Rossputin Takes Up Bob Schaffer's Defense Against Lefty Lies in Rocky Mountain News

At the risk of giving Ross Kaminsky (aka Rossputin) two free links in the course of one week, we recommend you take a look at his insightful column "Schaffer not exactly 'big oil'" in today's Rocky Mountain News. Consider it your weekend reading assignment, and ask yourself why the Lefty Big Blue Lie Machine has been so intent on painting this deceptive picture of Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer?

Perhaps, as Kaminsky points out, to deflect from the authentic weakness of their own candidate, Boulder liberal Mark Udall:

During his five years in the energy industry, Bob Schaffer contributed substantially to the federal coffers while working for a local company on projects to increase supply and lower the cost of energy. During that same time, Mark Udall took his salary from the American taxpayers while doing everything in his power to make energy as costly as possible, following the wishes of every liberal and environmentalist group at the expense of the average American who needs to drive to work or heat his home.

It's a point we've made before - though perhaps not quite so elegantly or concisely. But with the truth fighting to get noticed in this frenetic campaign season, it can't be repeated often enough.

Mark Udall Could Do the Decent Thing and Urge His Surrogates to Stop the Hypocrisy

The recent online discussions about pictures Bob Schaffer's son posted on his Facebook page reflect a desperate effort by the Left to find anything to talk about besides their own candidate Mark Udall's failed energy policies and failure to keep his promise.

Rocky Mountain Right has highlighted the hypocrisy of those on the Left who have sought to make hay out of this story.

As 9News reported, Bob Schaffer dealt with the matter swiftly, responsibly, and appropriately.

Attempts by the Big Blue Lie Machine to make hay out of the story have not only reflected hypocrisy and attempted distraction, but some of them have been truly vile. If the Lefty blogs and new media insist on continuing their folly, Mark Udall has a chance to distinguish himself with decency by stepping forward and demanding that his surrogates stop.

Splitting Hairs on Mark Udall's Failure to Vote against the Adjournment Resolution

Is Mark Udall off the hook for his failure to keep a key promise to vote to keep Congress working on domestic energy supply solutions for Colorado? A notorious commenter on this site brought my attention to a ColoradoPols diary that he says answers the question affirmatively:

Only problem is, it appears that the vote everybody's got their panties in a bunch about was preliminary, and the final vote to adjourn just happened a few minutes ago.

Udall was present for today's vote to adjourn--and voted "no" with the Republicans. Despite this, the motion passed 213-197.

But Tuesday's vote that Mark Udall missed was a vote on the key resolution which set up the parameters and dates of Congress's August recess. A vote that passed 213-212 because Udall was late getting back from campaign fundraising to cast. It's also specifically the resolution vote that Udall promised to vote No on:

Bob Schaffer asked: "Are you willing to vote No on an adjournment resolution until an energy bill passes?" After some hemming and hawing, Mark Udall agreed to the challenge.

If the Lefties want to split hairs to try to get Mark Udall off the hook for his promise, we can split hairs right back. Attempts by the Big Blue Lie Machine to rewrite history to protect their "Do Nothing, Delay, Drill Your Wallet" candidate will not escape scrutiny.

Mark Udall misses the vote he promised to make, a vote he could have made a difference on, the importance of which was universally undisputed. Now the Lefty apologists for Udall's economically-unfriendly policies point to a symbolic vote on which Udall couldn't effect any change as a way to excuse his absence and his broken promise.

Is Mark Udall going to follow the lead of the well-known statement made by one of his party's infamous leaders, and start to explain: "I failed to vote for adjournment before I voted against it"? Absurdity imitating absurdity.

Then again, if he really cared about stopping the adjournment, Mark Udall could have joined other members of Congress who protested the failure to work on increasing America's energy supply.

Missing the Point of Bob Schaffer's Powerful Zing on Mark Udall's Iraq Record

The most striking blow in today's debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall came when 9News moderator Adam Schrager read a question submitted by a viewer: Why are we in Iraq, and how will we know when we we've won the war?

Bob Schaffer answered the first part of the question by reading from a Congressional resolution that included many of the charges against Saddam Hussein's regime - including his chemical weapons program, his state sponsorship of terrorism, and his treatment of the Kurds. A campaign press release said:

Schaffer then asked the crowd to raise their hands if they agreed with the resolution. Udall supports sneered and chuckled until they were told the resolution was introduced by Congressman Udall. An audible gasp was heard from the crowd.

Mark Udall's resolution called for more diplomatic action, but clearly left the military option on the table.

The point of this elucidating moment? That even in opposing the war, Udall clearly acknowledged the reasons that 296 other Congressmen (including 81 Democrats) reasonably relied upon to make their judgment for authorizing military force. And as Schaffer himself explained in the debate, those who voted to support the war didn't want to telegraph our nation's intentions to the regime that had perpetrated the things highlighted in the resolution.

The disagreement was not over the facts in evidence that justified the invasion of Iraq. But Schaffer's question to the audience demonstrated that those supporting Mark Udall fail to recognize the pertinent facts before the nation in Congress and 2002 that were weighed as we debated whether or not to depose the Saddam Hussein tyranny. And those facts remain, even if some conveniently seem to have forgotten them.

Over at the Dead Governors blog, one paid Lefty propagandist thought he caught Bob Schaffer in a gotcha moment - claiming that the Republican candidate "just makes stuff up." The propagandist may have a legitimate disagreement about a foreign policy decision, but he utterly missed the point. Still the Big Blue Lie Machine tries to churn out distractions to hide their candidate's pathetic showing on the debate stage today.

Well, for the sake of an honest debate, I suggest the paid Lefty propagandist give a more careful viewing of the video. But the outcome might just be too painful to watch.

For open-minded independent voters, the debate is a worthwhile watch. They can decide for themselves.

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.

Inconvenient Facts for Mark Udall and Big Blue Lie Machine's Assault on Bob Schaffer

The Catholic News Agency weighs in on the Big Blue Lie Machine's absurd claims that U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer turned a blind eye to forced abortions in the Marianas:

According to diocesan officials in Chalan Kanoa, they have received no solid evidence that forced abortions had in fact occurred.

And:

One 1998 report from the U.S. Office of Insular Affairs found squalid living conditions for foreign workers in the Marianas. Investigators also said that at least one woman claimed that her company forced her to abort her child upon discovering her pregnancy.

Schaffer said that he “found the reports credible" and had “not seen them refuted."

During the five days that he spent on the islands in 1999, the legislator told the Denver Post that he tried to determine how often abortions occurred and to track down anyone with knowledge of forced abortions occurring.

Yet, according to Schaffer, every religious or public official he talked to could only say that they had heard the rumors that forced abortions were occurring, but that they never discovered any actual evidence or had anyone come forward with a claim.

When contacted by Catholic News Agency, Angie Guerrero, Catholic Social Services’ director, confirmed Schaffer’s assertion that evidence on forced abortions is lacking.

“We have heard that (of the claims of forced abortions), but none of the alleged victims have come out and said that they were forced to have abortion. So that’s all hearsay, because we can’t prove it; they’re only allegations,” she said.

As director of Catholic Social Services, Guerrero oversees pro-life ministries throughout the Diocese of Chalan Kanoa, which includes the islands of Saipan, Rota and Tinian. Her office is currently working on a program to assess the number of abortions occurring in the region, but as of yet does not have exact figures. [emphasis added]

"All hearsay." "Only allegations." That's all it takes for Mark Udall and the Big Blue Lie Machine to start slinging mud at Bob Schaffer.

Do you think some Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News reporter could have bothered to make a call to Ms. Guerrero? Do you think an apology is forthcoming from "American Right to Life Action" or from the Lefty bloggers who swarmed to its aid to denounce Schaffer without thinking?

The lie has already circumnavigated the globe several times. But now the truth has its boots on. Time for Mark Udall and the Big Blue Lie Machine to recant and move on to another story.

"Well, I believe George Soros should take a long walk off a short pier...."

We've debunked the anti-Schaffer nonsense encapsulated in the ad from George Soros-funded Campaign Money Watch, but it's nice to hear the 60-second version of the rebuttal made for radio. Here's the ad produced and aired by the El Paso County Republican Party (H/T Politicker CO):

Now there's some Big Blue Lie Machine disinfectant for you.

Will Mark Udall Renounce Big Blue Lie Machine Smear of Ethnic Minority?

The Big Blue Lie Machine is at work again. In particular, PlagiarismNowAction, a group that has done Mark Udall's dirty work in the recent past, is at it again. Their latest smear against Republican candidate Bob Schaffer is so dishonest and truth-challenged that Rocky Mountain News editor Vincent Carroll (who a couple weeks ago exposed the inaccuracies behind a PlagiarismNow-contrived label of Schaffer) has given it a thorough smackdown:

To this point, it must be said, the portrait of Schaffer is a paint-by-numbers smear, which my column disposed of two weeks ago (April 30, "Smeared with oil"). What distinguishes Huttner's latest attack and qualifies it for a Chesterton boomerang award is its claim that Schaffer "led the company's delegation in Iraq to lobby local speculators for oil contracts."

Local speculators? Savor that contemptuous description of the Kurdistan Regional Government and, by implication, the historically oppressed minority that it represents.

Aspect Energy, for which Schaffer worked, negotiated with Kurdish leaders for the right to explore for oil in the north of Iraq. The Kurdistan Regional Government is no more a "local speculator" in Iraq than Gov. Bill Ritter is a "local warlord" in the United States.

Huttner's use of "local speculators" was no accident. The term appears twice in his letter without any hint as to whom the "speculators" might be. When I e-mailed him in wonderment, he replied, "I'm OK if you prefer to use Kurdish government."

He's OK if someone else prefers the relevant fact. Just don't expect him to volunteer it.

It is true that the Baghdad central government is not happy with the Kurds for having cut a number of oil exploration deals with small- and mid-sized foreign companies; indeed, the oil minister considers them invalid. But it is equally true that the Iraqis have yet to reach agreement on a final oil and gas law, and that a draft completed last year has been slammed by both Kurds and Sunni Arabs (for different reasons). Meanwhile, the parties continue to talk.

The activists at ProgressNowAction are free to support the Arab vision of a state oil company controlling future production in Iraq - and they are equally free to suggest that such a future would best serve American interests, although it's hardly obvious that it would. But in his zeal to discredit Schaffer, Huttner simply airbrushed the Kurds out of existence - and crossed the line between aggressive opinion and outright propaganda. [emphasis added]

The Michael Huttner wing of the Big Blue Lie Machine doesn't have enough conscience to spare an oppressed ethnic minority in its deceitful attempt to politically smear Bob Schaffer and anyone that stands in its way.

The question is whether Mark Udall will renounce this vile propaganda or continue to let PlagiarismNow work on his campaign's behalf at all costs.

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.

Big Blue Lie Machine Loses Even More Credibility with Pro-Life Community

It looks like the far right splinter group American Right to Life has realized they were playing the dupe to an unfounded Lefty Big Blue Lie Machine attack on Republican candidate Bob Schaffer, according to today's Denver Post:

Steve Curtis accused Schaffer on Tuesday of lying about not having an opinion on a proposed state ballot initiative that would include fertilized eggs in the definition of "person."

On Wednesday, Curtis backtracked, saying the whole thing "got off issue."

"We're just calling on all pro-lifers to support this initiative today," he said. "We need support to get this on the ballot so that we can have the discussion, we can have the debate, about abortion and about life."

That call-to-action "degenerated" when Schaffer's campaign declined to take a stance before the issue is on the ballot.

Curtis chalked it up to "political battles in the heat of the moment."

Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager, clarified that it's not that Schaffer isn't taking a stance. Rather, he hasn't taken a stance yet.

"He's running for the U.S. Senate. That is a huge undertaking," Wadhams said. "Taking a stance on an initiative that isn't even on the ballot isn't a priority.

"Bob Schaffer has been a very consistent representative for pro-life issues in Colorado."

Sure, opponent Mark Udall and his attack dogs still are going to try to make an issue out of it. It's their job to do so. But their agenda holds very little appeal for Colorado's mainstream pro-life voters, and probably for American Right to Life, as well.

Big Blue Lie Machine Allies with Far Right Fringe to Take Focus Off Liberal Mark Udall

Re the fringe group that leaped into action against Republican candidate Bob Schaffer, Rocky Mountain Right diarist "Carnival Tent" adds further perspective:

In one of the most curious twists of the election, the media has been giving large amounts of coverage to fringe organizations claiming that Bob Schaffer is pro-abortion. Any sane person could tell you that Bob Schaffer has been one of the most pro-life legislators in Colorado. As genuine pro-lifers are rallying to Bob Schaffer's candidacy, what then could be the real agenda of these groups?

A cursory glance at American Right To Life's website reveals that they consider National Right To Life and other pro-life organizations to be traitors in the "legacy of Judas" for focusing on helping to end abortions instead of crusades against birth control or childhood vaccines as American Right To Life embraces. They deviate even further from their stated pro-life aims by campaigning against the theory of evolution and go so far as to blame the teaching of darwinism in public schools for everything from the Columbine Shootings to the Holocaust.

In order to force their extremist views on the Republican Party, views rejected by the pro-life movement as a whole, they are willing to align with Wendy Doromal to attempt to destory Bob Schaffer to intimidate conservative Republicans. Doromal is a left-wing activist and a darling of the NEA.

That about says it all. The Left's Big Blue Lie Machine desperately wants to portray Bob Schaffer as a far right candidate, but allies with the Far Right to attack him.

Meanwhile, by their own acknowledgment, their Democrat candidate Mark Udall is liberal or reliably left wing.

Big Blue Lie Machine Co-opts Fringe Spokesman in Lame Attack Attempt

The Left has been salivating again today with news from the Denver Post that a self-appointed spokesman for an ultraconservative social issues group publicly criticized U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer on flimsy grounds. It's not often the Left attack machine or the MSM finds camaraderie with a pro-life group, but when they're sharing the same political targets, they're glad to give Colorado Right to Life (CRTL) (which has no reference to the story) - or at least Steve Curtis - free airtime.

But it's not even a one-day story, as the Post since has updated this remark:

"At best Schaffer was negligent investigating coerced abortion in the Mariana Islands," [Steve Curtis] said. "Worse, he has voted for permanent normal trade relations with China, rewarding the regime that forces women to abort their children."

With this:

By this afternoon, Curtis' tone had softened toward Schaffer, but he still maintained that the actions of some factories in the Northern Marianas were not worthy of Schaffer's support.

"As a die-hard pro-lifer, I have a problem with supporting any government that allows those atrocities to occur," Curtis said.

Interestingly, though, the Post has kept the opening phrase "Officials with two anti-abortion groups are blasting Bob Schaffer" [emphasis added], but only quotes and mentions Curtis by name.

What's the motivation then? In a post that ironically calls out Curtis as the self-appointed spokesman for the "pro-life movement," a Rocky Mountain Right diarist - like a multitude of voices in the Post article, mostly buried - sums it up well:

If Bob Schaffer isn’t pro-life enough then nobody is.

One person gets free airtime supposedly speaking for a group that is already toward the fringes, but even he backs down before the day is over. Yet one liberal blog we saw went as far as describing Curtis as Schaffer's "own conservative base." Puh-lease.

This morning's Post article can best be characterized as a lazy hit piece. Then again, maybe the newspaper was just trying to prove how easily and quickly the Left's attack machine can jump mindlessly to action, with a calloused disregard for the truth.

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.

Bob Schaffer Campaigning on Tax Cuts, Contrasts with Tax-and-Spend Mark Udall

On a trip to the Western slope yesterday, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer highlighted one of his major campaign themes:

Schaffer pinned his race on the economy and called for tax cuts to revive it, including cutting the corporate income tax from 35 percent to 25 percent.

“We have the second-highest corporate tax rate on the planet,” Schaffer said. Cutting it would help to preserve American jobs and encourage companies to maintain headquarters in the country, he said.

Schaffer also proposed an optional flat tax and the elimination of the alternative minimum tax.

Schaffer also called for the restoration of the research-and-development tax credit and slashing the repatriation tax on profits earned overseas from 40 percent to 5 percent.

A member of Congress from 1997 to 2003, Schaffer said he was part of the Republican movement that “raised taxes dramatically in the United States” by lowering tax rates, thereby stimulating economic activity.

There's a reason why this should make for such a consistent and successful campaign theme for Bob Schaffer, because its contrasts him significantly with his tax-and-spend liberal opponent Mark Udall (who incidentally has hidden from taking a stance on fellow Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter's property tax hike).

It also explains why Udall and the Big Blue Lie Machine are so intent on changing the subject, especially by conjuring up phony scandals. It furthermore gives an idea why Udall seems so reluctant to join the debate with Schaffer.

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.

The Washington Post and Lying

We find it unfortunate that so much of the space in this blog of late has been devoted to exposing and documenting the bodyguard of lies being told to get Mark Udall elected.

It seems that the Washington Post has discovered that the same thing is happening with the Democrat Presidential candidates and a lot of folks aren't all that happy about it.

With colleagues in Congress quick to claim credit where it is due, word moves quickly when undue credit is claimed.

"If it happens once or twice, you let it go," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), an Obama supporter. "If it becomes the mantra, then you go, 'Wait a minute.' "

We are reminded of the words of Mark Udall's unofficial campaign spokesman who observes that "a lie is just a campaign tactic that the other side doesn't like," or something to that effect.

Do read the Washington Post article if you care about the Presidential election. Our interest is limited to our regular theme that too much of Democrat politics and strategy is tied to keeping the Big Blue Lie Machine well oiled and well fueled, in an environmentally friendly way, of course.

Almost Embarrassing

In trying to chase a story about a talk given in Pueblo West, about 45 miles from here, I had to follow it literally around the world from blog to blog. One of the blogs that I stopped by was called Blowing Our Tax Dollars on Wind Farms. Now, that is a title one could grow to love. I digress.

It is my view that if people start paying attention to the real facts about global warming, they will be less willing to be piped by our local pied pipers, Mark Udall and Bill Ritter, into a bitter ocean, a bitter future of an intentionally depressed economy.

I finally found the original article, printed of course in the Pueblo Chieftain.

The hype surrounding the issue of global warming is a bunch of hot air, a retired physics professor told members of Rotary Club 43 on Monday.

"Global warming is not a problem," Howard C. Hayden said. "Go find something useful to do."

Hayden is an emeritus professor of physics from the University of Connecticut and now resides in Pueblo West.

and...

"Yes, the polar ice caps are shrinking . . . on Mars," he said, "On Mars, the ice caps are melting and small hills are disappearing."

Hayden added that there is warming occurring on Jupiter, Saturn and Triton.

Of course the Big Blue Lie Machine that is Colorado Media Matters put its nose into the article:

However, the Chieftain did not note the scientific consensus that rising global temperatures are not part of a natural cycle and that climate change is being caused primarily by human activity...

The article did not note that former Vice President Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change." It also failed to point out that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the IPCC share the consensus view that, as stated in a June 2006 NAS report, "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming" of the planet.

The word consensus is being misused by the left to stampede the public into actions that are not in its interest for the purpose of taking political power. The word "consensus" is defined as "general agreement." There is far too much disagreement to use that word.

Professor Hayden put it eloquently when he told the likes of Media Matters, Mark Udall, and Bill Ritter that they should "go find something useful to do."

Off Topic, or Perhaps Not

We've been trying to figure out why Mark Udall and his environmentalist allies are so addicted to lying about important issues. Could it be because environmentalists have a thirty year plus history of lying? Could it be because environmental based lying works?

We found a very long 2001 Sacramento Bee article on environmental organizational fundraising. It lays out the lies that were being told then to raise money. It is far too long and detailed to quote at length, so we will just provide tidbits:

The letters that come with the mailers are seldom dull. Steeped in outrage, they tell of a planet in perpetual environmental shock, a world victimized by profit-hungry corporations. And they do so not with precise scientific prose but with boastful and often inaccurate sentences that scream and shout:

From New York-based Rainforest Alliance: "By this time tomorrow, nearly 100 species of wildlife will tumble into extinction."Fact: No one knows how rapidly species are going extinct. The Alliance's figure is an extreme estimate that counts tropical beetles and other insects -- including ones not yet known to science -- in its definition of wildlife.

From The Wilderness Society: "We will fight to stop reckless clear-cutting on national forests in California and the Pacific Northwest that threatens to destroy the last of America's unprotected ancient forests in as little as 20 years."Fact: National forest logging has dropped dramatically in recent years. In California, clear-cutting on national forests dipped to 1,395 acres in 1998, down 89 percent from 1990.

From Defenders of Wildlife: "Won't you please adopt a furry little pup like 'Hope'? Hope is a cuddly brown wolf ... Hope was triumphantly born in Yellowstone."Facts: "There was never any pup named Hope," says John Varley, chief of research at Yellowstone National Park. "We don't name wolves. We number them." Since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995, their numbers have increased from 14 to about 160; the program has been so successful that Yellowstone officials now favor removing the animals from the federal endangered species list.

Notice that global warming wasn't a subject that environmental fund raisers had tapped into in 2001.

It is instructive to realize that the exact same false kinds of things were said about the Roan Plateau-that it was pristine and beautiful.

The environmentalists aren't the only ones using environmental lies for fundraising. Politicians like Bill Ritter and Mark Udall are doing the same thing. Our children and grandchildren will live in a different world, but it will be a poorer world, a world built on lies.