President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
May 31, 2008 11:52 PM UTC

Schaffer Accepts Nod, Udall Releases New Ad

  • 51 Comments
  • by: RedGreen

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

For those unable to attend the Republican convention (or those in attendance who want to relive it), here’s Bob Schaffer’s acceptance speech. Posted on Slapstick Politics

This is the first half. Part 2 is after the jump.

UPDATED TO ADD: Mark Udall released a new 30-second TV spot about “a better way to protect America,” which began airing today. It’s also after the jump.

Followed by the opposing view:

Tweet
Share

Comments

51 thoughts on “Schaffer Accepts Nod, Udall Releases New Ad”

  1. won a national penmanship award. Congratulations to her. I did not know that.

    Schaffer also mentions his fight against Congressional earmarks, which might be a touchy subject for him.

    Who’s Behind That Mystery Earmark?



    Our intrepid reporter has been calling around to the Colorado congressional delegation, circa 2000. Bob Schaffer, for one, isn’t talking

    .

      1. Or is he going to send the same military he voted to undercut when he voted against the surge?

        http://markudall.house.gov/HoR…

        The same military Boulder Liberal Mark Udall voted against funding:

        In 2005, Mark Udall voted against $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (RCV#669, 12/19/05)

        Boulder Liberal Mark Udall voted against a bill intended to expedite the delivery of armor to troops on the ground in 2004. (RCV#234, 6/14/04)

        And in 2003, Mark voted against $87 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. (RCV#601, 10/31/03)

        Additionally, in 2003 Mark voted against funds for body armor, armored humvees and health care for National Guard Members and Reservists. (RCV#562, 10/17/03)

        http://www.nrsc.org/news/read….

        1. If we have 5 divisions in Iraq when commanders in Afghanistan are BEGGING for troops–voting against the surge is Exactly what you do if you want to get BinLaden.

          Don’t conflate Iraq and Binladen–makes you sound like Bush.

          Bush combines afghan and Iraq requests exactly to conflate the issue–If he were honest he would put them up seperately.  However, the GOP prefers to politize the military (McCain sends taxpayer dough on photo-ops with troop backdrops, Bush keeps a carrier circling off san diego so he can get his flight suit and “mission accomplished” photo op, Sends a general to congress to argue policy instead of sending politicians) thankfully Mullen reminded McCain not to abuse the military for political purposes.

          1. You left out this weekend’s example. Even after the Joint Chiefs made a point of reminding McCain not to use the military in his campaign, he sent out a fundraiser with General Petraeus in uniform.

            After being criticized by everyone from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the governor of Wisconsin, John McCain admitted today that it was wrong to use an image of Gen. David Petraeus in uniform for a fundraising letter. “It won’t happen again,” McCain said today at a press conference in Milwaukee. His campaign had argued previously that using the picture was appropriate, and that showing Petraeus shaking hands with McCain did not imply he was supportive of McCain’s candidacy. Petraeus has not endorsed any candidate for president.

            1. that throughout the Bush years it has been Dems trying to get more funding to support our vets and Republicans voting no, saying we can’t afford it while going to the mat for tax breaks for the corporate elite and to block investigations into war profiteering and wasted billions.  The Republicans who FINALLY came over to vote with Dems on the new GI bill are almost all coming up for re-election and are afraid the public is catching on to their use ’em then screw ’em attitude toward our troops.

              1. Chuck Hagel is also named on the Bill, John Warner joined as a prime sponsor and he’s not running for anything.

                I don’t think of this as a partisan issue, that’s why I am so surprised at McCain’s opposition.

                Even his reason is wrong.

                McCain worries it will hurt retention. Maybe, but it will help with recruitment.

                John McCain wants a permanent military class–I prefer a broad based, but voluntary military made up of citizen soldiers.

                In WWII the Germans had the Military class and we beat them with a citizen army.  All of america shared in conflict.  My grandfather made 4 combat jumps in WWII, but his total time in combat was less than soldiers now are facing during a four year enlistment.  

                1. The peace time army’s job used to be to keep the tanks spit shined for the citizens to use to win the next war.

                  I used the GI bill to further my education.

                  It was not a big consideration in my decision to join, but it was a nice Thank You for giving 3 years of my life to be at the beck and call of my country.  

                  1. It baffles me how this is a partisan bill, it’s about as close to something we can all agree on as it gets, though it seems clear opposition to the bill is partisan. Even so, McCain and Bush’s heels-in opposition puzzles me. I don’t see what advantage (or principle) they feel they’re upholding on this.

                    1. Money spent on college scholarships is like money spent on NASA and basic R&D – it pays off 20X back. So it’s a great win/win.

                    2. are you telling us that when our government seeds the human infrastructure with our tax dollars in higher education, that ultimately more tax dollars flow into the coffers?

                      Are you kidding?  Surely you know that the only way to do that is to cut taxes!  Obviously, if we cut taxes to zero, the treasury will be like old Scrooge Mcduck’s money bin.  Right?

                      I can only imagine how powerful and productive our economic engine would be if we had “free with some strings perhaps” higher education for all.  But, oh no, we can’t give something to people who haven’t earned it, can we?  

                      I can only imagine because facts and empiricism will never convince congress and our president to do otherwise.

                2. Agree that McCain’s position is baffling and that the retention argument doesn’t make sense  for a bunch of reasons.  As you say, more people will be inclined to enlist in the first place if they are confident in the benefits. On the other hand, spreading poverty is also a great way to increase enlistment without the need to offer much beyond food and shelter.  

                  The “only three years” argument doesn’t hold water, either.  Many WWII vets served no more than 3 years, especially the youngest who, like my uncle, still hadn’t turned 20  by the time it was all over.  Three years is a long time in a young person’s life and these GIs have earned the benefits the new GI bill provides.

                  That’s the bottom line for me.  They deserve the top spot on our list of spending priorities because they’ve earned it.  The idea that the real purpose of keeping the benefits to a minimum is to manipulate those who have served into re-enlisting by limiting their options is repugnant, especially coming from uber-patriotic troop “supporters” like McCain.

                  Of course nothing is better for enlistment than a desperate population of young people with few options.  It is very unsettling to think that the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite coupled with an economy that is increasingly failing the majority is just what the doctor ordered if you want an all volunteer endless war machine that creates huge profits for that elite and no one else. What a great way to provide the few with vast armies and cheap labor.  Who needs a generous GI Bill?  

                  The Republican party is unequivocally the party of that elite.  The Republican Party has defended the obscene profits the oil industry has reaped from this war and the war profiteer contractors who have wasted billions of tax payer dollars, many magnitudes more than what the GI bill would cost.  

                  Sounds pretty partisan to me,  even though  average Main Street Republicans would never recognize any of this as reflecting their values. They have been led to believe it’s all about family values. They think it’s about patriotism and supporting the troops.  Neat trick.

  2. As of this afternoon, Karen Crummy’s Denver Post article has been updated and includes more information about responsibility for the mystery earmark.

    He [Bill Orr] also used those misrepresentations to obtain a $3.6 million federal grant from the Environmental Protection Agency six years ago. The money for the grant was provided in a congressional earmark. A then-House Appropriations Committee staffer slipped the earmark into a conference report after the bill passed, according to a federal official with knowledge of the government’s case. The staffer testified at Orr’s two-month trial. *

    [snip]

    Schaffer has denied any knowledge of fraud to receive the earmark and said he left the nonprofit when he found out Orr was under investigation.

    He was never questioned by federal investigators, nor was there any evidence that Schaffer – who was not a member of the appropriations committee – was involved in the earmark, said the federal official.

    If the unnamed “federal official” is correct, then Schaffer still has to account for his service on the board of directors of a company that was basically created to bilk the taxpayers, stealing more than $2 million in federal funds, including the final payments while Schaffer was a board member. It’s that kind of attention to detail, investigatory prowess, oversight skills and accountability we want representing Colorado in the U.S. Senate.

    * Someone with access to the Orr trial witness list should also be able to figure out the staffer’s identity and get a better answer from him or her.

      1. that’s who’s left in the 2000 Colorado delegation. There’s no evidence, just a guess, that it was a legislator from Colorado who steered the grant to Orr. NAFF had others, from Virginia to California, on its board initially.

      1. although, there are some very powerful appropriations staffers who apparently were able to do this in the old, pre-transparency days.

        But who better to answer the question? Keep asking every legislator who might have had a hand (which was a brilliant, and very funny tactic TPM took), or ask the staffer who requested it.

        I’m also making the argument that Schaffer watchers not pin so much on a smoking earmark … there’s plenty of scandal without it. Let’s keep hammering on what we already know and not give Wadhams the chance to say — “See, he didn’t do the earmark, case closed,” because you know that’s how he’ll spin it.

        1. I think over at TPMMuckraker.  Someone has to know who the staffers are, and one of them might be able to shed some light.

          Heck, it could come back and bite a Democratic Congressman, but I want to know who and why.

          1. Yeah, me too over there. It’s coming together, and apparently someone in the U.S. Attorney’s office (and anyone who was paying attention to the Orr trial while it was under way, which apparently no one was) also knows the staffer’s identity. That’s pretty close to knowing the whole story. It’s on its way into the open.

  3. About as mainstream as you can get, Steven Paulson’s Associated Press article on Schaffer’s nomination spends fully half of its words recounting Schaffer’s scandals.

    After mentioning Schaffer nominators Wayne Allard and Bill Owens, and giving a nod to Mitt Romney’s speech, the AP story gets to the meat:

    “Democrats say bipartisanship is a standalone virtue, but they propose as a solution single party dominance in Colorado and the U.S. Congress,” Schaffer said.

    No word on Schaffer’s vigorous defense of bipartisanship when Republicans “proposed” single-party dominance in Colorado, the Presidency and Congress in the first half of this decade.

    He also took a jab at Udall, saying that liberal ideas originate in his home county of Boulder. Schaffer later apologized to the Boulder delegation.

    “We’re going to use ‘Boulder’ as a pejorative term in every sentence we utter for the next five months. No offense meant to Boulder, mind you.”

    “What they offer is not change, it’s just putting lipstick on a pig,” Schaffer said.

    Paulson then sets about wiping off Schaffer’s lipstick:

    During his speech, Schaffer did not mention mounting criticism of his perceived ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and attempts by Democrats to emphasize his ties to big oil at a time when many Coloradans are angry over soaring gas prices. Democratic activists have branded him with the moniker “Big Oil Bob” along with computer ads depicting him riding an oil rig.

    While in Congress, Schaffer voted to give the industry $13 billion in tax breaks.

    Schaffer also has been dogged by reports that a trip he took to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory, as a congressman was partly arranged by Abramoff’s firm.

    Schaffer was a congressman from Colorado’s 4th District when he traveled to the South Pacific archipelago in 1999 to look into allegations of labor abuse in the territory’s textile industry.

    Before he left, his staff let him know that the travel arrangements had been made by a lobbying firm, and they were looking into what role the firm had in the trip, according to a memo from Schaffer’s congressional archive first reported by The Denver Post.

    The firm was Preston-Gates, Abramoff’s firm, and Schaffer’s staff noted that the schedule for the trip included a lunch with current and former Preston-Gates clients-including the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands government.

    Abramoff pleaded guilty in January 2006 to mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion in connection with his lobbying activities and a business deal. He is serving a sentence of about six years.

    Schaffer’s campaign has countered by repeated references to Udall as “Boulder Liberal Mark Udall” in hopes of portraying him as out of touch with Colorado’s mainstream.

    That last paragraph is what’s known in the business as “balance.”

    Convicted lobbyist, ties to big oil, soaring gas prices, $13 billion in tax breaks, arranged by Abramoff’s firm, pleaded guilty, mail fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy, tax evasion, serving a sentence … vs. repeated references to “Boulder Liberal Mark Udall.” Remember, the nomination piece is probably the best press any candidate gets. Whew.

    1. … or they did.

      And they forgot Schaffer’s “model for immigration reform” statement, and his willingness to play “bad cop” at the CNMI hearings, and the fact that Scott Shires – who pled guilty as part of the NAFF scandal – is still heading up one of Schaffer’s PACs.

      I suppose you have to edit for length when you write for AP.

      1. … and the way the AP works, unless they’ve done a big investigative piece, which is very rare at the state level, they don’t repeat controversial charges or questions (a la the Orr ties or Shires taint) until a member paper does the story and establishes a basis (TPM is an AP client, not a member, it’s a huge difference).

        But don’t lose sight of how much space the AP devoted to Schaffer’s scandals in what is almost always a puff piece. See Lynn Bartels’ Rocky story about Schaffer’s acceptance of the nomination for an example of that. Not a mention of Schaffer’s brewing scandals. There’s nothing unusal (or slanted) about how Lynn plays it, this is just to point out that nomination stories almost always give the candidate the stage, which is why Paulson’s piece is remarkable.

        Here’s how Bartels opened her piece … and then it goes on from there:

        He kept his term-limits pledge.

        He’s a proven leader.

        Bob Schaffer is who should be Colorado’s next U.S. senator.

        That was the message from the 12 Republicans who nominated Schaffer for the Senate at the state party convention today in Broomfield.

        1. The AP piece was pretty brutal for a puff piece on the nomination, but even so it doesn’t cover the breadth and depth of Schaffer’s taint.

          Schaffer will have these problems following him throughout the campaign season.

          1. Understood. Point taken.

            But seriously, if you know Paulson, he is not a guy to run off like this unless he’s convinced it’s an integral part of the story. Which is very damaging for Schaffer out of the box.

            1. I was frankly stunned by the article. He actually stated facts as facts.

              His writing is usually a lot more “sources say” or “but Democrats say.”

              I used to really dislike that guy’s reporting, but it seems he’s growing on me. I hope he keeps it up.

  4. I think Newsman so far has been the only one to comment on Udall’s ad (way up top). Anyone else have thoughts? I like the look of it — echoes his alt energy ad nicely and presents Udall as “Mr. Colorado.” I also like the slight twist on his “we gotta get this right” from his first ad. And it contrasts nicely with the Rent-a-Center-with-ADHD animated ads Bob and his “uncoordinated” committees have been running. Udall’s ads play really well on TV, they don’t look like ads you need to set your popup blocker to zap.

    What about Schaffer’s speech? Especially after all the Silent Bob cracks the last couple months, when he hasn’t spoken for himself very often. He’s a good speaker. He connects well with the crowd. He’s got a lovely family. (Award-winning penmanship!) Any thoughts?

    1. Was great.  He’s a great speaker, and he said a lot of things that needed to be said.  You’ll notice that the best applause he got was when he said that the Republican party could use some reforming.

      That was Udall’s response?  That’s it?  It was all nice pictures, light on content.  Pretty lame if you ask me.

        1. It would have been a feat of physics if this were Udall’s “response” as the ad started airing on Friday night. I saw it during the news.

        2. Don’t get me wrong-when I posted that I thought that I had read somewhere that it was Udall’s response.  It was late, and I probably misread it.

          However, it’s still a lame ad.  All pictures and no real content.  If he had a lot of time to develope it, you’d think it would have been harder hitting.  To me it looked like a lib trying to be a defense hawk

  5. Bob Schaffer’s speech was brilliant. The ending where he pointed out that all three of his older kids are in ROTC or the Air Force Academy hit exactly the right tone. Schaffer is a gifted orator.

    Mark Udall would rather be playing golf than campaigning and it shows. Udall is a poor public speaker on his good days. This ad is OK except how is he going to find Obama or find the men and women to fill a new division?  

    1. and maybe once we pull out of Iraq and conscentrate on finding OSAMA in afghanistan, more people will sign up.

      And when we thank vets properly with a real GI Bill benefit people will be happy to have people who make $500k+ pay a 0.5% tax to help our veterans who are making the sacrifice (I’m willing to give a waiver on the 0.5% tax to anyone willing to fight in the war zone).

      BTW no wonder the Republicans can’t find Osama, they can’t even get his name right.

      1. Freudian slip I suppose.

        Udall looks and acts bored and tired. Udall learned nothing of oratory from his Father. This is going to be a close race all the way to November.

        1. Luckily, voters in Colorado aren’t that stupid. Every time Republicans “slip,” like the College Republicans did on stage at the state convention, they get an easy laugh from the base and remind everyone else Republicans have been unable to capture Osama bin Laden.

          1. It was a simple error.

            But, I do appreciate you giving me credit for being devious as opposed to sloppy.

            Udall does look bored and tired. Schaffer energetic and passionate.  Schaffer loves to campaign. Udall would rather be playing golf.  Schaffer excites a crowd and Udall puts them to sleep.  

            Dukakis was up 17 in August 1988 and lost in a landslide. I expect a similar result for Obama.  

            1. He looks tanned and athletic in those para sailing photos. Amazing how a full day of inspecting slave labor sweatshops didn’t put a damper on his energetic, passionate, athletic self.  

    2. It’s kind of like the crowd at a Led Zeppelin concert going apeshit over the opening notes of “Stairway to Heaven.”

      Whether Schaffer’s “message” will work with independents in November remains to be seen. Perhaps he should trying working harder on articulating policy rather than homilies and platitudes.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

104 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!