The liberal group Progress Now is out with a new video highlighting alleged "lies" told by Senate candidate Bob Schaffer over the years. It's better produced than their last hit on Schaffer before Christmas, and they've apparently spoofed Schaffer's website as well to amusing effect. Press release follows.
UPDATE:Here's the memo on the poll. Interestingly, one of the items in the memo notes that "Voters already know that Mark Udall is a liberal." Okay, so voters know Udall is a liberal, yet they still prefer him to Schaffer? That's good news for Bob?
3. Colorado (R): The open seat race between Rep. Mark Udall (D) and former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) drops two slots this month but the fundamental dynamic of the race remains unaltered. Republicans are already beginning to paint Udall as a "Boulder liberal" while Democratsd are making the counter argument that Schaffer is far more conservative than the average Colorado voter. Having huddled with Schaffer earlier this week, we came away impressed by his plainspokeness and his -- to our mind -- smart strategic plan to run as a reform-minded candidate. Republicans are pushing back hard on the idea that this race is Udall's to lose. Schaffer's campaign released a poll that showed him trailing Udall by just two points in a three-way race. And they make the argument that the Democrats who have been elected in the last few years have run as conservatives, putting to lie the idea that the state had fundamentally changed its ideological underpinnings.(Previous ranking: 1)
Schaffer released a poll showing him two points back in a three-way race? It turns out that this third candidate is a Green Party candidate, Bob Kinsey, who picks up seven - yes, 7 - percentage points in the Schaffer poll.
That's all well and good for Schaffer, but no third party candidate received more than 1% of the vote in the 2006 gubernatorial race or the 2004 Senate race. Even the most well-known and well-funded Green Party candidate in recent history, Ralph Nader, managed just 5% of the vote in Colorado when he ran for President in 2000. Touting this three person poll is beyond ridiculous, because a Green Party candidate in Colorado will be lucky to get 2% of the vote.
Schaffer apparently does much better in a three-way race with a mythical strong third-party candidate. Perhaps he should poll on a pretend four-way race to see if that puts him over the top. Talk about grasping for straws.
Delta County Commissioner Wayne Wolf is making a run at the U.S. Senate. He's seeking the Republican nomination for the Senate seat vacated by retiring Senator Wayne Allard.
Wolf began his ambitious campaign with plans to visit every town in Colorado that hosts a newspaper.
"I thought it would be neat if I could do all the towns in Colorado," he said on Wednesday, Sept. 12, in Rifle, his third stop of the day in western Colorado towns.
"I am going to be representative of the whole state, so this is a good way to get to know the state," he said.
He started his campaign that Wednesday morning in Delta announcing his intention to run. He then set out on the road with stops in Montrose, Grand Junction and Rifle, ending his first day in Craig. One week later, on Sept. 19, Wolf rolled into Glenwood Springs to attend a Republican meeting at Buffalo Valley Inn...
He wants to be the connection between Washington and rural Colorado like Garfield County.
"You need to respect the local process," Wolf said. "Disregarding the public process is running contrary to what (Senators) are elected to do."
More on Wolf's campaign kickoff tour in today's Durango Herald.
We don't see Wolf winning a Republican primary, but this town-by-town approach he is taking could prove fruitful. Bob Schaffer is being touted by the press as the "establishment candidate," and he can't be that loved by Republicans given his drubbing by Pete Coors in 2004.
Wolf won't have the money to compete with Schaffer, but if he creates some sort of grassroots uprising by campaigning personally while Schaffer is holed up raising money, he could force Schaffer to get away from the phones a little and start campaigning sooner than he would like. Win or (more likely) lose, Wolf may yet change the dynamics of this race.
Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer was interviewed recently by The Washington Post blog "The Fix":
Among the highlights from our sitdown with Schaffer:
* Schaffer criticized the Bush Administration's strategy on Iraq, arguing that not enough was done in the aftermath of the invasion. "I don't think the post-invasion stage in Iraq included enough man power," said Schaffer. "As a result we're a year behind where we should be." On the surge strategy, Schaffer said it was "probably" the right thing to do but added: "It might have been too late."
* Schaffer rejected the perception -- fostered by Democrats -- that he is too conservative to win statewide. "I think it's because I'm consistent," Schaffer said of his reputation, adding that he voted against his party "a lot" in Congress especially when it "was drifting toward the left on spending [and] budgeting."
* Asked whether he can raise the money to compete with Rep. Mark Udall (D), who ended June with $2.5 million in the bank, Schaffer expressed confidence. He noted that he raised more than $1 million in his four-month campaign against Coors and that in the first six week of this race he brought in more than $700,000. But, Schaffer added: "I'm just a guy. I don't hang out with millionaires for a living."
For some odd reason the interview is done from a Washington D.C. Starbucks. Apparently space is at a premium in the offices of the Post.
UPDATE: We're getting some backstory on this poll. Although it hasn't yet appeared in any media, apparently Schaffer has been circulating the poll with select donors, spun positively, particularly in DC. One possible reason it hasn't appeared in the press yet is the Schaffer campaign is reportedly being quite secretive about the poll, refusing to disclose the detailed responses or methodology--the things smart reporters look at to discern legitimate polling from astroturf cultivation. Original post continues...
A new poll commissioned by the Bob Schaffer campaign (but not released by the campaign for self-evident reasons) shows Democrat Senate candidate Mark Udall leading the race by a small margin--though outside the margin of error--as the AIPAC Insider reports:
Colorado: Poll Shows Rocky Race Ahead
Congressman Mark Udall (D) holds a slight lead over former Congressman Bob Schaffer (R) in the campaign for the seat being vacated by outgoing GOP Senator Wayne Allard, according to a Republican poll released late this week. Both parties are targeting Colorado's open seat, one of only two open Senate seats in the 2008 campaign cycle. As of June 30th, Udall had over $2.5 million remaining in his campaign coffers while Schaffer had $682,712 cash on hand. The poll, conducted August 26-28 by Hill Research Consultants (R) on behalf of the Schaffer campaign, surveyed 600 registered Colorado voters, and had a margin of error of +/- 3.9 percent.
Colorado Senate Match-up
Mark Udall 45%
Bob Schaffer 40%
Schaffer has had a bad couple of months, and this is indicative of more bad news for his Senate campaign. In a state where Republicans still outnumber Democrats, voters - who presumably don't know a lot about either candidate - are defaulting for Udall. At this point in the gubernatorial race (fall 2005), Republican Bob Beauprez was leading Bill Ritter, but the more voters learned about each candidate, the worse Beauprez did. Voters will move on both Schaffer and Udall, but it's bad news for Schaffer if he's starting behind; all things being equal, which they basically are right now, Schaffer should be at least even.
The media is hot on the trail of the story of Republican Bob Schaffer and a potential conflict of interest regarding a vote on the Board of Education and his campaign for U.S. Senate.
A half-dozen stories were written about the School Board and Schaffer's questionable contributions, and the man himself offered this gem from the Rocky Mountain News by way of explanation:
Schaffer also pointed out that Brennan contributed to his U.S. Senate campaign, not his state Board of Education campaign, and the contribution came after his vote.
Um, yeah. That's...the problem. It's harder for the public to see the conflict of interest if the donations are going into a different campaign, and it's more than a little fishy when you get the big check after the favorable vote. Who taught Schaffer how to talk to the press? James Dobson?
Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer has been trying to deflect charges that he took campaign contributions from a man connected to a group that received a favorable vote from Schaffer on the State School Board. But the story may be getting worse for Schaffer as new reports surface about the donor in question, David Brennan, and his history of using campaign contributions to influence votes for his money-making charter school operation that - in Ohio - has proved to be a disaster.
Rather than weigh in on the relative smelliness of that stench, I want to point to some contextual information. White Hat and Brennan may be unknowns in Colorado, but they are very well known back in Ohio. A little over a year ago, the Cleveland Plain Dealer ran an article about them. It’s a long, detailed article, and I recommend reading the whole thing. But here are some short excerpts:
It’s a “sad situation,” says Columbia University professor Henry Levin, a national expert on privately run public schools. And the culprit, he said, at least in part, was “legislative conniving with one company in particular.”
That company is White Hat Management, the for-profit brainchild of Brennan, a Stetson-wearing tax-lawyer-turned-industrialist who blamed school failure on teachers unions and bureaucrats, and who wanted to prove that profit-seeking private enterprise could do better.
Brennan has had the ear and political support of Ohio Republican leaders like House Speaker Jon Husted and Senate President Bill Harris, among others, who during Republican rule of the state gave is at the center of the storm over newly revealed information that shows the Akron industrialist has contributed beaucoup bucks to a Virginia political action committee that then turned around and transferred $870,000 to an Ohio affiliate set up to elect Republicans.
Ohio Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, despite having been presented with the cold hard facts months ago by ProfressOhio, has only recently taken seriously the allegations that show such practices appear to be in violation of state campaign finance laws. Brunner's agency oversees compliance with campaign finance law.
The liberal group Progress Now has been after Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer to return contributions to his Senate account that appear to have a connection with a vote he cast as a member of the State Board of Education. Progress Now held a press conference today in an attempt to bring more attention to the issue, and while at first glance it seemed like more of the same, Schaffer may have backed himself into a corner. Check out this highlight from a press release sent out today:
Schaffer, in his current role as a member of the Colorado State Board of Education, recently cast the deciding vote for a for-profit company, owned by David Brennan, to continue to receive hundreds of thousands of Colorado taxpayer dollars for programs that the company sells to Denver's charter schools. (Denver Post, May 10, 2007). The Denver School Board had voted 6-1 to get rid of Brennan's costly programs. (Rocky Mountain News, May 10, 2007)
Schaffer took money from Brennan both before and after the vote. Schaffer still has not disclosed to the State Board that since this recent vote he has taken thousands of dollars more in campaign contributions from Brennan within weeks of his vote for Brennan's company...
...In the December 10, 2006, Schaffer lectured his fellow Board Members on the need for disclosure of political contributions to members of the SBOE.(SBOE Recorded Minutes 12/10/2006, 2:47:10) Schaffer pontificated "Government grant making as the most corrupt aspect of civil government in America."
SBOE Member Karen Middleton called on Schaffer to pursue a "written conflict of interest policy" for the members of the SBOE. (SBOE Recorded Minutes 12/10/2006, 2:44:05)
Schaffer, while agreeing to take the lead on drafting a policy over eight months ago, has yet to introduce a SBOE Conflicts-of-Interest Disclosure Policy.[Pols emphasis]
Whoops! It's one thing to try to explain away a vote that appeared to be a conflict of interest, but when you were waving the flag over making disclosures just a few months earlier...well, this is really starting to look bad. The public thinks every politician takes money for favors, so there was only so much damage this could have done, but when you can throw in a word like "hypocrisy" it makes things a whole lot worse.
Click below for the full press release from Progress Now...
A vocal group of moderate Republicans have been courting state Sen. Josh Penry to run for the U.S. Senate in 2008. Penry has thus far rebuffed those advances, but there must still be an open door because Penry continues to be pushed to run.
The reason Penry is being pushed has more to do with Bob Schaffer than anything else. A growing group of Republicans are convinced that Schaffer is too conservative to win a statewide race and will get trounced by Democrat Mark Udall in 2008. As the thinking goes, if Schaffer runs and loses, then Republicans aren't left with much of a consolation prize. But even if Penry lost to Udall, he would still have gained valuable statewide name ID for a later run (perhaps even for governor in 2010). If Schaffer loses, the GOP has really gained nothing in defeat; they may actually be worse off, in fact, if Schaffer loses despite running as a staunch conservative.
A candidacy from someone like Penry also has more potential to catch fire than a Schaffer bid. If Schaffer wins in 2008, it will be through a slow and steady approach, but he's not the kind of personality - nor does he represent the kind of ideas - that could really spark a heated level of interest.
Despite attempts to recruit him, Penry may continue to say no with the thought that 2008 isn't the right opportunity for him statewide. Either way, it says a lot about the growing belief that while Schaffer may be great for conservatives, he may not be great in a general election.
We joked last week about the "BS" label affixed to Republican Bob Schaffer's Web site recently set up for his run for U.S. Senate, but equally perplexing is the message on the site itself. If the letter on the front page of his Web site is any indication, Schaffer is a little confused about what year it is.
The six-paragraph letter on the front page of Schaffer's Web site is all about what Republicans have done wrong and about how terrible Democrats are doing in congress. It might be a perfectly good letter if Schaffer was running in a Republican primary, but he's not. His biggest problem in a general election against Mark Udall is going to be the perception that he's too conservative, but he sure isn't worried about feeding into that idea. For example, check out this section:
But after just five months of taking control in Colorado and with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running the U.S. Congress, it is clear the activist-Democrat leaders are overreaching. They are trying to swing Colorado and the country in an unfamiliar direction - cutting family income, increasing regulation, hurting the economy and retreating from the very real threats to national security.
These are some of the reasons I've decided to run for the United States Senate. I'll campaign on common-sense, reform-oriented themes that will offer sharp contrast to the agenda of the Reid/Pelosi government.
Back when Schaffer was the congressman in CD-4 (he retired prior to the 2002 election), Colorado was very much a Republican-dominated state. It's not anymore, although it doesn't look like anyone told Schaffer. While Udall moves closer to the center, Schaffer is moving closer to the right. If he's going to continue to gleefully tout right-wing talking points and spew nonsense lines like "activist-Democrat" that are right out of a Rush Limbaugh show, he's going to continue to be beloved by right-wing conservatives in Colorado. He's just not going to be a U.S. Senator.
The Club for Growth PAC is pleased to hear that former Representative Bob Schaffer is considering entering the race to succeed retiring Republican Colorado Senator Wayne Allard.
During his three terms in Congress from 1997-2002, Bob Schaffer was a dedicated defender of taxpayers and a strong proponent of lower taxes, limited government, and greater freedom. He even earned the nickname "Honest Bob" for fulfilling his campaign pledge not to serve more than three terms as a U.S. Representative.
The National Taxpayers Union awarded Rep. Schaffer five grades of A for 1997-2001 and a grade of B+ for his final year, ranking him number 31 out of the House of Representatives' 435 members in 2002. The NTU scorecard is based on every vote that "significantly affects taxes, spending, debt, and regulatory burdens on consumers and taxpayers." In the same vein, the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste gave Rep. Schaffer a lifetime rating of 85 for his six years in Congress, making him a "Taxpayer Hero."
"I served with Bob Schaffer in the House of Representatives," Club for Growth President Pat Toomey said, "and I speak from personal experience when I say that Bob Schaffer would be a fantastic addition to the U.S. Senate. In the House of Representatives, he was a committed supporter of free-market principles, and I have no doubt that his support would continue as strongly in the U.S. Senate."
Can you feel the love? And - as we've been saying for months - the obvious candidacy of Bob Schaffer for the U.S. Senate?
