Want to see your ad here, or elsewhere on the page? email ads@(you know the rest) Trolls and sockpuppets begone! If you don't know what that means, kindly take a gander at our rules.
The Progressive Political Blog for Colorado
(HOME)
Denver Open Acupuncture
a sliding scale community acupuncture clinic
1345 East 22nd Avenue
Denver, CO 80205
303-837-8166 email
Jennifer Gross, L.Ac., M.Ac.O.M.
ProgressNow just faxed this complaint to the Department of Justice over the donation "Steve Mason" a Schaffer patsy made to the Udall campaign.
October 31, 2008
William M Welch II
Chief, Public Integrity Section
United States Department of Justice
1400 New York Avenue NW, 12th Floor
Washington D.C. 20005
Fax: 202-514-3003
Mr. Welch:
I urge that you immediately exercise your authority under federal law to investigate whether Bob Schaffer and/or his agent/campaign manager and an unknown person posing as "Steve Mason" violated and/or conspired to violate 2 U.S.C. § 441j and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by causing false statements to be made to the Federal Election Commission regarding the true source of two contributions made to the Mark Udall for Senate Campaign.(Rocky Mountain News 10/31/2008; Denver Post, 10/31/2008)
A person makes a false statement to under federal law if he knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry. See 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A person making a false statement shall be fined under or imprisoned not more than 5 years. Id.
Federal law also prohibits persons from making a campaign contribution in the name of another person. 2 U.S.C. 441f.
Bob Schaffer, a candidate for United States Senate in Colorado, campaign told the Rocky Mountain News that a Schaffer supporter used the name "Steve Mason" to make two contributions to the campaign of Schaffer's opponent, Mark Udall, using a fictitious address. (Rocky Mountain News, 10/31/08). When Bob Schaffer's campaign and "Steve Mason" agreed to make this contribution under false pretenses, they knew that their actions would cause false information to be filed with the Federal Election Commission.
I respectfully urge you to launch an immediate investigate Bob Schaffer and/or his campaign manager and "Steve Mason" to determine whether they violated federal law by causing a false statement to be made to a federal agency.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Huttner
Another one is Mike Coffman who just told by a judge to comply with his ruling - no more voter purges for you!
Jessie Allen, a lawyer for the activists, then told the judge she was concerned Coffman wouldn't follow the advice of his counsel, or the judge's order.
"If the defendant doesn't listen to his counsel, he's going to be listening to me personally," Kane said. "I don't issue threats idly, and I'm not issuing one now. ... I expect to be obeyed."
You know it's the silly season when the Republican infighting starts even before election day. So says ex candidate for US Senate, ex-congressman Scott McInnis:
"I would have beat Udall, that wasn't the issue," McInnis said. "Frankly I have more difficulties with the right wing of my party then I do with taking on a Democrat. Udall was not the biggest threat I faced in the election. My biggest threat was getting through the primary. Both parties have a pretty radical element to them."
True, McLobbyist is less extreme than Schaffer, that's not hard to do. More interesting is he's saying these things before all the votes are in.
I have to imagine the DSCC is already on this. But is there any Republican senate candidate in the country today who isn't being pressed to answer whether or not they think Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) should resign?
Along those lines, you're watching these races unfold in your own states. So you'll probably see or read what's asked and answered before we do. So if you see Republican senators in contested races getting asked this question -- and especially if they answer, let us know.
I think it is a good question to put before Bob Schaffer on or before the last debate at Channel 4 Studios in Denver located at 1044 Lincoln, airing live at 6pm on CBS 4 and then re-air at 9pm on KBDI.
There's a pre-debate rally at 5pm outside of the studios. If you are interested in attending the rally to ask Bob if he wants to be seated with a felon before the debate or have any questions, please email adam.axler@udallforcolorado.com
How do you know when someone is full or shit or trying to pull one over on you? When they over do it to the point of hilarity. Look at this transcript from the recent Schaffer - Udall debate in Pueblo regarding Schaffer's Kuridastan oil deal:
Pueblo:
[BS] Well thanks Tom. Congressman Udall intentionally misrepresented my record and the company I used to work for. The company's involvement in the Kurdish region of Iraq. First of all, the congressman suggested I secured an oil deal in Iraq, I think I've corrected that for you congressman, before. He knows that to be an error but persists in that kind of a statement. I just view it to be incendiary and I regret that in a campaign for the United States Senate that that becomes part of the strategy one would use to propel oneself into the United States Congress. The effect of preventing the United States from being part of the economic solution in Iraq is do what is occurring in Iraq today and that is you're having heavy economic influence by one country, that is the Chinese, with respect to the Iraqi oil law in the country. It is the wrong direction to flow.
And again during a Fox 31 debate:
[BS] I understand where your motivation is but being untruthful about the reality is what people are sick and tired of.
[RZ] Where was he untruthful?
[BS] I didn't cut a deal with the Iraqis. I didn't cut a deal with the Kurds.
[MEU] Your company did. Your company did.
[BS] That's not why I went there. But that's beyond on the point. Secondly, I'm not in favor of an open-ended engagement in Iraq...
At least this time he don't go on and on. But what he never does is clarify the record. He jumped right into the Iraq war. So, just what did he go to Iraq for? We'll never get the details from Schaffer. Every time Udall brings it up Schaffer whines, that's not true, that's not true!
But look at this little gem from his campaign yesterday:
Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager, derided any attempt by liberals to attack his candidate's work as an oil executive in Iraq.
Hmm. Schaffer keeps saying he had nothing to do with any oil deal in Iraq, but that's not what his campaign manager seems to be saying. If he didn't go to Iraq to secure that oil deal, but Wadhams says he was an oil executive who worked in Iraq, was Schaffer just not very good at his job?
NARAL Pro-Choice America, the national political leader of the pro-choice movement, turns its sights on Colorado's own hotly contested U.S. Senate race. The organization is working to highlight Schaffer's consistently anti-choice record through his long tenure in public office and contrast it with Udall's long-term support for policies to reduce unintended pregnancy, bear healthy children, or access safe, legal abortion. Check out the records here; watch Blog for Choice for other musings this week.
As featured in the Rocky Mountain News this morning:
The liberal group ProgressNow coined the phrase "Big Oil Bob" to describe Bob Schaffer. Now, professional musician Ron Sunshine, a Colorado native, has penned a tune called Big Oil Bob.
Full lyrics, .MP3 link below the fold. Singing along, and prolific redistribution is (thinks for a minute) cool by me.
Okay, it's just one snippet of his life, but what a snippet. If Wadhams really thought the Mariana Islands issues was behind them, he's not a very good campaign manager. I think they actually got it out as early as possible to minimize the damage, or it may have just been that Schaffer has a big mouth. Either way, this is the right time to run this ad. The only question is how much impact this will have given the barrage of other ads running around. I'll have more after an 11am conference call.
Awww, they started off with questions from two cute kids. The questions were why do you want to be Senator and what experience do they have. Udall talked about his record and at the end mentioned a similarity between these two questioners and his own kids. Schaffer seemed to see that as an opportunity to go on for about two minutes about his kids. If that's the only qualification necessary, then I want to see some liberals start popping out those babies. Scahffer also seems to have downed his requisite 6 cans of Jolt Cola as his head is bobbing and weaving just like at during the Meet the Press debate.
Next question is on the economy and what it means for the taxpayer. Schaffer gives a nice simple explanation of devaluing currency by printing money. It was fine, good even. Udall goes on to explain why he voted against the bailout and what he wanted to see including regulation, injecting capital into banks, not Paulsons hands, and stopping golden parachutes.
At one point during either the first or second question, a camera cuts to Wadhams in the crowd. He look a little nervous.
Don't you wish you could see this after the election?
The Udall campaign has launched what they're calling The Debunker. Similar to the Obama campaign's Fight the Smears, this page responds to all the attacks. So far the page debunks the major smears from the 527 ads and some directly from the Schaffer campaign.
For example:
False Attack
Mark Udall Is Opposed to Developing Oil Shale in Colorado
In a desperate attempt to mischaracterize Mark Udall's strong record on Energy, Bob Schaffer and his Big Oil cronies claim that Mark is standing in the way of Oil Shale development.
The Truth
Mark Udall is working hard with the communities of the West Slope to make sure oil shale is developed responsibly and in a way that protects their economy.
Mark Udall has consistently supported the research and development of oil shale taking into account its tremendous demand for colorado's most precious resource: water.
GOP Rep's Ad: I'm Sorry I Went On An Abramoff Trip This ad needs to be seen to be believed. Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL), who is facing a spirited challenge from Democrat Suzanne Kosmas, has this new ad in which he speaks to the camera and abjectly apologizes for going on an Abramoff-sponsored trip five years ago:
The Udall campaign's response goes like this:
"Bob Schaffer was up to his neck in the same kind of corrupt dealing with jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff that Tom Feeney was," said Udall campaign spokeswoman Tara Trujillo. "Schaffer took Abramoff's trip and then he took Abramoff's marching orders, turning a blind eye to human trafficking and forced abortions in the process. Tom Feeney is at least taking responsibility for his actions. When will Bob Schaffer?"
I'm guessing Dick Wadhams' response will go something like, "F*cking Tom Feeney Boulder Liberal." Or something.
I'd really to see Schaffer fess up and and say, "Gosh golly gee, I'm really sorry for helping a bunch of sweat shop owners paying a corrupt and now in jail lobbyist to keep the status quo of slave wages, sweat shops, forced abortion, and a thriving sex trade industry." But then, I'd also like a pony.
September 23, 2008 - Change Puts Obama Up Slightly In Four Battlegrounds, Quinnipiac University/Wall Street Journal/Washingtonpost.Com Poll Finds --- COLORADO: Obama 49 - McCain 45 MICHIGAN: Obama 48 - McCain 44 MINNESOTA: Obama 47 - McCain 45 WISCONSIN: Obama 49 - McCain 42
Public Policy Polling will be releasing results of their Colorado poll shortly, and is going to show Obama ahead as well. I will update this with the numbers as soon as they are released, but PPP offers this teaser now. Remember how Rudy, then Huckabee, then Romney, then Fred Thompson, were all the exciting saviors of the Republican Party for fifteen minutes? McCain got where he is by just outlasting their popularity. The more people got to know them the worse they looked. The same thing is happenng with Palin.
Colorado Senate candidate Bob Schaffer's spokesperson, Dick Wadhams, seems to be manipulating the media in some strange way every time he's in the news these days.
This time he's telling Lynn Bartels at the Rocky Mountain News that the Producers at Meet the Press had mostly given up on trying to convince Schaffer's opponent, Mark Udall, to accept their invitation to debate. Bartels quoted Wadhams:
"I can tell you that Meet the Press had pretty well given up on him," Wadhams said. "The producers didn't think he was going to do it. "We pretty much shamed them into accepting the debate."
and the part that didn't make it into the story:
For her part, Bartels wrote me that she had contacted Mee the Press, and she had intended to put its response into her article, but this was dropped from the final version of her article. She wrote me by email:
We initially had in there a line that we didn't get a response from Meet the Press, and a line about how Tara Trujillo laughed out aloud when I told her what Wadhams said about Meet the Press.Those were removed. Can't remember if it was space or some other reason.That was more than 24 hours ago!
Also in that article:
Wadhams also was critical of Udall for not scheduling a debate with any Colorado Springs TV station and with radio talk-show host Mike Rosen.
"Strickland accepted those debates," Wadhams said.
Hmm, you guys just did a debate in Colorado Springs. And Mike Rosen? Heck, why not ask for a debate that Jack Abramoff moderates? That would be about as fair. This has got to be the most desperate ploy by Wadhams yet. Why not go back back to trying to make it sound like Udall was for the Iraq war or some other cheap stunt like that?
I have a question for the local dead tree media. How many times does Dick Wadhams have to lie to your face before you stop falling for this stuff? Bartels should be commended in this case for following up, but by leaving the fact checking on the editing floor, it makes the Wadhmas quote look truthful. That's worse in my book. Then again, I've come to expect so little from the Rocky.
The DSCC has a new add using Bob Schaffer's own words about him being in the Oil and Gas business. Notice at that time, he says nothing about renewable energy despite his recent jumping on the bandwagon and trying to rewrite history
The Udall campaign has their own add. Personally "partisan bickering" is just another name for the no holds barred tactics republicans have pushed Democrats into over the last decade or so. It wasn't until anticipating the smack-down of the '06 elections that the republicans started talking about partisanship. Unfortunately, the average voter knows nothing about this, and just wants solutions. Thus, to them actually good messaging. Are we at SquareState too highly informed? Is that possible?
In Udall's case, this isn't just messaging. He actually does have a good record working with republicans.
Worked with Wayne Allard to get Rocky Flats cleaned up and set aside as a wildlife refuge
Worked with Scott McGinnis to designate James Peak as a wilderness area
Worked with Republican representative Frank Wolf to craft legislation to redeploy our troops from Iraq
For a little while now, we've had Colorado Media Matters posting the worst of the worst on SquareState. This one from late last week regarding Bob Schaffer and immigration (two things that when mentioned together should cause out and out laughter) is so bad I had to contribute a little to put this more in perspective.
Summary: While interviewing Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer on Newsradio 850 KOA, the Colorado's Morning News anchors failed to point out the "immigration-reduction" agenda of a website Schaffer cited as giving his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, "F's on immigration." KOA's Steffan Tubbs and Lois Melkonian also failed to challenge Schaffer's false assertion that Denver and Boulder are so-called "sanctuary" cities, despite evidence to the contrary.
On the September 10 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's Colorado's Morning News, co-anchor Steffan Tubbs and guest co-anchor Lois Melkonian allowed their guest, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, to attack his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, using misleading or false information related to immigration.
If the Schaffer camp were smart (I know, I know) they wouldn't mention immigration after Schaffer opened his big old mouth about how much he loves the sweat shop and forced abortion policies of the Mariana Islands. You'll remember that during his time in Congress he worked on behalf of now jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the sweat shop owners of the Mariana Islands to continue those worker abusive policies and keep them the status quo.
This made national news for weeks. For the news anchors at KOA to not bring this up during a discussion of immigration policy with Bob Schaffer shows just how much they're nothing more than flacks.
So, what's this site giving Udall F's? According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (you know what territory we're getting into when they're the source):
NumbersUSA executive director Roy Beck, a long-time friend of Coe's, adopted a more moderate tone when he addressed his guests and told them what they should be doing to end the current immigration regime.
It would be better, Beck counseled, if their attempts to lobby legislators that week did not appear to be orchestrated by NumbersUSA. For their campaign to be effective, he said, it "needs to look like a grassroots effort."
Grassroots - or AstroTurf?
To be sure, this was no grassroots effort. Nor is NumbersUSA, in any sense of the word, a grassroots organization.
And a bit about their funding:
In fact, the vast majority of American anti-immigration groups - more than a dozen in all - were either formed, led, or in other ways made possible through Tanton's efforts.
The principal funding arm of the movement, U.S. Inc., is a Tanton creation, and millions of dollars in financing comes from just a few of his allies, far-right foundations like those controlled by the family of Richard Mellon Scaife.
Oh, BTW, the overall grade these guys actually gave Udall, is a C-.
Finally, Schaffer lies about Udall and his support of the American Dream Act (HR 1275) saying:
this Hernandez guy, Mark Udall introduced, sponsored legislation that would give this guy your tax money to pay for his college tuition.
The truth however is that the American Dream Act, HR1275 establishes states rights for residency with respect to instate tuition and also requires:
(A) the alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding the date of enactment of this Act, and had not yet reached the age of 16 years at the time of initial entry;
(B) the alien has been a person of good moral character since the time of application;
The latter means no criminal record. Thus, "this Hernandez guy" with at least 12 arrests would not qualify. But, why let little things like facts get in the way, eh Bob?
So while Bob Schaffer says one thing about immigration, his actions show where his priorities lie.
We're entering the silly season. After the Schaffer campaign released it's internal poll showing Udall ahead by 3. The NRSC released another internal poll showing Udall still ahead but by only one point. The timing seems weird, but it appears the Post nor the Rocky reported on the first poll. Looks to me like the first poll's reporting got swamped in DNC coverage.
Wadhams' take is predictable:
Wadhams also said the numbers were "solid and reliable because (David Hill) has probably done more campaigns in Colorado in the last 18 years than anybody in America.
"He's a very reputable pollster who'll not tell a client what the client wants to hear; he tells the client what is real and what truly exists," Wadhams said.
So today, the Udall camp releases their own internal poll showing Udall up by 11 (Udall holds a 45%-34% lead over Schaffer.)
press release:
"These results indicate that the attack campaign being waged by several out-of-state groups on Bob Schaffer's behalf has been strikingly ineffective so far," said Paul Harstad, CEO of Harstad Strategic Research. "In fact, to the contrary, Mark Udall's position has actually strengthened on the exact issues these ads have sought to attack him on."
"Coloradans are looking at the record and seeing that Mark Udall stands with them, while Bob Schaffer consistently stands with the Bush administration, the big oil companies, and corrupt lobbyists like Jack Abramoff," said Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo. "Schaffer and his front groups are spending millions of dollars to hide that record, but Coloradans aren't being fooled."
The poll of 752 likely Colorado voters was conducted September 7th through the 9th, and has a 3.6% margin of error. Harstad Strategic Research has a long record of work in Colorado campaigns and issues, including serving as pollster to Senator Ken Salazar.
But Schaffer manager Dick Wadhams called the numbers "fictitious," pointing to recent polls by the Schaffer campaign and the National Republican Senatorial Committee showing the race in a dead heat.
How surprising Wadhams would say his poll is honest and correct and the other is fictitious.
If we average the polls, Udall by 11 and Udall by 1, we get a 6 point advantage. We can also look at the aggregate of all polling done on this race at pollster.com where Udall is ahead by about 4, which has both NRSC internals but not yet Udall's internal poll.
...Wadhams told PolitickerCO.com at the Four Points by Sheraton Minneapolis hotel.
While Bob Schaffer is tending to his wife, I guess Dick Wadhams felt he was free to go play. Originally Schaffer said he wasn't going to the RNC, but it seems Dick Wadhams himself couldn't avoid missing the Hookers and Blow party. Schaffer should get back to campaigning soon as his wife is reportedly out of surgery and doing well. Lest some right wing troll try to misconstrue my intentions, I don't wish cancer on anyone, even the wife of someone with whom I fundamentally disagree on just about everything.
The poll, conducted by Hill Research Consultants - Schaffer's regular pollster - among 553 likely Colorado voters Aug. 23 and 24, shows Udall leading Schaffer 41 percent to 38 percent. That's within the survey's +/- 4.2 percent margin of error.
IIRC, this is the first of any internal poll released, and the best Wadhams can do is still 3 points behind. We've had at least 10 polls in the last few months, all showing Udall with a sizable lead except this one and an outlier from Rasmussen.
Do we want to believe Wadhams:
"He's a very reputable pollster who'll not tell a client what the client wants to hear; he tells the client what is real and what truly exists," Wadhams said.
Or what the numbers tell us? The fact that he has to mention how "truthful" and reliable this poll is makes me think it's more likely a poll to try to prop up their lagging fundraising numbers. Dick, just go enjoy yourself in Minneapolis. We'll still be here when you get back.
(Talk about bad timing. On the day that I was planning on recovering now I need to go find a black hat and trench coat so I can dress up like Jack Abramoff to ask Bob Schaffer a question on camera - promoted by johne)
SquareStaters,
Mark wants know what's on your mind and answer your questions about the issues at stake in the race for Senate! That's why he is participating in an engaging question-and-answer forum on YouTube, to give you, your fellow activists, and the general public the chance to have a direct, two-way conversation with the candidates for Colorado's open Senate seat.
Wadhams makes me laugh sometimes. Jason Salzman had an interesting chat with him.
Jason: I'm wondering if Congressman Schaffer approves your language?
Wadhams: He approves of the aggressive way we are trying to draw contrasts with Boulder Liberal Mark Udall.
Jason: Will you hook me up with the congressman to see if he approves of you using those words, ass and scumbag?
Wadhams: You can try calling him if you want.
Jason: OK. What's his number?
Wadhams: You know, Jason, you are a liberal partisan. You set yourself up as some kind of objective source. And, Jason, you and I both know you are liberal partisan Democrat.
[ed - but he has no problem talking to the fair and balanced fox news]
Jason: Not true. I try to be fair.
Wadhams: I don't consider you a legitimate reporter, Jason.
Jason: You'll see. I'm fair.
Wadhams: Oh no you're not. Your columns amuse me, but you are a partisan Democrat. Talking to you is like talking to the spokesman of the Democratic Party. We don't have to talk to you.
Jason: Well, I appreciate your talking to me.
Wadhams: I don't have to. I might as well be talking to the press secretary for the Democratic Party.
Jason: That's not true. I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Take that.
Well, I suppose one can't be more fair than just reprinting exactly what was said. Personally, I would have said, so, and you're not a partisan Republican? Just what is a legitimate reporter anyway? One who reprints your press releases no matter how untrue? The ones that take your calls yelling at them? If you can just put your hands over your ears and sing, "La la la, I can't hear you" then why get in a screaming match the other day with Udall press secretary Tara Trujillo? Is screaming at her closer to talking to Helen Thomas or Jason Salzman? I hear from "legitimate reporters" it was quite the scene.
UPDATE - Sufimarie has a good point in the comments. Why will Wadhams and Schaffer only talk to what they consider friendly audiences? Do they not want to talk to, oh I don't know, voters.
"It is now evident that speculators in the energy futures markets play a much larger role than previously thought, and it is now even harder to accept the agency's laughable assertion that excessive speculation has not contributed to rising energy prices," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). He added that it was "difficult to comprehend how the CFTC would allow a trader" to acquire such a large oil inventory "and not scrutinize this position any sooner."
The article goes on for three pages, quoting source after source, on how these firms played monopolizing middle men not to profit off the sale of the oil, but just to profit off the reselling of oil. All this while the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in charge of watch-dogging the industry was asleep at the helm:
The CFTC, which learned about the nature of Vitol's activities only after making an unusual request for data from the firm, now reports that financial firms speculating for their clients or for themselves account for about 81 percent of the oil contracts on NYMEX, a far bigger share than had previously been stated by the agency. That figure may rise in coming weeks as the CFTC checks the status of other big traders.
and:
CFTC documents show Vitol was one of the most active traders of oil on NYMEX as prices reached record levels. By June 6, for instance, Vitol had acquired a huge holding in oil contracts, betting prices would rise. The contracts were equal to 57.7 million barrels of oil -- about three times the amount the United States consumes daily. That day, the price of oil spiked $11 to settle at $138.54. Oil prices eventually peaked at $147.27 a barrel on July 11 before falling back to settle at $114.98 yesterday.
Wanna know who first received an exemption to begin doing this kind of market manipulation: E N R O N.
Yeah, I'm sure I should have been talking about McCain's latest gaff, but this seems a mite more important.
