Damo and Freak - Voting for Schaffer?

Bonestorm

Thrillhouse
Just curious as to who the Coloradans intend to support in the Senate race between Udall and Schaffer.

I came across an article from the Denver Post on his immigration stance which seemed to suggest he was somewhat moderate on the immigration issue, which I suppose if the comparator is Tom Tancredo, that is correct. This struck me as odd though:

He pointed to the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. protectorate that imports tens of thousands of foreign textile workers, as a successful model for a guest-worker program that could be adapted nationally.

"The concept of prequalifying foreign workers in their home country under private- sector management is a system that works very well in one place in America," he said of the islands' program. "I think members of Congress ought to be looking at that model and be considering it as a possible basis for a nationwide program."

The Northern Mariana Islands as a successful model for a guest-worker program that could be adopted nationally? That doesn't seem to be a very good example of a successful guest-worker program. I mean, maybe I'm confused but it seems that creating an underclass of guest-workers with no path to citizenship coupled with being forced into prostitution, child prostitution, forced abortion, slave labor, beatings and other atrocities isn't a great idea. Nor is it anything close to "moderate."

In any event, what's your take on this guy?
 
Hey the Northern Mariana Islands is a modle of Republican backed sweatshop capitalism.

the very place that those like Hugo would use as an example of american colonialism raping countries. and rightfully so.
 
Last edited:
The Denver Post has an update:

Just before boarding a plane to the Mariana Islands in 1999, then-Congressman Bob Schaffer announced he was embarking on a fact-finding mission to get to the bottom of repeated allegations of labor abuse in the American protectorate.

"I plan to walk right into those factories and living quarters to see for myself what conditions exist," Schaffer said in a news release in August of that year.

What he didn't say was that the trip was partly arranged by the firm of now-jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who represented textile factory owners fighting congressional efforts to reform labor and immigration laws on the islands and who was being handsomely paid to keep the islands' cherished exemptions.

Schaffer and his wife stayed for free at a palm-studded beach resort and, besides factories, also toured historical sites and met with clients of Preston-Gates, Abramoff's firm, according to a copy of the trip's agenda archived in Schaffer's congressional papers.

He left believing that allegations of widespread abuse were largely unfounded — blaming them on Big Labor's efforts to shut down a booming textile industry allowed to use the "Made in USA" label but dependent on tens of thousands of imported workers.

In a recent interview with The Denver Post, the Republican candidate for Colorado's open Senate seat described the protectorate's guest-worker program as a "model" lawmakers could use as they overhaul the U.S. immigration system.

"At its base it is a union fight that has beentaking place there," Schaffer said in a recentinterview about what he found on the islands. "Iinsisted that it be a real investigation, which it was," he said, noting that he visited more than 20 factories and found serious problems in only one.

Nine years later, the trip has become a campaign issue: It has left Schaffer defending a guest-worker program criticized in more than a decade of government reports and journalistic exposés; and it links him to what Abramoff later boasted was an incredibly successful lobbying effort to quash reform by cashing in on ties to key House Republicans, including those on the House Resources Committee, on which Schaffer sat.


Is this the amateur hour? Bringing up, in a favorable light, the guest-worker program of the Mariana Islands during a campaign after being feted by Abramoff to support the guest-worker program after having gone on a junket to the Mariana's arranged by Abramoff's firm doesn't seem to be a good campaign strategy to me.


http://www.denverpost.com/rapids/ci_8872607
 
Last edited:
A possible basis doesn't mean, "Let's copy it directly."

Bob's a good guy. He is conservative on some of those issues that I am not, but is right on the ones that I am as well. So he is an anti-Bush. That's good for me.
 
A possible basis doesn't mean, "Let's copy it directly."

Bob's a good guy. He is conservative on some of those issues that I am not, but is right on the ones that I am as well. So he is an anti-Bush. That's good for me.


I didn't say he wanted to copy it directly. I said he pointed to it as a model of success, which is almost a direct quote from him. Successful for whom? Abramoff's former clients?

It's horrible system, at least for the workers living under it.
 
I didn't say he wanted to copy it directly. I said he pointed to it as a model of success, which is almost a direct quote from him. Successful for whom? Abramoff's former clients?

It's horrible system, at least for the workers living under it.
Which was the point of the trip. He went in to look at the conditions, to see if he could find what other people were saying about it. He didn't.

It should also be noted that this was in 1999 and that people can change their views in that period of time all while not being wishy-washy, it was his last year as Congressman as he term-limited himself by an agreement he signed after the term limits on Federal Reps voted on here in CO was struck down by the SCOTUS.

This is one of those politicians who actually do what they promise.

One can see by his remarks here, if you turn it and look slightly differently, that he is not against a humane program that will allow people to enter the nation legally rather than sneak in and be taken advantage of as they are with the status quo.
 
Which was the point of the trip. He went in to look at the conditions, to see if he could find what other people were saying about it. He didn't.

It should also be noted that this was in 1999 and that people can change their views in that period of time all while not being wishy-washy, it was his last year as Congressman as he term-limited himself by an agreement he signed after the term limits on Federal Reps voted on here in CO was struck down by the SCOTUS.

This is one of those politicians who actually do what they promise.

One can see by his remarks here, if you turn it and look slightly differently, that he is not against a humane program that will allow people to enter the nation legally rather than sneak in and be taken advantage of as they are with the status quo.


So, he expected to take a junket to the Mariana Islands arranged by Preston, Ellis Gates, Abramoff's lobbying firm, whose clients were fighting tougher labor regulations and to see first hand the real conditions in the textile factories? Is he the most naive person on the planet (not that you're taking yourself out of the running by shilling for him)?

I'm sure he and his wife got a great view of the labor conditions from the air:

20080410_124935_cd10schaffer1.jpg


And yes, one can spin his remarks to be supportive of something other than the Mariana Island guest-worker program. On the other hand, one could look at his remarks hailing the abusive Mariana system as a "system that works very well" and as a system that Congress "ought to be looking at that model and be considering it as a possible basis for a nationwide program" as supporting the Mariana Island system being implemented by Congress.
 
So, he expected to take a junket to the Mariana Islands arranged by Preston, Ellis Gates, Abramoff's lobbying firm, whose clients were fighting tougher labor regulations and to see first hand the real conditions in the textile factories? Is he the most naive person on the planet (not that you're taking yourself out of the running by shilling for him)?

I'm sure he and his wife got a great view of the labor conditions from the air:

20080410_124935_cd10schaffer1.jpg


And yes, one can spin his remarks to be supportive of something other than the Mariana Island guest-worker program. On the other hand, one could look at his remarks hailing the abusive Mariana system as a "system that works very well" and as a system that Congress "ought to be looking at that model and be considering it as a possible basis for a nationwide program" as supporting the Mariana Island system being implemented by Congress.
Yeah, because when you are there you must only do exactly what you came for. Nobody can possibly take advantage of any fun things and do something else too...

:rolleyes:

Not everything that Abromoff's firm did was illegal. And this couldn't possibly be to have him vote a certain way as he was nearing the end of his time in Congress and had made it no secret. They were not trying to buy his influence.

Basically, you are upset that a politician that is in an opposing party took a trip somewhere to investigate conditions of employment in textile for guest workers so that he could report himself what he saw.

That it wasn't illegal, you don't care about.

That he reported that it was possible to treat people like humans while letting them in to work, you don't care about that either.
 
So what are the polls showing? Him vs Udall. NM's Udall is kicking the ass of all comers in polls that I have been watching here. Looks like Domenici's seat is going to go Dem for the first time since 1972. The Udall family is a political juggernaut in the west. I just wonder what Colorado thinks of their Udall.
 
Also when you trip is paid for by the people that continue to want to bring in subwage labor you are not going to say OMG the labor conditions were horrible. You are going to say that it's a good system. That is the politicians way regardless of the party.
 
So what are the polls showing? Him vs Udall. NM's Udall is kicking the ass of all comers in polls that I have been watching here. Looks like Domenici's seat is going to go Dem for the first time since 1972. The Udall family is a political juggernaut in the west. I just wonder what Colorado thinks of their Udall.
Well, they are tied up in the polls.

Which is actually amazing considering that Udall has no real competition in the primary and therefore has built up a larger war chest and has been outspending Shaffer already. It took a while for the Rs to actually finally get behind a candidate, but he finally became the uncontested R candidate. While he isn't perfect, he is hugely better IMO than Mark Udall.

(BTW, Just for the sake of full disclosure Bob is somebody who I know. When he was Congressman I lived in his district and met him many times as my grandmother was a huge contributor but always gave me the tickets to the events. I've known him since I was about 16 and would consider him a well-liked acquaintance...)
 
Also when you trip is paid for by the people that continue to want to bring in subwage labor you are not going to say OMG the labor conditions were horrible. You are going to say that it's a good system. That is the politicians way regardless of the party.
Bob would say that he probably was only shown what they wanted him to see.

He laces his comments with "from what I have seen" and other things like that as he is one of the most honest people I have ever seen in politics.
 
Yeah, because when you are there you must only do exactly what you came for. Nobody can possibly take advantage of any fun things and do something else too...

:rolleyes:

Not everything that Abromoff's firm did was illegal. And this couldn't possibly be to have him vote a certain way as he was nearing the end of his time in Congress and had made it no secret. They were not trying to buy his influence.

Basically, you are upset that a politician that is in an opposing party took a trip somewhere to investigate conditions of employment in textile for guest workers so that he could report himself what he saw.

That it wasn't illegal, you don't care about.

That he reported that it was possible to treat people like humans while letting them in to work, you don't care about that either.


Damocles,

I apologize for holding elected officials and folks campaigning to be elected officials to higher standards than not subject to imprisonment.

I suppose my initial question has been answered. You clearly intend to vote for the guy notwithstanding his dealings with Abramoff not his abhorrent position that the Mariana Island guest-worker program "works very well" and ought to be used as a model for the United States.

And did he report that it was possible to treat people like humans while letting them in to work? From what I read he said a system that employed such humane institutions as forced abortions worked "very well." It's disgusting.
 
Bob would say that he probably was only shown what they wanted him to see.

He laces his comments with "from what I have seen" and other things like that as he is one of the most honest people I have ever seen in politics.


Damocles - That's the whole point of the trip. You clearly don't get it. There are scores of reports of inhumane treatment: child slavery, child labor, sweatshop labor, forced labor, forced prostitution, forced abortions and the like. Now, as a Congressman that wants to support the system you can't support the system in face of such reports. Unless, of course, you can instead rely on your first-hand experience. And who can provide you with such a first-hand experience that can dispel all of those negative reports? Maybe the lobbyists for the busines interest?

It's nothing but cover.

Then when the issue comes up you can say things like this and still be considered a "one of the most honest people I have ever seen in politics" by people that want to support you:

"There were some examples of problems that we found, and we raised those with the equivalent of the attorney general," Schaffer said of his visit. But in many others, "the workers were smiling; they were happy."

Because guess what, I'm sure he saw smiling, happy workers. He's being 100% truthful when he says that. Because that's what he was designed to see. Now when the various reports are brought up he can say, "but my own experience is that the workers are smiling and happy."

It's disgraceful.
 
Damocles,

I apologize for holding elected officials and folks campaigning to be elected officials to higher standards than not subject to imprisonment.

I suppose my initial question has been answered. You clearly intend to vote for the guy notwithstanding his dealings with Abramoff not his abhorrent position that the Mariana Island guest-worker program "works very well" and ought to be used as a model for the United States.

And did he report that it was possible to treat people like humans while letting them in to work? From what I read he said a system that employed such humane institutions as forced abortions worked "very well." It's disgusting.
Again, he went to see if he could find those conditions. And reported that 'from what he saw' blah, blah.

Also, this was not direct dealings with Abramoff, and you even point out that it was the company associated.

Also, and this is also important, it should be noted that they could not possibly have been purchasing his influence as he was on the last legs of his last term in Congress.

As it stands. The next time I see him, and I will, I will ask about this trip and see what he says.

I'll report it honestly.
 
Again, he went to see if he could find those conditions. And reported that 'from what he saw' blah, blah.

Also, this was not direct dealings with Abramoff, and you even point out that it was the company associated.

Also, and this is also important, it should be noted that they could not possibly have been purchasing his influence as he was on the last legs of his last term in Congress.



1) See above.

2) You're kidding me right? Who at Preston Ellis was the lobbyist for the Mariana Islands if not Jack Abramoff?

3) Again, you've got to be kidding me with this tripe. House members serve two year terms. Lobbying a house member in the first year of a two year term can certainly be considered purchasing influence, particularly when the house member serves on the committee that has jurisdiction over the issue.

Ugh. Keep spinning, Damo.
 
A bush trend , support friends above country.
This hardly merits such an insult.

As I said, I'll ask him about this and see what I can get deeper than the leftwing bloggers will present.

Did Shaffer know about forced abortions when he made the comment?

I don't know, but I can ask. I'll have to work it into conversation though. Thankfully that is rather easy with politicians, they tend to like to talk politics.
 
1) See above.

2) You're kidding me right? Who at Preston Ellis was the lobbyist for the Mariana Islands if not Jack Abramoff?

3) Again, you've got to be kidding me with this tripe. House members serve two year terms. Lobbying a house member in the first year of a two year term can certainly be considered purchasing influence, particularly when the house member serves on the committee that has jurisdiction over the issue.

Ugh. Keep spinning, Damo.
Rubbish. Near the end of a term that he has stated he will not run again is definitely a reason not to attempt to purchase his influence, even lobbyists don't like to waste money like that.

If there was a direct link to Abramoff it would have been in your original assertion, instead you give indirect links. Because that is all that existed.

You seem to be deliberately missing the fact that he was leaving Congress at the end of that year and everybody knew it.

I'd also love to see the original links to the sourcing of this, as well as to read all of what he had to say on the issue rather than just tiny blips. From the same group that insists I read the entire transcript of a sermon to excuse racially divisive comments....
 
Back
Top