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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
This new Vote Vets ad will be airing in the Denver and Springs markets starting today. To help keep it on the air, Vote Vets is asking for donations.
Transcript from the ad:
"I went to Iraq for my country. Bob Schaffer went to Iraq for a big oil company. I tried to secure peace in Iraq. Bob Schaffer tried to secure an oil deal in Iraq. Our time in Iraq left thousands with head trauma. Bob Schaffer's time in Iraq helped land a contract for oil. Too many vets can't get the care they need. Congressman Schaffer voted against billions in funds for veterans. We fought for our country. Why hasn't Bob Schaffer fought for us?"
Schaffer's record speaks for itself (from press release):
Schaffer was often only one of a small handful of Congressmen who voted against the annual appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs, including Fiscal Years 2000 (Oct 14, 1999), 2001 (Oct 19, 2000), 2002 (July 31, 2001 and Nov 8, 2001). These bills appropriated billions in funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
On October 6, 1998, Schaffer voted against the VA-HUD Appropriations Conference Report which provided $93.4 billion in funding for veterans and other programs in Fiscal Year 1999. Schaffer was only one of 14 to vote against the bill.
On October 30, 2001, Schaffer voted against funding Veterans Affairs Medical Programs to a level that would ensure that all of the programs were fully funded.
Our side has 527s too Dick. This makes the whole Udall missed a vote, Udall missed a vote, look like a child's tantrum. Well, it already looked like that.
So, inside yesterday's debate was even more interesting:
[Reporter/Debate Panelist Lynn Bartels]: "Bob, when you are on the campaign trail, you always pull out that tiny [piece of solar cell material]...you probably have it with you now so you can show people...that you've touted as the cutting edge of solar research. How much of your home is solar-powered?"
[Schaffer]: "My home isn't...well, to the extent..."
[Bartels]: "Do you have solar panels at your house?"
[Schaffer]: "We have windows at our house."
What's worse, Udall, Green Party candidate Bob Kinsey, and even fringe candidate Doug Campbell all said their homes use solar energy.
But, you know, that's okay because at least Bob's pocket is solar powered.
update below Colorado Pols has already referenced the antics of the Schaffer crowd out front of today's debate.
Now comes word that those antics include screaming chants of "Drill here, drill now". That would be great guys, why don't your oil company over lords go drill on the millions of acres of land they already have leases for. You can't have your pudding if you don't eat your meat. That was how Pink Floyd put it, but I remember hearing something different in a Russian accent from my grandmother as a child. It seems we now have to treat the republicans and their oil company overlords just like the children they seem to be.
I seems Schaffer's supporters also like to use a bullhorn directly into other people's ears. Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. I expect video up of this soon.
Another incident included a Schaffer shill pushing a nearly 70 year old Udall supporter for getting too close with his sign. What a way to represent Bob Schaffer. Picking on old people. Thanks Bob!
Speaking of thanks Bob:
Yes, Bob Schaffer helped Big oil get $33 Billion in tax cuts(updated from "million" - Ed.) when he was in the house, and now he's trying to give them even more areas to drill when they're not even using all of the extremely cheap leases for oil drilling they already have.
Nearly three-fourths of the 40 million acres of public land currently leased for oil and gas development in the continental United States outside Alaska isn't producing any oil or gas, federal records show, even as the Bush administration pushes to open more environmentally sensitive public lands for oil and gas development.
Why do Bob Schaffer and his shills want access to more offshore drilling? Gas prices are just a trojan horse that will do next to nothing to lower gas prices. It's nothing more than bending the United States over for Big Oil's even more obscene profits.
Update Video from the event:
So they want to drill, eh? What are they waiting for? There are nearly 30 Million acres of land in the lower 48 states already leased to Big Oil that they're not drilling on. If drilling everywhere really was the answer, why aren't they drilling here and now already?
Not that we exactly needed an extra open thread but I wanted to draw your attention to a few extra things I noticed while surfing the inter-tubes.
The Swing State Project noticed the National Education Association's PAC just filed notice of a $400,000 media buy against Bob Schaffer. In the last debate Schaffer seemed proud to formerly be on the board of a 527 extolling the virtues of free speech. How do you feel now Bob? This comes on the heels of a League of Conservation Voters media buy against Schaffer.
A phone number being used by callers hoping to score tickets to Barack Obama's Mile High acceptance speech is experiencing difficulties.
Several callers to the number, 888-468-7404, said they haven't been able to get through after repeated calls and have been connecting to a busy signal.
Calls by The Denver Post through the morning have also found busy signals
The DNCC announced half seats at Mile High will be reserved, free, for Coloradans, and it's news the phone lines are jammed? Gee.
Bwaaahahahahaaaaaa. The Washington Times has an expose on the use of profanity on liberal blogs. Yeah, well, I f*cking learned it from Dick Wadhams.
Finally the righties have something legitimate to complain about Mark Udall. Yesterday he missed a key vote that could have been the one that tipped the scale to keep congress in session to work on energy issues. Yep, looks like a lot of congresscritters just wanted to call it a day (or month) and go home.
Udall spokeswoman Taylor West said the Boulder County lawmaker was on his way back to Washington at the time and that the vote was called with only 10 minutes' notice. Udall asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to delay the vote without success, and the resolution passed by one vote, 213-212.
...
West said that her boss would send a letter to Pelosi today objecting to the fact that the vote wasn't delayed long enough for him to make it from the Washington airport to the Capitol.
Sure, the righties are going to squawk and squawk about this one. But, late by 10 minutes? How can one legitimately say Udall doesn't care about this issue, when he was 10 minutes away? Sure it looks bad, and it gives Schaffer something to help sink his teeth into Mark Udall's ankle, but 10 minutes? How late has Bob Schaffer been to working on renewable energy issues? A lot longer than 10 minutes.
There was a very interesting part in a DenverPost story on Monday following the 2nd Udall-Schaffer debate concerning renewable energy:
[Schaffer] even blasted Udall for missing a key 2004 vote to extend a renewable energy tax credit. (Though the Wind Energy Association news release about the vote sent to reporters by the Schaffer campaign also called Udall "vital in gaining this extension" and Udall's campaign said he missed the vote while visiting troops in Iraq.)
Here's a part of that letter:
"Gaining the PTC extension became a reality through the cooperative leadership of Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Rep. Bill Thomas (R-CA)," said AWEA Legislative Director Jaime Steve. "AWEA is also very appreciative of strong efforts by Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Harry Reid (D-NV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Gordon Smith (R-OR), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Tom Harkin (D-IA) and many others," Steve said. "On the House side, Reps. Jim McCrery (R-LA), Mark Foley (R-FL), Bob Matsui (D-CA), Jerry Weller (R-IL), Ron Kind (D-WI), Jay Inslee (D-WA), Mark Udall (D-CO) and Greg Walden (R-OR) were vital in gaining this extension."
Colorado Pols was quick to point out how stupid Wadhams must be for sending out an old press release meant to attack Udall, when it actually praises his work on renewable energy and specifically his work on this tax credit bill. Maybe there's some secret plan here, and Wadhams is a genius...
Apparently Bob Schaffer, John McCain, and George Bush think the solution to gas prices is more drilling. Why, polls even say Coloradans like the idea of drilling off our coasts. How nice thats a favorable solution in a land-locked state. I didn't know we were such a bunch of nimby selfish morons.
How nice that now people are screaming about gas prices, suddenly they have a solution. What the hell were they and their oil executive enablers doing in the last eight years as gas prices were rising from $1.30 a gallon? Oh, that's right, Bob Schaffer was voting to give those oil companies even more tax cuts. If that was supposed to allow them to invest in more exploration and drilling, which should increase supply, we'd see oil prices drop. Gee, that didn't happen did it?
If Schaffer and Wadhams want to highlight his energy industry experience as a positive for this state, let them go ahead and do that.
More drilling isn't the answer and never will. There just aren't enough milkshakes to go around. We're drinking it up faster than we can put straws in each cup we find.
In short, the system has reached its limit. Today's oil use outpaces new oil discoveries, with the world using about 12 billion more barrels per year than it finds.8 The growing imbalance between supply and demand means record high crude prices and the threat of more skyrocketing costs caused by even mild supply disruptions.
On the flip is the answer that goes on the offensive.
[update] Currently this poll on Ritter is being hammered by wing-nuts.
[update2] If you want proof their drill more has nothing to do with lowering gas prices just look at how they voted to open the strategic oil reserve:
Oil prices reversed course and moved higher Thursday in U.S. trading after a move in Congress to tap into the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve was defeated. ... At a press conference before the vote, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, pointed out that previous releases from the oil reserve had knocked down prices, sometimes significantly: 33 percent in 1991, 19 percent in 2000 and nine percent in 2005.
There are now two ads out attacking Mark Udall. One is a radio ad from someone called American Future Fund. The other is a tv ad from Coloradans for Economic Growth. Sounds pretty good right? Here's the video. Let's go through this bit by bit.
Of course first they start off with taxes and taxes, oh my. "Udall voted for higher taxes 50 times. Really? How'd did you add up that number? I emailed the Udall campaign to ask about this line. It took them a while, but they got back to me saying that Udall has voted to lower taxes a whole bunch more. They'll even list the roll call votes for you. Nice research guys. [update] The roll call votes are now on Udall's website
Next there's something about raising taxes a whole bunch. What the hell are they talking about?
While Bob voted for massive tax cuts for the already obscenely profitable oil industry? Hey, you notice those are the oil companies that want to drill up our coasts like a bunch of milkshakes, when they already a whole vat of milkshake in the basement, still untouched. This guy later became an oil executive. Schaffer ran an oil company just as the gas prices started to sky rocket. Brother, please!
So, don't talk to me about taxes. Every proposed tax increase still doesn't restore the Bush tax cuts. And as always, there the Trillions being spend in Iraq each year that could pay for an awful lot of health care and educational programs.
Later they squeal, "Udall stood with extremist groups.
Yet, the Rocky said, "Udall may be the most moderate-leaning Democrat to represent the 2nd District in a generation." [11/2/00] There are a few others in the Post and Camera. Sorry, get your own Lexis account.
The 2nd rule of blogxygen says that one shouldn't link to silly little neo-cons who think none of us notice they're lying their butts off, thus drawing other's attention to their blather. The 5th rule of blogxygen is that there may be times when the claims are that outrageous as many people possible should see the neo-con electronically depantsed. (The first rule of blogxygen submits we should not tell the other side about this idea, but in this case, I'm thinking the 5th rule is more important.)
BTW, this is the same idiot, that the Denver Post's new media site, let post twice about this topic here and here.
So I'd first like to draw your attention to this passage.
Riley then moves on to try to taint Schaffer with the unpopular Tom DeLay, mentioning that DeLay had helped Ben Fitial become Speaker and mentioning an aide of DeLay's who "was later mentioned in plea agreements...involving Abramoff." What any of this has to do with Schaffer's friendship with and endorsement of Benigno Fitial is beyond my grasp.
