Democrat Dreamin'

It's all quiet on the western front this month. US Rep. and Democratic candidate Mark UDall is slowly and methodically raising all the money he needs to, to be competitive. Meanwhile, Udall's opponent Bob Schaffer has been focusing on painting him as a "Boulder Liberal." With the 2008 Democratic convention scheduled for Denver and the state beginning to trend blue, there is a good chance that all the negative campaigning in the world will not help Schaffer. This seat remains No. 1 with a bullet.

It is fun to watch the Democrat blog "pundits" just to see what they are saying. Enduring Democrat Majority claims that calling Mark Udall a Boulder Liberal won't help beat him. What this "pundit" missed is that no one is calling Udall a moderate. The MSM and liberal blog tags being used range from liberal to extremist. If the blog owner wants to get educated, he can simply read a few posts down. We name names.

Udall May Not Be The Worst . . .

but he's out there.

H/T Captain Ed, and WaPo.

According to an analysis by the Washington Post, Mark Udall votes with his party 95.1% of the time.

NINETY-FIVE percent!!

That's a whopping number, indicating a pretty sure vote for the party line by Udall. For comparison, John Murtha votes with the party 95.5%.

Mark Udall: not quite as partisan as "Surrender-Now" John Murtha,

Do you suppose Stryker/Polis/Gill brigade will be able to buy a lower number to sell Colorado voters on next Fall?

If I were the Schaffer campaign, I'd be giving interviews in every Colorado media I could find this week, just to make sure this number doesn't get buried by the media.

The 700,000 Club

So, what was Carolyn Bninski and her allies doing at the offices of Mark Udall that got them in so much trouble?

Why, they were reading aloud the names of all 700,000 Iraqis killed since the invasion.

Let's see if we can put that number into perspective.

1. On average, that is about 600 Iraqis a day, every day, for four years. Just the other day, NBC made a big deal when 50 Iraqis got killed by two car bombs. That wasn't 50 per bomb. 600 a day seems a bit much.

2. If one assumes that the names are printed in two columns on a sheet of paper, that is about 250 names per sheet if both sides are used. At that rate, it would take 2800 sheets of paper just to print the names. Carolyn must have some serious muscles if she carries 2800 sheets of paper around.

3. If one assumes that the names can be read at the rate of one per second, night and day, non stop, a difficult task given the language barrier, it would take 8 days. If Bninski only scheduled three weeks of protests, it is hard to see how she could have expected to read 700,000 names.

Can't see the Center has more.

Hmmm

After writing for several days that Mark Udall's staff was justified in calling the cops after a three week protest, more information is coming out that suggests that they operated on a hair trigger. If the latest report is true, it makes Udall, his staff, and the MSM doing the reporting look two-faced.

The demonstration was coordinated with Udall's staff, and for three weeks the demonstrators followed rules that both agreed to:

Bninski, a coordinator at the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, met with Udall's chief of staff in February to facilitate a three-week protest in which constituents entered the congressman's office, filed a complaint about the war, and left within 10 minutes...

Democracy can sometimes be inconvenient. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government but doesn't require those doing the petitioning to do more than behave themselves. This report makes it sound as though the demonstrators went out of their way to behave themselves while presenting their grievances.

On the final day of the protest, March 8, Bninski and five others declined to leave Udall's office after 10 minutes. As the group sat on the floor, Bninski read the names of the 42 (now 49) soldiers from Colorado who've died in the war, and the 700,000 Iraqi civilians who've died in the war...

Just after noon, Bninski informed Bristol that the last group would commit civil disobedience. The press and the members of the CopWatch organization flooded inside. After 10 minutes passed, Bristol called the police.

So, these folks were out of compliance with their agreement for only a minute or perhaps less before John Bristol called the cops, not the three weeks the MSM led us to believe. (Actually, the MSM failed to report that there was an agreement) That doesn't show the amount of tolerance a reasonable person would expect of well paid Federal employees to show.

Two members of Udall's staff testified the protest disrupted the daily functions of their office.

“There had been people coming by every day for weeks,” said John Bristol, a staff assistant for Udall's office. The morning of March 8 “was a very intense three hours” in which the only work he accomplished was recording Iraq-war complaints from about 50 people, he said.

This is not a case that Mark Udall, his staff, or the prosecutor can be proud of pursuing. The judge who sentenced this woman to 30 days in jail for being out of compliance with her agreement so short a time has very little respect for the Constitution.

If the information provided by the Colorado Daily News is accurate, this whole thing has the smell of a Sister Souljah set up with one difference: Sister Souljah didn't go to jail.

Fun With Blog Post Titles

Don't piss off a Democrat...they will throw you in jail. The Green Party is mad as heck over one of their own going to jail. Unfortunately, they don't bother to tell each other that the woman who went to jail was reading names in Mark Udall's office for three weeks!

The Greens assume that Republicans will have them thrown in jail, but this is unjustified paranoia. Only Democrat politicians try to criminalize politics.

Carolyn Bninski: 30 Days, $500

The Green Party's three week occupation of Mark Udall's office has finally been resolved. One anti-war activist got a 30 day jail sentence and a $500 fine. Others paid a $100 fine or community service according to the Denver Post.

Udall issued a statement Friday morning saying [ Carolyn ]Bninski and others have a right to peacefully protest a cause of public importance but that their occupation "had the effect of interfering with the daily duties of my staff" and drew complaints from other building tenants. Police were called when the protesters refused to leave because "needs of other constituents...had to be respected," said the statement from Udall, who in 2002 voted against authorization for the war itself.

Salazar No Favorite of the Gazette

Senator Ken Salazar's "antics are arrogant, unproductive." That is today's observation in the Gazette "Our View" editorial. What they didn't say is that Mark Udall is Salazar's close ally on these extremist environmentalist issues.

Salazar called on Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to shelve the drilling plan and avert a “train wreck.” He says he objects to BLM “running roughshod over the Roan Plateau and Colorado’s public lands.” He wants Gov. Bill Ritter to have more “meaningful input” into energy development in the state.

But that’s as phony as the cowboy hat Salazar wears when home on holiday.

Drilling Off Cuba, OK, Drilling In Colorado Nixed

In Mark Udall's consistent struggle to be inconsistent, he has sponsored a bill to allow US Oil Companies to drill for oil and gas off Cuba.

Wouldn't it be nice if he allowed the people and elected officials of Western Colorado the same opportunity to benefit from gas drilling that he is willing to give Castro?

One Size Fits All, Or Does It?

Mark Udall, his cousin, Tom, and Diana DeGette are pushing for a national requirement for renewable energy. They want to force utilities to get 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

While that may be doable in the windy west, where wind power is already a proven renewable source, the south is relatively windless. What are they to do? Fight the proposal, that's what.

In some ways, this is humorous. Remember Homestake II? That was the Colorado water project killed in Congress by eastern lawmakers whose districts have no water shortages. Turnabout is fair play.

We remain curious as to whether Mark has talked his friend Ted Kennedy into putting 400 foot windmills in the water within sight of Martha's Vineyard. We doubt that he has the courage to broach the subject. For that matter, Ken Salizar sees Kennedy every day and seems to be running interference for Udall. Let's ask him the same question.

Democrats At War On Colorado Economy

In a scathing editorial that did not mention Mark Udall's name, but easily could have, the Gazette once again used the word "extremist"

Gov. Bill Ritter stepped off a helicopter and into hot water July 3, when, after an aerial tour of Northwestern Colorado with Sen. Ken Salazar, he declared that the Vermillion Basin should be off limits to oil and gas drilling. His opposition apparently came in an epiphany. “The governor in a moment of spontaneity asked the pilot to land on the Vermillion,” Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer told the media. “He felt it would be important to stand on the Vermillion with the senator (Salazar) to get a sense of the place.”

In all this communing with nature, Ritter evidently forgot to consult with local elected officials, who worked for years to draw up a leasing plan they are happy with and who say a drilling ban will cost their citizens millions of dollars in tax and royalty revenues. They weren’t pleased...

Commissioners pointed out that energy development in the basin is something they welcome. But suddenly, after years of consultations and public process, Ritter is attempting to monkey-wrench the arrangement. That’s becoming a pattern with this governor. He’s also attempting to derail oil and gas leases on top of the Roan Plateau, another suddenly sacrosanct area for anti-drilling extremists, and is in the process of packing the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission with people who are indifferent or hostile to the industry.

The Gazette appears to be giving Mark Udall a free ride after twice calling him or his environmentalist policies "extremist." They could easily mention, but didn't, that Udall is a very active Ken Salazar / Bill Ritter ally in this war on the Colorado economy. He has tried to restrict public access to roads on federal property and he has tried to deep six drilling on the Roan.

The editorial is really good from beginning to end. We had a hard time cherry picking items to quote. We suggest you read the whole thing.

More on the Green Party Demonstration

The Denver Post has a writeup this morning that sheds more light on the demonstration that Mark Udall's staff ducked yesterday.

The Post indicates that they conducted a three week long sit in there and finally exhausted Udall's patience so someone called the cops.

The woman facing jail time has a long demonstration rap sheet. Others involved are only facing $100 fines.

"Following a three-week-long occupation of our district office in March, I also met with them for a two-hour meeting in which I listened to their views on Iraq," [ Alan ] Salazar [Udall's Chief of Staff ] said. "No one has a deeper respect for the right of free speech and civil dissent than my boss. He doesn't agree with this group's views on the best way to end the Iraq war, but he will always stand up for the rights of people to speak out."

Closing the office yesterday was an error in judgement. Except for that, this appears to have been handled rationally by Udall and his staff, and by the prosecutor.

A Historical Perspective

A two sentence "aside" in an item about Baby Boomers observes that Mark Udall's latest Congressional bill repeats a historic mistake.

The war lost support, and in retrospect deserved to lose support, because it was mismanaged by that part of the WWII generation that had moved into leadership positions. Johnson and McNamara were afraid to win the war and didn't understand that a war will inevitably be lost if the enemy is allowed sanctuaries. Johnson and McNamara never disrupted the import of war material, either through Haiphong or by bombing the railroad bridges on the China border. For some time, even the Ho Chi Minh trail was off limits to bombing.

As an aside, the latest bill that Mark Udall has put forward in Congress repeats this EXACT historical mistake. It makes Iran into an untouchable sanctuary.

Ducking a Demonstration

The Green's held their planned demonstration today but Mark Udall's staff was gone. The office never opened.

Clever, eh?

Hold the Contributions!

Swing State Project, a far left blog, makes the following claim:

Colorado- Open Seat- State trends Democratic. Democrats have to formidable candidate- Mark Udall. Republicans have a weak candidate. Bob Schaefer.

Their view appears to be that the Colorado campaign is over.

Democrat contributors should consider diverting campaign contributions to other, less lopsided races where the Democrat candidates are only "credible" and who are running in states that aren't "trending Democrat."

Just So You Know

A commenter on an earlier post wanted to know where the "votes" labeling Mark Udall as either a liberal or an extremist, but never a moderate, came from. Each time we found someone, usually the MSM, but sometimes "progressive" blog sites labeling Mark Udall as either, we wrote a post on it.

After the fifth such post, we started keeping score. Anyone who cares to question our count or sources, all of which were linked, is welcome to review this blog to find them.

The thing that makes them notable is that a reader could expect a conservative blog or source to label Udall a liberal. That is not where the labels are coming from. With the exception of the Gazette which thought Udall or his actions "extremist," every other attempt to label or describe him came from the left or far left. We invite you go go read the posts.

Appended to another post the same commenter describes this site as "vitriolic," but at no point does he describe even a single post as inaccurate. The public has a right to understand what Udall is doing and saying and how what he is doing and saying will impact it. One could get the impression that the writer is a big fan of Udall, but even if he is, that doesn't change the inconvenient truth.

Thanks for visiting.

Protecting Identity Theft Rings In Iran

Tonight, on Dateline, it was announced that a major identity theft ring was moving its operations to Iran so as to be beyond the reach of US authorities.

Iran is at war with us, and Mark Udall, (D) Boulder, wants to make its territory a safe haven for every criminal and terrorist activity that it can direct our way. If Udall wants to aid, abet, and protect this kind of activity from any kind of retaliation, and H.R. 3119 does just that, then he has no business running for a Colorado Senate seat.

If Udall thinks that his bill doesn't create a safe haven for identity theft directed at the US, or that Iranian based identity theft can be stopped once his bill passes, we would like to know how.

Tying The President's Hands

There is little doubt that the Israeli Air Force put Saddam out of the nuclear bomb business in 1981.

Peace Activist Mark Udall (D) Boulder introduced a bill on Thursday which ensures that the US will never be able to take any effective action to prevent the development of nukes by Iran.

The guts of H.R. 3119 read:

(a) Prohibition- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds appropriated or otherwise made available by any Act, including any Act enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated or expended for military operations or activities within or above the territory of Iran, or within the territorial waters of Iran, except pursuant to a specific authorization of Congress enacted in a statute enacted after the date of the enactment of this Act.

Strategically, this is about as dumb a bill as could be conceived. Recall that the perceived threat of invasion, never expressed, caused Lybia to surrender the nuclear weapons plans it acquired from Pakistan. That was a good thing, but would it have happened if Mark Udall had submitted his bill in 2000 and substituted "Lybia" for "Iran?"

It is entirely possible that the bill also prohibits military action by Israel to protect itself, reactively or preemptively.

Udall Opposes Impeachment

We must admit that we are pleasantly surprised to discover that Mark Udall, who went off the deep end when he co-sponsored a bill to establish a Department of Peace, isn't on the impeachment bandwagon.

Here is a paragraph from a letter attributed to him.

I am not a lawyer, and cannot claim to be an expert on impeachment. However, based on what I know now, I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate for the House to consider impeaching either the President or Vice President. I opposed going to war in Iraq and disagree with many other policies of the Bush Administration, and will work to change those policies. But at this point I think those changes should come through the normal legislative and political processes, rather than through impeachment.

The Green Party is Protesting Against Udall

This upcoming Monday, there will be a protest against Mark Udall. It seems that someone in his office called the cops about an earlier demonstration. Now, peace activist Carolyn Bninski is facing two months in jail for unlawful assembly. The Green Party isn't happy with that outcome:

The Adams-Jefferson Green Party last evening at its July business meeting passed a resolution in support of a rally Monday at Udall's office in Westminster to express solidarity with peace activist Carolyn Bninski.

The gathering will take place starting at 9:30 A.M., Monday, July 23, in front of Udall's Congressional office at 8601 Turnpike Drive in Westminster, Colorado.

"Tax 'Em All" Udall and Another Liberal Double Standard

Liberal gotchas like this one might hold more credibility if they were accompanied by a little consistency. Citing a CBS-4 Denver report, a diarist on the Dead Guvs' site highlights the following critique of one part of a Republican ad against Boulder liberal Mark Udall:

He didn't vote to raise taxes, he voted against a tax cut passed by a Republican Congress and vetoed by President Clinton. While critics say Udall's vote had the same effect as supporting higher taxes, the fact remains, Udall voted to maintain the status quo, which is not the same as voting for a tax hike.

"He didn't vote to raise taxes, he voted against a tax cut...." When was the last time you saw a liberal attacking a conservative lawmaker with the allegation of cutting spending on Government Program X when all he or she did was vote against a large budget increase? It's an even steeper stretch in logic than the one in the ad against Udall.

I know, it once was so common you hardly thought about it. Of course, with many Capitol Hill "conservatives" losing all sense of fiscal responsibility in recent years, there haven't been as many such instances to highlight. But the point of the liberal double standard still stands.

I look forward to CBS-4 Denver's debunking of liberal campaign ads that make such spurious accusations.

Of course, even the Dead Guv diarist had to concede that there were other instances where Udall actually has voted to raise taxes. There is no denying that Colorado taxpayers carry a heavier federal burden today in part because of Udall's votes in Congress.

Sounds like a great slogan idea ... Mark Udall for Colorado: he'll tax 'em all.

The ad may have been less than careful in making a legitimate point about the Boulder liberal's voting record. But the ad's liberal critics should take care to check the mirror first.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

How Do You Spell Flake?

Gimmie an "M"...

I came home from the El Paso County Lincoln Day Dinner and told my wife, who didn't attend, that Dick Wadhams had told the crowd that Mark Udall had been a co-sponsor of a bill with Dennis Kucinich to establish a Cabinet level "Department of Peace!"

She told me that the story was so wild that I had best do some research before I wrote about it.

Research done!

These folks have thought this thing out thoroughly, what with a "Peace" academy located in San Francisco and all. The school song will be "Puff, the Magic Dragon. The school flower will be the marijuana leaf. The mascot will be the Prebles Jumping Mouse.

It will have its own versions of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, one based on the see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil monkeys, and another regarding student possession and use of bongs. The recent Supreme Court ruling notwithstanding, students will get higher grades if they wear "Bong 4 Peace" armbands.

The first academy superintendant will be Admiral Ward Churchill.

Football is far too violent for a peace academy, so when it "plays" the other academies for the Commander in Chief's trophy, it will simply forfeit.

Fatigue uniforms will be pink camouflage. Dress uniforms will be two toned similar to the Army's Dress Blue Uniform except that it will have light yellow trousers with a slightly darker yellow jacket. Where the Army Dress Blues has a cavalry yellow band sewn on the outside of each leg, the Peace service will have a florescent yellow stripe sewn up the back of its jacket, inside and out. Because of its emphasis on recycling, the expectation is that officers, upon resignation or retirement, can wear their uniforms and act as flagmen during road construction. Cynics have already observed that their education will best qualify them for that occupation.

Where other services call out "Bou yaah" and "Garry Owen" when saluting, Peace officers will simply say "chirrrp," answered by "tweet-tweet."

Of course we are having fun with this parody at Mark Udall's expense, but he is serious:

The secretary of the Department of Peace also would develop a peace education curriculum to include the civil rights movement in the United States, how peace agreements have worked to stop conflict and to work with teachers to help students work on peace through reflection and conflict resolutions.

A highlight of that would be a Peace Academy, which would provide a four-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates would be required to serve five years in public service in domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution programs...

The department would be responsible for developing policies that address domestic violence, child abuse and mistreatment of the elderly, create new policies to reduce drug and alcohol abuse, protect animals from violence, develop new approaches to deal with gun-related violence and develop programs that address school violence, gangs and racial violence and violence against gays and lesbians...

Methods would include mediation, nonviolent intervention and encouraging communities, religious groups and nongovernmental organizations to develop initiatives.

There aren't ten honorably discharged veterans in the state who will vote for Mark Udall when they learn of this flight of fantasy. He can take as many photos with soldiers as he likes, but it won't help.

Not a Moderate

Yesterday, David Harsanyi, a writer and blogger for the Denver Post made the following comment on his blog:

But let’s define our terms: A “moderate” means a candidate that sees things a little more clearly — like a Democrat. As my co-blogger David Sirota proves in his posts, there is rarely a conservative who isn’t “far-right” or “extreme.” Conservative positions are by default extreme to many liberals.

So while we’re on the topic of moderate candidates: Udall, who I admire for many reasons, is an unwavering liberal. Not a moderate. His recent vote for the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” is further proof that he stands to the left of the mainstream.

In case you are counting, the score since we began writing on this blog as to whether Mark Udall is a moderate or liberal is as follows:

Extreme 2
Liberal 5
Moderate 0
Conservative 0

Most of those votes come from the MSM, though a couple come from left wing (by their own description) blogs.

Harsani likely wouldn't object if we put him in the "very far left wing" camp, given his comments in this one post.

For The Record

Bob Schaffer did not know that this blog existed until he was told at last night's Lincoln Day Dinner in El Paso County. So much for conspiracy theories.

There is a lesson there. All Republican candidates and office holders should set up a Google Alert on themselves and their opponent, just to see what is being written.

In fairness, it is probable that Schaffer's campaign has an alert on him and he doesn't know it.

Is Mark Udall "Taxing?"

The NRSC seems to think so.

Udall Undercuts Enforcement of White-Collar Crime

Boulder liberal Mark Udall has cast his lot with the Democrat caucus and corrupt union leaders at the expense of law enforcement and defrauded workers. Udall voted to defeat an attempt that would have spared the modest budget of the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS) from draconian cuts.

So, apparently, OLMS was a highly ineffective and wasteful branch of government, right? The Democrats just wanted a leaner and more efficient operation, right? Wrong on both counts. As John Fund noted in yesterday's Opinion Journal:

In the past six years, the Office of Labor Management Standards, or OLMS, has helped secure the convictions of 775 corrupt union officials and court-ordered restitution to union members of over $70 million in dues.

And some other recent successes of OLMS highlighted by Fund:

Just last week Willie Haynes, a member of the Saginaw, Mich., City Council who also served as a United Auto Workers financial secretary, pleaded guilty to falsifying his union local's reports. In May, Chuck Crawley, a former Teamster's local president in Houston, was sentenced to 6 1/2 years in prison for stuffing a ballot box so he could be elected president of his union local and embezzling dues money.

It wasn't as though overall cash for the Labor Department is strapped, and that Congress was forced to make a tough decision. Rather, OLMS was the only office with its budget adversely affected, as the whole Department anticipates a $935 million boost in total appropriations. The problem for Congressional Democrats and many of their political backers was that OLMS worked too well.

Some white collar criminals who happen to live illicitly off the hard-earned money of various workers are breathing a little easier tonight. Thanks to Mark Udall and his Democrat colleagues, they're less likely to be caught and prosecuted.

If the Republicans were in charge and the budget for enforcement of corporate white-collar crime had been slashed, your ears would have bled with the piercing howl of righteous liberal outrage. And they would have a very strong case. But now, it's their silence that's deafening.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Udall Throws $22 Million at his Problem

Mark Udall may have come to realize that his bear hug with the environmentalists can be blamed for the destruction of millions of acres of forests by fire and beetle.

Now, he has sponsored a bill to get the Congress to appropriate $22 million so that the forest service can "help communities cope with wildfire threats, create wildfire response plans and provide grants for beetle-killed trees to be used for energy production. "

The entire Colorado delegation is behind the bill, and that is good news. The bad news is that Udall's bedfellows in the environmentalist left oppose it.

Sloan Shoemaker, director of the Carbondale-based Wilderness Workshop, said it’s good to see the congressional delegation working together to address bark beetle concerns. But “the bill’s a mixed bag” because he fears it will streamline the public involvement process under the National Environmental Policy Act.

“It feels like they’re monkeying with bedrock environmental legislation in order to sort of apply the wrong solution to the problem,” he said.

The environmentalist left wants the right to go into court in Colorado to slow the thinning process. They think thinning is the "wrong solution," and that the only right solution is to let the forests burn.

A Wayne Allard spokesman thought the bill would pass if a national environmentalist group didn't oppose it. So much for that.

While we applaud this bill, we wonder if Mark Udall's purpose is to use it to insulate him from his own record of environmental extremism. $22 million doesn't go far, given the magnitude of the problem. Consider that it costs $600 an acre to reseed a burned forest. What must it cost per acre to remove the undergrowth and excess trees? Common sense suggests several thousand dollars per acre. If we assumed that it cost only two thousand dollars per acre, $22 million would thin only 11 thousand acres, or 17 square miles (an area a little bigger than 4 miles by 4 miles).

Unfortunately, Udall's inclusion of bio fuels grants in the bill suggests that he is unserious about solving the problem. Allowing the forest service to keep forest roads open to the public might do more good than this bill, and yet Udall opposes that.

Denver Post: Udall out of Step with "Western Values"

A scathing editorial in yesterday's Denver Post calls out Colorado Democrats for bowing to Big Labor with their support of HR 800, the poorly-named Employee Free Choice Act (read here, here and here). This post expands on the theme introduced yesterday by A Watcher.

Though all Democrats in the state's delegation voted for the bad legislation, the Post specifically singled out bill co-sponsor Boulder liberal Mark Udall - the man who would be U.S. Senator- first for his anti-business agenda:

The proposal, which passed the House with support from Rep. Mark Udall, contained an offensive and little-known provision that would have allowed a government arbitrator to impose a two-year contract on businesses and workers that actually specified wages and working conditions. Neither the employer nor the workers could appeal the decision.

The government has no place mandating how much private employers, for example, pay for their employees' health insurance.

Later, we also find that Udall's support of HR 800 was unfriendly to workers, including many blue-collar independents and Democrats:

And Udall, who wants to be Colorado's next senator, should know that elections here are won by wooing over moderate, independent-minded voters. Casting votes like this won't help. The proposal died only after Senate Democrats could attract only one Republican vote, from Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, to stop a GOP filibuster against the bill.

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act also would have denied workers the right to a secret ballot on the question of whether they want to be represented by a union at all. The measure, which passed the House 241-185, is sure to be back because organized labor has made it the top priority in the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

But the tenets of the bill aren't Western values, and our lawmakers should oppose this unprecedented intrusion of federal power into the collective bargaining process and private
workplaces.

One more piece of evidence that Democrat Rep. Mark Udall, who once again has wandered to the Left of the Denver Post, is out of step with Western values and Colorado's independent voters.

The Post also assailed Colorado's junior U.S. Senator Ken Salazar for selling out Colorado to the left wing of his Democratic party:

We were extremely disappointed that Colorado's Sen. Ken Salazar abandoned his centrist values to vote with the liberal wing of his party when he voted to shut off debate on the bill, which could have forced a vote on the measure. He was elected as a moderate, and he simply can't become intoxicated by the ideals of his big-government liberal colleagues. He needs to maintain his independence.

Even the left-of-center Post editorial board saw the naked power grab behind HR 800 and called out Democrats Udall and Salazar) for tossing the rights of workers and businesses under the bus to give political payback to union leaders.

Are these guys who we want representing the entire state of Colorado on Capitol Hill? I don't think so. Try Bob Schaffer instead.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Denver Post Gets Praise

The National Association of Manufacturers was agog over Yesterday's Denver Post editorial on "the preposterously named Employee Free Choice Act."

They particularly liked and quoted the Post's comments: "an offensive and little-known provision that would have allowed a government arbitrator to impose a two-year contract on businesses and workers that actually specified wages and working conditions. Neither the employer nor the workers could appeal the decision."

NAM observed correctly that "that provision, which would have encouraged unions to make outrageous demands and then drag their heels, hoping that a federal arbitrator would impose terms favorable to the union."

Mark Udall was a cosponsor of this bit of destructive deception and should be held accountable for both the name and contents of the bill.

The Denver Post Spin Begins

The Denver Post claims that Mark Udall is "way ahead" of Bob Schaffer in the fundraising race to collect $15 million. A reader would assume that the lead is so insurmountable that Schaffer should quit now.

Washington - Former Congressman Bob Schaffer starts his race for the state's open U.S. Senate seat with $683,000, far less than the $2.5 million war chest of his Democratic opponent.

Schaffer had six weeks to collect his $717 thousand. He couldn't start until he was an announced candidate. Mark Udall brought $1 million into the race from his 2CD campaign. While it has been no secret that both would run, Campaign finance laws allowed Udall to collect funds since 2006 while they prohibited Schaffer from fundraising.

Put in that light, Schaffer collected his $717 in six weeks at a rate of over $100,000 a week. Udall managed in 75 weeks to make it to 2.5 million. That pro-rates to about $30,000 a week, which is not all that impressive.

Instead of acknowledging that Schaffer could lawfully only collect his funds for six weeks, the Post implied that he had the full quarter:

Udall's campaign said he raised $1.1 million in the three months ending June 30. His paperwork was not available Monday.

Schaffer, 44, raised $717,000 in the same period. A statement from Schaffer's campaign said he raised the money in about six weeks.

In truth, this first campaign finance report suggests that Bob Schaffer is the stronger fund raiser and that the Mark Udall campaign is not "way ahead."

Anne C Mulkern, the author of this gem, must have assumed that no one has ever taken a statistics class. The first words out of my statistics professor's mouth were "Figures don't lie, but liars can figure." This was not journalistically ethical reporting.

Denver Post: Mark Udall Should Know Better

In a none too gentile rebuke, the Denver Post skewered both Senator Ken Salazar and Boulder Liberal Mark Udall for their support of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. It would have denied workers the right to a secret ballot on the question of whether they want to be represented by a union at all (some free choice):

HR 800 would allow workers to be forced into unions without even the right to vote - and could force workers and employers to accept a government-written contract after just 120 days of negotiations...

We were extremely disappointed that Colorado's Sen. Ken Salazar abandoned his centrist values to vote with the liberal wing of his party when he voted to shut off debate on the bill, which could have forced a vote on the measure. He was elected as a moderate, and he simply can't become intoxicated by the ideals of his big-government liberal colleagues...

And Udall, who wants to be Colorado's next senator, should know that elections here are won by wooing over moderate, independent-minded voters. Casting votes like this won't help.

What the Denver Post didn't know, or at least didn't remember to include, is that Mark Udall didn't just vote for this far left piece of legislation, he is a cosponsor.

Doubt on the Left about Udall's Electability

When a blog named "An Enduring Democrat Majority" titles a major piece CO-Sen: Is Udall the Favorite in Open Seat Contest? you know that there are many on the self described Progressive Left who fear that Mark Udall is too far to the left for Colorado. They say as much:

Udall has considered statewide runs previously, but had opted out fearing his "Boulder Liberal" label made him unattractive to the Colorado electorate. The state's recent shift toward the Democratic Party and Udall's efforts to move towards the middle appear to have changed this analysis...

Could anything deter Dems from picking up this seat, widely regarded as our top 2008 pick up opportunity? There are concerns about a 'drag' or 'reverse coat-tails' affect in Colorado if the national party's presidential nominee is unpopular in the region. News reports quoted the Udall campaign as having an eye on the presidential race - concerned about the top of the ticket potentially hurting their chances. More on the electability issue as the campaign wears on.

Not that we are keeping score, but that is the fourth liberal or left source to express that fear or observation.

The Roan

Today, the Gazette never mentions Mark Udall, but his handiwork is in their thoughts and writings. Today's major editorial was on the Roan.

But those benefits won’t be realized if Ritter, Salazar and other politicians succeed in blocking or vastly scaling back drilling, in a pander to special interests. Sensible people not only concede the need for responsible energy development, in order to keep utility bills and gasoline pump prices in check, but they can see how the resulting revenues might benefit the state.

Quote of the Day

It is no secret that we blame people like Mark Udall, Ken Salizar, and their environmentalist left allies like the Sierra Club for their mindless refusal to allow the forests to be managed responsibly. In the next post down, the Gazette comments on their casual attitude toward the damage caused by improper forest management

Also, today, the Gazette describes the revegitation of one burned over area, the 2005 Mason Gulch 12,000 acre (20 square mile) fire.

Regrowth is where it should be two years after a fire, said Paul Crespin, district ranger for San Isabel National Forest.

Forest Service officials have reseeded 85 percent of the area, and are treating it for noxious weeds. They have been collecting pine cones from the area, and hope to plant ponderosa pine seedlings by the spring of 2009.

“In our lifetime, we won’t see those trees come back in the way they were,” Crespin said.

But, the Quote of the Day was by Dave Van Manen, director of the nearby Mountain Park Environmental Center:

“In a way, now this is safe from a catastrophic fire," he said.

The quote sounds like something Bill Ritter, Ken Salizar, or Mark Udall would say.

Blame Mark Udall and the Environmentalist Left

Today's Colorado Springs Gazette had a stinging editorial about Governor Bill Ritter's casual attitude toward the destruction of Colorado's Forests:

Half a year after taking the job, Gov. Bill Ritter last week apparently woke to the fact that Colorado is confronting a forest health crisis of massive proportions, with potentially catastrophic aesthetic and economic consequences. But rather than responding with an action plan, and demanding that state and federal agencies do more to save what forests they can, Ritter seemed to shrug it off as an unavoidable natural calamity.

“(Ritter) said the epidemic can’t be stopped, only managed to reduce the risk of wildfires,” reported The Associated Press. “It’s part of a natural cycle that our kids and grandkids will probably experience,” Ritter said...

This natural disaster is man-made, and a scandal that for some reason hasn’t been recognized as such. Blaming it all on natural forces, and writing it off as inevitable, is a sly way of skirting blame for what’s happening and avoiding the responsibility to respond. And that simply won’t do.

The devastation might still be contained if Ritter and other politicians [ Mark Udall ] would stop wringing their hands and take action. It’s rather pathetic for Ritter to be focusing on how thousands of acres of dead trees might fit into his pie-in-the-sky renewable energy plans, instead of preventing more trees from dying.

This is an appeal by the Gazette to Governor Ritter for common sense. Ritter is simply following the path that Mark Udall has blazed with a roadless policy that promotes large scale forest fire after large scale forest fire.

We and others have written about this elsewhere.

Polis' Confusion Continues

Today, the Rocky Mountain News reported:

As expected, millionaire Jared Polis has made the biggest fundraising splash so far. He already has supplemented his campaign with $155,000 out of his own pocket. Individual donors have chipped in $301,542. After expenses, he has more than $400,000 in the bank.

Just last week, we reported that Polis was confused in his own mind when he told the Vail paper that he was so far ahead in fund raising that he didn't need to put his own money in the race.

Polis was confused about the contents of Amendment 41, as well. It will be entertaining to see what else he is confused about.

Udall a Liberal: Denver Post

Not that we are keeping score, but it will be ever harder for Mark Udall (D) Boulder to dodge the Liberal tag. Here is what the Denver Post says today:

Udall backed off of a 2004 Senate bid and a 2006 gubernatorial race in part because his image as a "Boulder liberal" was ill-suited to a state that even today boasts about 994,000 registered Republicans to 852,000 Democrats, with 945,000 unaffiliated.

Another Nail in the "Liberal" Coffin

From Real Clear Politics:

Centrist Democrats have succeeded in Colorado of late. The elections of Governor Bill Ritter and Senator Ken Salazar reenergized the party. But Mark Udall isn't exactly in the mold of either Ritter or Salazar. [ Floyd ] Ciruli calls him "a much more across-the-board liberal," but hastens to point out that the liberal label may not stick.

The question is not whether Mark Udall, (D) Boulder, can avoid the dreaded "L" word. It is whether he can avoid being called an extremist as the Gazette has come close to doing two times. Our bet is that he'll count himself lucky to be labeled "Liberal."

Since we are keeping score:
Extremist 2
Liberal 2
Moderate 0
Conservative (Bite your tongue)

Schaffer's Fundraising Figures "Inconvenient Truth" for Left

First, let's start with the good news: Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer announced that he raised more than $717,000 in the second quarter (April-June). As pointed out in the campaign press release:

Walt Klein, Schaffer campaign consultant said "Schaffer's contributions averaged more than $119,000 a week in the brief time Bob has been a candidate – a remarkable start for the long campaign ahead."

There were 1789 individual contributions to Schaffer, with more than 83% coming from Colorado.

The full report will be available on July 15th.

[Full Disclosure: Mt. Virtus was part of the 83+%, contributing a small amount to Schaffer in June.] Schaffer's $119,000 a week surpasses liberal Boulder Democrat opponent Mark Udall, who raised a little over $100,000 a week. Udall's campaign unfolded a month earlier, allowing him to net $1.1 million for the second quarter.

So there are the facts, but here's the amusing part: Colorado liberal uberblogger Jason Bane can't get his story straight on Schaffer's fundraising numbers. On June 26, Bane wrote::

Schaffer can ease concerns about his fundraising ability with a strong, albeit shortened, second quarter; something between $300,000 and $400,000 for the quarter would be a good showing for him. Schaffer also has a lot to lose with a weak Q2, because there are some in the Republican Party who remain unconvinced that he is the right candidate to take on Udall. A weak quarter from Schaffer - anything less than $200,000 - would be cause for hand-wringing among the state GOP. [emphasis added]

This morning Bane changed his tune, citing "a trustworthy Republican source" (who strangely refused to be named ... hmm) that "GOP Apprehension Grows Over Schaffer Fundraising":

...[A]ll eyes are now on GOP opponent Bob Schaffer, whose failure to join the rush of triumphant fundraising press releases this week has got more than a few Republicans worried.

So worried, as a trustworthy Republican source explains, that there are backup plans to recruit an alternative to Schaffer if he doesn't post a very strong number--something that can rival Udall's impressive total, which would presumably be in the same $1 million neighborhood. [emphasis added]

From $300,000 - $400,000 to "in the same $1 million neighborhood," while ignoring the month advantage that Udall had to raise money? Later he added this comment following the release of Schaffer's reported $717,000:

Respectable, but not an earth-shattering number given Udall's take. Will it be enough to placate concerned Republicans? Release follows.

Clever attempt by Bane to try to suddenly shift expectations dramatically upward. Rather than hearing real apprehensions from an authentic GOP insider, did the liberal blogger hear rumblings of Schaffer's successful fundraising? If not, how else do you explain the dramatic shift from his June 26 remarks?

To add insult to injury, a liberal blogger from out of state swallowed Bane's latest analysis hook, line, and sinker. Folks, you can't let nonsense like that go unchallenged.

The Lefty propaganda machine will continue to push the misinformation campaign to stir up troubles within Colorado's Republican ranks. If they could make Schaffer look like a poor fundraiser, and hence a weak candidate, they would have an opportunity to stoke the flames of discontent. Meanwhile, their man Udall would have an easier run in 2008, and we wouldn't have to notice their candidate's own prior record of fiscal mismanagement. But they're going to have a very difficult time getting away with it.

Listen: Colorado's liberals are worried about Bob Schaffer and Dick Wadhams, not to mention their own lingering doubts about Mark Udall's ability to win a statewide election in Colorado. And the facts about the Republican candidate's early fundraising prowess are just "an inconvenient truth" for them.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

If You Believe the NRA...

...Mark Udall is indeed moving his record toward the center.

From 1999 through 2004, he consistently got an "F" from the NRA on his Congressional gun rights voting record.

In preparation for his 2008 Senate campaign, he moderated his views enough to earn a "D" from the NRA in 2006.

At that rate, he will fully support Second Amendment issues when he is 93. Can Colorado gun owners and hunters afford to wait that long?

$1.1 Million in a Quarter

That is the big news of the day-the amount that has been donated to the Mark Udall for Senate Campaign in the last quarter.

It is expected that the race will cost more than the $10 million last time around, perhaps $15 million. When one considers that there are only six more quarters to the finish line, both candidates and their supporters need to step it up.

Flying a False Flag

Mark Udall (D) Boulder may be trying to position himself as a "moderate," but his liberal friends at Swing State Project are having none of it:

among the fifty most liberal Democrats in the house. He is a very prominent and strong liberal.

Mark Udall endorses World Federalism

This just in from Xavier University (where I taught ROTC for three years and got an MBA):

Who supports world federalism? Who are some notable federalists? Who's on your Board of Directors/ Advisors?

Historically, world federalists have included such prominent figures as Albert Einstein, Oscar Hammerstein II, Justice William O. Douglas, Carl Van Doren, E.B. White, Lloyd Bridges and Steve Allen. More recently, journalist Walter Cronkite, AmeriCorps Director Harris Wofford and Congresswoman Diane DeGette and Representative Mark Udall have publicly supported world federalism. WFA's Board of Advisors includes actor Martin Sheen, Nuremburg prosecutor Benjamin Ferencz, World Watch Institute vice-president Hilary French, economist Hazel Henderson, Jihad vs. McWorld author Benjamin Barber, actress Mimi Kennedy and actor Mike Farrell. The World Federalist Association's current President is John B. Anderson, who served as a Republican member of Congress for 20 years and was the 1980 independent presidential candidate.

Those of you who hanker for another layer of government where poor nations have the power to tax rich nations into egalitarian poverty might want to spend a few minutes looking at the answers to some of the dozens of other questions asked and answered:

Won't world federalism abolish national sovereignty and destroy our rights under the Constitution?...Is world federalism simply a new name for the communist insiders in the UN?...Is it politically possible to establish a world government?...Won't world government set the stage for a world dictatorship? What are the options if the world government becomes oppressive?...

The article is so long that you might want to use the "Find" function to locate the above quote.

Mark Udall's Defense Fig Leaf

Two years ago, Mark Udall, along with several other prominent Democrats, announced with fanfare the introduction of a bill to increase the size of the army by 20,000 a year for four years.

It was a great idea that went nowhere. Udall's failure to introduce a similar bill in 2007, when the Democrats hold a majority and the need for additional troops for the surge is obvious, simply demonstrates his and his party's lack of seriousness on National Defense.

Unfortunately, Mark Udall has joined his party's efforts to sabotage the war. The 2005 bill was a fig leaf that was designed to conceal his contempt for those who serve. Nothing more.

Udall can't even be trusted to know the history of American post war demobilizations.

Since 1945, the size of the active duty Army has dropped in times of peace and spiked during wartime. At the end of the Cold War, the Army shrank as part of the “peace dividend”.

It demobilized to a strength of 86 officers and men after the Revolutionary War, shrank after 1812, shrank after the war with Mexico in 1846, shrank big time after the Civil War, reorganized in 1890 and closed hundreds of Army posts after the Indian Wars (including several in and near Colorado), expanded and contracted for the 1898 war with Spain, and shrank significantly after WWI.

Udall's grasp of our country's history is sorely lacking if he thinks that the adjustments in the size of the army after a conflict are anything but routine.

The size of the Army has proven inadequate to fight the Iraqi War, but you can bet that if Mark Udall gets elected, he will try to extract a "peace dividend" immediately following the precipitous withdrawal he, and his party, so desperately want.

The Elk Hunting Sop

On the one hand, Mark Udall is promoting his efforts in Congress to allow hunters to cull National Park elk herds.

The herds need to be culled. According to the AP, Teddy Roosevelt National Park reintroduced elk in 1985. It has room for 400 elk, but has 1100.

The park service is opposed to hunting. It would rather spend millions building fences, rounding up the excess animals, and killing them in the organized way that cattle are sent to slaughter. When questioned about the issue of using hunters as "authorized agents" to cull the herds, one park service official pontificated:

[ Bill ] Whitworth said Monday that the Park Service already was aware it could use authorized agents, but that they cannot be used to circumvent the prohibition on hunting.

"If it looks like a hunt, it is a hunt, and that's the standard we're going to be held to," he said.

It is laudable that Mark Udall is trying to solve this problem in a very public way. Unfortunately, this policy, if implemented, benefits a few, or at most a few dozen hunters.

On the other hand, Mark Udall's Federal land roadless policy will put millions of acres of forests and streams effectively off limits to hunting and fishing. If a hunter or a fisherman cannot get close to the area he would like to hunt and fish in because the roads are off limits to the public, then the area is closed.

Mark Udall's dirty little secret is that he hates hunting, hates guns, and hates gun owners. He is just clever enough as a politician that he has found a public way to conceal that fact.

The Money Race in the Second CD

The Denver Post said last year that the winner of the of the Democratic primary in the Second CD would be the most liberal candidate. I have the link, and will post it the first time the Post tries to pawn off the "moderate" label for Boulder Liberal Mark Udall.

Three Democrats are in the race to replace Udall: Jerad Polis, most famous as the multi-millionaire who pawned Amendment 41 off on an unsuspecting Colorado public; Joan Fitz-Gerald, the President of the Colorado Senate, and Will Shafroth whose name recognition is so low we had to look it up.

All have released their money reports for the last quarter. Polis and Shafroth both raised about $300K, with Fitz-Gerald coming in last at $240K.

There is some confusion in Polis' mind as to whether he is putting in his own money. He promised to match web contributions dollar for dollar, which would indicate that he is putting his own money into the race.

At other times, he claims he is not.

Polis said he doesn’t know if he’s going to spend a lot of his own money.

“Right now, we raised more money than our opponents, so there wouldn’t be any reason to spend any more money,” he said. “If there’s a lot of special interest money coming in from the other sides, I will certainly believe in myself enough to invest it.”

Houston, We Have a Disconnect

Houston, We Have A Disconnect

[via Colorado Senate News]

Just so you know:

From the Denver Post:

The Post believes Ritter deserves a chance to weigh in on such a critical issue. Thus, we support the idea of a moratorium. But even if the BLM plan is held up for Ritter's review, some drilling will, and should, begin fairly soon.

That could trigger up to $1 billion as the state share of leasing payments on the land. Additionally, the state could collect $100 million or more annually for the next 20 to 30 years

From the Rocky Mountain News:

The opposition to leasing is sincere and passionate, but we think opponents overstate the downside and fail to appreciate the potential benefits. These would accrue not only to consumers of natural gas - meaning just about everyone - but more specifically to the taxpayers of this state. Penry and White's proposal highlights the boon that Roan could represent for higher education without individual taxpayers being called upon, once again, to finance the rescue operation.

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

short of a highly unlikely act of Congress, gas drilling on the top of the Roan Plateau is all but a fait accomplii

And, finally, the Colorado Springs Gazette:

But since the West’s energy boom began, the “stunning,” “pristine,” “special,” teaming-with-fragile-flora-and-fauna Roan has taken on near-mythical status with the anti-drilling crowd, like some lost world re-discovered. . . .

No politician is stupid enough to support a blanket ban on drilling, especially when energy prices are pinching. They just oppose drilling in the “pristine,” “special,” “irreplaceable” parts of their state or congressional district, which amounts to the same thing. . . .

And with the nation facing a serious energy crunch, the no-drilling option simply doesn’t make sense.

And, then, on the other side:

Rep. Mark Udall:

"Oil shale has potential as an energy source, but Colorado’s Western Slope has had experience with a rush to development that ended up hurting our region’s economy," . . .
My amendment will slow that process down so that we can be thoughtful about oil shale development."

And Sen. Ken Salazar:

“As I have said before, the top of the Roan Plateau is one of Colorado’s special places, and I believe that this unique Colorado crown jewel should not be opened to drilling for oil and gas at this time.


That DOES make it pretty easy to see Udall and Salazar as a bit, well, extreme on this particular issue, doesn't it?

Boy, they sure would make quite a team in the Senate, dontcha think? Oy!

[cross-posted at BestDestiny]

Cornfused

Just a week ago, Mark Udall was touting his corn subsidies for Colorado ethanol production.

This site pointed out that the water intensive process of growing corn to produce ethanol in a water intensive refining process didn't seem like such a good idea in a state that always seems to be short of water.

CSU, which is a leader in research into ethanol production, reports in its college paper:

... ethanol experts and politicians are beginning to agree that corn-based ethanol may not be the magic energy solution many have come to see it as.

"When you start thinking about what kind of plant you should grow to best utilize its biomass, corn is not the answer," said Ken Reardon, a Colorado State University chemical and biological engineering professor who researches ethanol production.

"Because corn uses a lot of water, people are now looking at crops that take less water to grow and produce more mass per acre than corn...”

Fort Collins Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer said alternative and renewable energy is a “national security” issue and the advances being made in ethanol production will play a big role.

“We seem to be right on the cusp of being able to crack the next step,which is to allow a wider range of organic material to be used in the development of ethanol,” Schaffer said. “Once that is cracked, we will be able to see everything from wood chips and switchgrass to other crops that will result in higher yields.”

Schaffer’s opponent, Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs, called corn ethanol a “bridge” to the new energy future.

One week, corn is THE answer, and the next, it is only a "bridge." Is anyone else cornfused?

This just raises more questions for Mark Udall: Why would any profit oriented entrepreneur want to build a corn ethanol plant in Colorado if it is only to be a temporary "bridge?" Where in Colorado do you propose to put a corn ethanol plant and which city's water do you intend to appropriate for it? Environmental Impact Studies will doubtless slow the construction of a corn ethanol plant to well past the period when the "bridge"no longer needed, so why are we trying to grow more corn if there are to be no local corn ethanol refineries?

Hunter's Rights

Mark Udall is promoting the use of hunters to cull the elk herd in Rocky Mountain National Park. He is also using the false argument that drilling on the Roan Plateau will interfere with hunting.

Bill Ritter's campaign also courted gun owners, in part by promising to build shooting ranges around the state. The promise was so successful that I have written elsewhere about registered Republicans sporting Ritter bumper stickers because they thought he would protect their gun rights better than Bob Beauprez. Events have proven them wrong, as anyone who studied Ritter's record could have predicted. Ritter signed at least two anti-gun bills and couldn't find room in his budget for the promised ranges.

It turns out that both men are using a cynical strategy to woo away hunters from the Republican party.

Note the heavy use of the word "progressive" in the SquareState essay. Progressives, especially eastern progressives, have a history of turning on gun owners with a vengeance. Party discipline would require a Senator Udall to support gun control. Today's question for Mark Udall and Bill Ritter is: What good are hunting rights, hunting access, and phantom shooting ranges if no one has the right to own a gun?

Left at the Station?

There is at least an even chance that Mark Udall's opposition to drilling for gas on the Roan Plateau will backfire, thanks to a proposal by State Senator Josh Penry and State Representative Al White. They want the royalty revenue from the venture to fund the state's colleges and universities.

Most Coloradoans don't want to pay higher taxes, though that is the Democrat solution for every problem. If the state has a growing need for higher education funding, and it does, why not marry that need with a natural gas windfall?

Mark Udall will claim that drilling on the Roan Plateau will desecrate it, and that argument will carry weight with those who don't understand that the drilling will be limited to 350 acres at a time. No new 350 acre plot can be opened, under the plan, until the previous one is restored.

The Colorado Springs Gazette stopped just short of calling Udall an environmental extremist over his position concerning the Roan. Now, the Colorado Senate News is informing us that the Denver Post, the Rocky Mountain News, and the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel have expressed varying degrees of support for the Penry-White proposal.

This train is pulling out, and Mark Udall stands a good chance of being embarrassed, being left at the station if he doesn't get on board.

Foolishly Uninformed

A Quote from today's Wall Street Journal Online:

Freshman Rep. [ Heath ] Shuler, touting opportunities to replace lost North Carolina textile jobs, visits service station offering biodiesel fuel made partly from local restaurants’ used cooking oil. “You can be green and make green,” adds Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado, who is planning 2008 Senate bid.

About 45 years ago, I worked in a fast food restaurant. We saved the cooking grease to recycle into diesel fuel. Doing so was profitable then and presumably remains profitable. That fact makes both of these Congressmen look foolishly uninformed.

After Senate balks at eliminating oil-company tax breaks, House Majority Leader Hoyer suggests those House-passed provisions may not be folded into broader energy package. House leaders mull holding floor vote on higher fuel-economy standards, or just considering Senate’s plan in conference negotiations. Hitting absence of incentives to expand fossil-fuel supplies, Republicans dub Democrats’ approach “no new energy.”

Does anyone recall Mark Udall being in favor of oil or gas drilling anywhere other than Saudi Arabia?

"No New Energy Udall" "Environmental Extremist Udall" "Boulder Liberal Udall" "Latte Liberal" "No Roads to nowhere Udall" "Let the Forests Burn Udall" It is hard to keep up with the labels that can easily be hung on this guy.

Fifty Trees! Oh, the Irony!

Mark Udall and his allies in the environmentalist left may be directly responsible for the destruction by fire and beetle of fifty million trees (See post immediately below).

While Mark Udall is content to allow the forests to burn by the tens of square miles for lack of reasonable thinning and his opposition to forest roads, he fights hard to ensure our continued dependency on foreign energy.

What makes 350 acres on the Roan Plateau so much more valuable than the more than 100 square miles of old growth forest recently destroyed in and around Glacier National Park? What makes the 2000 acres needed to develop ANWR oil reservers so much more valuable than the forests and homes around Lake Tahoe or the forests Yellowstone Park?

Some politicians are simply too dense to see the dangerous disconnect in their own policies and rhetoric.

The Sustainable Energy Coalition recently presented Congressman Mark Udall with its Leadership Award. No one saw the irony in the form the award took:

Representative Udall received a certificate for fifty trees planted in his honor through American Forests, a nonprofit organization that works to protect, restore and enhance the natural capital of trees and forests.

The Costs of Roadless Wilderness

The Colorado Index is suggesting that Boulder Liberal Mark Udall is creating the potential for ever larger forest fires by closing the roads. The author observes that closing the roads makes it difficult or impossible to thin forests and notes that the Lake Tahoe residents who were burned out are complaining about the Sierra Club's interference in the thinning process.

Closing the roads also might cause the deaths of fire fighters and a huge infestation of beetles with the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of acres of forest.

The essays are here, here, here, and here.

Screech to Impeach?

I have many projects going and try to do them as efficiently as possible. I am using Google Alerts with "Mark Udall" as a search parameter to find interesting items for this one. That very loose search parameter brings in a lot of junk, but lets face it, the left writes a lot of junk.

Today's loonytoons entry comes from Cannonfire blog. They are trying to roll out the the impeachment bandwagon and have titled their post "screech to impeach."

A screech is a harsh, shrill sound, according to several on-line dictionaries. Impeachment is a serious subject and should be taken seriously. How can this blogger expect to be taken seriously if he puts silly titles on his post? This one is too clever by half.

The post is not worth providing a link to, but since it does list Mark Udall, we wonder if Udall will be screeching to impeach? He is a shrill environmentalist, so he might as well be shrill about impeachment.

Energy Questions for Mark Udall

The left is already complaining that Udall is working with Musgrave. They hope to beat her in 2008 and think Udall's cooperation doesn't help their cause. The two recently held a joint forum that will doubtless stir comments in the left wing blogosphere. Even so, the subject was of more interest than the format.

We have energy questions for Mark Udall:

If the lack of water resources is a serious problem in Colorado, and it is, why are we providing incentives to grow a crop that will gulp water when it is turned into biofuel? Do you plan to ship the corn to another state with more water and ship the fuel back? Has anyone really thought this one through?

Wind farms in Colorado are a great idea! Have you talked to Ted Kennedy about why he hates the thought of wind farms outside Martha's Vinyard? Better yet, sponsor a bill that provides Federal funds and a mandate for farms in both places and see how many of your environmentalist left friends in Congress vote for it.

Wouldn't Colorado provide more energy independence by developing gas wells on 350 acres of the Roan Plateau at a time?

Rothenberg Calls Colorado a Battleground State

No suprise there. Provided as background.

8 for '08: Battleground States to Watch

Udall the Extremist

It is going to be very hard for the Mark Udall campaign to sell the public on the "moderate" label if the Colorado Springs Gazette continues to refer to his actions as "extremist."

But because they [ Mark Udall and John Salazar ] didn’t get all they wanted, which is a total ban, the extremists and their political allies want to jettison the process and take matters into their own hands. There’s only one plan for drilling on the Roan that will meet with their approval — no drilling.

Even if one argues that the Gazette stopped just short of calling the two lefty Colorado congressmen extremists, it made it clear that they were doing the work of extremists. What is the difference?