Schaffer Donor Story Gets Worse

I'm not going to say

I told you so...

but before the apologists jump on here, at least soak in the facts of this situation. BS has several conflicts of interests, and in his fanatical view of never being wrong, he will go to great lengths of claiming the higher ground, and will use people like Dick Wad and old man Klein to attack other people as a distraction to this highly hypocrtical and ever increasing scandalous story.

It seems more and more that ProgressNow found one of BS's weakness... money and corruption.

"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole

---

by: Go Blue @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 11:49:26 AM CDT

Questions

in a 4-3 vote, what makes Schaffer's vote THE deciding vote?
Does the board of education not have electronic voting?
And didn't DPS award the contract after reviewing it? Does that make DPS as guilty?

---

by: Hugo O'conor @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 12:45:13 PM CDT

duh

they are all deciding votes, including Schaffer's, meaning if anyone had voted the other way the outcome would be different.  And, once again, Duh.

" And there are no Christian terrorists."

The Beej, circa 8/26/2010

---

by: Fidel's dirt nap @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 13:02:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No,

because the central issue here is the conflict of interest surrounding the vote with Schaffer accepting money before and after the vote that would ultimately profit Brennan.

"Suddenly, it may be cool to be American again" - William J. Kole

---

by: Go Blue @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 13:25:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Should Udall return nearly $10,000

to Qwest because he voted in favor of the COPE act which would cause Qwest to benefit and garner profits? Or is that money ok? I'm just confused as to which contributions a candidate can keep and which ones he/she should give back. Now, I know that the COPE Act failed in the end, but just as likely DPS could have denied the contract to White hat management. The conflict of interest is the same.

The Money

The COPE Act

---

by: Hugo O'conor @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 13:58:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Too bad for you, Comcast employee!

Please. Comparing telephone regulation affecting two competing for-profit companies to pushing your for-profit shyster donor on our kids' educations is ridiculous.

Is this Dick Wadhams' best response after the cussing didn't work? Back to the drawing board, fat boy.

Repeat after me: "I have never supported Dan Maes.  I have always supported [Dick Wadhams to fill in the blank]." --ClubTwitty

---

by: JeffcoBlue @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 14:10:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's not the same

Schaffer's contributions are going into his Senate account, but the vote in question has to do with his office on the school board. You can look up the fundraising reports of any member of congress and make those connections, and it's all out in the open.

---

by: Colorado Pols @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 14:15:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Now I'm really confused.

Are State Board of Education votes not public?  Or are you saying that if the donation had been for a SBE race, the contributions would have been ok?
Last I checked, any contributions to any race can be looked up in fundraising reports. All of them except for cash contributions under $20- of which Dems seem to get a lot.
It just seems like there's an arbitrary level of deciding what is and what isn't a quid-pro-quo and in this case (republicans have done it too) Progress Now seems to have picked the level. I am certain that if you look at most maximum contributions for ANY office, there is the likelyhood of a potential conflict of interest.

---

by: Hugo O'conor @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 14:47:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The classic reply:

If a Republican can't think of anything to justify what a fellow Republican did, just say a Dem did something just as bad. Those who use this approach never seem to notice that this argument is, in itself, an admission of wrong doing.

---

by: f.sage @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 00:07:56 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I am just asking

Where is the line and who decides?

Conversely, you are admitting wrongdoing on Udall's part. It's a circular argument. If I do what you do and then you accuse me of doing so, I may be in the wrong but you are in the wrong as well AND a hypocrite to boot.

---

by: Hugo O'conor @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 06:27:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you agree

that Bob Schaffer should withdraw from the race?

Also, you have to establish there is some sort of moral equivalency between these two guys before your "Him Too!" argument will work. You haven't. However, you have made clear you think Schaffer shouldn't run for US Senate.

"It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!" - Nietzsche  

---

by: twas brillig @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:03:49 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Only if you are saying that Udall should not run.

---

by: Hugo O'conor @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 07:52:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

There may be a discussion to be had concerning Udall,

but it should not be exploited to pre-empt the discussion currently underway about BS.

I have met many Germans who, if the Holocaust is mentioned, get a bit purturbed and respond, "Look what you Americans did to the Red Indians and the Blacks!" While I don't blame them for their reaction, given that humanity's inhumanity is pretty wide-spread and they get an unfair share of the blame (especially since most of those I am referring to were born after WWII), it's the wrong response: The Holocaust is one topic, the issue of heaping on Germany is another. They'd have been better off responding to the Holocaust first (with contrition, one would hope), and THEN addressing the second issue.

As a teacher, students would invariably respond to any discipline directed at them ("John and Jim, could you two please stop chatting and focus on the lesson we're working on?") with the old stand-by, "Why are you picking on me (us)? Sally and Sarah were talking too!" I would ask them that, if a murderer were caught by the police, would he have a reasonable grievance since there are hundreds of other murderers who did not get caught?

Similarly, your point would be more credible if you first addressed the criticism of BS, and THEN raised the issue of corruption being a bi-partisan problem. As is, your response appears to be an attempt at misdirection, one similar to that habitually employed by logically clumsy adolescents.


"I, I, I, I do say there Mr. Oscar. That uh, that uh, that uh we are living in a ree-PUB-Lick not in a uh, in a uh Deh-mock-ra-cy." -Foghorn

---

by: Ockham's Razor @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:12:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think you are missing my point

I originally started with some honest questions. ProgressNow accused Schaffer of casting THE deciding vote. What made his THE and not A deciding vote? Do the other 3 votes not count? Are they voice votes and his was the last? Were his arguments so persuasive that he convinced 3 other members to vote with him?
From the articles that I read, there were some numbers misinterpreted. This was brought to the attention of the SBoE. They reviewed the case and voted in favor of White Hat, 4-3. Then the DPS reviewed the numbers and reinstated the contract. So Schaffer's vote was one vote out of 7 and he had nothing to do with the contract being reinstated.
Someone then indicated there was a quid pro quo based on the vote. I am suggesting, without accusing of wrongdoing, that if you look at anyone's voting record, you can make connections that may not seem above board. Especially if you are inclined to wear tin-foil hats. I chose Udall since he is Schaffer's opponent. I assure you, as I mentioned before, that in any race, any maxed out contribution can seem shady.

---

by: Hugo O'conor @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:42:59 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, I didn't misunderstand.

Anyone who casts a vote without which the outcome would have been different has, by defintion, cast a "deciding vote." The number of people who cast deciding votes (when a decision is made by a margin of one vote) depends on how many people voted. The issue of corruption does not depend on the legitimacy and sincerity of anyone else's vote, or even on the defensibility of the position that was supported as a result of corruption: It depends only on the reasons for the vote. If there was a quid-pro-quo, it was corruption. That was the subject of this discussion.

"I, I, I, I do say there Mr. Oscar. That uh, that uh, that uh we are living in a ree-PUB-Lick not in a uh, in a uh Deh-mock-ra-cy." -Foghorn

---

by: Ockham's Razor @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:55:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

So you are assuming corruption without any facts

to back it up.

---

by: Hugo O'conor @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:26:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not assuming anything.

I haven't once argued that corruption occurred. You need to read more carefully (and so do I: I missed your distinction between "the" and "a." You're right that "the" implies uniqueness, and in that sense is literally misleading, but in the context of the phrase "the deciding vote" it is such a well-established convention that it's not a concern anyone will take seriously).

"I, I, I, I do say there Mr. Oscar. That uh, that uh, that uh we are living in a ree-PUB-Lick not in a uh, in a uh Deh-mock-ra-cy." -Foghorn

---

by: Ockham's Razor @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 20:03:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Take on BS first...

BRAVO!!!  Well said.

---

by: Izatso? @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:33:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

But I'm not the one using that argument

Others here have addressed the difference between the two situations but that's not germane to my point.  When I believe something or someone is worth defending, I NEVER base that defence on pointing to someone or something else being just as bad.  If the act or person can't be defended on intrinsic merit, I'm perfectly willing to  admit it.  Grown-ups don't resort to "but Mom, Billy did it too" when caught with their hand in the cookie jar and expect that to cut much ice.

---

by: f.sage @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 10:38:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

what no one has answered is

What is the standard? Where is the line? It's not that "Billy did it too" Mom told you that you could not get into the cookie jar. Here we have ProgressNow saying, "Bob Schaffer may not go into the cookie jar, but everyone else, if they are a Democrat, can." Why don't you and everyone else admit what we all know, ProgressNow is politicizing what is a non-issue in the way that is most convenient to them.
Would Brennan have given a campaign contribution to Schaffer if he were an opponent of charter schools? Probably not. The same way, I would expect the CEA to contribute to Udall and not to Schaffer.

---

by: Hugo O'conor @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:14:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you re-read the posts here

you will find that several have answered your question about the standard.  You just don't like the answers.

---

by: f.sage @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:41:54 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

One more point

I am not defending Schaffer. IF he did something illegal or unethical, he should come forward and admit it. But the same goes for every other candidate who has taken a campaign contribution from an interest group.

Do I think that Schaffer did anything illegal? No.
Do I think that Udall did anything illegal? No.
Do I think that ProgressNow is being hypocritical? Yes
Do I think that I'm going to change anyone's mind on this blog? I've had that discussion here before. We all pretty much have our minds made up otherwise, we wouldn't be talking politics in August during an odd year.

---

by: Hugo O'conor @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:39:05 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

That is a reasonable answer

Udall believes in workers rights and wants to help working class folk.  So he takes money from them

BS believes in dismantling the public school system and giving tax breaks to the rich kids at kent and grayland.  So he takes money from supporters of vouchers.

I see your point.

I would argue however that recieving money just before and just after a vote has a little smell problem. 

I wish we publicly financed elections.  Election finance laws just legalize corruption, particularly when combined with nepotism on the campaign staff (not that that's the situation here).

---

by: Danny the Red (hair) @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 12:38:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Schaffer would open the gate...

So...Schaffer would open the gate for All White Hat No Cattle Brennan to rustle himself up some of our Colorado taxpayer dollars and sneak them back to Ohio? Where's the sheriff?

---

by: Izatso? @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 08:57:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Plan B? (and I don't mean the emergency contraceptive)

  I was wondering whether the Wad Man, his cohorts at GOP State Central Committee and/or the Trailhead board have a Plan "B" in the event that Schaffer withdraws from the race? 

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 14:27:02 PM CDT

Lamborn

"Collective fear stimulates herd instinct and tends to produce ferocity toward those who are not regarded as members of the herd." -Bertrand Russell

---

by: parsingreality @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 19:41:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Schaffer will be out before Halloween

Schaffer will not be able to stay in the race.

Only question is who the Republicans will now recruit:

Pete Coors
Bill Owens
Troy Eid
Josh Penry
John Suthers
Ken Buck
all or none of the above

---

by: Iconoclast @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 14:55:28 PM CDT

who is Ken Buck?

sounds like the name of a porno star

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 15:16:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

one and the same

also a very conservative Republican District Attorney in the heart of Musgrave Land and always rumored to be running for something or other

---

by: Iconoclast @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 15:25:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hehehehe.

I wonder if he would see the sheer amusement in that, since he's a right wing Christian fundie from hell.

Personally, that's the best laugh I've had all day.

"The only way you could be worse is if you were Wade Norris." Ralphie

---

by: Middle of the Road @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 20:11:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He may be the best republican choice

It would appear that just about every republican is corrupt. Here is a guy who nobody knows, so that would mean any and all of his corruption is hidden as well.

I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

---

by: windbourne @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 09:33:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I say...

recruit Doug Lamborn because he supports gambling and dogfighting.

---

by: The Gambler @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 11:07:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Kevin McCaskey?

"I've learned a lot of lessons being involved in politics. I also believe that when you are attacked, you have to deck your opponents." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

---

by: Coloradem1 @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 15:48:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

what about Jim Congrove?

He's actually run a statewide campaign, albeit a primary campaign losing to Joe Rogers for Lt. Gov!

---

by: One Queer Dude @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 15:50:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's also Mark Paschall...

Republicans have a deep bench to pull from!

"I've learned a lot of lessons being involved in politics. I also believe that when you are attacked, you have to deck your opponents." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

---

by: Coloradem1 @ Wed Aug 15, 2007 at 16:46:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

John Elway

John Elway has already won several statewide races. Heck, three of them and they were Super!

---

by: The Gambler @ Thu Aug 16, 2007 at 16:04:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]