Wadhams Blasts "SleazeNow," Schaffer Attacks Continue

by: Colorado Pols

Thu Aug 09, 2007 at 07:20:18 AM MDT

A liberal group renewed its attack on state Board of Education member Bob Schaffer, saying his call for disclosing political contributions went by the wayside when he cast a vote favoring one of his campaign donors. Michael Huttner, director of ProgessNowAction, called Schaffer "a complete hypocrite when it comes to corruption."

But Schaffer and Republicans fired back Wednesday, with GOP state party chairman Dick Wadhams calling Huttner a "sleazeball."

And to think the election, in which Schaffer is running for U.S. Senate, is more than a year away.

Schaffer, a Fort Collins Republican, cast the deciding vote in May requiring the Denver Public Schools board to reconsider a decision to terminate a charter school.

Schaffer voted without disclosing that the owner of the company managing the school contributed to his 2004 failed U.S. Senate campaign. Huttner maintains Schaffer had a conflict of interest and should have abstained from voting.

In addition, the charter-school company owner and his wife this summer donated $4,600 to Schaffer's 2008 Senate campaign...

During a December board meeting, Schaffer was critical of what he called "scam" grant programs that the legislature passes and the state board then must implement. He said some programs appeared tailored so that only a specific group is eligible to apply...

"I'm just suggesting that we ask one question: Who do (they) give their cash to at election time?" Schaffer said.

"SleazeNow, otherwise known as ProgressNow, does not disclose the donors who finance its existence," [Wadhams] said.

A lively exchange, but this article is notable for one thing: the lack of any mention of Schaffer's opponent Mark Udall whatsoever. We said yesterday that Wadhams needs better talking points to defend Schaffer from this attack (Wadhams feebly likened Schaffer's vote for a specific charter school operator/donor to Udall's support for unions in general). No mention of that today. Does Wadhams really think "don't listen to Progress Now, they're sleazeballs" will work out any better?

This response suggests profane bluster is now substituting for a credible defense, which a long record shows is what Dick Wadhams is best at. We'll see how that plays with the media and public, though our prediction is that it won't go over real well. Seriously, "Sleazenow?" What is this, third grade?