This past week rising star Congressman Cory Gardner and Senator Michael Bennet toured Northern Colorado businesses together, earning media coverage in just about every major outlet that covers Gardner's district. During the trip they pledged to move beyond the partisan warfare in DC and work together on helping create jobs through regulatory and tax code reform.

Trips like this are great press for a first term Congressman, especially when the result becomes agreement to work on GOP issues–reducing the heavy hand of government–rather than Democrat issues–increasing the hiring hand of government. They also present another strength for Gardner and therefore weakness for any potential bid for Senate President Brandon Shaffer, in that they show that Gardner is such an effective and likable legislator that members of the opposing party, even inside the CO delegation, want to work with him.

Just as when Congressman Tipton got the Pinon Canyon expansion funding block put into the military construction budget, removing a major argument for Sal Pace's candidacy, great press removes a major argument for a Shaffer campaign. If Democrats like working with Congressman Gardner in DC, including Barry O himself, why unseat him? Shaffer may have tried his doggone best to "Brandon-Mander" his own personal Congressional district, but lacking a solid and substantial case for his own candidacy, it's going to be a significant uphill battle. 

What's worse is Shaffer has a well known anger management issue, which has earned him the enmity of more than a few folks in Colorado. Whether it's publicly storming out of a restaurant like a seven year old child during budget negotiations or being on the verge of a mental breakdown during redistricting, Shaffer is not known for coolness under pressure. Congressional campaigns get intense and candidates who are unable to take their hits in stride tend to get caught in embarrassing Youtube clips of them losing their cool. 

We hope that Shaffer gets in for just that reason. Those Youtube hits are like porn for political junkies. But Shaffer may realize he would risk exposing his less than palatable persona to a much wider audience should he run for Congress. Stacking that potential for permanent destruction of his public image with Gardner's well built image of an effective and charming legislator, and Shaffer has reason to wonder if embarking on a campaign is worth it at all.

And Shaffer won’t be the only Democrat wondering if he has a shot. Given Michael Bennet’s travel schedule this week, apparently Mr. Bennet is pretty unsure about Shaffer’s prospects himself.

We at the Peak are staying out of endorsing or backing a 2012 primary candidate to allow us the ability to analyze the race in a more objective manner. We plan on calling 'em like we see 'em and giving our readers our take on what various speeches, hires, debates, etc mean in the scope of the race. Many times we will analyze answers not for who was right, but whether the answer helps or hurts a candidacy. 

In that spirit, without further ado, here are our Winners and Losers from the first real GOP Presidential Primary debate.

WINNERS

1. (Tie) Michele Bachmann: While we thought she would be more likely to announce on Fox News than CNN, Bachmann demonstrated a strong media sense by announcing her Presidential campaign at the debate, as it assures her announcement will dominate coverage of the debate. Her answers throughout the debate were crisp, pleasing her followers (CNN dials went off the charts for her) without appearing too polarizing to a wider audience. Balancing those two constituencies, we believe, will be the crux of Bachmann's candidacy. Tonight, she succeeded. Case in point: a questioner tried to get her to agree to campaign in NH for a gay marriage repeal. Bachmann responded well, saying it's not the role of a President to come to states and tell them what to do. 

1. (Tie) Mitt Romney: As the front runner who took no major hits, he wins by not losing. Many of his answers were on point and his Romneycare vs. Obamacare answer was solid, and strangely enough, didn't bring much incoming fire from his fellow candidates on the stage. Romney also brought a "Presidential" aura to his answers, not letting John King cut him off immediately and speaking confidently about his answers on issues ranging from the auto bailout to how he plans on challenging Obama in the general. He also displayed his much improved messaging skills by ably discussing federal spending without having to actually advocate raising the debt ceiling. Perhaps most importantly for the primary, he knows how to play to the hometown crowd: giving the audience the Bruins score mid-debate was a smart play.

2. GOP Primary: This debate officially marks the real start to the primary campaign. Never before in this cycle have all the major candidates, save for a few, stood on the same stage before and been given opportunities to take shots at each other. It's been an unseasonably late start compared to 2008, and we for one are glad it's now going full throttle. 

3. CNN: We thought CNN's format of 30 second answers and silly questions (iPhone vs Blackberry?) was a loser, but they win because of Bachmann's announcement on the debate. It's a big coup against conservative media super giant Roger Ailes and Fox News. 

LOSERS

1. Tim Pawlenty: He was given the opportunity to hit Romney on his healthcare plan in Massachusetts on a platter and awkwardly backed off his criticism. Many smart commentators have said that Pawlenty is too nice to win, and his inability to take his excellent turn of a phrase "Obamneycare" and make it into an effective criticism in person only fuels that perception. While Pawlenty improved throughout the debate, seemingly working out his kinks, the process story tomorrow will be about his Romney attack pull back in public.

2. Newt Gingrich: After having virtually every campaign staffer quit in protest last week (the ‘Newtiny’), Newt needed to knock it out of the park. He didn't even come close, with one of his crispest answers coming on the space program — not exactly the kind of issue that will define the primary. Newt mostly brought his professor persona to the debate, not the populist. He came across at times lecturing and other times boring, but never once did he connect in the way he needed to. Barring some unforeseen greatness in future debates, we think Newt is an also-ran, not a contender. 

3. Rick Santorum/Ron Paul/Herman Cain: While Cain rose significantly above Santorum and Paul in the debate with some snappy answers and a more easy-going stature, the presence of Michele Bachmann on stage severely undercuts Cain. Both want to be the grassroots, anti-establishment candidate, but there is only room for one. Ron Paul seems to be a little past his sell-by date with the presence of Bachmann and Cain, but he still sticks out as the only true-blue libertarian with a following in the race. Unfortunately for Paul he doesn't stick as well as he did in 2008. With the rise of liberty groups nationwide more candidates are able to speak the language of liberty than were able to last cycle. Rick Santorum fell completely flat, with no memorable moments. He doesn't project a sunny optimism on social conservative issues, his main focus, which we think is what social conservatives are looking for. He briefly attempted to show his knowledge on foreign policy, but failed to do so in a way that will garner media mentions tomorrow. 

Last week we were the first to report the striking difference between Congressman Ed Perlmutter's tone in his 2006 campaign ad about online predators, and how he has dealt with an online predator of his own party. We noted that the 2006 campaign ad was no longer online, but thanks to the National Republican Congressional Committee, that ad is now available for the public's viewing.

Perlmutter sought to define himself as tough on crime and a protector of the innocent during his first Congressional campaign in 2006, but his recent actions are alarmingly different, calling into question his integrity on the issue. Even after it came out that Congressman Weiner had engaged in private online conversations initiated by him with an underage girl, Perlmutter refuses to return the $1000 he has received from Weiner. On top of the other women who have come forward to expose Weiner’s sick and disturbed behavior, it adds up to an image of a man most politicians would not want to be associated with. But not Congressman Perlmutter it seems.

Based on Allison Sherry’s post on The Spot over the weekend on the $1000 donation Weiner gave to Perlmutter, it appears Perlmutter is refusing to donate the money to charity:

Perlmutter’s campaign spokeswoman Julie DeWoody said their money was “spent a very long time ago,” and they have no plans to give it back.

Other Democrats, like Betty Sutton of Ohio, also received $1000 from Weiner but have donated the money to charity. Congresswoman Betty Sutton made no excuse about the money already being spent. She just did the right thing and got rid of the tainted cash. Former Democrat State Representative, Karen Middleton, even Tweeted over the weekend a suggestion for where returned Weiner money could be donated.

The point of donating the money to charity is to send a signal to Congressman Weiner that he has lost Perlmutter’s support and needs to go. It sends a very clear signal that not even Weiner’s money is welcome around the Congressman. Unfortunately, Perlmutter has shown a complete lack of spine when it comes to doing what his campaigns ads say he would do on the issue.

Even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has demanded Weiner resign. So has Democrat National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee Chairwoman Allyson Schwartz. And yet Perlmutter remains silent, other than to voice tepid support for an ethics investigation that by all accounts wouldn’t even conclude in anything close to the near future due to a backlog of prior cases.

We at the Peak have to wonder: is Congressman Perlmutter’s integrity only worth $1000?

There are some striking similarities between Complete Colorado and the Drudge Report, and it's more than just the bare-bones layout of the sites and conservative leanings of the sites' editors. The Drudge Report burst onto the national scene in the 1990s with its scoop on the Monica Lewinsky story and has held a dominant role in shaping the media narrative ever since.

What Drudge did in the Lewinsky scandal was force the media's hand. Much like the Hancock story, major news outlets, like Newsweek, were investigating the story but were holding back on publishing it. When Drudge headlined the news about the story, and the media's reticence on reporting it, the levees broke and the story blew wide open. That's almost exactly what happened here with Todd Shepherd and Colorado's Drudge Report, Complete Colorado, in regards to the Hancock hooker story. And much like the Lewinsky scandal, the real story is quickly becoming about lies, not sex.

Todd was not the first to look into this story, but he was the one who forced the story into the public domain. With Todd's reputation in the journalist community as more than just a basement-dwelling blogger, plus his publishing of source documents, when he published the story on June 2 a media firestorm erupted.

Multiple sources have told us "you have no idea" how much of a media war this has set off. Fox 31 aired a very defensive report last week stating multiple times that they hadn't aired nary a word about the story, or the allegations within until then, because they were such legitimate journalists. That, of course, was meant to, yet again, indirectly insult other journalists who had the guts to go public. While Fox 31 may have had only one source, other outlets certainly have more. As we pointed out last week, what struck us most about Fox 31 was rather than play their reticence as due to just not knowing enough, they instead have been very defensive and insulted those who disagree. 

When Shepherd first broke the story it was Complete Colorado vs. "the media." The sides are not so unevenly matched anymore. Slowly, but surely, big media outlets like the ABC affiliate, 7News, and as of this weekend, the Denver Post, are joining the side of Complete Colorado. Fox 31 and CBS4, who had an executive talk to Westword about their holding back on the story, are now looking lonelier and lonelier on their side of the issue. 

This story has now developed a second ugly head. Not just the ugly head of political cover-ups and lies, but media cover-ups in the form of quid pro quos with politicians. In the Friday press conference with Hancock it came out in the open that a deal was made between the Denver Post and the Hancock campaign to hold the story until after the election. 

Now that Hancock has gone back on his pledge that allowed the story to be pushed until after his election, there is blood in the water. He has chummed the story, basically begging every media outlet and investigative reporter to prove him wrong. That is never a place a new mayor wants to be before they even take office. 

The Michael Isikoff of the Hancock story, Debra Sherman from 9News, who had this story first, still hasn't unloaded what is rumored to be a treasure trove of information. If and when she does, Hancock could be cooked. Just as there were great journalists digging into the Lewinsky story, there are hard-hitting and top-knotch journalists invested in their work on this story. We should be thankful they still exist, and curse the powers-that-be who have held back their great work. We should also be thankful that there are forces in the media, like Todd Shepherd and Complete Colorado, who cannot be hamstrung by executives and high-priced lawyerly CYA, and push issues into the open.

Let it be said here first. Whereas the Drudge Report's breaking open of the Lewinsky scandal re-ordered the national media hierarchy, Complete Colorado has shaken the media fault lines of Colorado and they will never return to their previous formations. 

We have been predicting the demise of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for some time on the Peak. In the Sunday Denver Post, Allison Sherry wrote the first draft of his official political obituary. While Sherry takes it easy on him and frames it as Salazar not making up his mind about a second term, make no mistake about it, Salazar doesn't have a choice. There is no opportunity for a second term. He is done in the Obama White House.

Salazar has bumbled, fumbled, and all around screwed up his tenure at the Interior Department, and has all but ended his future political career. Whether or not the Obama-nator gets another four years come November 2012, Salazar will be packing his bags and returning to Colorado with his tail between his legs soon enough.

While Salazar once possessed a Senate seat he could have probably held onto as long as he liked, that safety net was ripped from beneath him when he migrated to the Interior Department. Some in Washington, like Congressman Mike Coffman, look on the mess Salazar has made of his career like watching a car wreck:

"I just don't know what he was thinking when he gave up his Senate seat to join the Obama administration because he had worked so hard over the years to develop an image as a centrist politician," Rep. Coffman said. "Now, that reputation is totally gone."

You go Mike! It’s about time that an elected Republican in this state showed some political brass and called Salazar to the mat.

The only centrist attribute Salazar's political identity has is in the fact that neither the political right nor the political left want anything to do with him anymore. That has left in him in a politically impossible-to-maintain position. 

With the MASSIVE new finds of economically reachable natural gas and oil in the US, the administration will be under equally massive pressure to allow access to domestic American energy. Salazar won't have the standing among enviros, after his complete failure of leadership during the Deepwater Horizons disaster and his backing off of his "Wild Lands" policy. Nor will Salazar have the standing among the oil and gas industry, and the communities who want the jobs associated with the industry's domestic expansion. That leaves him with no standing, politically or on the issue of expanded access to American energy.

Salazar is done, and Allison Sherry's Sunday article is merely the first draft of what will soon be a look-back rather than a hypothetical look forward at Salazar's political career. We for one think it can't come soon enough.  

Fox News is reporting potentially explosive news about Congressman Anthony Weiner's propensity for perverted texts, sexts, and Facebook messages. A Fox News reporter was at the home of a 17 year old girl who allegedly exchanged messages with the Congressman when police arrived to interview the girl and her mother.

If Weiner did in fact engage in such conduct with a minor, Ed Perlmutter would be put in quite an awkward position if he didn't immediately (though still very late) call for Weiner's resignation and donate the $1000 he received from Weiner to charity. 

After all, loyal readers, you may recall this line from a 2006 Perlmutter ad (since removed from Youtube):

"In Congress, I'll fight to pass laws protecting kids from online predators and violent video games."

If Anthony Weiner did exchange inappropriate messages with a minor he is, by definition, an online predator, and Ed Perlmutter has promised to protect kids from such people. 

It's too bad that using government resources to engage in sexual messaging with young girls, and lying about it for 10 days, wasn't enough to cause Perlmutter to donate the $1000 to charity. This should.

If it doesn't, Perlmutter will have some serious questions to answer to the voters of Colorado. 

*Note: We couldn’t find any live links to major news outlet stories on Perlmutter’s 2006 campaign ads. You can find them on Lexis Nexis if needed.

Why are we talking about Dan Maes again? Because it's Friday and yet another too-hard-to-ignore Amaesing Dan Maes story has popped up. This time it's the Amaesing One trumpeting the fact that he's writing a book. 

In his email to what is a rapidly-dwindling list of people who care, Maes says his working title for the book is "Running Without Cowboy Boots." A more appropriate title might be "Running Without Support" or "Run, Don't Bike." Whatever he calls it, if it's anything like the childish rantings and ravings he's spewed all over the inter-webs in his "truth exposés" it's sure to be full of nonsensical and most likely untrue allegations against everyone he has ever met.  

We just can't wait to see how it ends! Does Dan Maes defeat the forces of evil that conspired to take down his campaign — "campaign terrorists" in his parlance — OR will he win the election and take the Governor's office amidst a sea of adoring fans? The suspense is almost too much to bare.

We actually feel bad for whoever is editing his collection of crazy, as Dan has a well-known inability to spell things properly, make logical sense or fill out expense reports in a timely manner. We guess Dan's continued existence in the public space is a reminder that politics attracts the full spectrum of humanity, including bat shit crazy.

Actually, Dan is best seen in the light of the movie "Igby Goes Down" about a family dealing with their father going crazy:

"D.H. Banes: I believe, umm, that certain people in life are meant to fall by the wayside; to serve as warnings to the rest of us; signs posts along the way.
Igby: To where?
D.H. Banes: Success.
Oliver: Our father would be a 'slippery when schizophrenic' sign, for instance…

Check back at the Peak for future updates (but only on Fridays). We'll be sure to track the book sales on this sure-to-be #1 New York Times bestseller.

A few billion here, a few billion there, and as the old adage goes, soon we're talking about real money. FOX Business is out with a startling story based on a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on yet another reason why the federal government is good at only one thing, spending money, and in this case billions they shouldn't be spending. 

The GAO reports that the Department of Energy (DOE) alone has spent $6.8 Billion on benefits in the last ten years, mostly for independent contractors. Nine out of every 10 dollars at DOE goes to contracts. The problem is contractors are not employees, meaning the DOE, and by extension taxpayers, should not be covering benefit costs. At least that's how it works in the real world. 

From FOX Business:

"DOE bears the responsibility, according to its contracts, for reimbursing contractors for retiree benefits for an estimated 200,000 people, including 100,000 current and former contractor employees, and 100,000 beneficiaries of those employees, such as spouses.    

Taxpayer costs for federal contractors’ retiree benefits at the DOE has been volatile. They ranged from as little as $43 million in 2001 to as high as three quarters of a billion dollars in 2009, the GAO says.

…At the same time, federal refunds for contractors’ health care benefits grew by 10%, to $389 million.

It gets worse in that the contractor picks their own plan, one of 50 the DOE covers, and the DOE is responsible for paying those costs. And to add insult to injury it's more than possible that DOE is double paying benefits already covered by large defense contractors like Lockheed who provide the contractors to DOE. From the FOX Business story:

Also, no one in government is tracking whether taxpayers are double-covering retiree costs for workers employed at big companies that already cover them, like Boeing or Lockheed Martin. Moreover, the GAO says in a new report the DOE has to set aside "significantly" more funds for these costs "since the economic downturn."

Looks like reducing fraud in government could actually result in billions in savings after all. It is information like this that gives people reason to believe the government really thinks it can operate in its own universe, unbridled by common sense and regular business practices. 

The scariest part is other government agencies could have similar problems, but no one has found out. Stories like this, which slipped under the radar since the GAO report was released in April 2011, highlight the need for more citizen journalists. Mainstream media just doesn't have the manpower anymore with their drastically slashed budgets and reduced personnel to keep up with every report produced by government, meaning they sometimes will miss big stories like this one. 

Image: scottchan / FreeDigitalPhotos.net

UPDATE: The 7News story has been updated and includes a key crux of the story.

Hancock: “If there are documents that have my name on them, a tie to an escort service, they’re categorically untrue. They are falsified because I have never used a service, have never gone to a service or place where those services are being offered.”

7News: “Sources say the documents with Hancock’s name and phone number exist in law enforcement files.”

Just like Anthony Weiner, Denver Mayor-elect Michael Hancock has made outright denials that the allegations swirling around him about his connection to a prostitution ring known as Denver Players are untrue. But it's the actions surrounding the denial that have a strange similarity to Weiner's slide into admission of guilt. When Weiner said he couldn't say "with certitude" that the junk shot posted to his Twitter account wasn't of him everyone took that as a sign there was more than meets the eye to the story. Though to be fair to Weiner, there was virtually nothing, unfortunately, not available to the eye in his case. 

Now 7News has broken the story that Michael Hancock's attorney, Bruce James, wrote to the Denver Police to see if they had any pictures of Hancock or his car around or going into the supposed whorehouse on 1675 Fillmore Street. That has an eery similarity to Weiner's "certitude" comment, in that it muddies what was a clear, and unambigious, denial of any connection whatsoever Hancock has given in relation to allegations of his ties to the prostitution ring.

This story is so incredibly strange we don't know exactly what to make of it, except to say that the new information broken by 7News only a few hours ago adds an interesting twist to it. It marks the first time a "mainstream" outlet has detailed at least part of their own investigation into the story, which was first broken by Todd Shepherd at Complete Colorado. Craig Silverman of Caplis and Silverman (630 KHOW) said today he thought it could potentially mark a wave of stories from other mainstream outlets who have thus far held back anything their own investigations have turned up.

We have heard that some outlets have interviews with some of the escorts who can place Michael Hancock at the scene of the crime, so to speak. Basically what we hear is that there is a ton of potentially highly damaging information out there, but lawyers at various outlets are very skittish about letting the journalists go public. We find that strange because those lawyers haven't seemed as skittish about letting their outlets run with damaging and untrue allegations about Republicans in the past. 

If, and when, this story gathers enough evidence to make the allegations against Michael Hancock undeniable, there will be some serious mainstream media figures who will owe a huge and public mea culpa to their readers and viewers and to Todd Shepherd in particular. Eli Stokols, who we have praised on these pages before for his even-handed coverage of the Capitol, went WAY too far and indirectly called Todd a "carnival barker." Stokols, apparently very proud of the fact his employer, Fox 31, had held back their story said there was a:

"clear deliniation (sic) between Denver's credible news outlets and those apparently less concerned about backing up their reporting with hard evidence — or, put another way: those with less to lose."

If this story blows wide open it will mark a significant blow in credibility to the mainstream media, and give further credibility and influence to independent journalists and online media. It is one thing to say they can't run with it because they have doubts, but another to stand on their (well-funded) pedestal and sneer at journalists who believe the story is credible and even post the documents that they believe give the story credence. 

This story is shaping up to be, in many ways, a defining event in the media war between mainstream media and independent journalists not constrained by institutional biases and lawyerly CYA. Regardless of how it turns out, it hasn't been a shining moment for the mainstream media. Between the interview Denver Post publisher and owner, Dean Singleton, gave Caplis and Silverman last week on the Post's refusal to mention the story at all and Stokols name calling, the mainstream press has behaved in a way unbecoming of them — arrogant, untransparent and potentially very, very wrong about the merits of the story. 

Only time will tell who was right on the story. Right now, with its shades of Weiner, it's not looking sunny side up for Michael Hancock.  

The Washington Post reports that the list of Congressional Democrats calling on Anthony Weiner to resign is growing, currently at eight Democrats, including the head of the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz (D-PA). We at the Peak are wondering where in the name of righteous indignation are all the Colorado Democrats calling on their fellow Party member to step down and return the money he's donated to them?

We're also wondering where the Colorado media coverage is on the lack of Colorado Democrats calling on Weiner to resign. They certainly kept score on resignation calls during the Mark Foley scandal. And Foley did resign, unlike Weiner who is still refusing today to step down. Even worse, Weiner lied about it for 10 days. So it's not just his perverted behavior, but his bald-faced lying to the country that makes it imperative Weiner resign. Even the liberal hordes over at ColoradoPols have picked up the growing calls for Weiner to resign and think the lying requires him to do so. 

With the media refusing to cover a sex scandal closer to home, has there been an agreed upon moratorium on covering any Colorado aspect to Democrat sexual shenanigans?

This is, after all, slow season in politics. We know reporters have time to place calls to the Colorado's Congressional Representatives and Senators' offices and at least report whether they were willing to publicly call for Weiner's resignation or not. As Sal Pace has announced his Congressional campaign, it's also a question he should answer as well. 

While the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Hill have covered Weiner's donations to other Democrats, the Colorado media has not reported on the fact, as we have at the Peak, that Ed Perlmutter received $1000 from Anthony Weiner.  As the Times reports, Democrat Betty Sutton of Ohio has donated the $1000 she received from Weiner to charity. Why hasn't Perlmutter done so as well?

Please, dear Colorado media, let us know why you have been so strangely silent on the issue?