More and more, we're seeing that John McCain is confused about what he stands for. Does McCain favor talking to Hamas or doesn't he? Is it 100 years in Iraq, or 4 years (provided we ride to victory on a magic pony)? Add in his confused stances on torture, lobbyists, and the environment, and we realize that he long ago forgot or betrayed his principles.

In a way, it seems, McCain is trying to subtly shift left. He recognizes that Americans are sick of the war, that we care about health care and the environment, that we're worried about the economy. But his insincere moves to position himself near whatever's popular just aren't going to fly this year.

But that's not all. When McCain flips to try and co-opt a more centrist or even center left position, he exposes his colleagues for the right-wing extremists they are.

That's especially true of Jim Inhofe, Oklahoma's global warming-denying Republican senator. Today an email from his challenger's campaign pointed out the hard truths about Inhofe and Republicans:

Jim Inhofe has taken some blows this week – albeit indirectly – from the man who hopes to inherit the leadership of the Republican party. John McCain's recent touting of his green credentials and promises of action on global warming showed how far out of touch Jim Inhofe is from all Americans, even the stalwarts of the Republican party.

From McCain's speech:

"The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we to act meet the challenge, and act quickly."

From Jim Inhofe:

"As I said on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003, 'much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science.' I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people[.]' "

John McCain:

"[F]or all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy. This has to change before we can make the decisive shift away from fossil fuels. […] And this is the proposal I will submit to the Congress if I am elected president — a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy."

Jim Inhofe: Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate environment committee, has vowed to block any bills calling for mandatory actions by industry to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

As we learn from the contrast between McCain and Inhofe, the latter's stances on global warming aren't even in synch with his party's platform…or maybe they are, given how hard it is to tell what Republicans stand for these days. 

Inhofe's stances are definitely out of touch with Oklahomans, though. 69% of Sooners believe in global warming, according to research in this DSCC video. Inhofe, in the words of one of his constituents, is "an ostrich with his head in the sand." Oklahomans aren't alone in their beliefs - they join the majority of Americans in being worried about global warming.

All this is bad news for Jim Inhofe. But it's good news for Oklahoma, because thankfully they have a great candidate in State Senator Andrew Rice. Andrew is a leader who will tackle the challenges Oklahoma and America face instead of pretending they don't exist.

The choices are clear in this year's election. John McCain, Jim Inhofe and the GOP are not only confused and out of touch with America, they are also divided against themselves. The Democratic Party offers a clear message of change and problem-solving for America, and Andrew Rice offers that same vision to Oklahoma. 

Colorado's Democratic candidate for Senate Mark Udall is smelling of roses after coming out against the obviously flawed "gas tax holiday" proposed by the faded star that is Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton claimed yesterday that I either stand with her on this proposal or stand with the oil companies. To that I say: I stand with the families of Colorado, who aren't looking for bumper sticker fixes that don't fix anything, but for meaningful change that brings real relief and a new direction for our energy policy.

David Sirota, posting at the Denver Post's Politics West, explains the importance of the stance:

Understand that Colorado is a major oil and gas state, with a politically aggressive energy industry. So here we have one of the state's highest-profile politicians running for higher office, and taking courageous step to confront a major politician of his own party (and, by extension, her donors) and to challenge one of the most ruthless industries in his state.

But Udall is going beyond mere criticism; he's proposing his own plan for relieving the toll taken at the pump:

Immediately, we ought to cease filling the strategic petroleum reserve and redirect that oil onto the market. We've done it in the past under the leadership of President Clinton and this President Bush and we saw almost an immediate drop in price from somewhere in the range of .15 to .25 cents per gallon.

Ideally, we'd be dealing with exorbitant gas prices by using less of it — changing stagnant and cancerous habits — but in lieu of that, Udall is recommending we push renewable energies, and stop subsidizing oil and gas with tax credits:

Those subsidies I'd like to see directed into renewable fuels; wind power and solar power and all the opportunities we have in Colorado.

Compared to his opponent, oil company pawn and sweatshop enthusiast Bob Schaffer, Udall is the prince of princes. Let's hope Colorado voters are seeing it the same way.

As mayor of Anchorage, Alaska, Mark Begich has defied the conservative stereotype of Alaska politics being a popular Democratic mayor, first beating an incumbent Republican and then getting reelected by a record margin. Now he has decided to take on Senator Ted Stevens, who not only is under an ethical cloud, but as Begich points out, has become out of touch with the average Alaskan voter. In a conference call, Mayor Begich listed an array of issues where Senator Stevens has decided his judgment is better than that of Alaskans:

1. The Jim Webb GI Bill — This is the bill that, somehow, McCain is against as well. The bill would basically give the same benefits to those who are serving in the military now as were received by veterans of WWII. Stevens has argued that this is a bad idea because it would encourage enlisted soldiers to leave the military and not re-enlist. An interesting note here is that Begich mentioned that Alaska has a very high veteran population — about 12% of adults in the state.
2. No Child Left Behind — Begich explained that NCLB is extremely unpopular in Alaska, where he hears complaints about it all the time. Stevens, however, still strongly stands behind the program, refusing to acknowledge the problems.
3. Native American Health Care — You would think that a Republican would want to allow for more local control and less federal involvement. Yet, according to Begich, Stevens is blocking the ability of Alaskan Native American communities from providing their own health care — something they can do cheaper and better.
4. Right to Privacy — When it comes to the Telecom bill, Real ID and the Patriot Act, Stevens has consistently voted to expand the government's power to invade the personal lives of its citizens. This is an issue as Alaska has one of the strongest libertarian movements, and strong privacy provisions are written into the Alaskan Constitution. This is a big issue in the state and Stevens is on the wrong side.
5. Minimum Wage — Despite the high cost of living in Alaska, Stevens has consistently voted against raising the Minimum Wage.

While this race originally was on the potential pick-up list for Democrats due mainly to Stevens' corruption issues, as well as the general corruption issues of the whole of the Alaskan GOP, Begich appears to be an excellent candidate. He is not only a popular Democrat in a traditionally Republican state, but he is Mayor of Anchorage, which provides 43% of Alaska's registered voters. The most recent poll, a Rasmussen survey from early April has the race basically tied — 46% for Stevens and 45% for Begich. But my guess is that once the rest of Alaska meets Mark Begich and hears his views, his support will increase — and the more the state listens to the 2008 version of Ted Stevens, the more they will reconsider whether or not they wish to rehire him.

To learn more about Mark Begich, please visit: www.begich.com

Hey, are you profiting?

Head over and jump in on the conversation.

Andrew Rice, who is mounting an impressive challenge against Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe this year, continued to scare Inhofe and his clique of corporate cronies and right-wing reactionaries this week.

On Tuesday, Andrew reported his best fundraising quarter to date. In the first three months of the year, he took in $431,025, bringing his fundraising total to $971,332. The campaign has nearly $600,000 cash on hand. According to a campaign press release,

Rice said that nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of his funds have been generated from Oklahomans and a total of 4,236 individuals have contributed to his campaign. Average contribution from individual donors at the close of the reporting period was $219. More than 96 percent of Rice's financial support has come from individuals. He has received a total of $36,660 from political action committees since the start of his campaign.

These numbers are encouraging not just for the present but also for the future. The high number of individual donors but low average rate of contributions mean that Andrew has a solid donor base that's far from maxed out. As his profile rises in Oklahoma and nationwide, I wouldn't be at all surprised if his fundraising numbers continue to swell.

Furthermore, a campaign email notes how well Andrew is doing in comparison with similar candidates inside and outside of Oklahoma:

* The Jon Tester race in Montana in '06 is the benchmark for an underdog victory, and the demographics of the state and the race aren't dissimilar to those of Oklahoma. Tester's '06 campaign hit the $1 million mark on June 3, right before his highly contested primary.

* Oregon's Senate race this year is considered by many to be a top-tier race and a great opportunity to pick up a Democratic seat. Andrew Rice's Q1 fundraising totals fell just behind those of Jeff Merkley, who raised $453,000 in the same quarter. While Sen. Rice has no announced primary opponent, Merkley is in a contentious primary with Steve Novick, who raised about $100,000 less than Rice in Q1.

* Furthermore, Sen. Rice has, as a freshman state senator, raised money more quickly than Inhofe's last opponent, who was a former governor. David Walters, who ran against Inhofe in 2002, hit the $1million dollar mark in mid-summer. Clearly the people of Oklahoma are buying into Andrew Rice's campaign, proving that they are looking for a change in Washington.

Strong grassroots support for Andrew may allow him to overcome Inhofe's real - but not overwhelming - financial advantage. That grassroots support comes largely from the fact that he is, in the words of the local Oklahoma newspaper the Norman Transcript, a "nonstop campaigner" - and hence a "formidable foe" for Inhofe.

Although I actively support many Democrats, I'm really a third party candidate kind of guy. In 2000 (my first participation in American democracy), I voted for Ralph Nader. In 2004, assured that Kerry would carry my home state of Illinois, I voted for Green Party candidate David Cobb. My justification for doing so is simple; in addition to the inherent attraction of the underdog, I believe neither the Democrats nor Republicans will bring about the magnitude of change America really needs.

But, here in 2008, covering the Colorado senate race for The Seminal, I've selectively focused on Democratic candidate Mark Udall and Republican candidate Bob Schaffer. I've done so at the expense of the third party candidates Buddy Moore (independent) and Bob Kinsey (Green Party).

As you can gather from my voting history, the exclusion is not ideological. In fact, I fall closer to Kinsey and Moore on the political spectrum than I do Udall. Some illustrative quotes:

From Bob Kinsey's website

The major issue of this race is "Respect Life!" Not in the simplistic sense employed by those who use this motto to make abortion the litmus test for their vote. My chief value is about respecting all Life. Government should be about setting policies that insure we have life on this planet to the "7th Generation". Respecting life requires us to exercise judgment and discipline concerning the vehicles we drive, the housing patterns we build, the new jobs we create. Uncontrolled growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.

From Buddy Moore's website

The idea that there will always be a hungry, principled, independent media to watch over and protect our freedoms has been corrupted. While it appears that there is vast and varied media working hard to keep the public informed, the majority of information presented is tainted by commercial interest. Not only do the mega corporations like big oil, the insurance industry, defense industry, pharmaceutical industry and consumer electronics want to influence the media, they have taken over and own the media. Much of the news we receive over the television, in print, over the internet and on radio is fashioned by the mega corporations. They dictate much of the news reporting to their profit and future designs.

In my ideal world, Colorado would elect one of these two candidates, not Mark Udall. So, why am I not covering them?

The situation is a catch-22; if I campaign for my first two choices Buddy Moore and Bob Kinsey, I'll be hurting my second choice, Mark Udall, and strengthening the candidacy of sweatshop-apologist Bob Schaffer. Additionally, I've only so many hours to devote to writing, and when I get around to a Co-Sen post it makes more sense to support the more viable candidate.

But that answer isn't very satisfying — one of the reasons 3rd party candidates can't win is because they get little media attention, they get little media attention because they have access to fewer resources, they have fewer resources because they get little media attention, and so on and so forth.

Third-party candidates are the butt of jokes here in the United States, but Ross Perot's success in 1992 is nothing to laugh at. He received just under 20 million votes, nearly half Clinton's 44 million. And that 20 million would've been higher, perhaps considerably higher, if Perot hadn't sapped his own momentum by reconsidering his bid. Contrary to popular opinion, there is room for a 3rd, even a 4th, party in the United States. We just have to decide if we want to make room for it.

This year, I'm not willing to offer much space. What about you?

Colorado Republican candidate for the Senate Bob Schaffer is trying to mitigate his extensive ties to super-villain Jack Abramoff by pointing the finger at Democratic rival Mark Udall. Without any excuse for playing Abramoff's pawn, he's focused on $1,500 donated to Udall by law firms Abramoff once worked at.

Nice try Bobby. Using your position in Congress to facilitate slave labor, child prostitution and forced abortion is shameful. Pretending Udall is the one with yolk on his face, even more so.

To highlight the depravity of working conditions on the Mariana Islands, which Schaffer held up as a "model" for America to follow as it pursues immigration reform, here are some excerpts from a piece by the legend Bill Moyers:

They [workers who came to the Mariana Islands, often from China] soon discovered they were essentially indentured servants, thousands of dollars in debt to the company men who had recruited them and often forced them to sign secret "shadow contracts."

They lived behind barbed wire in squalid shacks; the Interior Department called them "labor camps." Forced to work twelve hours a day, often seven days a week, their pay was barely half the U.S. minimum wage.

During the 1990's, pressure mounted in Washington to bring the Marianas in line with U.S. law. The factory owners convinced the government in Saipan they needed some big-time lobbying. Once again, Jack Abramoff was the man. Critics called the faraway garment industry America's biggest sweatshop. Abramoff set out to paint a different picture, promoting the Marianas to conservatives as a free-market Eden for maximizing profits. He began running all-expense paid tropical junkets for lawmakers, their staff, and conservative activists and journalists.

They were generally taken on a dog and pony show to one of the garment factories, where everything had been sanitized, and employers were there to monitor the workers and what they said.

Schaffer attended two of those dog and pony shows, did some parasailing with his wife, then came back to the States and declared everything a-okay. Now, on the heels of his endorsement of the Mariana Islands guest-worker program, the Senate voted 91-4 to overhaul it.

Schaffer's website says "too many political leaders in Congress have lost touch with the rest of us, and too many people here at home have lost trust in our government." It's easy to see why.

As part of a curious strategy, Colorado's Republican candidate for Senate Bob Schaffer is deflecting from his ties to one criminal by focusing on his links to another. His trade-off? Jack Abramoff for Dick Cheney.

After the Denver Post mentioned that Schaffer's "model" for a guest-worker program — the one in place in the U.S. protectorate the Mariana Islands — was in fact guilty of well-documented human rights abuses, things got hot for Bobby.

It turns out Schaffer's fact-finding mission to the Islands in '99 was funded by Jack Abramoff's firm, Preston-Gates, which lobbied on behalf of sweatshop-loving factory owners, and sweatshop-friendly government officials. So, as duty demanded, Schaffer found very few facts, and instead used the trip for parasailing and slapping little children (pictures document the parasailing, the slapping is personal speculation at this point).

Now that Schaffer's cornered, he's rolling out a tri-partite approach:

1) Play the victim and cut off dialogue; "It's a matter of fiction. That's all I'm going to say."

2) Make subtle distinctions that ignore the thrust of the issue; "Let me say as strongly and definitively as I can that Bob Schaffer did not know, does not know, Jack Abramoff," — Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager. ** Perhaps the two don't know each other, but their respective staffs met for over an hour to discuss the minimum wage in the Mariana Islands (follow this link for documentation and an in-depth look at the Schaffer-Abramoff ties).

3) Deflect, deflect, deflect — from the Denver Post article:

after deflecting one question about his Mariana involvement, Schaffer turned back to his impressions of the Vice President's visit [Dick Cheney was in town fundraising]. He said in a private conversation he had with Cheney, Cheney told him he was impressed with the growth and construction he saw from the window of his limousine as he traveled a short distance from the airport to a private reception for donors to Schaffer's campaign.

Sure, it's not a very good strategy, but when all you've got on your side is two Dicks, you're gonna end up in some shit. I'm thinking the 'man of good old-fashioned American family values' angle that Scaffer's been flirting with will be a hard sell from here on out.

In a week where Inhofe once again exposed his corporatist and reactionary underbelly, my man Andrew Rice continued to stand up and fight for ordinary Oklahomans.

House foreclosures in Oklahoma rose 45 percent in February - but Inhofe voted (along with only 11 other senators) against a federal bill that would provide relief during the housing crisis. Even as Inhofe voted against cloture on the bill, Andrew was ready with a strong statement:

State Sen. Andrew Rice, an Oklahoma City Democrat who is running against Inhofe this year, said the bill was a bipartisan effort to address a major problem in the U.S. economy.

Rice said the bill wasn't perfect but noted that most of the Senate had come together to break a deadlock that stalled the bill earlier this year; but, he noted, Inhofe was one of only six senators who voted Tuesday to block action on the bill.

Meanwhile, Andrew is fighting hard for veterans - and against Republican extremists - in the Oklahoma State Senate.

It's old news that, in addition to being Colorado's Republican candidate for Senate, Bob Schaffer is also the oil industry's candidate. His ties to textile factory owners and Jack Abramoff, however, haven't gotten as much play. At least they hadn't until this April 7 Denver Post article.

In an attempt to woo the sizeable Latino vote in Colorado, Schaffer promoted a guest-worker program, a more moderate stance than McCain's hard-line, "enforcement first" approach. He pointed to a similar program in the Northern Mariana Islands (a U.S. protectorate), saying "I think members of Congress ought to be looking at that model and be considering it as a possible basis for a nationwide program."

Problem is, working conditions on the island deserve more condemnation than emulation. A 2000 press release from Hawaii Senator Daniel Kahikina Akaka illustrates the point:

Using its immigration authority, the Commonwealth has created an economy that relies upon the wholesale importation of low-paid, short-term indentured workers. Foreign workers pay up to $7,000 to employers or middlemen for the right to a job in the CNMI. When they finally reach the Commonwealth, they are assigned to tedious, low paying work for long hours with little or no time off. At night they are locked in prison-like barracks. If they complain, they are subject to immediate deportation at the whim of their employer. Some arrive in the islands only to find that they were victims of an employment scam. There are no jobs waiting for them, and no way to work off their bondage debt.

Akaka issued that press release shortly after Schaffer's 1999 trip to the Mariana Islands. Before leaving for said trip, he vowed to "walk right into those factories and living quarters to see for myself what conditions exist."

What he said when he returned — that the alleged human rights abuses were unfounded and attributable to Big Labor — was nothing compared to what he didn't say:

the trip was partly arranged by the firm of now-disgraced 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.

In 1997, Schaffer received two $1000 contributions from Jerry Tan, brother of sweatshop owner of scandalous record Willie Tan, who hired Abramoff to lobby to preserve the 'Made in the USA' status quo in CNMI [Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands].

Looking at his voting record, it's clear that Schaffer is no stranger to the contents of special interest's pockets; throughout his 6-year stint in D.C., Schaffer was a stalwart ally of Mariana Island lobbyists.

Although Schaffer's campaign manager Dick Wadhams is doing his best to parry and thrust, it's clear he lacks the steel:

"We do look forward to when Boulder liberal Udall has Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to Colorado for Boulder liberal Udall to defend Sen. Reid's involvement with Abramoff," he said.

Weak, Dick. With any luck, this will mark the beginning of the end for the Schaffer campaign. He's certainly earned it.