care whether she says she’s a paid advocate when she’s pumping up Romanoff and tearing down Bennet.

      Her guest editorial was dishonest and unethical.  She pretended she was writing as a school board member about an issue of interest to DPS, and proceeded to tear apart Bennet and Pena.  When she wrote that, it would have made a big difference to the reader if there had been a note that she was a paid campaign worker for Romanoff.

      As I understand it, Pena has been open and honest about her involvement in the Bennet campaign.  Merida should have done the same, and to say that her employment status with the Romanoff campaign is irrelevant was ridiculous.

  15. catpuzzle says:

    She posts on here all the time. Taking swipes at Bennet, supporting Romanoff.

    Why doesn’t she have anything to say to use about this?

  16. MADCO says:

    How awesome would it be if she boosted it form someone?

  17. DavidThi808 says:

    Why? Because it’s material to her incentive. With that said, I don’t think this reflects badly on Romanoff. Every campaign has supporters who act poorly in support of the campaign.

    It does reflect poorly on Merida because it shows she doesn’t have much of a moral compass.

    • MADCO says:

      is that it calls into question her credibility.

      Example- Does she really believe all the negative stuff she said about Boasberg or others who support Bennet- or was she just campaigning?

  18. oldbenkenobi says:

    One penny per comment.  Auto gets a penny for every ten comments.  And Bennet gets what he pays for.

    This would be a story about the Senate race if Andrea Merida was the one running for Senate.

    This is practically Watergate, right guys?  But the story about an intern in the Bennet campaign finance office who sends out an explicit donation-for-access email — who pulls all this language about donation levels out of thin air — that’s a non-issue.  

  19. The realist says:

    but of course I really do.  It’s a feeble way to attack Romanoff.

    For the record – not that anyone’s asked – I am not paid by anyone’s campaign.  The only pay I receive is from my two nonprofit, nonpolitical employers.

  20. jpsandscl says:

    You guys should really take a deep breath and step back and drink a nice, warm glass of milk. Look at yourselves!

    For Christ’s sake, this is ridiculous. You’re like flies swarming a warm pile of shit. You don’t care that it’s shit, you still swarm. Anything to shill for saint Bennet and attack Romanoff.

    Bennet’s campaign went negative on Andrew a long time ago, and they did right here on BennetPols. I saw the whole thing right before my eyes.

    • MADCO says:

      DId you read Ms. Merida’s “guest op-ed” in the newspaper in Denver?

      She had to make a ginormous twist stretch to take something Bennet said that I agree with (as I suspect most of us do) and attempt to make it sound like a negative.

      But at least we now know why she was so willing to make such a ridiculous attempt- it’s her job.  

      • jpsandscl says:

        who really gives a shit? Think the average voter will really care when they make their choice? Doubt it.

        • MADCO says:

          But I don’t think they will care much about Ms Merida’s opinion – she’s paid to support the campaign.

          I thought money corrupting the process was all the rage, the only thing voters could be counted on to care about this cycle.   We agree – that’s nuts.

          Most voters will care about …. the same things they always care about.    

          18 days.  18%*.  And then the clock resets  – 10 weeks until the general ballots are in the mail. Have you noticed what a tool Buck is? Got any thoughts about that?

          *through 1Q – I haven’t looked at Q2 details yet.

          • jpsandscl says:

            Not even worth the time. Have you noticed the new polls showing how poorly tea party candidates are faring across the country? Sucks to be an R this year I think.

            • DavidThi808 says:

              He’s not a tea partier, he was intelligently conservative before conservative was cool. The tea party joined him because of his beliefs, he didn’t join them. That’s what makes him so compelling come November.

              Here’s hoping “I’ll say anything” Jane wins the primary.

              • MADCO says:

                “intelligently conservative” is a bit of an oxymoron in Buck’s case.  

                Example- how do you justify telling the opposition defense attorney that there’s an inter office memo outlining how weak the prosecution’s case is?  “Heroic” is not the right word.

                Example- how do you justify the search and seizure of that tax preparer’s office?  “Didn’t do it” just isn’t true.

                OTOH- Caplis is making a strong case that Jane is the more likely R winner in the general.  I think it’s a hint-hint, she supported C, she’s a woman, etc she’s the stronger general candidate.

              • denverco says:

                Look what the tea party has done in other states to the gop:

                1.) Kentucky – everytime Paul opens his mouth he says something stupid. Right now he has a 2 point lead in the polls and the Democtatic candidate has momentum. Republicans could lose this seat.

                2.) Nevada – Angle is so out of touch with reality that Reid now has a lead in the polls anywhere from 5 to 11 points. This is incredible when you think he was down by 30 in January.

                3.) Florida – Rubio now trails Crist and keeps falling further behind. Another potential lost senate seat for the gop.

                The Democrats already have plenty to work with, the Tancredo mess and the high heel comments and there will be more with more public scrutiny. Plus Norton helped open the door for attacking his outside support from the 527’s.

              • jpsandscl says:

                I can’t remember who your supportng in the primary now David, but do you really believe that? I think whoever wins the D primary should have an easy time with these Rs if they keep opening their mouths.

                Now if it becomes a cash war and all about media and they go into a hole until Novemeber and the only thing we hear are well scripted comments in attack ads… well, maybe then…

                • DavidThi808 says:

                  I’m voting for the reasonable possibility of improvement over the clear continuation of what’s not working.

                  I think Norton will be easy to beat in the fall. But I think Buck will be very very difficult. Keep in mind Buck is not a crazy like Rand Paul or Angle. And unlike McInnis and Norton, he isn’t his own worst enemy.

                  If it’s Bennet vs Buck I’ll vote for Bennet but I’ll predict a Buck win (at least right now). If it’s Romanoff vs Buck then I think we’ll have to wait until every vote is counted.

                  • joanp says:

                    I can tell you that I think Buck has a better chance than Norton right now. I have gotten 3 phone calls and 2 research survey all from the Jane camp. She is driving me crazy. She is tring her best to figure why she is polling behind Buck. I know why – she is too timid to just run. Evey time I see her live she has this deer in the headlight what am I going to say look and she is looking to her managers to see what to do. Chicken fat pours from her pores. If she ever stopped long enough to look like she was in control people would vote for her.

  21. Prog-Matic says:

    Is Andrea Merida as completely out of control and as shockingly unprofessional as she appears?  Just sit back and watch, because her next gaff is soon to follow. The wise voters of SW Denver are witnessing The Peter Principle (in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence) in effect.  

  22. Prog-Matic says:

    Is Andrea Merida as completely out of control and as shockingly unprofessional as she appears?  Just sit back and watch, because her next gaff is soon to follow. The wise voters of SW Denver are witnessing The Peter Principle (in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his/her level of incompetence) in effect.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.