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.

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**

Absurdicus - Part of the Big Blue Lie Machine

Absurdicus (how appropriate) appended a comment to our Roan Plateau post where we explained how to use Google Earth to see for one's self what the roan plateau looked like.

We told readers to go down to a level of 10,000 feet and look around.

Absurdicus writes:

Uh, didn't your oil industry shills already push this laughable explanation some 6 months ago? It was preposterous then and it's preposterous now. In contrast, I look really good from 10,000 feet, so you really can't see what the Roan plateau looks like at that altitude either.

The altitude of the Roan Plateau is 9,000 feet. If you "fly" over it at an altitude of 10,000 feet, third grade math suggests that you are only 1,000 feet over the terrain. If there were anything but scrub land, you would see it at that altitude. A picture is worth 1,000 words. We simply want folks to go look at the picture. You don't.

Your screen name is Absurdicus and your argument is intentionally absurd, intentionally misleading.

We expect that you are not so stupid that you can't do third grade math. That makes you a willing part of the Big Blue Lie Machine. Mark Udall is tarnished by these kinds of lies by his supporters. It happens so often that we have a tag for it: "Big Blue Lie Machine."

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.

Washington Times: Big Oil Smear Backfiring on Big Blue Lie Machine

Reading an article like this one from today's Washington Times must make the folks at ProgressNow feel deservedly silly and their favored candidate Mark Udall just plain hopping mad:

Bob Schaffer's opponents have spent the past two months tarring him as "Big Oil Bob," an advocate of oil drilling and an energy-industry insider. Maybe he should thank them.

Two polls show Mr. Schaffer, the Colorado Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, has erased a double-digit deficit and pulled within a nose of Democratic foe Mark Udall.

The reason, according to one poll, lies in fuel prices. Since gas hit $4 a gallon here, a majority of Colorado voters have come out in favor of offshore oil drilling and exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, said a Quinnipiac Poll released last week.

At the same time, Mr. Schaffer went from trailing Mr. Udall by 10 percentage points in June - 49 percent to 39 percent - to a 44 percent to 44 percent tie in July. The June survey of 1,351 likely Colorado voters had an error margin of 2.7 percentage points; the July poll of 1,425 likely voters had a 2.6-point margin.

ProgressNow of course has reason to feel silly, having spent so much time and money on a full-fledged Internet campaign to tar the candidate they hate as "Big Oil Bob." The absurdity of their facile ad campaign had been pointed out as early as April.

And why might Mark Udall be angry? Besides the plummeting poll numbers? Perhaps his wife Maggie Fox's intimate connection with the 527 group League of Conservation Voters so singularly obsessed with tarring Bob Schaffer?

Politics is a fickle game. At some point, enough of the public comes to see through the deception - though the ill winds may yet again work against common sense and decency for a time. But for now, it's sure funny to see the tar blow back on the Big Blue Lie Machine.

Big Blue Lie Machine Revs Up

Those prognosticators in other states who have predicted an easy Mark Udall victory rather than a close race might be right after all.

The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that there is a proposal afoot for two millionaires, Tim Gill and Pat Stryker, to spend $2 million in 527 money this March and April to "step on Bob Schaffer's throat."

They have done it before:

The memo was prepared by political consultant Dominic DelPapa and sent to Al Yates, who wears many hats, including adviser to Pat Stryker, a Fort Collins heiress. Stryker and philanthropist Tim Gill, of Denver, spent $7.46 million in 2006 to try to swing elections for Democratic candidates and causes.

Didn't these same folks try to unseat Marilyn Musgrave by creating a 527 that claimed that she wasn't Pro Life?

The big blue lie machine is going to have its furnace stoked in a big way. All of those do gooders who wanted big money taken out of politics only wanted the traceable big money taken out.

Big Blue Lie Machine In Action

Of the 500 or so YouTube views of the new Democrat ad against Bob Schaffer, we're responsible for at least 25.

The Roan Plateau segment just didn't look right. There is so much blue water and white snowcaps in their photograph that it looks pristine, beautiful, and, well . . . wet!

Most of western Colorado simply doesn't look like that most of the time. It is arid, with little in the way of trees because there isn't much moisture to support them. It is no accident that the Bureau of Land Management owns places like the Roan Plateau. When the west was settled, no one else wanted them because they were too dry to support even dry land farming.

Pull up Google Earth and enter "Roan Plateau." Compare what Google Earth shows to what this new commercial shows. You will see that it is not the idyllic place that the Big Blue Lie Machine and the Sierra Club would have you believe.

It is hard to believe that anyone thinks Mark Udall can expect to be elected when, in this internet era, it is so easy to chase down and expose the lies being told by him and for him.

Aided by Denver Post, Mark Udall Launches Deceitful Attack on Bob Schaffer

It seems Mark Udall is comfortable practicing his own deception, and not simply relying on his friends in the Big Blue Lie Machine. Udall's latest deception came with an assist from a Denver Post article (H/T Mike Saccone's Political Notebook):

"I know that from what I read and the people I listened to, it was clear that there were abuses there . . .. I don't understand how you could leave the Marianas thinking everything was perfect," said Rep. Mark Udall, referring to a fact-finding trip Schaffer took in 1999 that was partly arranged by Abramoff's lobbying firm. Schaffer said he found problems in only one out of 20 factories he visited. [emphasis added]

"I don't understand how you could leave the Marianas thinking everything was perfect." Mark Udall distorted what Bob Schaffer reported on his visit. And the Post reporter (inadvertently or not?) helped him out, claiming that "he found problems in only one out of 20 factories he visited."

The problem is that even the original smear job story from the Post said "he visited more than 20 factories and found serious problems in only one" [emphasis added]. It appears the Post reporter and/or editors failed to read earlier issues of their own newspaper, much less read the actual reports and testimony in the case. Judging by his newfound interest in the issue of the Marianas Islands, Mark Udall is primarily concerned about making political points out of the issue, even if it means making the truth a casualty.

The ball keeps on moving for the alleged scandal here. When it was shown that Mark Udall was the only candidate in the race with a clear connection to Jack Abramoff, Abramoff ceased being the issue. When it was shown that Bob Schaffer's visits to most of the factories were unannounced and arranged on his own terms, the way the trip was conducted ceased being the issue. When it was shown that Bob Schaffer identified problems and reported them but proposed a different reasonable solution, the Big Blue Lie Machine fell back on name-calling and its hallmark: deception.

All the discussion from the Left has shed far more heat than light on this matter. Now, candidate Mark Udall himself has perpetuated a clear lie. And the Denver Post let him get away with it. But not here he won't.

DSCC Big Blue Lie Machine Still Churning

You would think that the Democrats who are supporting the Mark Udall candidacy would have figured out that this author takes great pleasure in pointing out their fibs, falsehoods, and fabrications.

It is quite obvious that no one in that campaign believes that Mark Udall can be elected if they stick to the truth. They can't even be consistent in their lies.

The liberal blogs have raised a hue and cry over the fact that Bob Schaffer won't spell out his positions. Mike Saccone wrote an essay on "Schaffer's Silence." The DSCC is so lacking in material that it started its own "Parody site" on the theory that if Schaffer wouldn't spell out his positions, it could make them up. Since that site was founded, Schaffer still has not spelled out his positions (and shouldn't be in a hurry to do so).

Today, Lynn Bartels of the Rocky Mountain News provided the following quote from a DSCC spokesperson:

"Bob Schaffer must figure that since he has wholeheartedly endorsed George Bush's agenda, he might as well get something in return," said Matthew Miller, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesman.

Matthew Miller and the DSCC must figure that Lynn Bartels will publish any inconsistent lie without questioning its inconsistencies. We are curious, as Bartels should have been, about the basis for the statement that "Bob Schaffer...has wholeheartedly endorsed George Bush's agenda..."

This, folks, is how the Big Blue Lie Machine Works: Keep throwing out lies and some will slip into the msm.

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.

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 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.

A Day Late, A Dollar Short

Yesterday, we pointed out that the active military wasn't at all upset about Rush Limbaugh's comments.

Really? Jim ought to ask the average man or woman in uniform before he throws more fodder into the big blue lie machine. Rush Limbaugh's program plays on Armed Forces Radio. If there was any feeling among the military itself that Rush was disrespectful of the military, the military would be taking action to replace him.

It's nice to see that we have an audience that acts on our observations. Today PeakDems tried to gin up a response. There isn't a lot of point in following that link unless you need the KVOR Advertising Sales Manager's name, email, and phone number. A not so subtle threat, we would guess.

All you phony soldiers in Colorado Springs should contact KVOR about Rush

One of their "fans" wrote a response:

Gee, I didn't know that there was anyone in Colorado Springs who washed out of boot camp after 44 days, and then went around claiming to be an Army Ranger ordered to commit atrocities in order to gin up opposition to the war based on total lies.

And here, Mike, you have always bitched and whined and complained about Mr. Bush supposedly lying to get us INTO the war, now you're doing nothing but repeating total bullshit in an obviously bogus attempt to get us out. Have you no shame?

The funny thing isn't the response, though that is funny. It is that the fine folks at the El Paso Democrat Party (I hope I have that right) wouldn't think to start trying to organize a response from "soldiers" until we pointed out that there hadn't been one. They aren't a day late. They are a week late.

The reason they are a dollar short is that they threw it into the big blue lie machine and Tim Gill hasn't replaced it yet. Not to worry. He will.

Big Blue Lie Machine - Huffington Post Version

The Huffington Post has always been a Big Blue Lie Machine outlet. Even so, you have to laugh when a lefty, Bob Burnett writes two back to back sentences that make no sense when taken together:

Maine Republican Susan Collins has an uphill fight for her third term in the Senate. Her Democratic opponent will likely to be Congressman Tom Allen. Early polls give Collins a double-digit lead over Allen, but political observers expect the gap to narrow.

In our own Colorado Senate contest Bob Burnett seems to forget that no poll has shown more than a one point separation between Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer, with the most recent poll showing Schaffer ahead. For reasons we don't understand, Republicans do better at the polls than polling would suggest, so if Schaffer can keep it this close, it is hard to see how self described Boulder Liberal Mark Udall can be favored:

Boulder-based Democratic Congressman Mark Udall is favored in a race against arch-conservative Republican Bob Schaffer. Representative Udall has the lead in money and public sentiment; however, Schaffer recently hired dirty tricks master Dick Wadhams, the architect of South Dakota Republican John Thunes' upset win over Tom Daschle in 2004.

Did you ever notice that any Republican operative who is successful must be employing "dirty tricks?" Tom Daschle was a high profile ultra liberal in a conservative state. The surprise shouldn't have been that John Thune beat him. The surprise should have been that it took so long.

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.

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?

So Many Lies, So Little Time

If the Denver Post, itself a liberal bastion, says that a political ad is fully truthful, why would a blogger go out of his way to title a post "Republican Attack Ad Backfires on Senate Candidate?"

Those latinos who know Castro best, Cuban refugees, are stalwart Republicans and will cheer on this ad. If there is a Step and Fetch It in this ad, it is an accurate characterization of Castro's own propaganda machine, not the latino culture.

This post is just another lie at a time when we have been legitimately pointing out elsewhere that the Big Blue Lie Machine is working at full power here in Colorado.

It seems that the Democrat party and its minions are becoming desperate out of fear that they won't realize the big Senate gains they confidently predicted only a few months ago.

Democrats would be well to consider that our democracy is endangered when they make the truth a regular victim of their politics.

Washington Post Gets It Wrong - Again

Today's "The Fix" shows exactly why people on the east coast shouldn't be writing about Colorado Politics. It also demonstrates one of the several reasons that Washington is called "foggy bottom."

The Washington Post describes the Colorado race not as it is, but as it would like it to be. There is a big difference:

[ Dick ] Wadhams, a Colorado native, has been nearly perfect in the campaigns with which he has been associated in his home state. Can he keep the streak alive in Schaffer's up hill fight against Rep. Mark Udall (D)? Expect the phrase "Boulder liberal" to become a staple of Wadhams' vocabulary between now and November.

It is difficult to see how this race can be described as "up hill." There have been three polls that we know of, and all three showed a separation between the two of one percentage point. The first two showed Mark Udall to be ahead and the last one showed a slight Bob Schaffer lead.

This is still a conservative state, admittedly with a well gerrymandered left wing legislature and a chameleon governor, Bill Ritter who ran as a pro business moderate and is governing as an anti-business liberal. The Denver Post, which supported him in the 2006 election with comments designed to make him appear moderate has opined that he may be a one term governor.

In November Cillizza himself wrote: "a state that looks like it could stay in the GOP column if the right sort of race is run," so we want to know what has changed to make it "up hill."

As for whether Mark Udall can fairly be described as a "Boulder Liberal," The Fix would do well to note that Mark Udall is a self described Boulder Liberal. His campaign spokesperson, Taylor West, opined publicly that being called a Boulder Liberal wouldn't hurt him. The Denver Post recently called Mark Udall "solidly liberal" There is no evidence either that Mark Udall is running as anything but a liberal or that he can run as anything but a liberal. His friends in the msm and the liberal blogs have routinely called him "liberal," "reliably left wing/progressive," and "extremist." It has happened so often that we keep a scoreboard.

Given all of this data, it is hard to see how Dick Wadhams could avoid noting the obvious. He doesn't have to call Mark Udall a Boulder Liberal. All he has to do is restate the information here.

It is also hard to see how Chris Cillizza could have suggested that it would be wrong or inaccurate to call Mark Udall what he calls himself, a Boulder Liberal. Is this another example of the Big Blue Lie Machine in action? It wouldn't be the first time that the Washington Post was a big cog in that machine.

Still Dragging His Feet - And Lying About It

We've called Mark Udall a liar before. He doesn't just tell little lies. He tells big lies on the Hitler theory that if you make the lie big enough and repeat it often enough, people will believe it.

Today, in the Rocky Mountain News, he was quoted as saying:

"I have been sounding the alarm on the beetle and wildfire risk problem for our forests since my first year in Congress," Udall said Wednesday evening.

Mark Udall has been a Sierra Club toady since his first year in congress. The Sierra Club's position on wild fire risk was to oppose thinning until the Hayman fire in Colorado.

By pure chance, the Hayman burn area included a small experimental area where thinning had occurred. The fire didn't burn hot enough to kill the trees in that area while the other, unthinned areas burned so hot that the soil was fused and even the roots were consumed.

That demonstrated that the Sierra Club had been wrong to oppose thinning, so they modified their position slightly. Instead of coming out against thinning, they went to court to oppose the road building that would have made thinning possible.

Mark Udall has aided the Sierra Club with their mindless roadless policy. Last year, he was the author of roadless legislation.

Even the bills he just introduced do not propose thinning. They propose studying thinning.

What is needed now is clear cut fire breaks and the forest roads that would permit the dead wood to be hauled out. Without fire breaks, the dead forest will burn until it runs into natural fire breaks, and it will burn hot. Mark Udall isn't ready to propose that, nor is he willing to propose a total relaxation of timbering restrictions in areas that will die anyway.

The sad thing is that Mark Udall and his partner in this crime against Colorado, John Salazar won't even fight hard to see this legislation pass. To do so would risk the funding flow from Sierra Club members in California who don't have to look at the dead trees or fear running for their lives in a fire.

Mark Udall's campaign motto should be "Burn Colorado, Burn."

And the big blue lie machine churns on.