Facilitating Fraud by Disabling Online Contribution Security ... Mark Udall, Too?

Apparently the disabling of basic security settings on online contributions isn't isolated to the Barack Obama campaign. According to Ed Sealover in the Rocky Mountain News, an intrepid Coloradan tested Mark Udall's contribution system:

Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams said that because Udall accepts money from sources such as prepaid credit cards that allow users to be anonymous, he can skirt campaign-finance limits and laws....

Wadhams said that after he'd gotten a tip that Udall, a Democrat, allowed the same practice, a Schaffer supporter made two $1 donations under the name of Steve Mason and included a fake address without questioning from Udall's Web site. The unnamed supporter tried the same thing with Schaffer's site but was prohibited from doing so, Wadhams said.

Schaffer finance director Janel Domenico said the Republican's Web site requires credit card users to input their billing ZIP code and rejects anyone whose ZIP code does not match with the cards. This is standard practice among stores, too, and a campaign would have to disable part of its security settings to accept prepaid cards without a billing address, she said.

Without any proof of who the donor is, a campaign could take money from individuals who want to give more than the $2,300 limit or from foreign residents who are banned from donating, Wadhams said.

"It opens the door for fraud," Wadhams said. "I don't understand why they would do it."

Nor do I.

Is this in the Democratic playbook for 2008? Congratulations if they've found a legal loophole whereby they can disable basic security and collect funds from who knows where. I'm sure once they're in power over all branches of government, closing the loophole will be at or near the top of their reform agenda.

Latching On to Bridget Johnson's Live-Blog of the Final (Phew!) Schaffer-Udall Debate

We here at Schaffer v Udall are too burned out for the final debate between Colorado's two major U.S. Senate candidates. The Rocky Mountain News' Bridget Johnson live-blogged the CBS4 showdown. Here are a few key excerpts we enjoyed:

The closed captioning on TV says that Udall just said "filly blusstering," Schaffer fires back -- still with that forced smile -- about how he would represent values in U.S. Senate.

And:

Udall asks what Schaffer even did in Congress. Bob is on a tear, rattling off stuff from the CDC to ranchland to missile defense.

And:

Lynn asks about Department of Peace moonbattery proposal. Udall said it was "duplicative" and "made some sense at the time." He said he made his point and then it was time to move on. Is Congress just for grandstanding, then? No wonder nothing gets done. [link added]

And:

Udall is asked on card check, without the panel describing that it's a labor bill for the folks at home. Schaffer happily provides the explanation and goes after Udall's jugular on it. The closed captioning called it "car check." This debate is so unfair to the deaf. [link added]

And finally:

Schaffer is on a cool tear against socialism. No redistributing of wealth and take from those of ability to give to those in need, he says.

Thanks, Bridget. We look forward to meeting you in person some day.

Bob Schaffer's 11th Hour Campaign Ad: The Plea for a Balanced Congress

Bob Schaffer's Character, Record Explain His Support of Ted Stevens' Resignation

Bob Schaffer is a proven man of integrity who kept his term-limits pledge and left Congress in 2002, so his response to a question of whether he supports the resignation of convicted corrupt Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), the answer was a no-brainer:

Pressed today by a reporter on whether Stevens should step down, Schaffer simply said, “Yeah.”

Enough said. Bob Schaffer's character and record speak loudly.

Bob Schaffer Barnstorms Western Slope In Search of Late-Breaking Undecided Votes

Some have given up on his cause. He embraces the label "underdog". Yet as reported in today's Rocky Mountain News, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is touring the Western part of the state to churn out every vote from where internal polling shows the most undecideds remain:

He came to the Western Slope armed with messages about cutting taxes to spur the economy and increasing domestic energy production - something that played especially well with the employees of the natural gas company he addressed in the morning. But more than usual, Schaffer emphasized the need to keep Democrats from winning nine more Senate seats this year and holding a filibuster-proof majority.

In answering a question at one event, Schaffer implied that the integrity of the U.S. Constitution is at stake if Democrats control all top federal offices.

Debates over international treaties and Supreme Court justices will not happen if Democrats can cut off dissenting Republican voices, Schaffer told voters at five different stops.

"It will ensure a strategy toward higher taxes," he said. "It will ensure a strategy toward surrender and defeat in the war on terror. It will ensure a strategy on energy that involves less production instead of more."

A similar argument for divided government was made by both the Grand Junction Sentinel and Pueblo Chieftain in endorsing Bob Schaffer.

Next week's results will tell us how successful was Bob Schaffer's last-minute pitch to western Coloradans.

Analysis: Mark Udall's Agenda Would Boost Federal Spending by 55 Billion Dollars

From the National Taxpayers Union Federation cost analysis of Colorado's U.S. Senate candidates' policy proposals:

[Mark] Udall has offered 54 proposals that would affect federal spending -- 25 of which would increase annual outlays, three of which would decrease expenditures, and 26 of which have unquantifiable fiscal effects -- for a net annual spending hike of $55.3 billion. [emphasis added]

By comparison, Bob Schaffer's proposals would increase federal outlays by a net amount of $5.8 billion. Not terrific, but nearly $50 billion better on taxpayers.

For those interested in reining in government spending, there's simply no contest. Mark Udall will be too costly for Colorado. If you think the recent record of the Bush administration in increasing federal government expenditures is one we need to continue, by all means vote for Udall. If you think we need to shift gears and head toward greater fiscal responsibility, Bob Schaffer is a much better choice.

Mark Udall Wants to Redecorate Your Future Fourth of July Celebrations

Rocky Mountain Right is correct. I can't add any (serious) comment to this unedited quote in the Rocky Mountain News:

"Green is the new red, white and blue," [Mark] Udall said. "We need new leadership in this country."

You might want to consider re-ordering those Fourth of July decorations. Or just swap them out for the St. Patrick's Day paraphernalia. "Top o' the nation's birthday to ye."

And the Campaign Gets Weirder: The Bob Schaffer-Joe The Plumber Connection

From the Rocky Mountain News, proof that this campaign can get weirder and that Ohio really is a small place:

Bob the U.S. Senate candidate, it turns out, is related by marriage to Joe the Plumber.

Joseph Wurzelbacher, the now-famous Ohio plumber referenced by Republican presidential candidate John McCain in the last presidential debate, has a family connection to GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer. But before anyone starts requesting autographs, know this: Neither Schaffer nor his wife, Maureen, have met Joe.

The Schaffers are natives of the Cincinnati area. Since Joe came to light, Schaffer has found out that Wurzelbacher is a distant cousin of Maureen's father, who also happens to be a plumber.

There must not be much left new for reporters to tell on the campaign trail.

But Bob Schaffer sure fired up the crowd of 2-3,000 people tonight at the DTC Marriott, providing warmup for the Denver Townhall Talkers Tour. Schaffer yard signs and bumper stickers went like hotcakes, and plenty more volunteers were signed up to work on the Victory '08 campaign. Republicans in Colorado aren't going down without a fight.

How Big is Colorado's Barack Obama and Bob Schaffer Voting Contingent?

Over at Human Events, Ross Kaminsky notes the challenges faced locally by the GOP but says that Colorado races are "still in Republican reach". Kaminsky reprints part of his recent interview with U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer, who answered the question how the campaign is doing:

Schaffer: The response we’re getting on the campaign trail is very encouraging, with large and enthusiastic crowds at our events, much like the enthusiasm we just saw for Sarah Palin’s recent events in Colorado. Our phone banking is contacting tens of thousands of voters every night. The response is extraordinarily encouraging. We even run across surprisingly large numbers of voters who identify themselves as “supporting Obama and Schaffer.” [emphasis added]

Bob Schaffer undoubtedly is going to need a large percentage of the late-breaking undecided voters to come his way, and that includes some Obama supporters, too. Yes, voting for Barack Obama AND Bob Schaffer seems like an odd combination, but plenty of independents will be shaking out their decisions in all sorts of ways that don't make sense to the political insiders.

What that means for outcomes on November 4 is anyone's guess at this point.

Fact Confirmed: League of Conservation Voters a Democrat Partisan Attack Arm

Remember the League of Conservation Voters (LCV)?

• Spent a boatload of money attacking Bob Schaffer


• Connected with Mark Udall's wife Maggie Fox


• Fined $180,000 for campaign finance violations

Well, this week has brought more confirmation that LCV is nothing more than a highly partisan attack arm of the Democratic Party:

An article in the trade publication Greenwire reaffirms the findings of Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK) ongoing oversight investigation into the multi-million dollar funding and partisan political activities of environmental groups. The Greenwire article by reporter Alex Kaplun reported that “since the start of the fall campaign, every dollar spent by these organizations has been aimed at helping Democrats.”...

Greenwire excerpt: With the 2008 campaign in the homestretch, major environmental groups are spending money and time on a half-dozen or so congressional candidates who figure to play prominent roles in future Capitol Hill energy and conservation debates. The charge is being led by the League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club. While the three have endorsed dozens of congressional candidates, each has focused on just a couple of contests. The environmentalists have spent more than $3 million in congressional races on "independent expenditures" -- essentially campaigns the groups are running to assist or attack a particular candidate, campaign finance records show. That amount does not include campaign contributions given directly to the candidates, though those dollars tend to represent only a small percentage of the amount the organizations actually spend in a typical election year. And while environmental groups have endorsed a number of Republican candidates, since the start of the fall campaign, every dollar spent by these organizations has been aimed at helping Democrats.

Hardly a shock to us, of course, but perhaps enlightening to undecided Colorado voters.

We Would Have Guessed Mark Udall Did His Campaign Shopping at Banana Republic

We don't have much to add, but we'd be derelict in our blogging if we failed to bring attention to this tidbit that the Grand Junction Sentinel's Mike Saccone uncovered: Mark Udall reported spending $524.04 on "ad clothing" at Eddie Bauer from his campaign funds.

That's funny. With his support of taking away the secret ballot from workplace elections, we would have guessed Mark Udall did his campaign shopping at Banana Republic. (Let the subtle humor sink in, if you must.)

NRSC Ad: Liberal Mark Udall in Lockstep with Nancy Pelosi 94 Percent of the Time

The latest ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee - still in Colorado - reminds voters of Mark Udall's lockstep Left-wing voting record (voting with Nancy Pelosi 94 percent of the time):

Sure, the marching effect is a little weird, but it makes a point for undecided voters that we made about Mark Udall's record many months ago.

Bob Schaffer Ad Goes After Mark Udall for Votes Against Mortgage Lender Oversight

The Bob Schaffer campaign's latest ad attacks Mark Udall where it hurts:

Go here for more details on Mark Udall's votes against oversight of government mortgage lenders at the center of our current financial crisis. His hypocritical denial has only made the situation worse.

Rumored DSCC Pullout Leaves One of Two Possibilities of Democrat Deception

The Denver Post reports that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is pulling out of Colorado. Now frankly, I'm not ready to buy it, seeing as how the media jumped off the cliff last week with inaccurate reports about the DSCC's counterpart withdrawing from the state.

But if it is true, maybe there's a connection with this fundraising email sent out very recently from the Mark Udall campaign:

The bad news: Bob Schaffer's report revealed he has stockpiled a huge sum of money -- nearly $3 million -- for use in the final weeks before Election Day. That's a far higher "cash-on-hand" figure than we reported, an alarming advantage we must act to remedy right now.

So we've set an urgent internet fundraising goal of $250,000 -- which we absolutely need to reach to close the money gap before Election Day. Please contribute whatever you can afford towards this final effort.

Mark Udall is telling his supporters that his opponent Bob Schaffer has an "alarming advantage." Meanwhile, we're supposed to believe the PR of "state Democratic sources" that Udall "is comfortably ahead."

So we're left with two choices. Either:

• Democratic leaders are lying to the Denver Post and its readers in an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, OR


• Mark Udall is lying to his supporters to wring money out of them that he doesn't need

With undecided voters starting to tune in for the last two weeks of the campaign, now would seem an inopportune time for Mark Udall and the Democrats to cede the airwaves. We'll have to wait and see which alternative is indeed the case.

Krista Kafer Tells Why She is "For Schaffer"

Krista Kafer, a friend of SvU and a former Bob Schaffer Congressional staffer, explains why she is "for Schaffer", dispelling the Lefty caricature of a good man:

Bob is incredibly bright. I never had to write a speech; Bob could speak extemporaneously about any issue with clarity and thoughtfulness. He worked late and actually read legislation before voting it. Exclusive parties and elite dinners held no interest to him; when not working he wanted to be with his family. In stark contrast to other elected leaders in Washington, Bob is egalitarian through and through. From the head of NASA to the 16-year-old page, Bob treated everyone in the same unpretentious manner.

And Krista's compelling conclusion:

American needs a new kind of leader. Someone who will stand up for the forgotten man and woman in this election: the person who does not want what others have, the person who wants only to keep what she has earned. We need someone who understands that government is supposed to protect our lives, our liberty and our property, not take them away. I am that forgotten American and Bob Schaffer is the one who represents me.

Well said.

Thank You, Rocky Mountain News, for Spotlighting Mark Udall's Pandering

You've seen the mind-numbingly grating ad. Well, yesterday the Rocky Mountain News called out Mark Udall for his silly pandering:

Udall believes the economy is totally rigged against average Americans? And he says he's going to solve it with tax cuts and new energy technologies? Next thing you know, some politician is going to announce that clean energy is the long-awaited cure for the common cold, such are the miraculous powers routinely ascribed to it these days.

If this economy were totally rigged against the middle class there wouldn't be a middle class for politicians to pander to with ads like Udall's. But in fact there is a huge swath of middle-income Americans. And while they are understandably worried about the future, they remain as well or better off by most relevant standards than their counterparts almost anywhere else in the world.

It's commercials like the one hacked apart by this editorial that make me nearly unable to withstand the wait for election season to end.

Mark Udall's own votes in Congress denied needed oversight to the government mortgage institutions at the center of the economic crisis. Then he hypocritically blamed his political opponents for "laissez-fail" policies that he alleged to be the cause of the crisis. Finally, Udall descended into silly and shameless pandering to the "middle class".

Thanks to the Rocky Mountain News for performing the small public service.

Mark Udall Just Happens to Vote in Boulder (at least he remembered to vote for himself)

From Rocky Mountain Right:

According to the Rocky Mountain News, Boulder liberal Mark Udall turned in his absentee ballot.... in Boulder:

This just in: Mark Udall voted - for himself. The Democratic U.S. Senate candidate turned in his absentee ballot Monday at an early voting site at the University of Colorado.

Are we still supposed to pretend he's not from Boulder?

A fine question, and an interesting observation based on the remark of a reporter who has busily tried to deny the obvious about Mark Udall's place of residence. We've been over this territory before.

Westword: "Who wouldn't want a wiseguy representing Colorado?"

I'm not sure of any real education value to it, but this Westword blog piece on Mark "Wiseguy" Udall is sure good for a laugh. And a good laugh is about what we all need at this point in the campaign.

Question About Clothes vs. Charity Suggest It's Time for Schaffer-Udall Debates to End

With two weeks to go before Election Day and early votes already being cast, the final U.S. Senate debate in Colorado between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall draws headlines for this discussion:

Residents wanted to know how much Colorado’s two senatorial candidates spend on their suits versus their gifts to charity.

Both candidates Democratic Rep. Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer faced the uncommon question as their first in a line of 16 in Greeley at the Union Colony Civic Center Monday night during their last in a series of debates.

“I’m into recycling my suits,” Udall joked.

He said he gives $5,000 to $6,000 a year to charity, while Schaffer said he gives 10 percent of his income. Both said they haven’t bought a suit in years.

The candidates also had 60 seconds to say something nice about their opponents.

What this all might indicate about the state of the race I am not going to venture to guess. But it probably suggests that now is a good time to stop the debates. What a relief ... home stretch, here we come!

Mark Udall's Deceitful Attack Ends Up Exposing His Own Wasteful Record

So Mark Udall is falsely slamming candidate Bob Schaffer by suggesting that he "voted against veterans." The facts? Schaffer opposed the bills cited in the commercial for their tens of millions of dollars in wasteful pork projects.

Money for the Institute for Software Research, the Anchorage Zoo, the Stax Museum of American Soul Music, the Gorilla Forest Exhibition, Sacramento Urban League Workforce Development Center, a Las Vegas job training facility, St. Petersburg Sunken Gardens the Mid-Atlantic Aerospace Complex, and projects to restore college libraries and historic property - to name a few. Schaffer voted against pet projects proposed by Democrats and by fellow Republicans. Perhaps this is why Citizens Against Government Waste has endorsed Bob Schaffer for U.S. Senate.

Not exactly the same as "voting against veterans." Mark Udall has shamelessly produced a misleading attack campaign ad in his own name. Hardly the stuff of a confident, allegedly bipartisan candidate on his way to victory.

Then again, maybe Mark Udall didn't notice because he was so busy voting for pork in Washington, and is only an election season convert to the cause of reducing wasteful government spending.