Progress Now Action

Call for Bob Schaffer to Apologize for War Profiteering:
Highlight Big Oil Bob as War Profiteer Video

U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer exposed the hypocrisy of Congressman Mark Udall's (D-CO) record concerning the war in Iraq today at a debate in Parker sponsored by the Southeast Business Partnership and moderated by Channel 9's Adam Schrager.

"Boulder Liberal Mark Udall continues to hide from his votes on both the war and energy," said Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams. "The voters of Colorado deserve to know Boulder Liberal Mark Udall's real record."

When asked about why the United States went to war, Schaffer responded by reading excerpts from House Joint Resolution 118 introduced on October 7, 2002. The war resolution authorizing the use of force outlined Iraq's refusal to comply with the United Nations Security Council's call for the need to remove Saddam Hussein and Iraq's record as a state sponsor of terror.

Schaffer then asked the crowd to raise their hands if they agreed with the resolution. Udall supports sneered and chuckled until they were told the resolution was introduced by Congressman Udall. An audible gasp was heard from the crowd...

Rep. Mark Udall has introduced an alternative war powers resolution that would withhold final congressional authorization for an attack on Iraq until all diplomatic means are exhausted.

The Boulder Democrat faces an uphill battle in the House, since most Republicans and some Democrats, including House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, already endorse a version that would give President Bush broader authority to reduce the threat of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in Iraq.

The White House-backed version requires the president to report to Congress and certify that he has exhausted diplomatic efforts, but Udall 's version would go further.

It would require Bush to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution, and seek to deploy a ``coercive inspection and disarmament program'' against Iraq, backed by a U.S.-led multinational force.

If those efforts failed, under Udall 's bill the president would have to return to Congress to ask for separate authorization to attack Iraq...

Representatives from Sen. John McCain's campaign said they did not ask security to remove Carol Kreck, a woman holding a "McCain = Bush" sign outside a Monday town-hall meeting in Denver.

Tom Kise, McCain's regional communications director, said Friday that the senator has a track record of allowing people who oppose him to speak out at his events.

The McCain campaign had only asked that the Denver Center for the Performing Arts complex keep people with signs out of the meeting, not off the grounds of the entire complex.

DCPA spokeswoman Suzanne Blandon on Friday stood by the statement from the day before that the McCain campaign had asked that people not be allowed to hold signs throughout the complex...

• McCain=Bush: Support Free Speech, Get the Shirt
• "McCain=Bush" - worst fears confirmed
• Conservative Rocky Mountain News editorial board: Kreck's rights violated
• Video: MSNBC's Countdown reports on Carol Kreck
• Release: First Amendment Rights Violated by McCain Campaign
• Librarian carrying McCain=Bush sign kicked out of McCain Event
  

• "McCain=Bush" - worst fears confirmed
• Conservative Rocky Mountain News editorial board: Kreck's rights violated
• Video: MSNBC's Countdown reports on Carol Kreck
• Release: First Amendment Rights Violated by McCain Campaign
• Librarian carrying McCain=Bush sign kicked out of McCain Event
  

It was Sen. John McCain's staff who asked security at the Denver Center for the Performing Arts to remove people holding protest signs at the venue -- not U.S. Secret Service agents, who were not involved in Carol Kreck's ouster from the galleria.

A video of the incident circulating widely on the Internet shows a DCPA security guard saying that he was told by the Secret Service to remove Kreck, who was holding a paper sign that said "McCain = Bush."

But Thursday, after two days of being vilified by bloggers, letter writers and others, the Secret Service emphatically denied involvement.

"Contrary to some recent reporting, the Secret Service had no involvement in Ms. Kreck being removed from the area," said Malcolm D. Wiley Sr., spokesman for the Secret Service. "It was not done at our request or suggestion. Any assertion to the contrary is inaccurate and inconsistent with our established policies and procedures."

DCPA spokeswoman Suzanne Blandon said the guard who told Kreck to leave was "simply mistaken" in identifying the Secret Service as the agency that wanted her to leave. Blandon said the guard did not intend to use the Secret Service as leverage and did not mean to mislead anyone...

There you have it. Far worse than the original report that the Secret Service was behind Ms. Kreck's ouster--which they could have 'justified' a dozen different security-related ways, at least initially--it appears that the whole fiasco was instigated by McCain staffers who were concerned about only one thing: the embarrassing message of the sign she was carrying.

Note that today's article states that McCain's staff only requested the removal of attendees with protest signs--dozens of people festooned with pro-McCain schwag were allowed in, contrary to claims from McCain's campaign that nobody was. That's a critical point.

It wasn't a uniform security restriction imposed by the Secret Service, and it was not some unsupportable distinction between "public places" and "not really public public places" arranged between the city and the Performing Arts Center--although that appears to have been the pretext. And not an overzealous DCPA security guard striking out on his own.

No, it was McCain's people who did this. Because they didn't like her sign. As clear and audacious a violation of Carol Kreck's right to free speech as can be imagined.

Click here to make a donation to our fund to defend Carol Kreck, and thanks to all of you who have donated thousands of dollars already. Looks like the money will be well spent, fighting for Ms. Kreck's rights--and yours, too.

See also:

• Video: MSNBC's Countdown reports on Carol Kreck/McCain "town hall" civil liberties issues
• Release: First Amendment Rights Violated by McCain Campaign
• Librarian carrying McCain=Bush sign kicked out of McCain Event
  

The courts should toss out the trespassing charges facing Carol Kreck, who was cited for bringing a sign reading "McCain = Bush" into the Galleria at the Denver Performing Arts Complex before Monday's town hall event featuring Sen. John McCain.

Kreck was in line to attend the rally, but says she never intended to enter the building. Whether she's telling the truth or not, she hadn't entered when police decided to ticket her for trespassing. Kreck argued she was on city property, refused to abandon the sign, and was escorted from the premises after receiving the citation.

It's one thing to ban all signs at the actual town hall meeting. We have no problem with that. But the Galleria - the glass-covered pedestrian walkway surrounded by several theaters and the complex's parking garage - should have been considered a public forum in this instance. Kreck should have been allowed to remain within it, sign in hand.

If Kreck prevails, a modest tweak in the policy against protests at facilities run by the Division of Theaters and Arenas would protect Denver from future lawsuits. Protesters should be allowed to exercise their rights during political events.

The division is correct in pointing out that its policy prohibiting signs, demonstrations and leafletting in the Galleria is longstanding and even-handed. It is not a content-based ban allowing some signs and prohibiting others depending on what they say. And the city can also cite a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1999, Hawkins v. City and County of Denver, which supported city policy.

Two years earlier, a local musicians' union had protested the Colorado Ballet's decision to use a recorded score rather than live musicians during a performance of Romeo and Juliet. Union members tried to use the Galleria to picket and hand out leaflets to ballet patrons. Police removed the protesters, who sued the city.

In the ruling, the 10th Circuit upheld the ban on leafletting, calling the complex a "nonpublic forum" where management can shoo away protesters or cite them for trespassing without violating the First Amendment.

Demonstrations are fine on the public streets surrounding the theater complex. But the court said the Galleria "does not qualify as a traditional public forum, for it is not a park, nor is it analogous to a public right of way or thoroughfare. . . . [I]t is closed to vehicles, and pedestrians do not generally use it as a throughway to another destination."

The problem, as we see it, is that the musicians' protest was in no way similar to a political protest at a town hall meeting that is open to the public and purely political in nature.

Attorney David Lane, who's representing Kreck, also argues that his client should prevail in part because a 1991 Colorado Supreme Court decision allows protesters to demonstrate in the common areas of a shopping mall, which is not a traditional public forum.

Ironically, the Hawkins decision could also place the city on shaky ground. One reason the Galleria could not be considered a "designated public forum," the court said, is because "Denver has neither in policy nor practice thrown open the Galleria for public expressive activity." And yet by booking McCain's town hall, the city had "thrown open" the Galleria for "public expressive activity."

Either the policy needs to be adjusted to accommodate protests at purely political events, or the city should not schedule them at its venues.

An oil contract U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer helped negotiate in Iraqi Kurdistan is one of several production deals the U.S. State Department has flagged as problematic for Iraq and its attempts to establish a national oil policy.

The oil contract, finalized in November 2007, allows a subsidiary of Schaffer's former employer, Denver-based Aspect Energy, to produce oil on a nearly 104-square-mile plot in the Dohuk Governate in northern Iraq.

Schaffer confirmed Wednesday he was one of several Aspect Energy executives who visited Kurdistan in November 2006 and laid the groundwork for the company's oil deal.

The Kurdistan Regional Government, which governs the semiautonomous region of Iraq, has moved during the past several years to aggressively develop crude oil resources in northern Iraq. Those efforts run counter to moves to implement a national oil policy.

According to a June 23 report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, Aspect Energy's oil contract and roughly two dozen other similar deals have been a point of contention between Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government.

"The (Kurdistan Regional Government) has negotiated an estimated 25 contracts with foreign oil firms, which the Iraqi federal government claims are illegal," according to the report.

As we discussed late last week, this is another potentially devastating situation for Schaffer, possibly worse than the Abramoff/Marianas scandal--which polls show has already seriously damaged his election prospects. The finalization of an Iraqi petroleum law is viewed by most experts as critical to the stabilization of Iraq, and the story emerging here is about American oil companies--like Schaffer's--who were more concerned with getting 'a piece of the action' than they were with supporting American foreign policy goals in Iraq.

Is there even another former Congressman out there who voted to invade Iraq, then immediately went to work for an oil company pursuing contracts there? We're not aware of any. That's bad enough, but the idea that the contracts he pursued could be prolonging the Iraq war instead of helping end it?

First Amendment Rights Violated by McCain Campaign:

Fund to Defend Librarian Carol Kreck Announced

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Contact: Michael Huttner
303-931-4547 cell

DENVER - ProgressNowAction announced today the creation of a fund to defend Carol Kreck, the 60-year-old librarian who was cited for trespassing yesterday while standing in line to attend Senator John McCain's "town hall meeting" in Denver.  The McCain event was billed as open to the public.

"We believe McCain's campaign violated Carol's First Amendment Rights," stated Peter Hedeen, Kreck's attorney.

Upon orders of McCain's Secret Service detail, Ms. Kreck was escorted from the public plaza of the Denver Performing Arts Complex.  She was ticketed for trespassing and issued a court summons.

When Ms. Kreck asked why this was happening, she was told she had to get rid of the sign she was holding.

"He said if I came back into the plaza I'd be arrested and taken to jail," Kreck said.

Her sign said simply:  McCain = Bush.  "Now why is that offensive?," asked Kreck.  "Why would Republicans who voted for Bush find that offensive?"

People in line had pro-McCain signs and buttons but no one other than Kreck was cited.

The Denver Performing Arts Complex is four-square-block site owned and operated by the City and County of Denver and subsidized largely by Denver area taxpayers through a mill levy.

Ms. Kreck was not inside the hall where McCain was holding his Town Hall event when security approached her.   She was standing quietly in the public plaza between the Bonfils Theatre Complex and the parking garage.

ProgressNowAction is taking donations for Kreck's defense.  Donations can be given by clicking the following link:

http://progressnowaction.org/FundtoDefendCarolKreck

###

Librarian carrying McCain=Bush sign kicked out of McCain Event:

McCain Town Hall attendees get escorted out again

For Immediate Release
July 7, 2008
Contact: Michael Huttner
303-931-4547 cell

DENVER, Colo.-On orders from Senator John McCain's security detail, Denver police escorted a 61-year-old woman away who was waiting in line to attend a so-called  town hall meeting with McCain that was billed as open to the public.

Carol Kreck, who works as a librarian in Denver, held a homemade sign reading "McCain = Bush." On orders from McCain's security detail, police cited her for trespassing and escorted her to the sidewalk. She was told if she returned she would be arrested.

"And all I did was carry a sign that said McCain = Bush," Kreck said. "And for everyone who voted for Bush, I don't see why it's offensive to say McCain = Bush."

This episode by McCain's Secret Service appears to be a rerun of McCain's 2005 town hall in Denver with President Bush in which the Secret Service had three Denver citizens removed from an "open" event where McCain was campaigning with Pres. Bush for his plan to privatize social security.

Click to watch the video

McCain and Bush:  The same record on the economy

Senator McCain was in town to speak about his economic agenda, outlining more of the same failed policies of George W. Bush.  McCain's plan, like Bush's gives break after break to millionaires and wealthy corporations, but does little for middle class families.

Bush said, "The fundamentals are strong. We're just in a rough patch." (Los Angeles Times, 2/2/08).

McCain said, "I still believe our fundamental underpinnings of our economy are strong." (CNN 1/22/08).  McCain actively supports Bush's failed policies.  According to Congressional Quarterly, McCain supported President Bush a majority of the time-supporting Bush as much as 100 percent in 2008 and 95 percent in 2007. [CQ Voting Studies, Accessed, 5/15/08]

The Wall Street Journal reported that McCain policies will "explode deficit" or result in "unprecedented spending cuts equal to one-third of federal spending on domestic programs." [WSJ, 4/22/2008]

McCain and Bush:  The same record on tax cuts

Bush said, "We need to make the tax cuts permanent." (President's Speech on the economy at the EEOB, 2/19/04.)

McCain said, "I'll make the Bush tax cuts permanent.... I've said 500 times that I want the tax cuts to be made permanent." (NBC "Meet the Press," 1/27/08). McCain makes Bush's tax cuts permanent, and calls for a $1.7 trillion tax cut for corporations according to a Center for American Progress Action Fund report.

McCain's corporate tax cuts would give $3.8 billion in tax breaks to the 5 biggest oil companies and $1.9 billion in tax breaks to the 10 biggest health insurers.  Meanwhile, families who are struggling to pay the bills get much less.

America's top 5 oil companies Exxon, Shell, Valero and others would stand to receive a $3.8 billion tax break, while the average family might save $44.40 from McCain's gas holiday.

McCain Supported Bush 100 Percent in 2008 and 95 Percent in 2007. According to Congressional Quarterly, McCain supported President Bush a majority of the time-supporting Bush as much as 100 percent in 2008 and 95 percent in 2007. According to CQ, "CQ tries to determine what the president personally, as distinct from other administration officials, does and does not want in the way of legislative action. This is done by analyzing his messages to Congress, news conference remarks and other public statements and documents." [CQ Voting Studies, Accessed, 5/15/08]

Last fall, after the deal was announced, the State Department said that it had tried to dissuade Hunt Oil from signing the contract with Kurdish regional authorities but that the company had proceeded "regardless of our advice." Although Hunt Oil's chief executive has been a major fundraiser for President Bush, the president said he knew nothing about the deal.

Yesterday, however, Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released documents and e-mails showing that for nearly four months, State and Commerce department officials knew about Hunt Oil's negotiations and had told company officials that there were no objections. In one note, a Commerce Department official even wished them "a fruitful visit to Kurdistan" and invited them to contact him "in case you need any support."

That guidance contradicted the administration's public posture. The Bush administration made an Iraqi national petroleum law, which has still not been adopted, a top priority last year in the hope it would more tightly bind the country's regions together and open the way for international oil companies to invest in much larger oil fields south of Iraq's Kurdish region. The State Department said, and continues to assert, that it opposes any contract with a regional Iraqi authority in the absence of a national petroleum law.

Although this isn't the same contract that Schaffer was involved in, it was in the same period of time and in the same place, and all of these contracts are now the subject of this growing dispute between the Kurdish Regional government and the Iraqi federal government. Most experts regard the settling of the issue of Iraq's oil development and revenue as critical to the country's stability, a key condition for eventual American success and widthdrawal.

Obviously, the first question for Schaffer is whether or not he was similarly "discouraged" by the State Department from pursuing local oil contracts in Iraq without laws in place nationally yet to accomodate them. Then, somebody should ask him how this deal he negotiated with the Kurds squares with official American policy of wanting a national oil development strategy for a unified Iraq.

In fact, a whole slew of questions along the same rather distressing line present themselves, for Schaffer especially given the displeasure voters seem to have these days for the words "oil company" or "Iraq war." Imagine the reaction to putting them together, say, "Bob Schaffer cared more about his oil company than he did about winning the Iraq war."

Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The decision marks another legal blow to the Bush administration's war on terrorism policies.

The 5-4 vote reflects the divide over how much legal autonomy the U.S. military should have to prosecute about 270 prisoners, some of whom have been held for more than six years without charges. Fourteen of them are alleged to be top al Qaeda figures.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, "the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system reconciled within the framework of the law."

A congressional law passed in 2006 would limit court jurisdiction to hear so-called habeas corpus challenges to detention. It is a legal question the justices have tackled three times since 2004, including Thursday's ruling.

Each time, the justices have ruled against the government's claim that it has the authority to hold people it considers "enemy combatants."

On June 10, KBDI Channel 12's Aaron Harber uncritically allowed his guest -- Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer -- to suggest that 2007 legislation introduced by his Democratic opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, would allow U.S. energy companies exploring in Cuban waters to abide by environmental standards no higher than those set by "the Cuban Environmental Protection Agency, if there is such a thing." In fact, H.R. 3182 -- the U.S. Participation in Cuban Energy Exploration Act of 2007 -- specifies that exploration and extraction activities of companies operating under the legislation "shall be subject to the same laws, rules, and regulations for the protection of fish, wildlife, and the environment that are applicable to such activities within the exclusive economic zone of the United States."

 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
CONTACT: Michael Huttner
(303) 931-4547 cell
 
Denver: With oil executives reaping record profits and consumers reeling at the pumps, ProgressNowAction called on Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave to immediately return donations she has taken from the oil industry. The call follows a column Musgrave wrote yesterday in which she claimed to be taking on "Washington" and Big Oil. In fact, her record shows that she has voted for billions in tax breaks for the oil industry.

"We call on 'Misleading' Marilyn Musgrave to return her Big Oil donations and stop voting for tax breaks for the oil industry," stated Michael Huttner, Executive Director of ProgressNowAction, the state's largest online progressive advocacy organization.

In a column yesterday, Musgrave failed to state she accepted over $165,000 from the oil industry and ExxonMobil is Musgrave's biggest donor among them. (Greeley Tribune, 6/10/08; Center for Responsive Politics, opensecrets.org)

"Musgrave is misleading her constituents by claiming to stand up against Big Oil, when in fact her record shows just the opposite. Musgrave voted for billion of dollars of tax breaks for the oil industry," stated Huttner. "With skyrocketing gas prices, Musgrave's constituents should be outraged that she is siding with Big Oil."

ProgressNowAction launched a statewide online campaign calling for Congresswoman Musgrave to immediately return her donations from Big Oil. The link is:

http://progressnowaction.org/MusgraveBigOil

This week the AAA's national gas price average has reached $4.00 a gallon for the first time in history.(CNN, 3/22/08)  At the same time, ExxonMobil is reporting record profits, $40.6 billion last year alone.  One of ExxonMobil's senior vice presidents even bragged how he personally made $12.5 million in one year. (Boston Globe, May 27, 2008)

Facts on Musgrave's record of voting to maximize oil industry profits:

2003: Musgrave voted for the Energy Plan that provided $18.7 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry. (House Vote 145, HR 6, 4/11/03)

2005: Musgrave voted for the 2005 Energy Bill that contained $14.5 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry.(HR 6 Roll Call Vote 445, 7/28/05; Congressional Research Service)  The same year she voted against raising average fuel economy of automobiles from 25 miles-per-gallon to 33 mpg. (Roll Call 121, HR 6, 2/20/2005)

2006: Musgrave voted for extending the Bush Tax Cuts that included $5 billion in tax breaks for the oil industry. (House Vote 135, HR 4297, 5/10/2006, CQ Floor Votes; Washington Post, 4/26/06)

2007: Musgrave voted against a new energy policy that limited tax breaks for big oil. The resulting revenue would have been deposited into a new renewable energy account for research. (House Vote 1177, 12/18/07)

###

Washington, DC - Campaign Money Watch, a nonpartisan campaign finance watchdog group, announced today it has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission concerning Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) presidential campaign, asking the commission to investigate two issues related to Tom Loeffler, Susan Nelson, and Rick Davis, the lobbyists that run and have fundraised for McCain's White House bid.

The organization also began running a television ad regarding John McCain's intervention in an Air Force contract worth up to $100 billion that was awarded to Airbus, its parent company, and partners. Seven lobbyists aiding John McCain's campaign worked for Airbus' American affiliate, and McCain received more in campaign contributions from them than any other politician.

The ad can be watched at http://www.campaignmoney.org/mccainairbus and the complaint can be read in its entirety at http://www.campaignmoney.org/mccainfec.

"Both the complaint and the ad go to the heart of one of the most troubling aspects of McCain's campaign - his symbiotic relationship with powerful Washington big money lobbyists and fundraisers," said Campaign Money Watch director David Donnelly. "John McCain has refused to answer questions regarding excess contributions, illegal corporate donation, or both. By filing this complaint, we will force him to end his stonewalling on these matters. By running this ad, we will force a debate on his relationship with lobbyists and fundraisers on his campaign.

"The FEC complaint is directly connected to the ad: The same lobbyists that aided Airbus are at the center of activity that we have reason to believe violated federal election law," Donnelly continued...