Colorado Senate Poll

( – promoted by DavidThi808)

Which candidate do you want as Colorado’s next Senator?

Wayne Allard is retiring and it is time to pick a new Senator. Colorado is considered the top battle-ground for 2008.  

Which candidate do you support?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

33 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. A-bob says:

    I think Bob Schaffer won the debate during the Iraq question. It doesn’t matter if Udall kicked Schaffer’s butt in everything else. The Iraq part will be remembered. It was brilliant.

  2. A-bob says:

    What percentage do you think 3rd Party candidates will receive in this election?

  3. rocco says:

    Udall’s people have not aggressively hit back on the HJR 114 “mix up”. As a result, some people do believe Udall introduced the bill giving bush ultimate power to hit Iraq. Makes him look really bad. Flip flopper. “Nuanced”. “Voted for it before he voted against it”. Gives the incorrect appearance Udall lost the debate. Here we go again. It’s true Udall is 10 up, and conventional wisdom says stay out of the way of a guy that’s shooting himself in the foot, but if wadhams keeps bringing in false negatives, straw men, and “some are saying” ruses that go unanswered, it could resonate with the voters that buy 5- 10 second sound bites. wadhams has nothing to lose. Pulling his goalie’s got no downside at this point. In my opinion, Udall will be ahead of future smears if he makes a very strong statement himself, detailing legislation he introduced, which limited bush’s options, as opposed to the legislation schaffer said that he introduced. As far as this thing hitting the street, I agree with David. When Democrats think Udall voted for 114, wadhams has done his job very well.      

    • ThillyWabbit says:

      You think Udall’s people had nothing to do with this?

      Udall did sincerely oppose the resolution that gave the president the green light to topple Saddam. That’s a fact, and it’s a big deal. Udall did so because he thought the measure gave the president an open-ended right to act whenever and however he liked, thus degrading the constitutional role of Congress, and because he thought it important for the U.S. to secure the support of the United Nations before acting. Otherwise, Udall worried, the U.S. would have a difficult time turning Iraq into a functioning republic.

      Udall repeated these themes on the House floor, in public meetings and in correspondence. His own resolution was meant to further those goals, not to catapult us into Operation Iraqi Freedom.

      I guarantee more people will see that editorial than will ever see the YourShow debate.

  4. rocco says:

    Thilly, much appreciate it. I’m out of the loop, to my own peril. And considering it was Carroll, wow! He isn’t exactly “on the Left”. Great to see.


    Bob has been invited to participate in the KBDI Channel 12 forum.

  6. Ray Springfield says:

    Shaffer has skidded the fact that he voted to war profiteer. Udall should hit him hard on it at the next debate.

    Shaffer should probably be indicted for his illegal contracts with the Kurds.

    • RedGreen says:

      Schaffer voted for the war in his last year in Congress, in 2002, but intended to stay in politics after honoring his term limits pledge. He ran for the Senate in 2004, losing in a primary to Pete Coors. If he’d had his druthers, he would’ve been in the Senate rather than working for Aspect Energy in 2006. There’s no reasonable interpretation of this sequence that supports “Schaffer voted for the Iraq war to make money.”

      It’s true he later took advantage of a climate he helped create, but he didn’t vote for the war so he could make money. Does anyone think he would have voted against the war if he’d planned to stay in Congress forever?

      In addition, the Iraqis would have to “indict” Schaffer for his (former employer’s) contract with the Kurds, because there was nothing illegal about the contract under U.S. law, only State Department policy strongly discouraging such contracts. Even in Iraq, the contract was more “extra-legal” than illegal, as the federal government hadn’t yet figured out how to divvy up Iraqi oil. Schaffer’s dealings with the Kurds have significant political repercussions, but the most that will happen legally is the Iraqi government nullifies the contract.

      None of which changes the story, that Schaffer continues to exhibit a profound and consistent lack of judgment when it comes to figuring out what’s right vs. what his financial backers tell him to think.

  7. Ray Springfield says:

    You acknowledge that he broke Iraqi law. Republicans clearly must believe that the USA invaded Iraq to take their oil without following Iraqi elected officials’ and governments’ wishes. That equates to an occupational seizure of assets.

    The behavior and belief is reminiscent of the former USSR rather than the USA.

    Some Americans still believe that USA stands for freedom. It’s unfortunate that you and Mr.Shaffer do not.

    • RedGreen says:

      I stand with Bob Schaffer when it comes to freedom. And not living in the USSR.

      You must not read this site much. And neither did I “acknowledge that he broke Iraqi law,” I said if he broke any law it was only an Iraqi law that hadn’t yet been written.

      It’s a terrible political blunder in a line of terrible political blunders by Schaffer, but your absurd reading of the situation is, well, absurd.

      • Republican 36 says:

        Schaffer voted for the war in Iraq but it is impossible to connect that vote with his negotiation of oil field contracts with the Kurds on behalf of Aspect Energy serveal years later.  His vote for the war and the contract negotiations have politcal ramifications in the senate race this year but the second does not follow from the first. There isn’t any evidence Schaffer voted for the war so he could negotiate oil field contracts years later.      

      • Ray Springfield says:

        If the Bush Justice dept wasn’t so filled with Rovian lackeys he’d be investigated here in the states.

        I read this site a lot. People like you do not believe in the Bill of Rights, Habeus Corpus,nor International law.

        The only absurd situation is the fact that Bush has destroyed the economy, destroyed American credibility, and promoted war profiteering as exemplified by people like Shaffer.

        • RedGreen says:

          Your reading comprehension is questionable.  

          • Ray Springfield says:

            It is not out of the question at all that oil executives and their bought and paid for congressmen voted to go to war to make money.

            • RedGreen says:

              the Hunts and their KRG deal, and whether they got back-channel encouragement from the White House while the State Department discouraged the deals in public. Still, there’s so much flagrant war profiteering that begs prosecution, we’re going to need a dozen Harry Trumans to expose and clean it all up.

              What Schaffer has done is disastrous politically. He won’t survive it. But Aspect isn’t going to make any money from its deal with the KRG, the central government will cancel the contract, and all the other dozens and dozens of contracts the Kurds signed.

              Remember Cheney’s secret energy meetings in early 2001? It’s rumored they were marking up giant maps of Iraq, long before there was a pretext for the invasion. Of course you’re right, part of the war’s purpose was always to shovel money into the pockets of oil companies.  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.