The Real Story in District 1

I posted a whole blog on this earlier tonight (here:… but I think now that the results are in and Anne Rowe is clearly winning easily, it’s worth talking about what really happened in District 1.

Here are the facts:

Fact: Anne Rowe had the grassroots support in this district.

In their rhetoric and blog posts, the Sirotas tried to complain that Emily was some sort of grassroots activist being shunted aside by the power of big money. That she had such deep ties in the district, and that they should have been enough. The truth is exactly the opposite. Anne Rowe was the candidate in District 1 with a legit record as a community activist. She’s lived in the district for decades, and has been involved in education issues there and across Denver for years and years. She has a long, proven record as an activist, and people know and trust her. She has been very involved – including helping lead the Slavens re-opening in 1995 – for a very long time. She was the real grassroots candidate in this race.

Fact: Sirota’s false attacks about vouchers and her other attacks on Anne Rowe fell flat.

Sirota went on a media parade, posting here on Pols and elsewhere suggesting Anne Rowe was a vouchers supporter. That was simply false – Anne Rowe didn’t support vouchers ever, Sirota’s conspiracy theories notwithstanding. And her suggestion on MSNBC that Rowe was some sort of Republican was also a cheap shot. But Rowe is a known commodity in her district, and voters rejected Sirota’s false attacks. David Sirota’s suggestion of some sort of conspiracy involving George Bush was also false and debunked here:…

Fact: Sirota’s complaints about big money were ridiculous

As I wrote earlier, Sirota has received $60,000 directly from the DCTA, as well as probably at least another $30,000 in other spending, probably even more. Moreover, her husband’s ridiculous suggestion that it would take some pizza and $500 to win a board seat is totally at odds with reality and the experience of the district. Bruce Hoyt didn’t even face serious competition in 2007, and he still raised $130,000. And Sirota hasn’t exactly been a lightweight herself. If she kept up the pace, it seems likely that she ended up raising over $100,000 for her campaign. And any way you cut it, that’s big money. These aren’t $500 & Pizza campaigns. There’s a serious debate going on here, and the union spent a shocking amount (I personally bet it ends up totaling $100,000) to try and win this seat and flip the board, but they lost.

Sirota’s vitriolic negative campaign has been out of touch with reality from the beginning. She was never a viable candidate to beat Anne Rowe for exactly the reasons her husband claimed in her defense: Rowe had a record and a history in the district and Sirota didn’t. It’s too bad she ran such a negative campaign and caused the damage she did.  

The Real Big Money in DPS Races

After voting (today, at the last minute, ya ya..), I’ve been thinking a lot about the Denver school board races.

While I think the races have generally been pretty clean and positive there has been one thing that strikes me as really toxic. David Sirota and Emily Sirota have been calling in David’s national connections to try and cast the race as some sort of big-money takeover.

Like I said before, I think this is a really toxic thing, and I honestly wish I’d weighed in on it earlier.

The truth is that there is a REALLY big spender in the DPS board races. And it’s not a conspiracy or anything unusual. It’s not even objectionable. It’s the teachers union.

I want to be really clear that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this and I’m not opposed to unions in any way. I just think that the Sirota’s are trying to ignore reality and poison the discussion around DPS with their rhetoric even further, and it’s important that the facts get fully out there.

I don’t think it’s been fully reported, so I went through the reports. All told, the teacher union spent $168,000 backing two candidates (Sirota and Jimenez) this election. That’s over $80,000 each, from one source, and when the final filings come in I assume it’ll be even more.

Here’s what I was able to pull together…

DCTA has spent $39,720.00 for Jimenez, according to his last report. I’d expect this to jump with in-kind paid canvassing.…

DCTA has spent $60,240.00 for Sirota, according to her last report. I’d also expect this number to jump.…

DCTA has poured $42,000 into “Delta 4.0”,
their independent expenditure campaign for Sirota and Jimenez. I got one of their mail pieces (which – anecdotally – spelled ‘students’ wrong…unfortunately I threw it away). Notably, this filing is for how much DCTA gave Delta 4.0 so far, as of the beginning of the month. So I would expect this number to jump significantly.…

The CEA (DCTA’s parent union for the state) has spent $20,000 from their PAC, the “Public Education Committee”. The spent this money on an “independent expenditure” for paid canvassing by Rocky Mountain Voter Outreach, the same firm that the reports show the DCTA hired for Jimenez and Sirota.

The PEC also donated $6,000 directly to Jimenez.…

All told, that’s $168,000 for Sirota and Jimenez. Other people contributed heavily to campaigns too, but there was real big money in these races, and it’s the $168,000 check the teacher unions wrote. I don’t have a problem with unions participating, but I do have a problem with a smear campaign that distorts the facts. Despite everything Sirota has said to try and add poison and vitriol to these campaigns, the big money in these races was still the teacher union.

Election Projections?

(Bumped into Tuesday – promoted by Colorado Pols)

So what does everyone think happens tomorrow?

Post your guesses below, bonuses for percentages. Maybe we’ll find some way to figure out who does best or something. I’m just listing the Denver stuff, since that’s all I really know, but feel free to speculate about other stuff (Jeffco board?)

– Initiative 300 (Mandatory Paid Sick Leave)

– Initiative 103 (Taxes for Education Funding)

– 2A (Allow a Deputy Auditor)

– DPS At-Large (Haynes, Deserino, Kilgore, Shumway, some guy)

– DPS District 1 (Rowe vs Sirota)

– DPS District 5 (Jimenez vs. Draper-Carson)

My guesses:

Initiative 300 – goes down. Broad coalition seems to have formed against it. 39% – 61%

Initiative 103 – I think also unfortunately loses. My guess 47% – 53%

2A – Loses 60-40. Personally, can’t see why Gallagher needs a deputy. Maybe if the guy didn’t spend all his time messing with politics he could find the time to do his job himself?

DPS At-large: I bet Happy Haynes gets at least 65% of the vote. She has no real competition in this race. Surprised if anyone else breaks 20%.

DPS District 1: I think Sirota and his angry gang think this is closer than it is and Emily’s chances are better than they are. I was amazed by his op-ed saying he thought his wife’s deep grassroots experience would be enough to carry the day. Really? She moved to the district a year ago and is going up against someone who has been a longtime activist in the district and actually has that support. Anne Rowe is the grassroots activist, and Sirota is a political operative trying to fake it. I’ve never figure out why she is running besides trying to settle scores for her husband and his friends. That, and in a district that has always been reform-friendly (elected Bruce Hoyt by a huge margin), I don’t think there is support for her extreme anti-reform views. I think she loses and Rowe wins 58%-42%

DPS District 5- This race is going to be close, but I think Jimenez loses because of his record. He ran as a reformer but has spent all of his time on the board hanging out with Andrea Merida. He’s opposed a lot of stuff that is supported in his district, like West Denver prep. And then he’s tried to lie about it. Same with SB191. And while he does have support in the district, and has the strengths of being an incumbent, I think ultimately he’s going to lose because he’s turned off a lot of parents who believe in these schools and these reforms. I think his opponent, Jennifer Draper-Carson, has run a pretty good campaign for a first time candidate. Jimenez squeaked by in 2007, and I think because of his opposition to good reforms and good schools, he’s going to lose this time. Draper Carson wins 52-48.

Sirota’s Hilarious Hypocrisy

It’s hardly surprising that someone from the Andrea Merida (btw, she’s a donor to Sirota) and Guerin Green anti-reform gang would turn out to be a hypocrite, but this report on Emily Sirota’s campaign event is pretty brazen.

At a campaign fundraiser with Montana governor Brian Schweitzer…

He did so just a few minutes after remarks from Denver City Auditor Dennis Gallagher, another Sirota supporter, who lamented “all the outside money and all the outside influences” coming into the DPS races.

Sirota’s campaign has ranted and raved about “outside money” and various conspiracies and such. But a great report from Ed News today shows that it’s actually Sirota who is the one taking outside money in this campaign.

The endorsement by Schweitzer is hardly the only out-of-state influence at play in the campaigns for three of seven board seats, for which mail ballots are now in the hands of voters.

There’s also the money.

Sirota on Tuesday reported having raised $57,962 in monetary contributions through the reporting period ending Oct. 6. Slightly over $20,000 came from more than 80 addresses outside Colorado. At least six of those donors were members either of her family or that of her husband, radio talk show host David Sirota.

But a single $5,000 check came to Sirota from Leo Hindery, managing partner of InterMedia Partners, a New York-based media industry private equity fund. Sirota also received five additional checks from outside Colorado of $1,000 to $1,500 – including one from a family member.

Sirota’s money comes from two places: out of state interests and the local teachers union. Contrast that with her opponent who has actual support from Denver:

“Ninety-five percent of the people donating to my campaign live in Denver, Colorado,” said Rowe, who had 256 individual contributors. “I am honored to have the support of so many different citizens who care so much about moving public education forward in Denver.”

Rowe’s campaign calculated that 60 percent of her $176,320 in contributions came from people within the southeast Denver district that she and Sirota both hope to represent.

What Andrea Merida Was Mis-Spending Our Tax Money On

( – promoted by c rork)

Now that Merida says she’s (maybe?) giving the $8,000 she overspent back to the district, I think it’s worth looking at just what she was spending that money on.

I was pretty busy yesterday so I didn’t get a chance to look at the records and weigh in, but I got a chance to take a look this afternoon. It’s pretty astounding.

Beyond the absurd $4,000 that she spent eating out (for perspective, that $11 in meals a day…except that she was dropping $60 a meal at fancy places like Euclid Hall) Here’s a quick look at stuff that caught my eye:

Business Expenses:

As Ed News reported, Merida paid for a fax service at $9.95 a month. It’s fairly unclear why this was thought to be necessary, and whether she was receiving substantial faxes. Why? Well probably because on her website, she doesn’t list a fax number that constituents can contact her at.

So, what was she using this fax number for? Not to mention, why did she get the premium plan?…

Also, what is ‘Avangate’ and why did she spend $34.95 with them? From what I can tell, it’s some sort software sales company? What did this have to with “community outreach”?…

Further, she listed a number of other expenses I find suspicious. For instance, she billed the district for 2 separate charges to, and a charge to, which does web marketing stuff. Given the proximity of these charges to her job, I think there’s reason to be concerned. Finally, she registered a for a Vimeo plus account for $59.95. It’s hard to tell why she is using public money for it, as it’s mostly being used to tout outside political groups or launch various attacks? And she definitely hasn’t gotten her (our) money’s worth – she isn’t doing anything on it that you can’t do on the free version…

Audible Audio Book Subscription:

Merida incurred charges for $14.95 every single month on the 20th of the month to “Audible NJ”, from November, 2010, through the end of this credit card report period that we have available (June). As was pointed out in the other thread, according to Audible’s website (, $14.95 is the same amount as a “gold” subscription to their audiobook service. It’s really unclear what Merida needed an audiobook subscription for that would be related to her job.

Barnes & Nobles Books:

Merida spent hundreds of dollars on books at Barnes and Nobles ($454.32, according to EdNews), including their online store. As another commenter mentioned, records of which books she bought online should still be available to her and she should disclose them to prove they were relevant to her position, as she claimed.

Telephone Issues:

According to a report from the Denver Paper, she had a cellphone bill of $2,134.04. It seems to me that’s a little bigger than a 1 person standard plan annually? Sounds more like a small family plan or something like that? What kind of plan is/was she billing DPS for?

Additionally, it’s mentioned that she had a vonage land line installed. On her website contact page, she lists her cellphone number. If that’s the number she was using for constituent services (and billing the district for), then why did she need a separate Vonage land line (at the cost of $410.38)?

Flowers for Jeannie Kaplan’s “Bday”:

Ednews got this wrong, they misread her handwriting. It says flowers for “Kaplan bday”, not baby. But that raises further questions: why did we pay $61.54 for a floral arrangement for Jeannie Kaplan?

Tech Supplies:

Merida appears to have bought a camera ($200, Anthony Camera) and made big payments to T-mobile ($205, for a new phone, apparently) and something called ‘Laptop Power’ ($105). Why is the district buying this stuff for her?

Wanton Fiscal Irresponsbility:

Merida racked up a lot of interest and late charges by carrying such a large balance on her credit card, which is further evidence of what many have suggested: she shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a budget. By the end of it, she’d racked up $62.74 in unnecessary interest fee charges and $30.05 in credit card fees (including late payment fees). That’s money that was just straight up wasted. She didn’t even get Wendy’s with it!

Denver Taxis and Car Rentals:

There are a number of charges on there that I thought were strange or curious for taxis and car rentals in Denver. One big reason they are strange is that they were juxtaposed with her charging the District for parking her car? I don’t know what the deal is with that because I don’t know what her car situation is but it seemed strange.

Anyway, these are a few of the things that I noticed with her credit card statements that seemed particularly shocking.

The whole Andrea Merida ride has been a massive distraction from the serious business of what the schools should being doing – educating our kids. It’s time for her to resign and put an end to this ugly soap opera. The fact that she got caught and is now giving back the money simply isn’t enough. She should never have been spending it on this stuff in the first place. It is common sense to know that you shouldn’t be billing the district for business expenses, your audible account, etc.  

What gives with Diana Degette taking August off?

So as I understand it the point of August recess is for Congressmen and Senators to go back home and hear from voters, stay in touch with issues, etc.

There’s a story that I found pretty jaw-dropping in today’s Denver Post. Apparently Rep. Diana Degette has done 1 public event for all of August. And it wasn’t even a live town hall or something like that. It was an hour-long tele-town hall.

Really? That’s all she had time for? That’s compared to other reps and senators in the state who had numerous town halls, etc. I found the excuse that people don’t show up in Denver pretty lame, honestly. I know people do. And it’s a good opportunity to hear from people who you might not agree with but who are part of your district.

Anyway, it’s a pretty disappointing performance by Degette. What else was she doing all month?  

Insanity from Colorado teacher’s union

(A higher standard for public safety or guilty until proven innocent? You decide – promoted by Colorado Pols)

So just a preface before I catch flack, like most democrats I support unions, and I strongly believe that they have an important place in our economy, discourse, etc.

But occasionlly they do things that make virtually no sense and which raise real questions about whose interests they’re looking out for. Case in point, just read this story about CEA – the big Colorado Teachers Union. I don’t understand their position and what they are doing here – maybe someone has a better explanation than they provided in the story?

The Colorado Education Association has filed suit challenging the recent State Board of Education rule requiring school districts to notify parents when school employees are arrested.

Notification is required in cases involving any felony, drug crimes (except for misdemeanor marijuana charges), misdemeanor and municipal violations related to children, misdemeanor and municipal ordinance violations involving unlawful sexual behavior of various kinds, and any crime of violence. Drunken driving arrests are included if an employee’s duties involve transporting students in motor vehicles.…

Frankly, that seems pretty reasonable to me. Stuff like this – and the teachers union’s intransigence on a lot of other important policy questions (the union also just condemned Teach for America, I read, which seems absurd?) is problematic for education policy, I think, because they are putting the interests of adults (their members) ahead of students and children. I don’t get what the CEA is trying to do here.

Awesome: Skorman Stands Up to Jeff Crank

As I noted the other day, the Colorado Springs Mayor’s race continues to be a bit more interesting than the Denver mayoral.

Just saw this pop up on their blog down there (can we post links to the gazette? I don’t remember… Sorry if we’re not supposed to!). After crazy rightwing radio host Jeff Crank tried to ambush Richard Skorman on his show, Skorman is showing quite a bit of back bone and going after Crank and his group that is apparently spending a whole lot of money attacking him…


Mayoral candidate Richard Skorman just responded to Jeff Crank’s invitation to appear on his radio show tomorrow morning, and the response ain’t pretty.

Skorman compares Crank to Douglas Bruce, saying he’s part of the group of people who “have given Colorado Springs such a bad name around the country.”

His whole letter to Crank is also there, in which he seems to make some pretty solid points and calls on Crank to pull the ads…

The facts are simple: in a campaign with no limits on contributions to candidates, if you didn’t have something to hide, you wouldn’t resort to secret outside spending.  So, I’m giving you the opportunity to do the responsible thing and disclose the American’s for Prosperity list of donors who are funding your Independent Expenditure campaign against me. I am also asking you to do the responsible thing and at least acknowledge the appearance of a conflict-of-interest of your employee Laura Carno, the recent producer of your radio show, who is Bach’s Campaign Chief of Staff.

Jeff, I challenge you to do the right thing and take down these IE ads immediately, so your candidate, Steve Bach, can finish this run-off standing on his own two feet, without the support of your secretly-funded, out-of-state special interest group.

The part in bold seems particularly relevant. If they weren’t trying to hide the source of the money, why is it being funneled through Crank’s group instead of going straight to Bach?

CO Springs Mayor: Does Steve Bach Have More Dirty Laundry?

I started paying attention to the mayor’s race in the springs after someone posted a few ads on here. I thought Steve Bach’s ad was best at the time. I’ve kept paying attention to it since then (i.e., reading the Gazette and Independent every so often) because frankly, it’s a heck of a lot more interesting than Denver mayoral and a little more salacious than the state legislature.

Namely, before the first election reports surfaced that accused real estate developer Steve Bach of domestic violence:………

Despite this, a lot of people had voted already and Bach managed to make the runoff. After the Gazette broke that story, the CS Indy recently did another big investigation of Bach’s records and found some particularly damning stuff about his business records, etc.…

But surprisingly, I think they missed a HUGE story, and the press there should be pounding down Bach’s door to ask him about it. Namely, during his issues with alcoholism, did he hit someone?

According to his second divorce,

In the motion, which sought to block the meeting, Jane described Bach as “emotionally upset, distraught, and unable to deal with day-to-day problems.” The motion also says he resorted “to the use of alcohol in response to the domestic problems and business problems brought on by the estrangement of the parties.” His alcohol use, the motion states, “resulted in excessive absenteeism” at work, and he was “involved in automobile accidents which would indicate his inability to cope with the situation at hand.”

Read that again. He had alcohol problems, which lead to problems at work and automobile accidents. Unfortunately, the Independent sort of let it lie, saying:

Police records involving Bach, if any exist, have long since been destroyed, police say, and El Paso County jail records don’t go back that far.

But what about his ex-wife? What happened? What about Bach? The tv stations, the gazette, etc. in the Springs should be asking these questions. Because from the sound of it, now only was this guy seriously violent and abusive, but he also had an alcohol problem and potentially really hurt people. That doesn’t sound like someone fit to be mayor…

Stealing from Teachers? John McBride Should Probably Get Himself a Lawyer.

I wanted to follow up on posts from others last week, because I think McBride and the DeFENSE gang may have made a few legal missteps that could have some consequences. And after looking into McBride’s background, it turns out he’s done some shady – if not downright illegal stuff with campaign finance before.

First, the back story I found on this guy.

When McBride ran for school board in 2007, his campaign was financed almost entirely by the DCTA. He got $20,000 from the union and another $1,000 from another teacher’s union group. That was about 80% of the money he raised.

You can find the reports here:…

What is interesting is what happened to the money after the election. According to his campaign finance reports, after the election McBride’s campaign was left with at least $3,114 in cash. What to do with the cash?  Take it, of course. McBride cut himself a check for $700 vaguely defined as a payment for ‘campaign expenses’ and cut similar small checks to a few supporters also reported as ‘campaign expenses.’ After paying for the website, the campaign was left with $834.42 in cash on hand. So he cut a check for $834.42 for ‘campaign expenses’ to his campaign’s registered agent.

What were the payments for? They couldn’t have been for meals – looking at the reports McBride appears to have billed the campaign for dozens of meals all across town. I’m pretty sure that taking your contributors funds as a fat check at the end of the campaign isn’t exactly legal. And combined with his current shady dealings, it’s hard to see why anyone would trust this guy.

Now… about those current shady dealings…

This morning they finally filed their report of expenditures. It is a few days late, so hopefully there will be a fine. Guess how much they they reported in expenditures? $0. Contributions? $0.…

But at least one member of their goon squad – “Chuck Crowley” – has admitted that he provided at least $90 worth of supplies to the group in paper. $90 is more than 0.  Moreover, if they are collecting petitions, their petition forms probably have 4 – 5 signature lines each based on forms I’ve seen, meaning that to collect the 5,000+ petition signatures they need to gather, they would have to print at least an estimated 1,200 pages. And since they are aiming to collect more than that (I think I saw 7,000 batted around at one point) that would mean 1,700+ pages. The cost of printing a page from a home printer (and all the ink  etc that would cost) brings the cost per page to what you would pay at Kinkos – about $0.10 per page.

So that’s at least $170 that have been provided to the group. But they are also handing out flyers to everyone which is thousands more pages. And those flyers (seen here… are electioneering communications. They (in addition to being full of lies) specifically advocate for the recall of Easley.

And they don’t just have flyers. Going to the grocery story, I’ve seen them with professional yard signs. Those cost money too.  And things of value the issue committee receives need to be reported.

Second, when McBride initially filed his paper he claimed to have a bank account with Wells Fargo for the group. Then when asked about missing the filing by Ed News he said:

“We don’t have any money to file anything,” said John McBride, the lead petitioner in the recall effort against Easley and the registered agent for the committee Take Back Our Schools. “We don’t have a bank account yet. All we have is people power.”…

McBride’s initial filing showing a bank account with Wells Fargo could constitute a materially false statement for him, which could put him in legal jeopardy. Maybe someone who is better versed legally can clarify on this?

Also, it turns out you need money to open a bank account at that Wells Fargo. $100. So either he had it open or he didn’t. And if he did, that’s another $100 someone contributed.

Another Romanoff Shill On the Board: Kaplan Behind Slanted NYT Story

I’ve been pretty adamant that come November, Andrea Merida needs to be recalled. Looks like she might not be the only one.

A story that just popped up from the Paper Of Record shows that Jeannie Kaplan, who has held a number of fundraisers for Andrew Romanoff and has contributed the maximum amount to his campaign, has been engaged in the same sort of dirty tricks.

According to the Paper,

High-profile Romanoff backer Jeanne Kaplan, a board member, acknowledged that she had pushed the story to the New York Times. She is quoted in the piece, but not identified as a Romanoff supporter.

Yes, there have been “questions raised” and “concerns voiced” about the transaction, but none of them seem to be rooted in any…particular…you know….reality? Listen to the stuff she’s been saying. I just saw her on tv and all she had were “concerns”. It’s purely political nonsense, and it’s disappointing that a district as much in need of help as Denver is stuck with someone like her in a position of authority. Here, we call it concern trolling. In her role, I’d call it “failing the children of Denver.”

The reality here is that Jeannie Kaplan and Andrea Merida and Andrew Romanoff are so desperate to win that they will say or do anything, including lie about a decent man, and play politics with Denver’s kids.

Absolutely sickening. They don’t deserve to be in these roles.

9 News: Andrew Romanoff Supported Privatizing Social Security

( – promoted by ClubTwitty)

In response to ads and mail pieces from the Bennet campaign highlighting a 2004 vote Romanoff cast (in the middle of the privatization debate)  “Concerning Social Security Personal Retirement Accounts”, Romanoff pushed back hard, saying they weren’t true at all.

In a statement put out by his campaign he said:

I oppose the privatization of Social Security. I said so in the vote I cast in the state legislature, and I renew that pledge now. The resolution my opponent cites has nothing to do with privatizing Social Security; in fact, it specifically urges Congress NOT to cut Social Security benefits.

Is he right?

Apparently not so much. From the 9 News truth test of Bennet’s new ad…

QUOTE: And Andrew Romanoff: he’s the one helping Wall Street. Romanoff supported George Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security.

TRUTH: This is true.…

Apparently the AARP strongly opposed the bill. Romanoff has been saying he it wasn’t privatization. Looks like he was lying…. (more from 9News after the jump).

Numerous times during his presidency, George W. Bush used the exact same wording to support his plans to reform Social Security, specifically the phrase, “personal retirement accounts.” (Source: George W. Bush White House Archives: http://georgewbush-whitehouse….

The Colorado chapter of the AARP, the state’s largest membership organization, told 9NEWS today that “this [legislation] was a priority issue for us. We did strongly oppose [the legislation]. Members [of the legislature] were notified in advance that we strongly opposed this.”

In a news release defending his record on issues related to seniors, Romanoff said he received a “100 percent rating from AARP,” but the group on Wednesday denied that claim in an interview with 9NEWS, stating that it does not rate candidates as it could threaten its nonprofit status.

The Republicans in the legislature at the time say the resolution was clearly designed to support President Bush’s plans to strengthen Social Security and everybody who voted on it, knew it.

“In reply to the contention that it had nothing to do with the Bush plan to save and strengthen Social Security, I would respond that it had everything to do with that plan, or we as a majority party in the Senate would not have offered and passed it,” wrote former State Senate President John Andrews (R-Centennial) in an e-mail to 9NEWS.

“I remember [the resolution] well,” said then Rep. Greg Brophy (R-Wray), who is now a state senator representing the issue. “It was a fun debate and it was all about privatizing or individualizing retirement accounts just as Bush was proposing. What we have here is another example of Romanoff’s selective memory and chameleon style morph into the candidate he thinks people want from what he has been. He voted for privatizing Social Security.”

The Paper of Record Does Its Job: Romanoff Is Lying About Bennet

Let me just say that I get the gripe about the DP. What they’re doing is beyond stupid. That aside, our electoral system MUST have referees to function, and to put a kibosh on some of the disgustingly dishonest tactics being used by the Romanoff campaign.

Tonight, the Post stepped up and did just that. Got home a little while ago, hopped on line, and after 9 months of basically ignoring the race they’ve finally decided to push back on Romanoff’s lies. Some key clips from the editorial:

“Romanoff’s ad is over the top

The Senate candidate’s unfair ad, which accuses Michael Bennet of “looting” a fortune, says more about himself than his opponent.”

The Post also calls it “a shameful example of cynical politics at its worst.”

The ad goes on to explain the work Bennet did:

In reality, the business emerged from bankruptcy stronger and now employs more people than before.

In fact, Anschutz’s role in creating the new Regal entity is exactly a redemptive story. Unlike a Hollywood version of a corporate raider, Anschutz created a successful business that now employs nearly 26,000 employees – about 2,000 more employees than when he took over the debt.

The bottom line?

“Colorado’s next senator should have experience and expertise in finances to deal with the nation’s fundamentally flawed budget.

What we don’t need is another politician willing to grossly distort reality.”

Too bad is being silly about this blog, as I’d love to link to them.