tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8114733480292395190.post8761573223830238778..comments2023-08-26T07:39:14.787-06:00Comments on Schaffer v Udall: 2008 Colorado Senate Battle: Washington Times: Big Oil Smear Backfiring on Big Blue Lie MachineBen DeGrowhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13834102063921650816noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8114733480292395190.post-80840900084296684562008-07-30T07:40:00.000-06:002008-07-30T07:40:00.000-06:00Oh, okay Ben, so he didn't "cut a deal," he just w...Oh, okay Ben, so he didn't "cut a deal," he just went there to "inform local officials" that Aspect wanted to cut a deal. Thanks for making that all-important distinction.<BR/><BR/>(rolls eyes)<BR/><BR/>And yes, it's too bad Schaffer is fresh out of deceptive Iraq war "gotchas!" isn't it? Now that things are becoming reality-based (as you righties like to say), your boy Schaffer is screwed--ten debates to go and your bogus talking points already have no purchase. I'm going to well and truly enjoy this.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386237347480446823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8114733480292395190.post-78449342827352639612008-07-29T14:50:00.000-06:002008-07-29T14:50:00.000-06:00Sorry I didn't respond to the first comment. It wa...Sorry I didn't respond to the first comment. It was really too silly ... the Pueblo Chieftain? So what? Mark Udall is to be congratulated for doing somewhat better in this debate than the first one where he fell flat, but Bob Schaffer put in another consistently strong performance.<BR/><BR/>Otherwise, your attempts to distract and obfuscate the real issues at hand are worthy of being ignored.Ben DeGrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834102063921650816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8114733480292395190.post-85194474519272374832008-07-29T14:47:00.000-06:002008-07-29T14:47:00.000-06:00Schaffer said what he meant, and what he said was ...Schaffer said what he meant, and what he said was the truth. His professional role during his one visit to the region was not to cut a deal, and he didn't cut a deal. He led what is known as a "business entry" mission, which included scientific and governmental research, as well as various meetings to inform local officials of Aspect Energy's interest in a possible contract. That reality just doesn't seem to fit your pre-ordained narrative. Facts often can be inconvenient.<BR/><BR/>We at SvU investigated for ourselves, as did Ross Kaminsky - which reporters seemed not to have done. You can choose to tar us with invective and ad hominem, or you can investigate, as well. It's easy to do, if you're not too invested in your own silly "Big Oil Bob" propaganda to risk finding the truth.Ben DeGrowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13834102063921650816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8114733480292395190.post-53754368862782689972008-07-29T14:27:00.000-06:002008-07-29T14:27:00.000-06:00While we're on the subject, do you have any explan...While we're on the subject, do you have any explanation for this?<BR/><BR/>"It was untruthful in that I didn't cut a deal with the Iraqis, with the Kurds. That's not why I went there."<BR/><BR/>Which defies, as you may be aware, the entire known record reported by every major newspaper in the state about Schaffer's trip to northern Iraq on behalf of Aspect Energy. What do you suppose he meant by this statement?<BR/><BR/>Don't hurt yourself trying to contort out an answer...Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386237347480446823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8114733480292395190.post-11931280701228921092008-07-29T06:29:00.000-06:002008-07-29T06:29:00.000-06:00Kick ass, Ben, you go right on trumpeting your one...Kick ass, Ben, you go right on trumpeting your one outlier poll and <I>Moonie Times</I> article. If you really think Dick Wadhams' and the Republicans' naked deceptions on the energy issue ("Democrats have halted exploration for 20 years," etc.) are going to stick for the next 100 days, you're the one who's going to feel "silly" on Election Day.<BR/><BR/>The Pueblo Chieftain says Udall wasn't taking the bait at yesterday's debate--where's your witty rejoinder? No resolutions to selectively quote?<BR/><BR/>http://www.chieftain.com/articles/2008/07/29/news/denver_bureau/doc488ead1497b5f703631407.txt<BR/><BR/><I>Congressman Mark Udall came out swinging Monday against GOP challenger Bob Schaffer in the second of nearly a dozen planned debates in their U.S. Senate race.<BR/><BR/>Udall, a five-term congressman, repeatedly attacked Schaffer on his energy stance, calling the former congressman an oil executive who likes to see high gas prices.<BR/><BR/>Schaffer countered that Udall's attack is just what the American people are tired of hearing - politicians bickering while motorists pay more than $4 a gallon at the pump.<BR/><BR/>"I think any time Mark Udall defends high gasoline prices, it sends a clear message to voters," Schaffer said immediately following the debate.<BR/><BR/>"They heard a promise to continue a commitment to restricted energy development. Listen, I'm just in favor of putting every option on the table and pursuing every strategy to lower energy prices," Schaffer said. Udall said Schaffer is more <B>beholden to the same oil companies for which he once worked, adding that the former congressman only mentioned renewable energy once on the floor of the U.S. House during his eight years in Congress.</B><BR/><BR/>"There's a clear contrast here," Udall said. "I'm clearly somebody who's going to work across the board to drive down gas prices. Congressman Schaffer talks about the situation we're in, <B>but he doesn't acknowledge that he played a key roll in getting us in this situation."</B></I><BR/><BR/>This is an education issue, Ben, and there's plenty of time to make the case before November. And fortunately for us, our case does not rely on the presumed ignorance of the voters.Alanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386237347480446823noreply@blogger.com