Bob Schaffer's Most Confident Prediction Needed to Secure a Victory Tomorrow

The Pueblo Chieftain reports a confident prediction from the Republican candidate in Colorado's U.S. Senate race:

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer drew heavily on that theme Saturday morning as he spoke to about 40 fellow Pueblo Republicans about his Senate race against U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo, at the McCain-Palin headquarters Pueblo office on Main Street. Schaffer has been trailing Udall in recent polls but he argued that was also true for past GOP winners, including retiring U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard and former Gov. Bill Owens.

Noting that he'd sat with both men at a recent rally for Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain, Schaffer said, "Senator Allard told me he'd have been glad to be just 5 points down in the polls at this time (in 2002). And he went on to win by 4 points."

This is an exaggeration, but still contains hope for a shred of optimism. The final Denver Post poll before the 2002 election had Tom Strickland leading Wayne Allard 42-41. Allard indeed won by 4 points - a 5-point swing in his direction.

Trailing by 4 points according to the Post's final poll, Bob Schaffer would need a similar favorable swing to eke out a victory. Except the unpredictable dynamics of 2008 make this development far from a guarantee. We'll refrain from making our own prediction, but will report back to comment on the final results tomorrow evening.

And regardless of the polls, get out and vote.

Denver Post: Bob Schaffer-Mark Udall Race Closer Than Many Have Suggested

No one is saying that Bob Schaffer is exactly a lock, or even a favorite, at this point. But obituaries of his campaign have been written prematurely. Polls showing Mark Udall with a double-digit lead? You think they might be skewed a bit?

From today's Denver Post:

Overall, Udall leads Republican Bob Schaffer by 47 percent to 43 percent, a small drop from the five-point lead he enjoyed in a Denver Post poll a month ago and one that shows a significantly smaller lead for Udall than other recent polls.

Green Party candidate Bob Kinsey is the choice for 3 percent of voters, while 7 percent remain undecided.

The Post's survey mirrors the result of the Schaffer campaign's own internal polling, which Friday showed Udall with a 46-43 lead.

Tuesday will tell us the whole story, and turnout will be a big factor.

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.

Denver Reporters Catch Mark Udall in a Self-Damaging U-Turn on Taxes

Better late than never, I say. Last Friday we brought attention to Mark Udall's hypocritical attacks against Bob Schaffer on the repatriation tax issue.

Today both the major Denver dailies have caught on. The Rocky Mountain News notes that Mark Udall not only supported a 2004 bill that contained the same corporate tax cut provision for which he criticized Bob Schaffer, but also gave a speech on the House floor praising the idea:

In a floor speech before the final vote, Udall said the bill was flawed and filled with unnecessary provisions, according to the Congressional Record.

But he also said, "I will vote for it because it includes provisions to encourage American corporations doing business abroad to repatriate their overseas earnings for investment here at home. This has great potential to stimulate investment in new plants and equipment as well as in the research and development that support innovation, job creation and prosperity."

Meanwhile, the Denver Post confronted the Udall campaign with the facts, forcing his spokesperson to admit the falsehood and recant:

His spokeswoman, Tara Trujillo, said last week that Udall had voted to strip that proposal out of the bill, but that turned out to be wrong.

The campaign is now admitting the mistake, but only after Schaffer's campaign manager pointed to Udall's own floor statement on the bill in which he praised the tax-holiday provision.

Mark Udall has to be careful. Sometimes when he makes his infamous U-turns, he ends up crashing his own campaign bus.

Mark Udall Undercuts His Own Excuse for Voting Against Second Amendment

Mark Udall really doesn't seem terribly interested in getting rid of the U-turn Udall label. From the March 26 Denver Post:

When the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week about the Washington, D.C., ban on handgun ownership, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado issued a news release saying he hoped the court would affirm the right of citizens to "keep and bear arms."

But on four occasions when Udall, a Democrat running for an open U.S. Senate seat, could have voted in Congress to repeal all or sections of the gun ban, he did not.

Udall campaign spokesman Taylor West said the congressman did not support the 32-year-old ban but also didn't think Congress was justified in overriding the district while the issue was before the courts.

"He believes in self-rule and the rights of local government," West said. "The people should be able to set their own laws."

Then we noted Mark Udall's excuse for voting against D.C. residents' Second Amendment rights: local government control. But yesterday Mark Udall undercut his own excuse. He voted not once but twice in Congress to interfere with home D.C. home rule on Second Amendment issues - supporting HR 6842, the National Capital Security and Safety Act.

Mark Udall, the model of election year inconsistency: It almost makes your head spin.

Mark Udall Mum on Overlooking Reported Scandal in Interior Department Agency

From the Denver Post this morning:

The alarm bells started more than two years ago about a culture of rule-breaking by government workers now embroiled in a scandal of sex, drugs and potential bribery.

A top government investigator repeatedly warned members of Congress that he had uncovered severe ethical lapses at the Minerals Management Service in Lakewood, where workers oversee billions of dollars worth of oil and gas leases.

He said it bluntly at House hearings in 2006. He said it again in early 2007. He warned a Senate committee in January of last year as well.

Congress did little to tighten the rules for the MMS.

According to the article, the costly problem of "severe ethical lapses" is finally being addressed now. Where was Mark Udall through all of this, though?

Reps. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Springs Republican; Tom Tancredo, a Littleton Republican; and Mark Udall, a Democrat from Eldorado Springs, are on the Natural Resources Committee, which held a February 2007 hearing where [Interior Department Inspector General Earl] Devaney testified about ethical problems at MMS. He also said problems in calculating royalties may have cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

The transcript from that hearing does not show any of the Colorado lawmakers asking questions. There is no roll that would show whether they attended. [emphasis added]

The relevant question is whether Mark Udall was at the hearing. If so, why so silent on the issue? If not, where was he: Sick in bed? Gone golfing with lobbyists? At an out-of-state fundraiser with wealthy liberal donors?

Udall, through an aide, did not answer a question about whether more should have been done earlier or what Congress should do next.

Is Mark Udall just hoping the story goes away before he has to answer any questions? Does he have to think up a tale? Cover his tracks? The answer is that we don't know. But his silence feeds the speculation. Lamborn and Tancredo aren't off the hook yet, either.

Perhaps what is most intriguing is that this story is coming out of a locally-based federal government agency that oversees oil and gas leases. Did the "severe ethical lapses" in the agency affect the ability to distribute leases? Given his longstanding opposition to domestic oil and gas exploration, what did Mark Udall think about this?

As noted of Mark Udall in a March 2008 Congressional Quarterly article (subscription required):

His uncle, Stewart Udall, was Interior secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. And from his seat on the Natural Resources Committee, Udall can see a portrait of his father, who chaired the panel (then known as Interior) from 1977 to 1991 and wrote legislation doubling the size of the national park system and tripling the extent of the national wilderness system.

With such a family legacy both in the Interior Department and on the Natural Resources Committee, you would think Mark Udall would take a strong interest in a potential scandal there. Did he simply ignore the warnings? Was something else afoot?

More investigation and reporting is needed to answer these questions.

New Ad Asks Mark Udall Why He Doesn't Want Your Workplace Vote to be Private

Seeing the question "Is Mark Udall Selling Out?" might make you think of his environmentalist friends asking why Udall is suddenly pandering away from his career-long opposition to offshore drilling.

In this case, it happens to be about Mark Udall's nearly-convinced appeal in favor of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

The initial question is part of a broader ad campaign by a group called Coloradans for Employee Freedom that questions Mark Udall's support for EFCA and wonders aloud: "Shouldn't your vote still be private?"

As the Daily Blogster puts it:

One value (VOTING) is extremely sacred to Americans and all freedom loving people around the world but Udall wants to make an exception when it comes to one of his most sacred of institutions....labor unions.

Which - going out on a limb here - may have something to do with hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Labor campaign contributions.

After all, Mark Udall co-sponsored EFCA despite admitting "serious reservations," and acknowledged to the Denver Post that the legislation "isn't perfect." That's a nice way to describe depriving millions of workers the right to a secret ballot in workplace elections. After lo these many months, Mark Udall still hasn't had to explain how he can be so out of step with Coloradans and Western values.

Mark Udall's Whiplash U-Turn, Distortions Undermine Credibility on Energy Issues

The day after we reported Boulder liberal Mark Udall's whiplash-inducing change of policy on offshore drilling - the Denver Post's Michael Riley followed up with a piece on the topic:

Battered on the energy issue for weeks, Democratic Senate candidate Rep. Mark Udall moved Wednesday to close the distance with his Republican opponent on the issue, calling for more domestic drilling and reversing his long-standing opposition to drilling off America's shores.

Both were sharp turnarounds for a man who has made the expansion of renewable energy a cornerstone of his career and who has consistently dinged the aggressive drilling policies of the Bush administration during this campaign.

But both Udall and his staff emphasized that the nation's energy crisis called for a sweeping rethinking of possible solutions — and that the country could no longer afford to keep much of anything off the table.

Perhaps the last paragraph should be reworded: "...[Mark Udall's looming election] crisis called for a sweeping rethinking of possible solutions." Let's just be honest - Udall has changed his mind because he was reading the polls.

Mark Udall still has much explaining to do to overcome years of opposition to expanded domestic energy exploration. In the Rocky Mountain News, the Democratic candidate tries to dig himself out of a hole:

"I've always said we have to have responsible drilling," Udall said during the news conference. "I'm not opposed to drilling. What I've been opposed to is the Bush-Cheney focus solely on oil. I've been opposed to (the) Bush-Cheney line that we can drill our way out of this challenge."

By "responsible drilling," Mark Udall must mean drilling off the shore of Cuba.

Udall then goes on to tell intentionally deceive about his opponent Bob Schaffer's position:

"My opposition to (Schaffer's) energy plan is based on the fact that it's a drill, drill, drill approach," Udall said. "We need a much broader approach, a much more comprehensive approach that understands that the future includes renewables, conservation, . . . these amazing fuel-efficient cars."

Does Mark Udall want us to believe he doesn't know what Schaffer's position on energy really is?

At public meetings Bob Schaffer has conducted across the state, Coloradans have made it clear they want to help lead America to a future of energy independence. It’s a positive and necessary goal Bob believes can be achieved by taking a long-range, comprehensive approach.

Helping Colorado advance a freedom-based energy strategy means broadening the incentives, research and investment in renewable energy science, production, conservation and improved development of American-based conventional energy resources. This will provide greater energy security as we reduce our dependence on energy needs from potentially hostile countries.

A leader in innovative energy solutions, Bob’s practical experience spans both public policy and real-world business. Colorado is blessed with abundant clean natural gas, oil and coal resources as well as being a robust producer of wind-generated electricity, solar power, crops and technologies used to create alternative fuels. Additional opportunities exist for geothermal, hydroelectric and nuclear production. Combined with world-leading research capabilities and an energy-savvy citizenry, Colorado can and should be a national leader in achieving energy independence.

Mark Udall is drastically changing his position on energy - the preeminent issue of the day - and distorting his opponent's position. Is this the guy independent Colorado voters want to represent them in the U.S. Senate?

Yesterday, July 30: A Day the Mark Udall Campaign May Look Back On in Regret

213-212. Less than 48 hours after he mad a promise to vote to keep Congress busy to deal with the nation's domestic energy problems, Mark Udall showed up a few minutes too late to cast an important vote. And that favorable interpretation requires taking him at his word.

You know, he was too busy raising funds for his Senate campaign to show up and cast important votes. It doesn't say much about how well Mark Udall would represent Colorado as a U.S. Senator.

Reports the Denver Post:

[Udall spokeswoman Taylor] West said that her boss would send a letter to Pelosi today objecting to the fact that the vote wasn't delayed long enough for him to make it from the Washington airport to the Capitol.

First, when did Taylor West - one of two people who believed Mark Udall actually won the first debate - resume official PR duties for the Udall campaign?

Second, Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have saved Mark Udall from choosing between breaking a public promise and voting against a long history of energy obstruction likely will be too transparent to work. But she didn't do Udall any favor. Pelosi is more concerned about saving many of her House Democrats seeking re-election from having to cast a vote on the issue than securing Colorado's U.S. Senate seat for her party. Translation? Nancy Pelosi threw Mark Udall under the bus.

Of course, this all assumes we give Mark Udall all the benefit of the doubt. After all, based on his record, there's absolutely no reason to believe that Udall has any serious intention to go against his entire Congressional career by seeking to improve America's domestic energy supply. Yes - the only place Mark Udall wants to drill is your wallet.

Fourteen weeks from now, on Election Night, the events of yesterday well may be looked back upon as a critical and decisive moment in the U.S. Senate race. And that would be bad news for Mark Udall.

Bob Schaffer's Clear Debate Victory over Mark Udall Sways Uncommitted Voter

The Denver Post has a decent story about today's debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall, but most interesting is this comment left by an attendee at today's debate:

I attended the debate as a guest of the South East Business Partnership (SEBP). I sat two rows from the speakers and saw everything live.

While I was leaning toward Udall for his record on aerospace, I couldn't believe his performance in the debate. A friend of mine (and staunch Udall advocate) was horrified and joked we should have sat in the back so leaving was an option. He was terribly concerned for his candidate following the dbate.

If I heard Udall say "We are all Americans" once more than the 32 times I counted I would have considered driving a srewdriver into my tempel to stop the pain.

This Schaffer guy wiped the floor with Udall who looked like a deer in the headlights. On enegry and Iraq Udall used the famous I voted for it before I voted against it - defense many times but using different words.

Schaffer dominated the debate and won handedly. Any unbiased observor would easily come to this conclusion. I was just sad to see your coverage so very different from the actual event I witnessed. Regardless of who the reporter supports he should report the truth.

It was like watching a wrestler sitting on top of his opponent in every round and reading an account in the paper that is was an even fight.

I want to do more research on Schaffer before saying I support him but based on the debate - the winner was much more clear than your newspaper reported. [emphases added]

Any assessment that I could make showing that Bob Schaffer won the debate hands down could not be so persuasive. A diehard Lefty Mark Udall supporter who watched the debate disagreed with one of Schaffer's main points of attack but had to admit his candidate's performance was "platitudinous."

Visuals from today's debate are available both at Rocky Mountain Right and Face The State. 9News has the complete video: Those who wish to watch the debate the old-fashioned way can tune in Sunday, July 20, at 10:30 AM, on My20, Comcast Channel 3.

Too bad for Mark Udall that this debate won't be the last one.

Official Documents Refute Naked Partisan Attack against Bob Schaffer

This week the Grand Junction Sentinel ran with a story that made it look like Bob Schaffer was engaged in wrongdoing when he traveled in his role as an energy executive to discuss a development deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government. Reporter Mike Saccone elaborates in a blog post here.

As more facts have come forward in this case, there appears to be no wrongdoing whatsoever by Bob Schaffer or his former employer, Aspect Energy. In particular, the Denver Post's Michael Riley - clearly no fan of Schaffer - did a little more digging. Here's what he says about evidence he found that contradicts the allegations of wrongdoing:

Yet the Oversight Committee documents present a very different picture. They include internal Hunt memos describing meetings with U.S. officials in which they talked about the potential leases with no mention of any warning that they were a bad idea. They also include an e-mail from a State Department official in Iraq to Hunt Oil vice president Jeanne Phillips, in which the U.S. official chats amicably about the Kurdish deal and flags a new opportunity the company might be interested in: "Anything I can do from here to give info or whatever, let me know," it reads.

Those documents match what Schaffer says about Aspect's own dealings as the company was arranging the Kurdish lease - that they received no discouragement from U.S. officials in their efforts. It is still unclear exactly what the State Department said to Aspect executives as they worked to line up the lease in 2006, if anything.

More light is shed in today's Rocky Mountain News:

But both Wadhams and Alex Cranberg, chairman of Aspect, disagree that the State Department had a clear policy against such contracts. Cranberg said his company received government approval to visit the region.

"We were not asked by the State Department not to do this deal," he said in an e-mail.

Unfortunately, Mike Saccone - perhaps trying to give legs to the story he broke - misinterprets what Cranberg's message means, trying to suggest that "Cranberg said there was no communication between Aspect Energy and the State Department." But that's not what Bob Schaffer's former boss said. According to Cranberg, government officials gave his company no reason to believe they shouldn't move forward.

If Saccone could make the case that Aspect Energy had no communication with State Department officials, then he might be able to give traction to the original argument. But if State Department officials told Aspect Energy there was no problem, then Schaffer did nothing wrong. And the charge against the U.S. Senate candidate looks like nothing more than a naked partisan political attack.

Interestingly, Mike Riley appears to have correctly pinned the blame on the State Department for what, at best, appears to be sending mixed messages (though he understates its significance):

Documents suggest that the situation was much less clear cut. They show that State Department officials in Iraq may even have encouraged some American oil companies in their efforts to secure those leases even as it was publicly describing them as problematic. To the extent that's true, Schaffer and Aspect may be much less culpable than Democratic critics suggest and it may be the State Department that is most to blame for playing the diplomatic game of saying one thing in public and another in private.

Yet two critics with Left-leaning records and attachments to Democrat candidates have attempted to come forward allegedly as unbiased experts to perpetuate the myth of wrongdoing.

Who are these two? Lawrence Korb performed the bidding of Congressional Democrats to attack the credibility of General David Petraeus back in 2007. Democrats and Korb since have been left with egg on their face, after Petraeus has led a successful military strategy in Iraq and quashed their defeatist agenda.

Rand Beers has been a senior foreign policy adviser to Democrat Presidential candidates John Kerry and Barack Obama. Beers recently went out of his way to attack John McCain for his honorable military service, in particular the suffering he went through as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam.

A couple of Democrat operatives are trying to keep the story alive for Mark Udall's sake - to score political points. But the problem here very much seems to be with officials in the U.S. State Department. Mike Saccone should do the decent thing and publish a follow-up story bringing the new, relevant information to light - and helping to expose the agendas of those behind the original attack.

Latest Silly Denver Post "Expose" Reminder of Need for Serious Debate to Discuss

The Denver Post's Michael Riley - whose ongoing assignment seems to be dredging up the most nonsensical attacks against Bob Schaffer - makes the stunning discovery that the U.S. Senate candidate served on the board of an online university with a classical education curriculum, that served as "an academic haven for conservatives." Um ... okay.

Someone will have to tell me why this is a story, except that the Post is blind to its own narrow liberal bias and is not familiar with a traditional classical education curriculum.

Bring on that debate so we can talk about the substance of the campaign.

Mark Udall Only Telling Half the Story of His Position on the Roan Plateau

The Denver Post gave both Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall the same set of questions on energy policy, and recorded their answers. The results? Some points of agreement. It was slightly annoying to read Schaffer's answers in the third-person voice, but it was entirely predictable to see the lack of depth or detail in Udall's responses.

Besides, Mark Udall is trying to obfuscate his position on natural gas exploration on the Roan Plateau. The Post asks, "Do you support limits to drilling on the Roan Plateau beyond the BLM's current plan?" Udall replies:

Yes. I support Governor Ritter's Roan Plateau proposal and have introduced legislation that would codify his proposal into law.

But that's only half the story. Here's the rest. Yes, Udall introduced the legislation, but has worked behind the scenes in an effort to stall out the clock and put even more of the land off-limits - flushing potential new jobs, a viable energy source, economic growth, and higher education funding away to cater to out-of-state environmental special interests.

Maybe Mark Udall could be made to answer a follow-up question in a debate.

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.

Mark Udall's Cynical Sponsorship of Big Labor Bill Back in the Spotlight

An astute letter writer from Grand Junction reminds readers of Boulder liberal Mark Udall's cynical sponsorship of legislation that would deprive workers of secret ballots in union workplace elections:

Virtually every Democratic candidate this year, including Mark Udall and Barack Obama, are pushing for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which is a massive handout to organized labor. EFCA would eliminate the private-ballot vote when unionizing a workplace and put in place a system where workers could be intimidated and pressured into signing petitions for unionization.

On the same day, the Denver Post reports that state government has become unionized by the votes of a small minority of workers:

About 6,900 state workers from a pool of 22,500 who were eligible participated in the election, which gave them a choice between Colorado WINS or no union representation. Of those, 5,481 supported the union.

The results were based only on the number of votes cast, but even those who did not vote will now be represented by the union — regardless of whether they pay the voluntary union dues.

Last November we speculated that Gov. Bill Ritter's executive order that set the state employee unionization process in motion may have been done in part to take political heat off Mark Udall. Has the heat been turned back on?

Mark Udall's "Expert Advice": Same that Counseled Defense Cuts, Dept. of Peace?

Even as evidence mounts of a growing U.S. victory in Iraq, Mark Udall is trapped in the MoveOn.org past. And Denver Post reporter Michael Riley is right there with Udall:

Votes against the 2002 Iraq war resolution — relatively rare as they were — have been political gold for those who cast them, and Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall plans to take that currency to the bank.

Udall used the release Thursday of a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report on the White House case for war to take a few swipes at his Republican opponent and telling voters that he had been right to oppose the war.

"Mark Udall used his independent judgment and sought out expert advice to see through the Bush administration's manipulated intelligence and come to his own conclusions," said Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo. She said Republican Bob Schaffer "simply rubber-stamped the Bush administration's rush to war."

So whose "expert advice" did Udall seek? Seeing as how this is such an important foundation to the Boulder liberal Congressman's argument that he has great judgment, perhaps Riley or Trujillo could share who these figures were.

Perhaps it was the same "expert advice" that counseled Mark Udall to co-sponsor a bill to create the Department of Peace.

Or perhaps it was the same "expert advice" that counseled Mark Udall to cast these votes in Congress:

* Udall voted against authorizing nearly $289 billion in Fiscal Year 2000 defense funding -- including funds for six F-22 fighters -- twice (RCV#424, 9/15/99; RCV#241, 6/7/00)
* Udall voted to cut $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 defense spending (RCV#194, 5/18/00)
* In 2003, Udall voted against $87 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan including funds for body armor, armored humvees, and health care for National Guard members and reservists (RCV#601, 10/31/03; CQ Weekly, 11/8/03)
* Udall voted against a bill intended to expedite the delivery of armor to troops on the ground in 2004 (RCV#234, 6/14/04)
* Udall voted against $453.5 billion in defense spending in 2005 (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
* In 2005, Mark Udall voted against $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
* And last year, Udall voted against protecting funding for homeless and disabled veterans from cuts, against increasing military housing funding by $275 million, against lowering college loan rates for graduates serving in the military or National Guard, and to prevent senior military officers from working at major defense contractors for a year after retiring. (RCV#714, 7/24/07; RCV#71, 1/31/07; RCV#421, 5/24/07)

There's too much countervailing evidence on this issue for intelligent readers to assume that Mark Udall sought anonymous "expert advice" and displayed good judgment. Especially when his "stuck in the past" focus ignores the real issue of how (or how not) to build on recent American success in Iraq.

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.

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 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.

Guest Commentary Advice to Bob Schaffer Misses Point on Campaign Finance

Today, the Denver Post runs a guest column from a lobbyist calling on Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer to repent from his indirect associations with a more infamous lobbyist. The lobbyist is David Donnelly, director of Campaign Money Watch - a group that lobbies for public financing of federal elections.

Donnelly writes purportedly with advice to help Schaffer free himself from public perceptions of conflicted associations with a less reputable lobbyist:

He ought to unabashedly repent, first for his actions, and then for defending a campaign finance system that puts the interests of lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and political donors like factory owners in the Northern Marianas ahead of those, like exploited workers, who need government to listen to them. [emphasis added]

But there is no reason for Bob Schaffer to take advice on the issue from someone who lobbies full-time for a failed vision of campaign finance reform which he thoroughly disagrees.

Let's be clear: Schaffer is not a defender of the current campaign-finance system, and has been a critic of policies that purport to "take the money out of politics," while placing limits on political free speech. This has been a consistent principle of Schaffer's throughout his career in public office.

Donnelly says Schaffer should "repent" of his views on campaign finance. But the evidence calls for Donnelly to repent of his faith in the public-financing system: a system that promotes incumbent protection, while bringing NO improvements to candidate participation, voter turnout, lawmaker behavior, or public confidence in government. It's a system for which only 6 percent of American taxpayers have demonstrated support.

Neither Donnelly nor the candidate he seeks to admonish support the status quo, which protects incumbents and shifts money from the control of parties and candidates to unaccountable, third-party 527 groups. But Donnelly wants to replace it with an ineffective and unpopular public campaign-finance system that keeps in place incumbent protection and adds further limits to political free speech. On the other hand, Schaffer supports a system of campaign finance more in line with the Founders' vision, removing limits on political free speech, that preserves public accountability through full and immediate transparency.

It's an issue of liberty. Donnelly may have noble intentions, but his agenda is failed and outdated. There is no reason for Bob Schaffer to pay him heed.

But what about Mark Udall, the only candidate in the race to take money from Jack Abramoff-associated firms?