U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
February 05, 2011 07:57 PM UTC

Defense Denver and the Romies

  • 122 Comments
  • by: bullshit!

I’ve been paying more attention to this “Defense Denver” recall campaign against a member of the Denver Public Schools board mostly because of the angry and confrontational way they and their supporters have conducted themselves on this blog. I have no dog in this recall fight one way or the other, even though I am always sympathetic to those who want to defend our public schools. I don’t favor charter schools or vouchers, and I thought SB 191 was a terrible idea. Talk to me when we’re funding the schools properly. In short, you could call me persuadable.

I noted early on that a lot of the same voices from last years’ Democratic primary between Michael Bennet and Andrew Romanoff (on Romanoff’s side) seemed to be part of this recall campaign. Apparently some of the issues had been going on before that campaign, as I was informed of soon after my first comment, but that was the first time I ever became aware of the conflict. I’d guess that’s the case for a lot of people.

During the Romanoff campaign, I was personally put off of supporting Romanoff because of what I thought was contrived, over the top rage, and just overall unpleasant behavior, from Romanoff supporters. I saw this behavior both at campaign events and daily on this blog, and it really disgusted me. I objected to being told that my choice between two Democrats, neither of whom were very “progressive,” made me some kind of sellout or corporate whore or what the fuck ever. It was just a lot of angry meaningless bullshit.

But that’s how the Romanoff supporters played. If you disagreed with them, they got really very personally angry with you. As time went on, I began to realize that these were, in many cases, people who liked being angry. And they were angry by deliberate choice and design: Pat Caddell? Hello?

After Romanoff lost the primary, I know a lot of them were very upset. But over at Squarestate, they were posting NRSC commercials against Bennet! When I saw that last October, I knew that the diehard Romies were more than just upset.

They were off the deep end.

Now it’s February, and the same people who turned Colorado Pols into a daily ridiculous flamewar are at it again over this DPS recall. They seem to have misattributed a lengthy (and imo, excellent) post by a diarist, NOT the anonymous authors, which was promoted by another diarist, again NOT the anonymous authors of this blog, as a post by Colorado Pols themselves. They then proceeded to attack the authors of the blog as if they had written this post, never once stopping to notice that they look like complete idiots.

Even stranger, they are trying to drag an organization I respect, Progress Now, into their conspiracy theory, even though Progress Now is promoting their event with Diane Ravitch later this month. I got a wonderful email this week from them inviting me, hosted by Defense Denver and sponsored by Progress Now. I’m planning to attend.

Ladies and gentlemen, what the fuck?

I think the people promoting Defense Denver on the internets are waaaayyyy out of touch with reality. It looks to me like they are acting out their anger over Romanoff’s defeat with this recall of Nate Easley, and as tit-for-tat over the attempted recall of Andrea Merida. I don’t know much about Andrea Merida either, but I know what I think about this given what I do know.

And in the process you are alienating people who might otherwise support what you are doing. Maybe, if we could judge it on the merits. But as I see it, you guys have a chip on your shoulder that has little to do with Nate Easley. Your instantaneous name-calling at the first sign of being questioned is as ridiculous as it was when you did it for Romanoff. But above all, the compulsion to get revenge for losing last year’s primary is pathetic and transparent, and undermines everything. If the people running your operation have a brain among them, they will fire you all and replace you with people who can keep their eyes on the prize.

Being assholes to the people you need to convince didn’t work then, and I predict it won’t work now. Reading back through all these stupid, self destructive comments in the last week from supporters of Defense Denver, I felt the need to say so in long form.

Tweet
Share

Comments

122 thoughts on “Defense Denver and the Romies”

        1. one might say it’s indirectly about Bennet somewhat, in that Easley’s gross misfeasance in office stems partially from his duplicitous attempt to cover the butts of his cronies/bosses who are responsible for gambling away large sums of public money, and those cronies  happen to include Michael Bennet. So yeah, good point there, Ralphie.

          So spake the person with the dyslexic handle.

          1. That obviously doesn’t say anything like what you’re insinuating. Easely is being recalled for his misfeasance and conflict of interest, period. The recall is not motivated by any feelings toward Michael Bennet, but many of the people who are trying to smear the recall coalition ARE themselves partially motivated by their own feelings toward Michael Bennet because they fear what will happen if the DPS swap scheme is ever fully investigated as it should be.  

            2. … he’s drawing a reasonable conclusion from your words, based on what you wrote and the fact that people who are duplicitous can never fully admit what it is they’re up to.

        2. Didn’t get all the way down to, or lack the reading comprehension skills to understand, the diary author’s comments about keeping “your eyes on the prize”?

          One recall at a time ssayeknod, one at a time.  You’ve shown considerable skills for the position; please wait for our elections.  You’re permitted to nominate yourself.

    2. Or what say the first-rate mavens?

      Poppycock is a brand of candied popcorn. Though it is marketed in a variety of combinations, the original mixture consists of clusters of popcorn, almonds, and pecans covered in a candy glaze. Other specialty combinations include mixtures with emphasis on cashews, chocolate, and pecans.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P…  

        1. Poppycock

          2 cups brown sugar

          1 cup butter

          1/2 cup corn syrup

          1/4 teaspoon cream of tartar

          1/2 teaspoon baking soda

          16 cups popped popcorn

          Nuts as desired

          Mix brown sugar, butter and corn syrup together in a saucepan. Heat to boiling and boil for 5 minutes.

          Remove from head and add cream of tartar and baking soda. It will foam up.

          Put the popcorn and nuts on a cookie sheet. Pour the sugar mixture over.

          Bake at 300 degrees F. for about 20 minutes, stirring once.

          Remove from the oven, cool, and break apart.

          2. This is for “generic” poppycock, right?

            So, if I want the “Echo-Chamber Poppycock,” I should throw in a bunch of assorted nuts (e.g., Wade, Ssayeknod, etc., etc.), right?  How will I know when I have too many?

    3. Hey there! I have some questions for you, but first, what exactly does “echo chamber poppycock” mean to you? I’m asking because it’s really funny coming from you in particular.

      1. or at least statements that are opinion masquerading as fact, which to the members of the echo chamber are reflexively accepted as “true” because in their narrow observation, “everyone” seems to agree with these statements, and in the rare occasion that some outsider dares to enter and dispute the veracity of the claims, he is summarily set upon by the resident pack of schoolyard bullies, who then proceed to project their own faults upon the interloper and reassure one another that they are a superior tribe of human beings.  

      2. why bring the Senate Primary into this?

        Why not discuss the merits of the DPS recall.

        Why don’t you defend how Nate Easley does not have a conflict of interest?

        Or is your best effort just calling all of the DD grassroots volunteers

        “Romies”?

      3. why bring the Senate Primary into this?

        Why not discuss the merits of the DPS recall.

        Why don’t you defend how Nate Easley does not have a conflict of interest?

        Or is your best effort just calling all of the DD grassroots volunteers

        “Romies”?

        1. Or are you choosing to just ignore that fact because it doesn’t fit with your meme?

          Almost immediately after Nate was elected to the school board, he met with Chief Legal Counsel for DPS, John Kechriotis, to ensure that his participation between DPS and DSF did not violate state statues or board policy or constitute a conflict of interest. Theresa Pena met with Kechriotis in a separate meeting. Kechriotis concluded that there was no conflict of interest for either Pena or Easley because Boasberg doesn’t have a vote on the DSF board.  

          Again, I repeat, Boasberg does not vote or have vote making powers on the DSF board.

          And more importantly, because apparently neither you or cronies have ever served on a Board of Directors, here’s how this works. Every board has one employee–their Executive Director. That Director oversees all the other employees to protect the employees from unfair termination by an overreaching board. (It works the same way on a school board–the DPS has one employee–the Superintendent. This is important because it protects teachers from being unceremoniously fired by a board member with a grudge.)

          The DSF has one employee–Executive Director of the Foundation, Cindy Abramson. She reports directly to the board and Nate is her employee. She has the right to fire him, reprimand him, you name it. The board does not.

          Again, no conflict of interest.

          If you don’t like the way he votes, run a candidate against him when his term runs out. Your recall is a farce and unfortunately for you and yours, people are rapidly becoming aware of that fact.  

        2. “Bullshit” was just talking about how all the Bennet supporters were so calm and rational during the primary campaign and how all the “Romies” kept posting all kinds of crazy stuff in these forums.  But I don’t quite remember it that way. What’s your recollection, Ray?  Remember how you yourself kept demanding that the FBI should arrest Andrew Romanoff? What was that all about again? Please refresh my memory.  

        3. As I recall, by the time those elections were held, he was a pretty firm supporter of Romanoff. If anything, he was the clear choice of the Romanoff sock-puppets

              1. I stand corrected. Glasscup wasn’t engaging in historical revision regarding Ray’s involvement in the primary.  Glasscup was actually engaging in historical revision regarding David‘s involvement in the primary.

                Thanks for helping to clear that up.

                Now, we’re still waiting for more reminiscences about Ray’s exemplary pro-Bennet behavior in the primary to back up “Bullshit’s” claims in the diary. … Or perhaps someone would like to volunteer some sweet memories of “Peacemonger’s” singularly rational and courteous advocacy on behalf of Mr. Bennet in the primary. … Anybody?

                1. You just said something that was shown to be incorrect and held on for dear life.

                  It’s OK to be mistaken. It happens to everyone from time to time. The trick is to stop digging once you’re in your hole.

            2. …and maybe kind of crazy.

              Turns out, you’re just an idiot.

              In the future, think first before talking. In fact, if you could go somewhere far away and spend a year or two thinking and not talking – or at the very least, not posting on here – thatd’be really great.  

              1. you’re wrong about that anyway. David was indeed elected as a Bennet delegate, but he switched his vote, which caused many of the virulent Bennet supporters to flip a nutty. Ray is actually right about that, and you’re wrong.  But you’re probably accustomed to that.

  2. It wasn’t Romanoff’s defeat that pissed them off, it was Bennet’s win.

    Huge distinction that I’m pointing out again because there were completely legitimate Romanoff supporters. You can tell us from them by the way we moved on.

    We liked Romanoff, not hated Bennet. They didn’t like Romanoff, they hate Bennet.

    While Bennet’s win may be causing their outrage, I sincerely doubt we wouldn’t be seeing the Easley crap anyway. No matter what it’s a minority part of the board trying to become a majority. Bennet, Boasberg, doesn’t matter. Neither’s their “guy” and Romanoff winning wouldn’t have changed that.

    The only reason I stick so hard to this point is because I feel that painting this with a Romanoff brush only prolongs hurt feelings and makes people defensive. This is a DPS issue. That’s it.

      1. that the internal politics of DPS were strewn statewide when Bennet was appointed Senator. I’m sure that anyone willing to primary the guy would’ve had this same group of people in his or her corner. If the disagreements hadn’t been beefed up to eleven by a vicious statewide campaign, I would hope there would’ve been some quiet local bloodletting that wouldn’t be newsworthy enough for Pols to get into.

        I just hope that we don’t draw any more major candidates directly from a school district. Every large school district has factions accusing each other of sketchy dealings, and I don’t know that I can handle that painted across billboards again.

  3. Sorry to say, but that’s a stretch.

    This is about the failure of a school board representative to separate himself from the political pressure of his job and of the power elite structure that employs him.  This is about that member not taking the time to listen to his community about the change they really want and need…the change done WITH them and not TO them, after decades of neglect.

    It can be a little off-putting to deal with politics, and typically regular folks like us don’t engage because of the very same reasons you bring up regarding the senate primary.  You make great points.

    You would be interested to know that not only are our organizers Democrats from either side of the primary battle, but also independents and Republicans.  We have come together as concerned community from  all across Denver to take back the schools, to keep the “public” in public education.  Not because it has anything to do with a senate campaign, but because the decisions that are being made by this administration, and frankly the continuation of policies from before, are destructive to the futures of our kids.

    That’s it.

    If we seem a little rough around the edges, or unpolished and impolitic, it’s because we’re community.  We’re grassroots.  We’re exercising our full legal rights as taxpaying citizens to determine the future of our communities and our children.

    Now, with regard to the DPS pension situation, let’s just say that the same inflexible and un-transparent administration and board majority that keeps covering up what’s really going on (and in no way do we claim we know) is the same one that’s deciding to close schools and in some cases insert charters that will displace kids and severely restrict the numbers of kids that can attend them.

    It would be a different story if the charters were supposed to behave like regular public schools and take all comers.  The problem here is that is precisely what is NOT happening.

    Our work is not tied to anyone’s political campaign, or anyone else’s recall attempt.  It was simply timed so as to have zero impact on the elections budget, which has to be funded by the city, not the school district.  To suggest that somehow the timing has to do with tit-for-tat would be to claim that Nate Easley has been interfering with Andrea Merida.  Is that what you’re claiming?  Retaliation means that someone started the fight, right?

    With regard to whether we’re out of touch with reality, let this article show you the way: http://www.squarestate.net/dia…

    It states that within less than a week of having the petitions approved, we’ve collected around 1,000 signatures.  Those are the facts.  Those numbers are the key to whether we’re out of touch with the community of northeast Denver or not.

    Finally, if you can point to anything uncivil that we’ve said to you or anyone else, please reference it, and we’ll apologize.  On the flip side, we’ve been badgered with questions that have been answered over and over.  People who support what we do are right to come to our aid.

    Thanks for listening.

    1. You make a lot of great claims about the people behind your movement. So did Doug Bruce about his front groups trying to destroy Colorado by reducing taxes to zilch.

      If you have such a great group of people from across the political spectrum – then why are you afraid to list names? I’m assuming your group is 3 people and some paid signature collectors.

      As to why you’re doing this – the fact that you don’t like who got elected doesn’t mean democracy isn’t working, it just means most voters disagree with you. And that reflects well on the intelligence of the voters.

      1. …and then he completely flipped and voted against every single thing he promised he would support.  Many of our organizers actually campaigned hard for him.

      2. Since when do community groups publish names of their members?  What purpose does that serve?

        Does Stand for Children publish their membership lists? No, they only list their staff and board…because they’re incorporated as a non-profit (they also have a small donor committee).

          1. 1.  have no need to, since we’re not incorporated in any way

            2.  Have no board.

            3.  have no paid staff

            4.  have no donations that need to be listed, since we’re not a nonprofit and are not representing ourselves as such.

            Hope that helps.

                1. DD has repeatedly explained that the group is keeping all records they are required to keep and will report all information they are required to report when they are required to report it.  The requirements are small, because the group is small, and its “funding” is extremely meager.  They have no paid staff. They have no board. They are just a plain old-fashioned uncomplicated grassroots community group who came together as neighbors around their shared objective of fighting for high-quality, equitable public schools and demanding accountability from their local elected officials. Do you understand yet?  It’s actually really, really simple. Perhaps that’s why some  people here seem to having such a hard time grasping the concept.

                  David, Ralphie, MOTR and allies: There is  something very strange and perhaps even suspicious about your inexplicable over-the-top hostility toward DefenseDenver.  It does not add up. Your behavior does not fit the situation. It does not ring true.

                  And why do you people keep dragging last year’s U.S. Senate primary into this DPS recall issue?  Why the silly attempt to attach the label “Romies” to the school district parents and other community members who are supporting the recall of Nate Easley?  

                  1. If they were doing things by the

                    Where is Defense registered? As far as MOTR found, they aren’t. And in my amateur efforts, I found the same thing. But DEFENSE and the individuals behind it are engaging in explicit electoral advocacy, which money and resources are being devoted to. I’m not a lawyer or an expert on this stuff – hopefully someone here is – but I am fairly confident that they have to register a statement of organization prior to engaging in electoral advocacy. Even that shady Romanoff outfit New Leadership for Colorado or w/e it was called had filed one of those, with a real person’s name and address.

                    What I “understand” and what everyone else should understand is that the reluctance of DEFENSE and it’s members to do so should make everyone very suspicious of their actual structure and intentions. It’s so easy not to be shady, and yet they insist on playing these games. They obviously have something to hide.

                    As for why people are seeing shadows of the senate primary here, I think it’s probably pretty simple: same people, same tactics, same lies. Hopefully, same result.  

                    1. I’m guessing they’re pulling a Doug Bruce – ignoring the law and figuring by the time they get their asses hauled into court, the election will be over.

                    2. should be sent directly to O’Malley. Email is fine, but only if you scan something, the letter must have your signature.

                      You aren’t required to include contact info though, but they will need if it requires follow up with you.

        1. To drive to freakin’ Denver to hear evasion?

          Tell me.  Who is “we?”

          Your nickname suggests that you speak for the organization.  Tell us who your members and contributors are.

          Or tell us why you don’t want us to know.

        2. Who writes the essays?

          Who approves the message?

          Is there a vote? Who votes?

          Or is it just a writer who decides to speak up – until the group stops following?

          I don’t care – but this is the point.  Not “we’ve answered over and over that we are just us…. over and over  and no one listens or they’re all just pretending not to get it.”

          Message control is a bitch in the best of times. It’s harder when it appears….. less than obvious or above board.  I’m not suggesting anything actually untoward – but at minimum there is an appearance problem. And for good messaging , that can be even worse.

  4. I’m sent twirling into a linguistic tailspin by this mindbending comment:

    I don’t know much about Andrea Merida either, but I know what I think about this given what I do know.

    I think I don’t know what I think about what I do know about this comment.

  5. accusations of political animus or blindness are only going to come from those who do not agree.

    There will be no facts or real analysis to counter your words. But it will be fiery and dramatic.

    I don’t exactly agree, btw.

    It’s not just anger over the primary progression and outcome. It’s both deeper and more superficial.

    Deeper in that it’s all manner of perceived slights and indifference from our elected officials and neighbors over the correct way to be progressive.  It’s deeper than one event.  But it’s just that simple.

    And, btw, aside form one or two verbal twists, if you write like this a bit more often, we will make you FPE.  

    diarist?

    Sounds bad. I’d much rather be a poster. Or FPE. or even a snarky asswipe sockpuppet troll.

    1. That’s interesting. So now answer these questions:

      Who speaks for your “group”?

      Who writes the essays?

      Who approves the message?

      Is there a vote? Who votes?

      Or is it just a writer who decides to speak up – until the group stops following?

      One more:

      What is the full extent of the involvement of ProgressNow or its agent(s) in this process?

      OK, just one more:

      Who are ProgressNow’s donors, how much do they give, and what do they get in return?

      Thanks in advance.

      1. You are the biggest jackass I’ve ever seen post on this site.  And that is quite an accomplishment.

        I really hope that either you or DD are not actually Andrea Merida.  It would make me feel that much worse for the kids stuck in DPS.

      3. Beej likes to turn around stuff that’s been said to him, even though it doesn’t make sense. Here, ass is parroting the questions of individuals about a political organization, and directing them at… individuals. Which makes no sense.

        C’mon, beej, stop with the sockpuppets. It’s pathetic.

      4. Who speaks for the “group”?

        Well – here on Colorado Pols any registered user can “speak” for themself. Like you, for example.

        And any registered user can write a diary. Or a reply. (Diaries require a user to have been here a few minutes- I forget how many exactly)

        No one “approves” though Colorado Pols and any front page editor can edit or remove a diary.

        Sure, we – registered users –  vote all the time.  I was elected to be FPE.  I think recently we voted in a poll posted by LB about whether DeFense Denver looked awesome or sounded like a bunch of whiney idjits. Or something.

        Some posts get a lot of interest and traffic. Some not so much. Some posters start generating interest and discussion – and then for whatever reason the CoPols users lose interest.

        Progress Now appears to be just another registered user that posts from time to time.  I don’t know anything about their organization otherwise. Just like I don’t anything about you. And just like I don’t care.

        1. Why are you dodging? What are you trying to hide?

          Who is “ColoradoPols”?

          What is the full extent of the involvement of ProgressNow or its agent(s) in writing “news” and opinion under the name “ColoradoPols” as well as promoting and suppressing “news” and opinion posted by other people at this purportedly independent site?

          Who are ProgressNow’s donors, how much do they give, and what do they receive in return for those political contributions?

          How can you explain not caring about these questions while simultaneously demanding to know the identities of every member of a small grassroots community group who puts a couple of bucks in a hat to buy some pizza and coffee for their neighborhood meeting?

              1. MADCO answered it before you asked it.

                Progress Now appears to be just another registered user that posts from time to time.  I don’t know anything about their organization otherwise. Just like I don’t anything about you. And just like I don’t care.

                But since you have some wild hare up your ass about ProgressNow, you probably didn’t bother to read it.

                1. Yeah,  “Progress Now appears to be just another registered user that posts from time to time.”

                  You guys should sell used cars, with the way you think you can get away with dancing around behind your weasel words.

                  We’re all aware of the limited amount of material that ProgressNow posts here under its true identity.  That doesn’t answer the question: What is the full extent of ProgressNow’s involvement in the operation of ColoradoPols?

                  1. You and or your “people” are running a secret, stealth campaign.  You try to change the subject at every opportunity.  You have as much credibility as Joe Isuzu. That makes you a lousy spokesman for your cause.

                    And your organization has about as much credibility as the people who ran 60, 61, and 101.  

                    6. S/he’s just trying to ruffle our feathers by being such an ass, and frankly, you’re all allowing him/her to be quite successful.

                      The primary didn’t create the DPS power struggle any more than the Packers winning the Super Bowl created the game of football.

                    8. 31-25. I called the Packers covering the spread, but my guess for the score was 27-23.

                    9. She celebrates like we’ve all had it in for the Packers our whole lives.

                      Did you know that Farve doesn’t play for them anymore? So do I since yesterday. I clearly live and breathe this stuff.

                      BTW – good guess.

                    10. Nor am I connected in any way with DefenseDenver.  

                      I stepped in here because you mendacious assholes were ganging up on the mild-mannered representative of an honorable group of community activists who are doing some good in the world and exercising their democratic rights to hold their local politicians accountable.

                      My point regarding ColoPols and ProgressNow is what a bunch of flaming hypocrites you people are in demanding to know which volunteers from disadvantaged neighborhoods chipped in a couple of bucks for pizza and whatnot at their meeting, while you turn a blind eye to the activities of a sophisticated deep-pocketed 501(c)(4) political organization that’s clandestinely involved with the very forum in which you are perpetrating your smear campaign against the tiny fledging neighborhood group.  Your behavior is despicable.  

                    11. But even if you’re right about a connection between COPols and PNow, or anyone for that matter, it wouldn’t matter because they are not actively electioneering for anything. Defense Denver is actively electioneering for the recall of Nate Easley. COPols goes out of their way to NOT be electioneering for anything. I should know, they’ve deleted my diaries because of that reason. That is the difference.

                    12. The Doug Bruceesque “we’re following the law,” when there is no evidence of that, is just grotesque. Even if what voyageursucksdonkeyass is insinuating is true, and who cares even if if it is, there’s this little of matter of THE LAW. I can see at the Secretary of State’s website Pols and PN both obey it.

                      Can the same be said of Defense Denver? Thanks for raising the question so everybody understands the difference, voyageursucksdonkeyass! You’re awesome to have on the team.

                    13. COPols goes out of their way to NOT be electioneering for anything.

                      That’s a flagrant lie. Absolute bullshit. The “coverage” here is often heavily slanted in favor of particular candidates and causes, and against others.  To argue otherwise is ludicrous.  

                    14. even though I know you won’t read this anyway…

                      Colorado state law says there is a difference. And so there is. Because laws exist.

                    15. Walk a mile in my shoes, you jackass. I’m not whining to everyone that they’re not lockstep with me.

                    16. So you don’t know anything about election law, either.

                      Good to know when you’re defending Defense Denver against possible election law violations.

                    17. Look up the term “electioneering communications.”

                      Not that I wish to bring up the Senate campaign, but since you pressed the point: ColoPols was acting as a de facto communications arm of the Bennet campaign throughout that election cycle.

                    18. And find me a post where Pols was telling people to vote one way or the other. Or said “we support Michael Bennet”. Their leanings weren’t some big secret, and they got Craig Hughes’ e-mails just like everyone else, but they never engage in electioneering communications as it’s defined under the law.

                      I know you hate Pols, but they’re really not equivalent to DD. I mean, you’re allowed to hate them and all, but I don’t think your analogy has much traction outside of it fitting into your paranoid perspective.

                    23. You won’t answer the question, you can’t make a coherent argument, so you call people names.

                      Are you sure you’re NOT Douglas Bruce in drag?

          2. Care to elaborate? I’m only asking because of all the handles and diaries I wish they’d just cut from the site never go away. 🙁

            I’d recommend asking PN about PN’s business. MADCO doesn’t in any way suggest MADCO speaks for them. MADCO’s handle, for instance, is MADCO, not MADCOforProgressNow, or ProgressNow. You on the other hand have answered several questions directed directly at DD and their operation while claiming to not be able to speak for them. Since they are organizational and legal questions, that just seems improper.

            Finally, no one is asking about every single one of DeFENSE’s supporters, only the people who run the thing. And I’ve posted which law I think they’re breaking. Only got a trust us for a response.

            1. Finally, no one is asking about every single one of DeFENSE’s supporters, only the people who run the thing.

              That is simply not a factual statement. There have been several posts here demanding to know the names of every person who put any amount of money into the hat.

          3. I’m not hiding anythnig for CoPols- ths site or the poster.

            As I said above, I don’t know anything about PN.

            I don’t care about the answer to those questions for PN nor for Defense Denver.  I don’t care about DD, don’t care about their donors or lack thereof, don’t care about their pizza or coffee or whatever ass hats they have.  

          4. Ok, listen up. You are DESTROYING the defense of “Defense Denver.” You are proving exactly the point of my post.

            Dude, why are you attacking Pols in these posts about the DPS recall? Pols has not written about the DPS recall. I don’t think Pols cares about the DPS recall or they would have written about it. Why are you attacking them in these threads, and how is attacking Pols NOT a distraction from your goals re: the DPS recall?

            Second, why are you attacking Progress Now? Progress Now is a sponsor of DD’s event. Progress Now has had no involvement in this recall other than to sponsor DD’s event, have they? Do you treat all of DD’s event sponsors this way? If so, do you think that might be why DD does not have very many “sponsors?”

            The fact that you are making these attacks in posts about the DPS recall makes the attacks inseparable from the recall effort. How is this helping the recall effort that supposedly motivates you?

            Since I doubt you have rational answers to any of these questions, I can boil it down to one: why are you attacking people who either don’t oppose you, or are actually trying to help you?

            Frankly, you’re the one who proves this is more than just about your school board recall, despite all the people who say it isn’t. You protest your own guilt every time you leave a comment. So please, either tell me how any of this relates to the topic, or stop pretending it does.

          5. I personally don’t give a shit who writes under the “Colorado Pols” name. The Rocky outed Jason Bane in 2005 and he is the owner. He has said that there have always been multiple authors.

            I don’t read this blog because it has anonymous authors, I read it for information on Colorado politics. Sometimes the Pols write stuff that their readers don’t agree with, and we tell them so. The authors are nice enough to let other people serve as front page writers, and the same rules go for them. Nothing written here is all powerful, but it is timely and accurate enough that we all keep coming back every day. If it wasn’t, we would probably all be at squarestate.

            In short, I find your poutrage about the evil Pols to be ridiculous. We’re all anonymous. It’s just a fucking blog. Get out of your mom’s basement and into the sun, you’ll gain a better perspective on the world.

              1. I think people have to do their own searches here. http://www.sos.state.co.us/biz…

                But yeah, it’s right there.

                Wait, I don’t know who YOU are either, droll! Who is behind you posting a link to a document on the Colorado Secretary of State website? Who wrote your snarky one-liner? who approved it? What’s REALLY going on here, droll??!1!?

                Huh? You don’t know who “ssayeknodskcusruegayov” is either? When will this madness ever end?! Oh the vapors, what a world, I’m glad I never moved out, Mother.

                  1. Do you think if this blog was really that nefarious they’d let you post your crazy conspiracy theories and innuendo day in and day out? How many blogs do you know who barely ever delete comments, even when they’re vaguely accusatory?

                    2. Because the “insiders” are hiding.

                      Tell us who they are, and we’ll ask them.

                      Let’s start with you.  Who the fuck are you?

                    4. The Guvs allow these dumbfuck trolls to piss on the rug almost to a fault. I would be less tolerant to a long list that probably wouldn’t start with this guy (I’m looking at you, Libertad).

                      I wouldn’t put up with it nearly as well, and if I was Progress Now I wouldn’t be sending any more fucking emails for these assholes either. If I was the DCTA I would wash my hands of them, and if I was Diane Ravitch…you get the picture.

              2. Your assignment was to provide a full list of ProgressNow’s donors and how much they gave, and also to provide a full accounting of ProgressNow’s operational relationship with ColoradoPols.  Where is the link to that information? Thanks in advance.

                1. Because of that there are remedies for the public in cases of fraud, or conflicts. Maintaining records is one duty of non-profit corporations. Have you requested full disclosure directly from PN? You may if you feel this fits. Random requests on a blog to someone not in charge of the company, or on their BoD doesn’t count.

                  And that’s why we register! Unfortunately I have no remedy about the giant conflict of interest that is DeFENSE, the donation collecting non-entity.

                  That’s the difference. You don’t bother to read comments, but get nice and upset about them. Reading comes first. Always. DPS too often forgets that. There’s no need for you to do the same.

                3. For the last time, what do Pols and PN have to do with this fucking recall that makes you turn the conversation back to them every time? Why are you attacking a blog whose authors have not written about your campaign once either way? Why are you attacking an organization that is assisting your efforts? What the fuck is the matter with you that you cannot answer this extremely simple question?

                  It’s fucking ridiculous. You look fucking ridiculous. You are making Defense Denver look fucking ridiculous. And I’m beginning to think there are pathological reasons why you do not care.

              3. I am not talking about your mother. You are so irrationally pissed off about everything that I’m sincerely wondering about the value of talking to you at all.

                And you are still making a bloody ass of yourself.

  6. I have never felt comfortable with the swap deal–I am uncomfortable with its structure.  This is not a general condemnation of swaps since they can be used to effectively match liabilities and assets and their associated cash flows.

    I have also been discomforted by the apparent control the employees (the superintendents and their staffs) seem to exercise over their putative supervisors. In a related note I am discomforted by the apparent non responsiveness the paid staff pay to individual board members.

    However, I am increasingly moving away from the forces questioning what may be real mismanagement because of the oppositions increasingly paranoid and strident tone.

    I am also gravely concerned about the possible campaign finance violations.  I am so concerned that I have been trying to get a friendly word back to the organizers of DeFence to get their act together or their own mistakes may cost them the audit they, and I, want.

    When the messenger is the message you usually have already lost if nobody likes you.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

152 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!