Of Charlie Rangel & Susie Tompkins-Buell: Mark Udall on Campaign Finance "Ethics"

With Friday's report from the Rocky Mountain News that Mark Udall refuses to return contributions from admitted tax cheat (and fellow Democratic Congressman) Charlie Rangel, the list continues to grow of dirty money flowing into the Udall campaign.

After all, Mark Udall is the only candidate in this U.S. Senate race to take campaign contributions from jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Do you remember Norman Hsu, indicted for federal campaign finance violations? Yes, Mark Udall gave $1,000 of his Hsu money to charity. But as blogger Chris Rodriguez pointed out last year:

On top of the $1,000 he's giving back, let's not forget the $5,000 he got from the Hsu funded "For A Change PAC", the $10,000 from the Hsu funded "Searchlight Leadership Fund" (Harry Reid's PAC), and $40,000 from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees, also recipients of large Hsu donations.

Norman Hsu. Charlie Rangel. What about Susie Tompkins-Buell?

[Tompkins-Buell's company] Esprit de Corp. was found by the National Labor Relations Board to have illegally interrogated and intimidated $2-an-hour Chinese workers, and then to have shut down a factory to keep them from unionizing. The Department of Labor found that an Esprit contractor doctored payroll records and refused to pay overtime.

Tompkins-Buell - whose "sweatshop" problems were detailed at length in the far-Left Nation magazine on May 16, 1994 - later sold Esprit for millions of dollars, which she now uses as a prominent Democratic Party fundraiser.

According to the Federal Elections Commission, Susie Tompkins-Buell and her husband Mark Buell each gave $2,300 to Mark Udall's campaign on June 19, 2007. Both Tompkins-Buell and her husband list San Francisco as their residence. Also on June 19, the Udall campaign took in nearly $50,000 from a series of San Francisco area contributors - his largest one-day California take in all of 2007. On May 31, 2007 - 19 days before all the funds poured in - the Udall campaign reported paying Tompkins-Buell $972.50 for "event personnel."

So was the retired "sweatshop" owner Susie Tompkins-Buell not only giving thousands to the Mark Udall campaign, but also organizing a $50,000 fundraiser for him? It sure looks that way.

And the Mark Udall campaign has the audacity to say what?

"Bob Schaffer may be the most ethically challenged candidate ever to run for office in Colorado," [Udall spokeswoman Tara] Trujillo said. "When Jack Abramoff's candidate rattles off about campaign contributions, he's getting really desperate."

More ethically challenged than Mark Udall, taking and keeping money from Jack Abramoff, Norman Hsu, Charlie Rangel, and Susie Tompkins-Buell? Puh-lease.

Reminder for Slow-Learning Left about Mark Udall, Harry Reid, and Jack Abramoff

A certain Lefty blogger betrayed the chronic case of self-denial that is plaguing the Big Blue Lie Machine (aka Mark Udall campaign surrogates) following the less-than-effective attempt to smear Republican candidate Bob Schaffer with innuendo, half-truths, and exaggeration.

Referring to Dick Wadhams, the Lefty blogger in the chorus writes:

It's now 2008 and his "bloggers" (if they are indeed that) efforts to spin for Bob Schaffer are amusing. Case in point, trying to allege that Mark Udall and Harry Reid have any connection to Jack Abramoff. [Link Added]

As usual, we are pleased to provide links to helpful information, because we can't assume that every Lefty blogger has read every post here.

So here's a blast from the recent past ("Five Unanswered Jack Abramoff Questions from Vote-Switching Mark Udall") that reporters and political observers might wish to review.

Let's start with the most absurd point in the Lefty blogger's characteristic off-the-cuff rant. It takes a certain brand of brash, self-imposed partisan blindness to assert the connection between Harry Reid and Jack Abramoff is merely alleged. Further, other links included in the post we wrote highlight Mark Udall's connection to Harry Reid, and yes, the money he accepted from Jack Abramoff firms - money that has a clear correlation with Udall's votes on Abramoff's Internet gambling legislation.

(And it's not that difficult to figure out who the contributors to Schaffer v Udall are.)

Memo to Lefty bloggers (and the rest of the Big Blue Lie Machine): Self-denial and self-imposed partisan blindness only reflect your inability to convince anyone beyond your fellow Kool-Aid drinkers.

Here's another approach you should consider: Wrestle with the facts. Think for yourselves. Open your minds. Be honest with yourselves, so we can have an honest debate.

On second thought, keep living in your fantasy world, contriving accusations, and making this blog the issue. It's more entertaining.

Five Unanswered Jack Abramoff Questions from Vote-Switching Mark Udall

The Left wanted to make Jack Abramoff an issue, so rather than change the subject we're willing to explore it further. In light of recent revelations that Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall "accepted campaign contributions from jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff – contributions that correspond to Udall’s change in position on Internet gambling legislation," here are a few questions that should clear the public record:

1. Has Mark Udall ever met Jack Abramoff? Bob Schaffer hasn't.

2. Did Jack Abramoff ever attend a Mark Udall fundraiser to drop off checks from his PAC?

3. Did Jack Abramoff or any of his associates lobby Mark Udall to change his position on the Internet gambling legislation?

4. Knowing that Mark Udall is one of the top golfers in Congress and Jack Abramoff was a notorious golfer, did they ever hit the links together?

5. If Mark Udall is disgusted enough with Jack Abramoff finally to return $1,500 in PAC contributions made 6 or more years ago, what about the $10,000 Udall has collected from Harry Reid's Searchlight Leadership Fund PAC? Among his many connections to the imprisoned ex-lobbyist, Reid collected more than $68,000 from Abramoff and Company.

Big Blue Lie Machine Spits out Unsubstantiated Abramoff Slime Job

The memo apparently has gone out from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Mark Udall campaign: When all other attacks fail, conjure up the Jack Abramoff bogeyman to attack Republican opponent Bob Schaffer.

You've probably already read it, but go back and peruse today's slime job dumped through the Denver Post, and find out what actual connection there is between Abramoff and Schaffer. No, go ahead and read - I'm waiting.

You saw a lot of innuendo and insinuation and character assassination, but no connection. We're used to seeing this kind of political mudslinging and guilt by third-degree association from many of the Lefty blogs, but it's a little more striking when one of Denver's major newspapers would write a headline and a lead that creates an unsubstantiated smear on a public official's character.

First, there's the mundane fact that we don't find until the 30th paragraph in the Post story: The trip was sponsored and paid for by the Traditional Values Coalition. Not Jack Abramoff. Sorry, Lefty conspiracists.

Then there's the revelation that Schaffer has never met, talked with, or taken money from Abramoff - none of which comes out until the 16th paragraph. Thus the Post facilitates Schaffer's sliming.

For contrast, how about a real example of a member of Congress tainted by Jack Abramoff corruption? Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid took Abramoff donations, met regularly with the criminal lobbyist, and wrote letters for Abramoff's clients, while Abramoff hired a high-ranking Reid staff member.

In the article, Mark Udall's spokesperson uses a vile form of sophistry:

"Given that many Republican members, including Tom DeLay, Bob Ney and Conrad Burns, have lost their seat or gone to prison based on their association with this criminal, it's pretty remarkable that Schaffer seems to be proud of his association with these sleazy Abramoff-sponsored junkets," said Taylor West, a spokeswoman for Schaffer's Democratic opponent, Mark Udall.

Nothing new there from West. It's time for the Big Blue Lie Machine and its surrogate the Denver Post to put away the Abramoff card, and start dealing with the facts.

Competing for the Left Vote

Claire Ryder, Chairwoman of the Denver Green Party objected to the Denver Post article announcing the entry of Bob Kinsey into the US Senate race. Her objection came in the form of a letter to the editor that stated in part:

With more than 70 percent of the American public against the occupation of Iraq and a majority of the American public in favor of impeachment [according to some polls], I would hardly call this a “narrow group.” [ Mark ] Udall’s insistence of continuing the funding of the war, in the guise of “supporting of troops,” is unpopular with many of his potential voters. These well-informed voters have been following his voting record in Congress.

Her facts are wrong, or at best outdated. If they were right, Harry Reid would again opine that "The war is lost" and be scheduling weekly defunding votes like he was last Spring. We haven't heard a peep out of Congress in months.

Read the rest, here.

On No One's Top Ten Lists

The AP has it's top ten Colorado list out. It is a bit lame. Well, it is more than a bit lame. We thought we could do better with a list of things that didn't make the top ten in Colorado, in no particular order. They didn't make the top ten because they didn't happen. Oh, well!

1. Despite much wishful hoping on the left, the Colorado US Senate race is not a Mark Udall runaway.
2. Caroline Bninski spent Christmas with friends and family, not in jail where Mark Udall and his staff tried to put her for a year. How inconvenient!
3. Neither Mark Udall nor his staff seem to have lied to the public or members of Congress in the last week, setting a new record if not for truthfulness, at least for silence.
4. Rush Limbaugh wasn't humiliated by Mark Udall's Congressional resolution which was written in a way to be an unsophisticated falsehood. No member of the Colorado delegation co-sponsored Udall's anti-Limbaugh resolution.
5. The US didn't cut and run when Harry Reid pontificated "This War is Lost." Nor did Udall object when Nancy Pelosi held useless vote after vote to defund the war.
6. Mark Udall didn't convince Bill Ritter to nix gas drilling on the Roan Plateau.
7. Mark Udall didn't cosponsor the loon in the attic's Department of Peace bill this year, and it is reported that Mark Udall also didn't see a UFO.
8. The Gazette hasn't called Mark Udall an "extremist" for six months, but many of his liberal friends have made certain that he can't claim to be a centrist.
9. Colorado didn't have a roadless wilderness mega forest fire in 2007, but there is still time for one to occur in 2008.
10. The Denver Post hasn't made it's obligatory election year claim that Mark Udall is a "moderate" or "centrist."

List making is so much fun. We're wondering if we are on Bill Ritter's enemies list, yet. We're doing our best.

Catching Up With Democrat Lies - There are so many

We were busily working on another project this weekend and now find that we have fifty Google alerts to go through for our various blogs. This is a partial catch-up post.

One of the accidental themes of this blog is now the willingness of liberals to lie for their "cause," and be nasty or sometimes stupid about it. While David Sirota's current lie is about the political mess Bill Ritter has created for himself and doesn't mention Mark Udall at all, it illustrates the depths that liberals sink to when they are in power to stay in power. John Andrews takes Sirota to task for his latest lie, but is too polite to actually call Sirota a liar:

This weekend, in one of his most overheated blog posts yet -- which is saying something for a commentator who operates close to Fahrenheit 451 at all times -- Sirota hit a new high in slicing and dicing the plain facts.

Gentleman Bob Beauprez obviously took great pleasure in observing that John Murtha has decided that the "surge" is working after all. While he won't call Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Harry Reid political liars intent on damaging our country for political gain, we will.

From Harry Reid’s “this war is lost” and Pelosi’s “The escalation (Surge) has failed to produce the intended results” to Clinton’s September rebuke of Gen. Petraeus (”The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief”), the Democrats have invested their future in failure by America’s finest.

We would be remiss not to note that this weekend Bill Ritter got accused of being either a liar or terminally stupid (our words, not the Denver Post's).

Either Gov. Bill Ritter knowingly deceived Coloradans and sold them a bill of goods with his executive order on labor unions, or he doesn't understand the law.

While we were gone, another obvious Mark Udall lie (hopefully it was a lie) surfaced regarding his sponsoring a peace department bill at the urging of high school students. It reminded us of Jimmy Carter's famous claim (hopefully it was a lie) during the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate as related by Wikipedia:

[ Ronald ] Reagan would have none of it, and it came as no surprise, then, when the candidates repeatedly clashed over the nuclear weapons issue in their debate. But it was Carter's reference to his consultation with 12 year old daughter Amy concerning nuclear weapons policy that became the focus of post-debate analysis and late-night television jokes.

Schaffer's Optimism, Passion, and Focus Shine at Jeffco GOP Event

As the early phase of Colorado's U.S. Senate campaign unfolds, Bob Schaffer is clearly exuding a growing confidence as he delivers a commonsense conservative message. Tonight at a well-attended event sponsored by the Mountain Republican Women (in west Jefferson County, for the uninitiated), Schaffer delivered a powerful keynote speech that picked a somewhat wearied and skeptical crowd off the ground and fired them up for the 2008 election.

Schaffer noted that he is more optimistic about the prospects of his candidacy and that of the GOP than he has been for many months. Considering that he has been in the race for 5 months and Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall has been angling for the seat since 2004, it is a good sign that the contest polls as a dead heat. The former 4th District Congressman's fundraising has been steady and solid but, in a race that will cost the winner at least $12 million, can use more help.

An articulate and charismatic candidate with a clear focus, Schaffer stands on an increasingly well-developed, three-fold platform of:
1) Tax relief
2) Foreign policy strength
3) Border enforcement and responsible immigration policy

The first point gives the Republican a big hammer to drive home, especially if Udall decides to support something outlandish like Rep. Charlie Rangel's economy-busting boondoggle proposal. On the second point, with mounting evidence of success, the issue of Iraq is disappearing off the Democrats' table much more quickly than they would like - leaving only echoes of Sen. Harry Reid ready to toss in the white flag on our troops. On the third point, Schaffer quipped to one questioner that he could not vote for amnesty lest he lose the support of his own mother.

Without losing an eye on his longterm strategy of reaching out to unaffiliated voters, Schaffer is working hard to unify a wounded party one phone call at a time. Talking to party activists and supporters who pour out their anger and frustration at the infidelity to core principles displayed by many GOP officials, Schaffer said he typically tells them, "Hey, I'm a frustrated Republican, too."

Schaffer closed with his dramatic delivery of Patrick Henry's famous "Give Me Liberty" speech, which only serves to remind you of this candidate's passion, depth, and devotion to the cause of liberty and self-government. These are the values dear to the hearts of most Coloradans, not those represented by Udall. The more voters learn about the real man, the more this race will tilt away from the out-of-orbit predictions by liberal Democrats to a repeat of Sen. Wayne Allard's victories in 1996 and 2002.

Watch out, Udall.

Mark Udall Update: Resolution Introduced Late Monday Night

Looks like Mark Udall finally followed through on his promise to introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh:

U.S. Rep. Mark Udall offered legislation Monday condemning talk-show host Rush Limbaugh for remarks he made about "phony soldiers."

"Congress should make clear that Mr. Limbaugh's use of the term 'phony soldiers' is beneath contempt," Udall said.
. . .
Udall's resolution, introduced Monday night, says that Congress condemns "the personal attacks made by the broadcaster Rush impugning the integrity and professionalism of Americans serving in the Armed Forces."

There were 19 co-sponsors Monday night. None were from Colorado.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked other senators to sign a letter of censure.

This will make a nice campaign ad next year, as Udall's attempt to placate his left flank by politicizing the military in a cheap use of a phony smear only reveals his truly immoderate positions.

The only thing "beneath contempt" is the political grandstanding by Udall and other Democrats based on a debunked "scandal".

As pointed out over at Schaffer v Udall, is the would-be Senator simply groveling to the MoveOn crowd and throwing them a bone--and thus moving further to the left and out of Ken Salazar and Bill Ritter's "middle-of-the-road" moderate Democrat positioning, while not actually enjoying any accolades (indeed being criticized and opposed for his "meaningless resolution") from his supposed supporters?

More at Slapstick Politics, including earlier pre-resolution analysis.

A Change in Strategy and Messenger

It looks like the Senate Democrats aren't quite as anxious as Mark Udall to put Republicans on record as wanting to politicize the military. Now, Harry Reid is asking them to voluntarily sign a letter to the President of Clear Channel condemning Rush Limbaugh.

“On Friday, many Democrats joined me in drafting a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel, Mark Mays that we will send out this week.

Oh, Friday, eh? The same day Mark Udall was peddling his embarrassing draft.

Reid's letter tries to make the point that Udall made without putting Congress on record as politicizing the military:

Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.

One wonders if this language suggests that Harry "The War is Lost" Reid and his band of merry Senate Democrats have now come around to the position that American soldiers should be "fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted." Hopefully, someone will ask Mark Udall and Harry Reid if they now favor the war and its goals or if these are just more empty words from empty suits.

If they are the latter, they only embarrass themselves further.

Sheep "Lover" Goes Postal

Wendy Norris is ranting 50,000 watts of hate over Bob Schaffer's easily defensible comments that Harry Reid is trying to lose the war for political advantage:

but at the same time, for the sake of political advantage I think it's foolish to behave the way you see people like Harry Reid and other, others who are leading the Senate right now, that I think are trying to, at the end, the analysis of their achievement and what they are effectively accomplishing is a deliberate loss and a surrender in Iraq for the sake of their political advantage at election time in 2008. I think they're hoping America loses.

Wasn't it Harry Reid who solemnly announced that "The war is lost" six months ago after one big car bomb went off? Did anyone notice how quickly Democrat Senators distanced themselves from that comment? Isn't Harry Reid the Senate Leader who is orchestrating vote after vote to defund the war? Aren't Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the two leaders most responsible for a Congressional approval rating that is lower than President Bush because of their pro-defeat tactics?

Wendy Norris, who is paid handsomely to be nasty to Republicans, implies that Bob Schaffer called Harry Reid "a traitor" when all he did was to describe what Reid was doing. If Norris sees Reid as a traitor from Schaffer's description, which she doesn't dispute, then Reid might well be walking close to the edge of that abyss.

The last time Wendy Norris ranted "50,000 watts of hate," it was over a new law which made it a crime to learn as much about individual sheep as she apparently suggested she wants to learn. As always, she was tastelessly blaming a totally innocent and uninvolved Republican who wasn't in the legislature when the law was passed. (h/t Colorado Confidential)

We wrote about it here.

A reminder to left wing blogs: If you are dumb enough to put on your blog the kind of stupid, tasteless, mindless stuff that gets you snickers at your private parties and then write about Bob Schaffer, we are quite happy to send Mark Udall down the slide we have described and see what sticks. A candidate is best known by his supporters.