Mark Udall's Votes Abet Economic Crisis, Aided by Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Money

When it comes to the current economic crisis, liberal Washington insider Mark Udall once again proves he is more a part of the problem than of the solution. In February 2005, then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned Congress of letting the bloated institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to grow with low capital and high risk.

On October 26, 2005, Udall voted against amendments that would have added capital to the mortgage lending giants and authorized them to sell off or acquire assets or liabilities, "if an asset or liability is deemed to be a potential systemic risk to the housing market, the capital markets or the financial system."

Let's be honest here. There are Democrats and Republicans in Congress who screwed up by making these votes. Mark Udall is with them on the wrong side of history.

More interestingly, according to the Federal Election Commission, Mark Udall has taken $3,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now that's not nearly as much as Barack Obama has taken from the failed financial institutions.

And it's not as much as Udall has taken from tax cheat Charlie Rangel's PAC, from retired sweatshop owner Susie Tompkins-Buell, or from campaign finance violator Norman Hsu, and twice as much as Udall received from jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Just trying to put things in perspective.

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.

Rossputin Begins to Dismantle Big Blue Lie Machine Slander of Bob Schaffer

A couple months ago we responded vigorously to the Denver Post's trumped up slander about former Rep. Bob Schaffer and a 1999 trip he made to the Marianas Islands. Starting today, Colorado blogger Rossputin takes the investigation even more in-depth with the first of an eight-part series, based on research and interviews, that dismantles the Big Blue Lie Machine's assertions piece by piece. An excerpt from today's edition:

According to the former [Schaffer] staffer, “We never worked with Jack Abramoff. As a matter of fact, I never met him until months after Bob retired – and I would have met him had he been involved with our office in any way since I was aware of all of Bob’s meetings. ”.

And according to Schaffer himself, “Remember, most people including me hadn’t heard of Jack Abramoff in those days. Preston Gates was just another lobbying firm.” In fact, after serving three terms in Congress, Schaffer honored his term-limit pledge and did not run for re-election in 2002, whereas the scandals surrounding Abramoff did not come to light until 2005. Schaffer added, “…my trip to the Marianas was paid for by the Traditional Values Coalition. Furthermore, I did not accept anybody else’s schedule as to where and when to go on the island during my investigation of the labor and ‘forced abortion’ claims.”

Indeed, if Preston Gates were close to Bob Schaffer, why did they never, as a firm or Abramoff as an individual, contribute to Schaffer’s campaigns or PAC, as they did for Mark Udall?

Read the whole thing, and bookmark Rossputin's site to follow the coming editions of this report.

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.

"Desperate Hypocrisy" in Liberal Media Columnist's Calls to Question Jack Abramoff

Bob Agard, one of Colorado's more insightful bloggers, has highlighted the "desperate hypocrisy" of the Left in trying to make their feeble charges against Bob Schaffer stick:

Jason Salzman, in his lefty On The Media column in today's Rocky Mountain News, wants reporters to try to talk directly to [jailed lobbyist Jack] Abramoff. Yes, that's right, now the left is taking the desperate last ditch tactic of trying to get Abramoff to say that he had some ties with Schaffer! The vile, corrupt, jailed lobbyist is now going to be the left's last best hope to revive the story! They have painted him as completely corrupt, but now hope he will say that he did have ties to Schaffer! That's called trying to have it both ways, or having your cake and eating it too. The hypocrisy never ends.

On his blog, the liberal Salzman follows up by using a clever angle to try to push Rocky reporter M.E. Sprengelmeyer to follow up on the case:

Abramoff ordered a couple suits when he was making big bucks ripping off American Indians and others, but he couldn’t pay for the suits because he went bankrupt when authorities caught him.

The Rocky’s Sprengelmeyer, who was roughly the same size as Abramoff, snapped up Abramoff’s suits at a bargain rate from the fancy tailor in Washington DC.

So, situated in Washington and possibly even wearing Abramoff’s clothes, Sprengelmeyer is in a great position to find answers to troubling Abramoff-related questions that have popped up lately in Denver.

Was Schaffer or his staff doing Abramoff’s bidding in defending the immigration policies of the Marianas Islands that resulted in forced abortions and other worker abuse?

I hope Sprengelmeyer does everything he can to find out. The Rocky has some catching up to do.

Great idea, Mr. Salzman. I can almost imagine Mr. Sprengelmeyer arranging an appointment to interview Abramoff in federal prison: "Hey, Jack, let me tell you this story how I got your pants...."

Bob Agard's point is dead-on: The Left's attacks have descended into desperation and hypocrisy. Interestingly, in both his column and his blog, Salzman couldn't be bothered to even drop a mention of the questions remaining in the actual reported connection between Jack Abramoff and Mark Udall. Of the two candidates, Udall was the one to actually take Abramoff money.

Mr. Salzman is upset that his newspaper hasn't joined in the attempt to wring every last drop out of the smear story on Bob Schaffer, but he can pretend the barely touched story of Mark Udall's connections to Jack Abramoff doesn't exist.

Desperation and hypocrisy, indeed.

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.

Evidence Turns "Honest Debate" Re Bob Schaffer and Marianas Against Big Blue Lie Machine

Lefty propagandist Alan accuses me of fearing an honest debate because I have yet to respond directly to his following colorful characterization:

You're right about the money being perceptual and subjective--even though you and Wadhams hoped to use it as a shield against the real questions, which involve Schaffer's "Potemkin village" tour of the CNMI, and his subsequent official actions that were precisely aligned with the Abramoff strategy of stalling reform in the territory. This is about how Bob Schaffer, either willingly or negligently, abetted a scheme that deprived workers of basic rights (and even their unborn children) for the enrichment of Chinese nationals who wanted to manufacture their products in the same sweatshop conditions found in China while still being able to label them "Made in the USA." This is about Schaffer's unyielding and deeply troubling opposition to human rights reform in the CNMI, reforms which Udall co-sponsored repeatedly while Schaffer took parasailing trips to Saipan and declared the situation there a "model" for the rest of the country. This is about how Schaffer enabled a medieval nightmare of abuse and exploitation on American soil, a nightmare that is only now ending with a different majority party in Congress.

My question is whether Alan (not to mention absurdicus, Taylor West, or the rest of the Big Blue Lie Machine) has actually read or looked at any of the Congressional oversight hearings on the CNMI issue in which Bob Schaffer participated. If he (or they) had, he probably wouldn't be so brazen about using the term "Potemkin village tour" or stating that Bob Schaffer was opposed to reform in the territory.

Here is the key excerpt from Schaffer's testimony at the oversight hearings** (Note that this was Congressional testimony made under oath):

I went to Saipan and spent five days. Visited probably eight or nine factories in the time that we were there. And, with the exception of two or three, all were unannounced. We literally showed up based on testimony we had taken from other workers that we had heard off-premises of work sites and worked kind of backwards. Found out where the complaints were first, then went to the factories and met—showed up at the gate and asked to come in and sometimes there were exchanges between the gate and the front office, but, in all cases, we were eventually let in, never took more than five minutes at the longest.

The first factory we saw was a Chinese-owned factory, owned out of Hong Kong. It was probably the worst one we saw. My experience was not the same as those who said they had been there and found things to be wonderful. I found a number of specific factories and specific incidents that I found to be offensive and believed they need some attention, clearly. Those issues I’ve discussed with a number of people and, for my part, my five-day investigation is not over. This hearing is certainly part of it and there’s still a lot of documents that we’ve requested that we have yet to receive.

But I will say this. We spoke with lots and lots of workers, not just on work sites. We met with about 10 who had plaintiff’s attorney bringing lawsuits against the garment industry, had helped arrange for us. We met with several at a church on Sunday. And with the exception of those that were organized by the plaintiff’s attorney—obviously they had complaints of some merit or they wouldn’t have been there—almost all workers said they would come back to CNMI. The biggest complaint we had was that, because of the work slowing down, the number of contracts seemed to be dropping, that workers are not able to work as much as they want to. They like the overtime hours and they like the time and a half pay that they receive and they want to work more. And that was probably the biggest complaint....

You know, there are, in all seriousness, there are real problems in CNMI that need to be addressed. I am encouraged that there has been a new election in January and there is some new leadership that seems to be a little more forceful in bringing about some of the changes that need to occur. I’m also impressed that the industry itself seems to have gotten a little more serious in the last few months about trying to enforce some of its own internal standards. And we did see some evidence of that, not just because they told us, but because we interviewed workers and asked them about changes that they’d seen, whether they knew about the rights that they had and how they found out and how they had read them.

But question is one that does ignore the importance of maintaining and preserving and elevating the level of human dignity for any human being. That is not in dispute in my mind. What is in dispute is how to arrive at securing that goal, whether we resort to Washington, DC, and our laws here in Washington to accomplish that or whether we rely on the ingenuity of local governments.

Congress is almost a continuous investigation like this. Every day you can walk somewhere around Capitol Hill and find an investigation about some American scandal, whether it’s selling missiles to the Chinese, whether it’s letting the Chinese government steal sensitive nuclear technology out of our most sensitive areas, whether it’s a labor disputes, whether it’s sweatshops in New York City. And so the notion that somehow we are the definitive characters in deciding what laws are most appropriate is just nonsense.

The INS, for example. I would hate to see the CNMI have a record similar to the INS in the United States. When I call the INS, when we find illegal aliens in my district, they laugh at us and tell us we’ll get there in a year or two if we feel like it. Now nobody can tell me that those kinds of laws will be in the best interests of CNMI.

The Department of Interior, for example. Now I heard the gentleman from Samoa talk about the unfortunate nature of these hearings becoming political. When the Department of Interior itself fires off memos that says, ‘‘As a one-time candidate with a similar district against a Frelinghuysen in the old New Jersey fifth, I understand the utility to all hands of administrative candidate communications on such matters.’’ Now this is a communication involved directly in a political campaign about this issue at CNMI. I’m sorry the administration has decided to make this topic a political issue. It should not be and it’s unfortunate that it has become such.

Yes, the Department of Labor. I could go on about all the efforts that I’ve seen in my own district of the Department of Labor putting people out of work and reducing the number of jobs in my district.

And then, of course, you know, I don’t what I’d say about the Department of Justice, the least of which is that they themselves in the CNMI hire non-resident aliens to do jobs for them. You know, we could go on about the other investigations going on in the Senate about the new revelations that the Department of Justice down there in Texas. FBI background checks. Chinese campaign checks making their way to Democratic National Committee going uninvestigated. The independent counsel and on and on and on.

I guess the final conclusion is that there are acknowledged problems in CNMI but Washington, DC, is the absolute last place anyone should look to fix them because this government has proven time and time and time again that, in the end, at the end of the day, people around here in DC tend to make matters worse, not better. [emphases added]

To say therefore that Bob Schaffer "abetted a scheme that deprived workers of basic rights (and even their unborn children)" is more than a gross exaggeration - it is an intentional mischaracterization of a substantive, philosophical policy disagreement, taken out of the context of its time as fodder for a scandal du jour. Whether it's been perpetrated out of ignorance or willful malice, participants in an "honest debate" would look at such evidence and reassess their characterizations.

I suggest that if Alan and the Big Blue Lie Machine wanted an "honest debate" about the issue, they wouldn't ignore actual evidence and leap to a conclusion that smears someone's character, and then browbeat anyone who disagrees with that evidence-free conclusion. Because Bob Schaffer did not work to support a particular kind of heavy-handed federal reform does not mean he "enabled a medieval nightmare of abuse and exploitation on American soil...."

Those on the Left may disagree with Bob Schaffer's view (whether past or present) of how to reform CNMI, but they have not been approaching the issue in that way - they have been approaching it as an opportunity to engage in political mud-throwing. Too bad. Perhaps they could explain why workers trapped in alleged "sweatshops" that were enduring "a medieval nightmare of abuse and exploitation" did not see the situation as dire as cadres of Lefty bloggers sitting in comfortable Colorado homes and offices apparently do.

Besides building their attacks on a distorted characterization of events and conditions at CNMI, the Big Blue Lie Machine's impeachment of Bob Schaffer's character and integrity has yet to prove that any of the arrangements or indirect connections with Jack Abramoff led to a change in Schaffer's votes. They have just concluded that the votes were immoral based on a preconceived notion that has been challenged here.

I submit that Alan, absurdicus, and company have greatly distorted their disagreements with Schaffer both on description of the island's working conditions and on policy prescription to address the problem. They also have taken the leap and falsely aligned Schaffer's views and interests as aligned with a class of Chinese manufacturers, when they are in fact distinct and separate.

Because Bob Schaffer's personal visit to CNMI, which included numerous unannounced visits to factories and other sites to interview real workers spontaneously, did not come to the same conclusion cited by Alan and his friends, perhaps we should look more closely at where the observations differ in terms of time, place, context, source, and methodology, etc.

However, I think all that gets at a deeper point than the Big Blue Lie Machine is interested in dealing with. They want to drive a 30-second soundbite attack TV campaign commercial based on loose points, drawn from a Denver Post news story written to win some sort of investigative journalism award.

In case some point in this post was missed or didn't come across clearly enough, please feel free to follow up. I hope the Left will not ignore the evidence but is willing to continue the "honest debate."

**Due to temporary FTP troubles, I'm not currently able to upload the large PDF. Please feel free to remind me, and I will upload and link a copy of the Congressional oversight hearing for further examination**

Mark Udall: The Candidate Who Took Money from Jack Abramoff Firms

The Left in Colorado must be bitterly upset to learn that only one candidate in Colorado's U.S. Senate race has ever taken money from Jack Abramoff-associated firms, and that's Mark Udall:

U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall took $1,500 in contributions from two firms that once employed disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Udall's campaign spokeswoman Taylor West said the donations from the companies' political-action committees to the Eldorado Springs Democrat's congressional campaigns were legal.

But, she said, Udall plans to donate the $1,500 to an organization in the Marianas Islands that assists victims of human trafficking.

Though we have reason to be skeptical about anything Taylor West says, if this is indeed true, it is the right thing for Mark Udall to do. It took him a long time to come around to it, though, seeing as the contributions were made in 2000 and 2002.

Better late than never. At least perhaps this story will begin to shut up the Big Blue Lie Machine's attempted slime job on Republican opponent Bob Schaffer. Maybe, just maybe, they'll stop trying to manipulate connecting the Abramoff dots and look for some other bit of gotcha politics to play. Mark Udall will want them to stop, lest it brings up this bit of unfortunate news again.

Analogy for Absurdicus: A Chance to See the Big Blue Lie Machine from the Other Side

The silly little troll working on Mark Udall's behalf has returned, coming by with a snappy riposte. In response to my observations on the the Denver Post's slime job on Bob Schaffer, absurdicus writes two comments. First:

Wait I don't get it. If there's nothing wrong with being associated with Abramoff, then why is it bad that Reid got donations from some of his clients? You can't have it both ways Ben. As to your defense, there's nothing to see here, move along please, it's interesting that you can't separate paying for a trip and arranging one.

First off, ironically, absurdicus is the one who can't separate paying for a trip and arranging it (actually, some part of the trip). But that's a minor point. And I'll forgive him the mistake.

I say, let's take a serious look at the files at Colorado State University, where the records of Bob Schaffer's trip are kept. Let's examine them openly and honestly. But that's clearly not what absurdicus, Taylor West, and Mark Udall's other surrogates are after. They want to throw together a bomb made of political mud and slime, hoping that on detonation the name "Jack Abramoff" might stick next to Bob Schaffer. They don't care if there's any real evidence.

If we do open up the files, look at the facts, have an honest discussion, then find that no real connection exists, I'm afraid then it will be absurdicus who has to excuse himself from this discussion and say: "there's nothing to see here, move along please." Show me the evidence.

Here's the primary problem for absurdicus (and others following Mark Udall's lead): He conflates vastly different kinds of association, which leads to all sorts of faulty assumptions. To clear up the confusion that is driving the slanderous story, readers need to look for the difference between a direct association where two people know each other on the one hand (Harry Reid & Jack Abramoff), and an indirect association contrived by deceitful political opponents and a sloppy reporter without any evidence on the other hand (Bob Schaffer & Jack Abramoff).

So what motivated absurdicus' comment: Sophistry? Or mere confusion? To be kind to absurdicus, I'll presume it's the latter - at least for the sake of argument.

To bring the point home to absurdicus, because he worked so hard coming up with that not-so-clever dig, let's try a fictional analogy. Something more concrete and personal that he might be able to understand.

Let's pretend that there's a very bad man named Mr. Doe who stole money from victims of natural disasters (like hurricanes) and used that money to bribe politicians into voting for unfair laws that helped some of his clients at the expense of many victims. Let's also pretend that absurdicus is a politician, who went on a trip long before anyone knew that Mr. Doe would become a very bad man. The trip was paid for by The Hurricane Study Group. The purpose of the trip was for absurdicus to go inspect the rebuilding of a hurricane disaster area. Generic Law Firm, for which Mr. Doe worked, played a role in arranging a few meetings on the trip.

Maybe absurdicus knew that Mr. Doe happened to be affiliated with Generic Law Firm. Maybe he didn't. But regardless, the name Mr. Doe didn't mean anything. Almost nobody knew that Mr. Doe was a very bad man. Absurdicus never met Mr. Doe, never talked to Mr. Doe, and never took money from Mr. Doe. When absurdicus went on his trip, The Local Times found nothing wrong with what he did, noting that the trip was paid for and sponsored by The Hurricane Study Group.

Mr. Doe later did his bad deeds, and years later was found guilty and put in jail for doing them. Other politicians - we'll call them Joe Schmo, Bob Slob, and Harry Smith - were found guilty of taking Mr. Doe's bribes, then going out of their way to help his clients, and various other corrupt deeds related to his taking of money from victims of natural disasters. It just so happens that Schmo, Slob, Smith, and absurdicus all happened to belong to the same political party. (Mr. Doe also worked with members of the opposite party, even repaying favors to one of them by rewarding his top aide with a cozy job.)

Then one day, absurdicus wakes up and reads The Local Times and sees the headline: "Ties to Doe cloud absurdicus' '99 fact-finding trip." Readers have to get way down in the story to see that there is no direct connection between absurdicus and Doe, and that they never met. But the Times reporter has "associated" absurdicus with Doe.

One of absurdicus' political enemies - Terry East - is quoted in the same story saying: "Given that many Democrat members, including Joe Schmo, Bob Slob, and Harry Smith, have lost their seat or gone to prison based on their association with this criminal, it's pretty remarkable that absurdicus seems to be proud of his association with these sleazy Doe-sponsored junkets."

Meanwhile, upset by the insinuation of the Times reporter looking to gin up controversy, one of absurdicus' friends - we'll call him Don Wilson - points out that absurdicus had never met, talked to, or taken money from Mr. Doe. Wilson wants to be sure the public doesn't believe the falsehood spread by Terry East.

Now to absurdicus' second comment:

Furthermore, if Abramoff really had nothing to do with it, why would Wadhams have to defend the relationship by trying to spin that Schaffer's never met him?

To answer this question, let's go back to our imaginary story: Somebody working for absurdicus' political opponent writes: "Furthermore, if Doe really had nothing to do with it, why would Wilson have to defend the relationship by trying to spin that absurdicus never met him?"

How would absurdicus respond? By answering his own question, he either will have cured his confusion, or perhaps be forced to face his own sophistry.

What's that, absurdicus? Damned if you do, and damned if you don't? Hmmm.... It's not so much fun to be a victim of the Big Blue Lie Machine, is it?

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.