An unlikely (and welcome) defense of Bob Schaffer
7/14/2008 - 2:48pm
Over at the Schaffer v Udall blog, Ben DeGrow has done a good job laying out the most recent partisan smear against Bob Schaffer from mainstream media:
http://schaffervudall.blogspot.com/2008/07/official-documents-refute-naked.html
The attack basically says that by Schaffer visiting the Kurdish region in Iraq to research a potential oil deal there for his employer, Schaffer was somehow violating US policy or acting against the interest of the US and Iraq.
DeGrow points out a few subsequent articles which show the attack to be erroneous as well as discussing how two of the "big names" leading the attack, former high-level diplomats, are now Democratic activists and at least one works with the Obama campaign.
More remarkable than the support of DeGrow, who is a Schaffer supporter, is this PoliticsWest entry by Denver Post reporter Mike Riley who has demonstrated by prior writings that he's no friend of Schaffer's.
Riley's article, which does the sort of quality homework I wish he had done on the Schaffer/CNMI story, makes two important points:
First, it seems that the government's current claims that it tried to dissuade companies from making energy deals in the Kurdish region in Iraq are not supported by at least one document between a State Department official in Iraq and the management of another oil company working on that sort of deal.
Second, Riley stands up for Alex Cranberg's (Schaffer's former employer at Aspect Energy) assertion that the Kurdish government in Iraq was going to do exploration deals with foreign companies in any case, quoting Cranberg: "Americans need to decide whether they think it is in the best interest of our country for American and other western companies to hold these leases or the Arabs, Chinese and Russians - because those are the alternatives. The Kurds are key allies of the US, and have fought with our country's forces throughout this conflict. Kurdistan is the one part of Iraq where there have been no US casualties, to my knowledge. We should be sending more than bullets to Iraq; we should be investing and creating a strong civilian economy so that fighting is not necessary."
It's also important to note that Bob Schaffer did NOT, as reported in the Grand Junction Sentinel article, negotiate the deal. He was there doing research and introducing the company to the local government. The deal materialized a year later and Schaffer was not part of negotiating its terms.
After being pretty rough on Riley in some of my recent writing, I'd like to thank him for bringing some balance to a story and to his work. His note on this attack on Schaffer is very balanced...in fact it's so balanced it wouldn't surprise me to see left-wing activists attack it...since they're used to such liberal-leaning purity from the Denver Post. Again, thanks to Mike Riley for having the backbone to dig for the truth in this story.
It's disappointing but not too surprising that the entire Udall campaign has been about making up smears against Schaffer. There are substantial differences between Schaffer and Udall on policy questions and on their careers in Congress which offer the opportunity for real debate. But Udall's career is so undistinguished and his policies so far to the left of the average Coloradoan outside of Boulder that the Udall campaign feels they have no choice but to focus all their energy on smears and personal attacks against Schaffer.
In a year this bad for Republicans, it might work, but I hope that Colorado voters are smart enough to see through the chaff of smear attacks to the real questions of policy and capability, in which case Schaffer is the obviously better candidate.
Here's just one article which discusses Udall's role in keeping our energy prices high, an issue which Schaffer should focus on intensely:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/energy/5885419.html
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Any thoughts?
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/bob_schaffer_changes_story_on.php
Defense of Bob Schaffer?
One problem with Bob Schaffer and other Republicans like him is their readiness to cash in on a terrible war in which other less fortunate Americans are fighting and dying. A war, we should remember, that the Republicans chose to start and have grossly mismanaged. Republicans scurrying into Kurdistan to make an oil deal while the war rages is an indication of how little interest they have in our overextended and exhausted military or any other issue beyond their own extravagant paychecks. To secure more oil at global market prices will do absolutely nothing to reduce prices at the pump - it will only enable Schaffer's client to increase profits by selling more and that, I'm sure, is the only objective.
The suggestion that Democrats, and Mark Udall in particular, have caused the current surge in oil prices is sick, but is completely consistent with the Republicans refusal to accept responsibility for any of the calamities they have visited upon our country. In a way, we are living in Dick Cheney's world. His energy policy, written in secret by Enron, Exxon Mobil and others, was intended to maximize oil industry profits along with our dependence on what they sell. It worked like a charm.
Bob Schaffer and the Republicans are wrong about so many things. Do we really want a federal government that is perpetually bankrupt? Do we want to dismantle social security and undermine public education? Do we want to use the offices of government to insult gay people or immigrants or to promote creationism as real science? I seriously hope not, and that Bob Schaffer and his party will be rejected. Only then can we begin the task of repairing the damage they've already done.
Unfortunately, your view has a good chance of winning in Novembe
Purple,
I can't and don't defend the secrecy around Cheney's meetings regarding energy. That sort of lack of transparency does great damage to confidence in government...not that I have much confidence in government anyway.
Still, I can't go along with your idea that Schaffer and Republicans are trying to "cash in on" the war.
The Kurdish area of Iraq has been relatively peaceful for several years. The local government was opening energy development to foreign firms. Should US firms have just let all that business go to companies from other nations?
Schaffer has no "client". He's a former employee of an energy company that, in addition to oil, has investments in wind and other renewables. He doesn't work there anymore.
The Democrats are PARTIALLY responsible for current prices by their constant refusal to allow development of more domestic energy resources. In a situation where supply and demand are anywhere close to balance, a small change in supply can have a big change in price. Of course, world demand, changes in the value of the USD, and fear of turmoil in the Middle East are huge factors...each almost certainly bigger than the Democrats' stubbornness. But that doesn't mean the Dems are innocent of any responsibility.
Another thing that I have harshly criticized is the explosion of spending under the Republican Congresses from 2002-2006. It was reprehensible. But to suggest that the Democrats are likely to be more fiscally responsible...especially if they have a Democrat in the White House...is impossible to believe.
You and I probably agree on social issues...I don't believe in or support the teaching of creationism. I oppose the office of faith-based initiatives (but even Obama is now supporting it as he panders to the middle.)
The Democrats are incapable of good government. But the Republicans have been so bad for most of this decade that many people will simply vote for the candidate who isn't the Republican. The Dems will have a big victory in both houses of Congress, and it will set the state for another 1980 or 1994, when people were reminded of the damage that Democrats due to our nations security and economy.
Democrats governing
Rossputin,
As you pointed out, the Republicans have governed astonishingly poorly. I thought at least they might keep the nations fiscal house in order - they inherited a sizable budget surplus from Clinton. Now it's gone and the national debt has tripled while most of the basic work needed to sustain the country remains undone. The economy is in the toilet and we're stuck in two wars after failing to notice the warnings that preceded 9/11. Given the current spectacle of governmental failure, it's a little strange for anyone to say "Democrats are incapable of good government". Clinton, for all his personal flaws, presided over eight very good years during which amazing progress was made in a number of areas. He cajoled and collaborated with the Republicans on NAFTA and balancing the budget (after inheriting another Republican deficit). Bipartisanship used to be a mark of good governance, not bad. Clinton succeeded despite the Republicans using a lot of tax dollars and every trick they could imagine to destroy him and his presidency. Imagine what he might have accomplished with a Democratic congress! Perhaps after January 20th, President Obama can show us what could have been.
Ruse the "creationist".
How do you propose we reduce ten trillion in debt? Its going to take more than a simple minded Libertarian response to reduce government spending and get rid of the Democrats as you propose. You claim the wealthy pay more in taxes than those of us in the middle class. GAO studies indicate otherwise. Do your home work Ruse. Its out there on the net for your review.
You claim Udall is smearing your hero Schaffer. Prove it! You gave Schaffer a grand for his campaign and smear the Udall campaign regularly.
Do you believe in "creationism" when writing about Schaffer, Benny Fitial, and the Abramoff Delay connection to Schaffer in the CNMI affair. It certainly appears that way.
when
when are you going to stop dodging my question about your work for the Heartland Institute?
"DeGrow points out a few subsequent articles which show the attack to be erroneous as well as discussing how two of the "big names" leading the attack, former high-level diplomats, are now Democratic activists and at least one works with the Obama campaign."
Let me get this straight. You're saying that because the attacks are coming from Democrats, it's not valid? Nice argument. I now reject all your arguments as they come from a right-wing shill who formerly directed the Heartland Institute.
And speaking of Ben Degrow, isn't he a right-wing partisan hack of the Independence Institute?
Already did
John,
I responded to your question about Heartland in a prior comment.
Let me answer again, since I don't want to go look for it:
I am not now, nor have I ever been an employee of the Heartland Institute nor of any other public policy organization nor of any organization or company other than trading companies of which I was a partner...at least not since summer jobs in college.
I proudly served on the Board of Directors of the Heartland Institute...an unpaid position...and was a donor to them when I lived in Chicago, where they are based. I remain a "Fellow of the Heartland Institute", an honorary title I use when writing about issues that Heartland would care about, but for which I receive no compensation of any sort.
I must point out that while you may think Heartland's positions are generally "conservative", it's an organization that is pro-capitalism, not one that's pro-Republican. I understand that today's liberals believe that supporting free markets makes someone "right wing", but that's an incorrect leap to make.
Heartland's main issues of focus are bringing free market solutions to: Health care, education (especially school choice), and the environment. Again, you might disagree with our positions, but at least have the courage to debate me on the issues rather than try to say I'm somehow a shill. I support what I believe in, and I'm not paid to do it.
I did not say that the arguments must be invalid because they are coming from Democrats, but I do say that they must be heard in that context, i.e. as people who are pretending they don't have a dog in the fight when they do.
I do not claim to have no opinions or preferences. And I reject a characterization of me as a "shill" as I write only what I believe, not what anyone else wants me to write. With the exception of a per-article fee that I get from one publication I write for (for whom I write what I want, though they're free not to run things they don't want), I do not get paid for any of my writing or political work. (I'm sure you believe it's not worth paying for, but that's not the issue.) A shill is someone who is doing someone else's bidding, standing up for something regardless of whether he support it. That's a far different thing than supporting candidates or organizations I agree with.
I think it's pretty hard to say someone is a shill who spends his own money to support causes, as I do, rather than being paid by causes to support them...which is what some of the liberals/leftists who regularly jab at me in comments are doing.
I also dispute the characterization of me as "right wing", since I consider myself far more libertarian than conservative. On social issues, I'm generally with the Democrats. On economic issues, I am no doubt what you would call a "conservative". In both realms, I support liberty.
Ben does indeed work for the Independence Institute, but his political work and his blogging about elections are completely separate from his day job and form no part of his duties at II.
Uh huh
You state that "on social issues" you're "generally with the Democrats"; you're not "right wing" and you support "liberty." Granted, you contributed money to Jared Polis; but that $250 is dwarfed by the thousands you've given to:
1. Bob Schaffer (a contribution you apparently disclosed only once during your ponderous series of Politics West "articles" on his connections with Jack Abramoff), who is against a woman's liberty to choose and against a gay couple's liberty to marry;
2. Jeff Crank, who opposes the same liberties that Bob Schaffer does, as noted above;
3. George Bush, who led the charge to strip Americans of one of their essential liberties -- habeas corpus -- and also opposes the same liberties that Bob Schaffer does as noted above;
4. Rick Lazio, who opposes the liberty of gays to adopt, serve their country in the military or get married;
5. Phil Gramm, who opposes the liberty of gays to marry and the liberty of Americans to exercise their First Amendment rights if it involves burning a piece of red, white and blue fabric;
6. Rick O'Donnell, who also opposes a woman's liberty to choose;
7. The National Republican Congressional Committee;
8. Spencer Abraham, who supports the freedom of oil companies to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to sell gasoline without the burden of a federal gas tax.
Yep, no "right-wing" tendencies there.
(Any readers interested in seeing more of these and other contributions by Kaminsky to his fellow "liberty" worshippers can go to www.fec.gov and do a simple search.)
The Ruse admits he's a farce.
Ruse. Your going "introspective" on us. How sweet. You even admit your Schaffer CNMI story was a farse. "Wished you had done your home work" is right. Tell me Ruse. Where are you getting this Udall smearing Schaffer routine. Sounds to me like you and Jawbone are righty "paranoids".
Give it a rest
Ryecatcher,
Your comments are nonsensical and your spelling is atrocious.
Just how did I admit my CNMI story was a "farse" (sic)?
I'm done responding to you until after you get your GED.
Cry baby Ruseputsky.
Mega dittos Ruse. Is this the best you can come up with "my spelling is "atrocious". You sound like a cry baby to me. Your CNMI story is a TOTAL "FARSE". You are correct. You did not do your homework. I'm hardly fininshed responding to your nonsense. When are we going to get the next "farse" installment on Schaffer from you and Jawbone.