Bob Schaffer Skirts
the Pinon Canon Issue

Commentary by Gloria Jean

In Wednesday's Chieftain, Bob Schaffer avoided commenting on the heated dispute over whether the Army should be allowed to annex 414,000 acres, taking private land from its current owners with the remark, "Next year, when and if I announce my Senate candidacy, it will be a more appropriate time to speak out on this important subject.”

So now the use of the word “if” caused an uproar with some political watchers who interpreted the comment as an opening for Schaffer to “back out of the campaign.”

Yeah right. Don’t get your hopes up. I think he was just using some of his memorized “Polished” political jargon to back out of making any statements about the Pinon Canon Expansion issue.

The article said that “Bloggers at ColoradoPols.com, a web site for discussions of Colorado politics, latched onto Schaffer's words as evidence that Schaffer is waffling.”

(Personally, I’ll have to look up the word “waffling” to decide if I agree with that.)

I think he was just being a “polished politician.”

(I wish he would back out of the race, but I don't think he has any intention of doing that, although it would be better for all of us if he did.)

(Mark P. Couch Denver Post Staff Writer calls Bob Schaffer a “polished politician” in the article in the Denver Post. http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_6692623)

(Perhaps that explains some of the way he votes on issues. See below.)

Below is my take on his voting record, just off the top of my non-political head. I am just an ordinary citizen. Most of these things should not have even been submitted for a vote in the first place in my opinion, but I guess politicians have to justify their jobs somehow.

This is an editorial by Gloria Jean and I know very little about politics. But I do listen to my instincts. This is what I would say to Bob Schaffer: "Don’t run Bob Schaffer! Back out Bob Schaffer! You will never take a real stand against anything or against the powers that be, or against the Pinon Canyon Expansion issue. I don’t think you care about the ranchers, or about Colorado, or about anyone except Bob Schaffer."

Bob Schaffer probably won't understand this message because he probably does not know what I mean by the Powers that be. If so, I will explain. The powers that be are the puppet masters who manipulate, fund and control the politicians. The higher up you get, the more visible they will become...just in case you haven't noticed them yet, but I am sure you have. My advice Bob, get out now while you still can and look for meaningful work.

That’s my opinion and I am sticking to it.

How Bob Schaffer voted:
(Gloria Jean Poking fun with questions and comments.)

# Voted YES on banning human cloning, including medical research. (Jul 2001)

(I am guessing that he doesn’t understand the scientific stuff.) Of course we shouldn’t be cloning humans. Who on earth would vote for that? But why would you want to ban medical research that would cure many afflictions and diseases, even if it does involve embryonic human cells? What do they actually mean by "human cloning" anyway?

The people who write these bills should not clump two issues together so that you have to vote a certain way. If you were in favaor of medical cloning research, but against creating full grown human clones (as pictured in some horror movie) then you might be inclined to vote yes on banning "human cloning." But there is a big difference between creating an cloned embryo in a laboratory and removing some cells, and growing a human clone in a giant test tube. If you are going to consider a fertilized egg, (cloned or not) to be a human person, then what about all those frozen human embryos waiting to be placed (or not) into a womb.

I think he should have voted no on this issue because I don't think medical research of this type should be banned. As for the banning of human cloning, I don't think this is an issue we should worry about. If creating a human clone is possible, then I have no doubt that someone has probably already done it. Mind you, I have not read the bill itself so I don't know exactly what it says. But the way they write these bills, they tend to confuse the average person. I say, ban the creation of full blown cloned humans, but don't ban medical research.

# Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)

(I wonder if there is a plan to support these unwanted children and their mothers for the rest of their lives?)

# Voted YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)

What a strange bill. Does this bill classify a fetus as a living human being with rights; and is the intention of this bill to imply that a fetus is a person with rights, thus leading to laws against legal abortions?

# Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Any vote that bans abortion is a strike against women's freedom of choice where it relates to her body and her health.

# Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
Huh? Barring transporting minors to get an abortion? I guess they will just have to walk then. So I guess if you pick up a hitchhiker, and they are young and pregnant, you better drop them off at the next corner. What is this law really about? You can't make abortion illegal so you try to make a law like this? These people are getting desperate.

#Voted YES on Constitutional amendment prohibiting Flag Desecration. (Jul 2001)

What flag would that be? I wonder if this amendment includes all flags or just a few flags or just the American Flag? If it includes more than one flag, could I please have a list of all the flags I can desecrate just in case I get in the mood to desecrate a flag or in case I am invited to a flag desecration event or party?

#Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
I haven't read this bill. Do you think it is a ban against gays adopting children or against non-gays adopting gay children? (I'm just kidding of course.) Do you think he might be homophobic? Is he saying that gays would not be good parents simply because they are gay? Perhaps he believes they might try to influence the sexual orientation of these children? I wonder. And I wonder what kind of gay bashing homophobic wrote this bill in the first place.

# Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit burning the US flag. (Jun 1999)

What else should you do with an old nasty torn flag? Throw it in the garbage?
Oh no, I guess that could be against the law too if it were up to Bob Schaffer. And the burning of the flag in a protest demonstration is a matter of free speech, or so it has been decided. So is he now against free speech? Is he against protest? Or is he simply repeating the red-neck ideas of his conservative police-state puppet masters?

# Voted YES on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)

I see. Mmmm. I think that law was to prevent discrimination against someone because of their race. I guess he wants to bring back the practice of open and unquestioned discriminating.

# Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

Does that cover all flags in existence or is the U.S. flag the only one they want to turn into a graven image to be worshiped and protected?

# Voted YES on Bankruptcy Overhaul requiring partial debt repayment. (Mar 2001)

Okay Bob, let the poor and the middle class drown in debt so the government can take their property, after all, these large corporations and credit card companies need every cent they can squeeze out of them. These companies send out credit card offers to desperate people on a regular basis and charge ridiculous interest for credit which is simply debt, not money. We don't have debtor prisons anymore...so far. But make them pay until they die, I guess.

While I think people should be responsible for their debts, I also think something should be done about these corporations who loan money to people they know can't afford it in order to enslave them or get their property.

# Voted NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)

You would have thought Bob Schaffer might have gotten something right. Yet he wants more prisons. Why? Perhaps because prisons are big business. Maybe he owns stock in them, or maybe his supporters own stock in them.

# Voted YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)

(To teach our children a lesson no less, and get them trained to survive in all the new jails I guess.)

# Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)

I wonder if this is the beginning of the anticipated police state and the building of a wall. I wonder which side of the drug war are we on anyway? The CIA deals drugs and guns just as much as the criminals do. Maybe they are all criminals just fighting each other.

# Voted NO on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)

Good for him for voting no on this confusing issue. Were these two subjects on the same bill? I wonder what one has to do with the other? I'm quite sure that Medical Marijuana would do a lot of damage to the drug industry as it would take the place of a lot of profit producing prescription drugs. Big Drug Companies do not want that.

# Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)

Good for him. Who likes tests anyway? I guess we just pass them on to the next grade and get them out of the system as fast as possible. There is a method to this madness of course. If our country was full of well informed educated young adults, the people who really run the world would not have anyone to put into office.

# Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)

I know nothing about the voucher issue, but I am guessing this is a mistake since Bob Schaffer voted yes on it. Just a hunch.

# Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997)
See the above.

# Supports requiring schools to allow prayer. (Jan 2001)

Really? We should "require" schools to "allow" prayer? (The words "require" and "allow" seem to be in conflict here.) And would that be concerning prayer conducted publicly in schools? And to what God would they be praying I wonder? I don't believe there is a law against praying in school. The law is against a public conducted prayer by school officials which requires or expects students to be present, or else allows them to object and leave the room.) This prayer is of course of a Christian nature and assumes there is a God.

To "require" schools to "allow" prayer does not make any sense since they were the ones conducting the official prayer vigils in the first place. (Who writes these bills anyway?) I think if a student wants to pray, I don't think anyone could legally stop them. But if a teacher or principle or anyone so endowed, were to conduct an official prayer at a large assembly or in a classroom, that is what should not be allowed simply because they have a "captive audience" who may not share the same religious beliefs. If you want group prayer, then go to the church of your choice.

# Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May 1997)

Huh? This just feels like an attempt (by religious zealots) to get THE STATE (THE GOVERNMENT) to force a paticular religion down our throats whether we want it or not.

# Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001)

Good for him! After all, we like our big cars and SUV's. I guess we can just keep fighting and dying for the oil all over the third world. And why waste time and money on alternative fuels when there are so many rich oil barons who need our money?

# Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. (Aug 2001)

Well why should we drill anywhere, we’ve got Iraq right?

# Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)

Maybe because then Americans would have to comply and that would be inconvenient and unpopular. We Americans do love our gas guzzling Sport Utility vehicles and long vacations across the country.

 

(If you wish to comment on this article send and email to gjean@centurytel.net. )