Coloradans for Economic Growth Ad--Debunked
|
|
| Also listed in: Arapahoe County | Jefferson County |
The recent pro-Schaffer Coloradans for Economic Growth ad—featuring a brightly-colored cartoon Toyota Prius, butterflies, and the words "Thanks Bob" hovering happily in the background—so dramatically deviates from Schaffer's record that the ad can almost be taken as a far-left spoof of the ex-congressman's record, rather than being taken seriously by prospective voters.
The Denver Post does some debunking:
Hmm...wonder why they changed that. The article continues:
Schaffer was not, by any means, throwing his support behind alternative energy—rather, he was voting for a skimpy provision that was, from an environmentalist stance, repulsive.
Then the Post makes a ridiculous claim:
Excuse me?! User John Smith aptly pointed out, in a comment:
Instead of thanking Bob for his renewable energy support, we should see those that are really 'thanking Bob'—Big Oil executives.
The Denver Post does some debunking:
Claim: "As a businessman, Bob led efforts to increase wind power sources."
Fact: Senate candidate Bob Schaffer was an executive at Aspect Energy, which deals primarily in oil and natural gas. The company funded a wind-energy project. It's unclear what Schaffer's involvement was, though his profile on the company website was recently altered to suggest he played a large role in its development.
Hmm...wonder why they changed that. The article continues:
Claim: "As our congressman, Bob Schaffer voted to fund research for renewable energy projects and give tax credits to families using solar energy, hybrid technology and alternative fuels."
Fact: Schaffer voted in favor of the 2001 energy bill, which provided $2.5 billion for renewable-energy research and provided incentives for using alternative energy. However, the bill was criticized by environmental groups who said it emphasized fossil-fuel production and did not do enough to raise car emissions standards.
Schaffer was not, by any means, throwing his support behind alternative energy—rather, he was voting for a skimpy provision that was, from an environmentalist stance, repulsive.
Then the Post makes a ridiculous claim:
Claims are: Mostly true
Excuse me?! User John Smith aptly pointed out, in a comment:
How can you say the claims are "mostly true" when two paragraphs earlier you state that all evidence (that wasn't recently rewritten) points to the contrary?
Instead of thanking Bob for his renewable energy support, we should see those that are really 'thanking Bob'—Big Oil executives.
Even if you are prone to give Schaffer an inkling of credit for his tenuous connection to renewable energy, it seems much simpler to support the candidate and party that has been directly supportive of alternative energy projects without the associated connections to Big Oil that make us all legitimately suspect of Bob's intentions.