Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Opposition to Roan Drilling Falling Apart?

We get the impression that the Sierra Club is becoming concerned that Mark Udall may have expended a lot of political capital on its behalf to no avail.

The Glenwood Springs Post Independent reports:

Salazar's silence has left those involved in the Roan debate to speculate about what a key player on the issue might be thinking.

"He's sort of on the fence on this because he's being hammered daily by industry and industry groups and people," said Glenwood Springs resident Bob Millette, chair of the Roaring Fork Group of the Sierra Club. "He's not hearing enough from the other side."

Club 20, the Western Slope non partisan political powerhouse favors drilling, as does Wayne Allard.

Reeves Brown, executive director of Club 20, a lobbying group for the Western Slope, hopes Salazar may be giving due consideration to proper process. Both Club 20 and U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., have said the years of planning and public input that led to the BLM's decision to allow drilling on the top of the plateau should be honored rather than trumped by a political process.

Brown said it can be harder for senators than House members to be parochial in their political views and focus only on what's best for their backyards. They are not elected to represent a congressional district, but the state as a whole. As a result, Salazar may be more inclined to consider the Roan's natural gas reserves as well as its environmental and other values.

And, it turns out that even the Governor hasn't really come out in opposition to drilling in a way that the environmentalists would like.

[ Bill ] Ritter never has come out in opposition to drilling on the Roan but has said it is one of the last places that drilling should be allowed to occur.

That leaves Mark Udall hopeful, but not confident:

Asked about Salazar's silence on the Roan amendment, Udall said in a prepared statement, "I have no doubt that Senator Salazar shares his brother John's and my concern about the Roan Plateau. What is important right now is not making speeches, but working inside the halls of Congress - talking to the leadership and to the senators and representatives who will be helping shape the final version of the energy legislation."

Perhaps we are reading more into the report than is there. Check it out and decide for yourself.

A Well Known Environmentalist Puppet

One of the problems with the Federal system of government is that Congressmen who have never been to an area can feel qualified to make policy, or force policy to be made about that area when the residents disagree.

That very complaint came up again this week when 93 members of Congress sent a letter to BLM trying to have 3 million acres of land put off limits to off road vehicles.

The letter comes at a pivotal time for eastern Utah public lands because the BLM in Moab is now taking public comment on a plan that would confine off-roaders to designated routes on public land just over the state line from Mesa County.

When the Moab BLM held a public meeting about its proposed management plan in Grand Junction last month, more than 100 people showed up, many to express their concerns about the potential for having their favorite places for unrestrained riding rendered inaccessible to motorized vehicles...

John Martin of the Western Slope ATV Association blasted the Congress members’ letter.

“Less than four of those people have ever been to Utah,” he said. “Three of them from Colorado [ Democrats Mark Udall, Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter ] are very well-known puppets of the environmental community, and we’re certainly not surprised by that kind of silliness by people who have never been out here.”

We find it interesting that John Salazar, whom we consider more of a "puppet" (if that is the right word) than Perlmutter, didn't sign the letter. Do you suppose he thought it might cost him votes? At this point in his Senatorial campaign, Mark Udall is far more interested in collecting out of state environmentalist money than he is fearful of losing ATV owner's votes.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Carbon Sequestration-An Expensive Boondoggle

Mark Udall has introduced a very expensive bill directing the Secretary of Energy to conduct research on the long term "burial" of carbon dioxide. The cost of the bill, $420 million a year over four years suggests that even after the research is done, using the technology would be both expensive and dangerous. Insurance companies want no part of this project, so the cost of the bill is under stated.

If the amount being considered for this research were reasonable, which it is not, this might be an appropriate use of federal funds and research facilities like Los Alamos.

We can't help but note that nature already provides a natural mechanism for long term sequestration of carbon. It is called "trees." Of course, they only store carbon while they are alive. Of late, there hasn't been a lot of interest from either Mark Udall or the environmental community in keeping our forests either alive or healthy.

One wonders how many nuclear power plants could be sited and started for the same $1.7 billion that Udall wants to spend on this boondoggle. The last we heard, nuclear power plants put out no CO2. Does Udall consider nuclear power a solution? Not at all.

Not long ago, Udall was hyping his bill to thin forests around Colorado mountain towns. The piker could only allocate $22 million a year for that project. It is becoming more and more clear that Mark Udall's priorities are driven by Washington based lobbies and not the needs of Colorado.

The Left's Visible Carbon Footprint

Today, the Denver Post published a photograph under the heading "Cloudy and sunny at the same time." The "cloud" was, of course, smoke in the Denver area from the California fires.

At some point, Colorado voters will come to the conclusion that environmentalists like would-be Senator Mark Udall are very bad for the environment. We just hope it is not too late.

Gazette's Comments on the Fires

With luck, the California fires may lead to more rational land management than Mark Udall and his "environmentalist" allies are currently willing to tolerate. The Gazette devoted an editorial to the subject this morning. Here is only a part of what it had to say:

Markets have less influence over government-owned land, however, which is managed based on political considerations, mostly under the influence of special interest groups. Fire risks seem higher in areas of high public (meaning, government) land ownership; lower (with a few exceptions) in places where much of the land is privately owned, mostly due to the strong incentives people have to maintain and protect their property.

When property is owned collectively, there’s less incentive to manage it wisely. Environmental rules and restrictions have leaned in recent times toward non-management, or a policy of benign neglect, under pressure from those who think human meddling in these landscapes is unnatural and wrong. That’s left more fuel to burn when lightning, a fallen power line or an arsonist ignites a fire.

We’d argue for a land management approach that puts humans and human habitats first, whenever practical, and embraces the idea that we can manage these landscapes not just for economic, aesthetic and ecological benefits, but with an eye toward safeguarding public safety as well. We shouldn’t allow the real and rhetorical smoke generated by California’s wildfires to cloud our judgements about the nature of the problem.

Monday, October 29, 2007

If I Had a Wagon...I Would Go To Colorado

Ralph D’Andrea, a western slope liberal blogger has been quoted in a recent Political Notebook interview admitting that Mark Udall is "out of the mainstream."

PN: Is he [ Bob Schaffer ] more out of the mainstream than Mark Udall?
RD: No. So it all depends on who appeals to the voters in the middle.

This comment adds to our Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard. It is hard to score, so we will just add it to the liberal category.

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 20
moderate 0
conservative (not in this lifetime--or the next)

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm was routinely calling Mark Udall a "liberal," "reliably left wing," and even "extremist." We do not count comments from conservative blogs and we didn't count a comment on a liberal show by a conservative politician. Those who would like to check our methodology can follow the bread crumbs backwards.

Sunday, October 28, 2007

Udall's Four Months of Lies

As is our custom, we write long essays on our other blog and just link them here.

We have been following Mark Udall closely for four months and in that period he has told five lies. This link lays them out.

Udall Campaign Caught Breaking House Rules

The Rocky Mountain News reports that the Mark Udall campaign broke Congressional rules by putting up a video of a speech he made on the House floor in February.

The High Cost of Pandering

Not long ago, Mark Udall, Ken Salazar, Bill Ritter, and the Colorado Legislature signaled their uncertainty about keeping Fort Carson viable with an expansion of the Pinon Canyon training area.

Today, our friends at Rocky Mountain Politics laid out the potential cost of this pandering. Keep in mind that if Space Command leaves, some very high paying civilian contracting jobs will move out of state, not only from Colorado Springs, but from Jeffco and Boulder.
Nebraska is not alone by the way in trying to take advantage of our feud here in Colorado over Pinon Canyon [by trying to get USSPACECOM and NORTHCOM moved to Omaha ]. Guess who the only 2 Republicans in the United States Senate to vote for Ken Salazar's amendment to stop the expansion were? The 2 Republicans from Kansas, Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback. Kansas is home to Fort Riley, which was one of Fort Carson's competitors in the last BRAC round and came very close to being closed. They sure wouldn't mind an expanded base with more units stationed there.

Saturday, October 27, 2007

Mark Udall: A Good Friend of Higher Taxes

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has just put out a laundry list of Mark Udall's tax votes for higher taxes. The list is so impressive that it is too long to repeat here, where we like to keep our posts short. We will share committee's observations:

Boulder liberal Mark Udall may be Colorado taxpayers' worst nightmare. First, Udall voted for a budget that provided for the largest tax increase in American history. To make matters worse, Udall also "mistakenly" voted for an even more extreme tax hiking budget. Now, it's a question of whether Udall will support a bill that hits millions of Americans with the largest personal income tax increase in American history.

It seems that voting to hike taxes billions of dollars earlier this year may not be enough for the free-spending Boulder liberal Mark Udall. Where will Mark Udall stand when it comes time to vote on the latest Democrat proposal for tax increases?

Yesterday, Democrats proposed a bill that will raise taxes on hard working Americans by an additional $1.3 trillion dollars.

The bill, written by the House's chief tax writer, will hit small business owners, married couples and middle class families -- approximately 10 million taxpayers directly.

If Udall's past record is any indication, Colorado voters can be sure their taxes will rise to unseen levels:

Friday, October 26, 2007

Does Udall Like Fillibusters?

Leslie Southwick was confirmed to the 5th Circuit today. Some on the left are baiting Ken Salazar because he didn't stop the confirmation through filibuster when he could have. Salazar did vote against Southwick in the actual vote.

It is time to ask Mark Udall how he would have voted on the filibuster issue. Does he favor preventing judicial candidates like Southwick from coming up for a vote if they are nominated by a Republican President?

Beauty in the eye of the beholder.

At least some of the fires near San Diego and Los Angeles appear to have been set. As this is being written, the burned area almost certainly exceeds a half million acres.

Barbra Boxer claims that the problem is global warming, presumably caused by man.

The left is stunningly silent on the contribution of these mega forest fires to the CO2 in the atmosphere. It also conveniently ignores its part in creating the conditions that cause these fires.

Let's assume that Boxer is correct. Wouldn't it be more sane to require the forest service to clear cut enough fire breaks that the fires would be limited in size to, say 10,000 acres?

Make no mistake, a 10,000 acre fire is still huge, more than 15 square miles.

Clear cuts aren't pretty, but they do grow back far more quickly than areas burned over by the hot fires we see today. If that regrowth were managed in a way that minimized the fire danger, it might even be possible to have both a heavily forested area and a safe forest at the same time.

Mark Udall's brand of environmentalism would consider this suggestion to be heresy. He seems to prefer the natural brown "beauty" of these mega burn moonscapes where nothing in nature survives to the "ugly" scars that clear cutting leaves, even if they protect the adjacent green forests and their inhabitants from mega fires. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Thursday, October 25, 2007

Schaffer's Optimism, Passion, and Focus Shine at Jeffco GOP Event

As the early phase of Colorado's U.S. Senate campaign unfolds, Bob Schaffer is clearly exuding a growing confidence as he delivers a commonsense conservative message. Tonight at a well-attended event sponsored by the Mountain Republican Women (in west Jefferson County, for the uninitiated), Schaffer delivered a powerful keynote speech that picked a somewhat wearied and skeptical crowd off the ground and fired them up for the 2008 election.

Schaffer noted that he is more optimistic about the prospects of his candidacy and that of the GOP than he has been for many months. Considering that he has been in the race for 5 months and Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall has been angling for the seat since 2004, it is a good sign that the contest polls as a dead heat. The former 4th District Congressman's fundraising has been steady and solid but, in a race that will cost the winner at least $12 million, can use more help.

An articulate and charismatic candidate with a clear focus, Schaffer stands on an increasingly well-developed, three-fold platform of:
1) Tax relief
2) Foreign policy strength
3) Border enforcement and responsible immigration policy

The first point gives the Republican a big hammer to drive home, especially if Udall decides to support something outlandish like Rep. Charlie Rangel's economy-busting boondoggle proposal. On the second point, with mounting evidence of success, the issue of Iraq is disappearing off the Democrats' table much more quickly than they would like - leaving only echoes of Sen. Harry Reid ready to toss in the white flag on our troops. On the third point, Schaffer quipped to one questioner that he could not vote for amnesty lest he lose the support of his own mother.

Without losing an eye on his longterm strategy of reaching out to unaffiliated voters, Schaffer is working hard to unify a wounded party one phone call at a time. Talking to party activists and supporters who pour out their anger and frustration at the infidelity to core principles displayed by many GOP officials, Schaffer said he typically tells them, "Hey, I'm a frustrated Republican, too."

Schaffer closed with his dramatic delivery of Patrick Henry's famous "Give Me Liberty" speech, which only serves to remind you of this candidate's passion, depth, and devotion to the cause of liberty and self-government. These are the values dear to the hearts of most Coloradans, not those represented by Udall. The more voters learn about the real man, the more this race will tilt away from the out-of-orbit predictions by liberal Democrats to a repeat of Sen. Wayne Allard's victories in 1996 and 2002.

Watch out, Udall.

Mark Udall: The Modern Michael Dukakis

For those too young to remember, Michael Dukakis lost credibility and the election in 1988 when he stumbled on the first question of the first debate.

That question presupposed the rape and murder of his wife and asked what he would do. He made it look like it was an academic exercise where the criminal had more rights than his wife did. Almost any husband who loved his wife and wanted to protect her would have answered differently. At the end of the debate, Dukakis' body language signaled his knowledge that he had blown the election on that one question.

Now comes Mark Udall with much the same mind set towards Iran. He wants to completely tie the hands of this and future administrations with regard to that country and has proposed a law to that effect.

Udall makes the claim that he loves the soldiers. As with our observation about Dukakis, almost any politician who loved "the soldiers" would do his utmost to protect them.

When they go to Iraq, they face very sophisticated shaped charge roadside bombs.Shaped charges can not be made from parts picked up at the local junkyard or ammo dump. They have to be machined out of copper. None of these shaped charges can be or have been made in Iraq.

It is reported that about 80 per cent of our casualties are due to shaped charges. Most, if not all of these weapons are shipped in from Iran. Iran is at war with us.

Now comes Mark Udall, the modern day Michael Dukakis who wants to protect the criminals in Iran more than the soldiers he claims to love. Of course, Daily Kos is cheering him on.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Helping Out Public Radio

We're a fan of public radio, though it is not always neutral. We got a request on our other blog (thecoloradoindex) to put this message up:

Hi, I'm a producer with Colorado Public Radio. I'm doing outreach with various organizations to encourage people of various political leanings to contribute to questions we are asking online about politics and the elections. This is part of our Public Insight Network. Here is what I would love for you to post:

Colorado Public Radio's KCFR News recently launched an elections question on the Public Insight Network. I'm contacting people of various political persuasions urging them to sign up and to help get the word out. We're asking about where people stand politically, how their views have changed, where they get their information, how engaged they are in the process, top issues, etc.

This is the link to the questions.

Or you can go to, and click on Public Insight, where you'll find the "elections" question and others. More details about Public Insight there, but the big thing to know is we keep the information private and never use it for fundraising. So, sign up, make sure your beliefs and experiences are part of the discussion, tell your friends to do the same, and help Public Radio do the best possible job of covering this important election season.

Dan Meyers
Public Insight Editor
Colorado Public Radio

Keep it neutral, guys. We'll be listening.

A Thoughtful E-mail to Senator Salazar

Politicians love to pat themselves on the back for mundane and meaningless things. There is nothing more meaningless than a Congressional resolution. Recently Earl Asbury received a self congratulatory email from Senator Ken Salazar. We'll let him take the story from here:

Senator Salazar of Colorado sent an e-mail today bragging about a resolution he got through Congress setting a goal of having 25% of our energy supply be from "renewable energy" 25 years from now. I sent him this reply:

If you want to help the energy situation, four ways more helpful than your renewable energy resolution would be:

1. Vote to drill on Alaska's north slope, which Democrats have blocked repeatedly.
2. Stop blocking drilling on Colorado's Roan Plateau.
3. Pass legislation to encourage more nuclear power plants, and streamline all the red tape they have to go through to get required permits.
4. Vote government aid for research to devise ways to burn coal with less pollution.

Earl Asbury,
Colorado Springs

PS: I guess you know by now the Congress's ethanol legislation was quite foolish. It was just another boondoggle to pander to the farm vote.

Our thanks to Earl for sending that along. We included it here because Salazar and Mark Udall are close allies on this topic, although liberal bloggers and msm outlets who should know consider Udall much more liberal than Salazar. Even Udall admits to being a Boulder Liberal.

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Mike Saccone on Schaffer's Silence

Mike Saccone is the political writer for the Grand Junction Sentinel:

So is Schaffer’s silence a bad thing?

For Democrats, yes. Schaffer’s silence on igneous issues gives his opponent, Congressman Mark Udall, D-Colo., or liberal political organizations little to attack the veteran statesman on. It also allows him to work on his announced goal or rebuilding his party’s core, waiting for the right moment to go public with his views.

For Schaffer and the GOP, his silence is — to use a tried and tired cliche — golden. Schaffer’s silence while he works to build up his base ahead of what is certain to be an intensely competitive contest should be frustrating for Democrats and political reporters. Nonetheless, it’s a good idea if you want to keep free from early inning errors.

Udall Votes to Defend Colleague who Smeared U.S. Military

Today on the floor of Congress, Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall tagged along with his party leadership and voted to kill a bill that would have censured fellow Rep. Pete Stark for his outrageous slander of our troops and Commander in Chief. After the censure bill was defeated, Stark apologized and broke out in sobs.

Previously, Udall sponsored his own resolution condemning conservative radio personality for a contrived controversy in which Udall claimed Limbaugh dishonored our troops. Disproven and debunked, the Boulder liberal Congressman today turned his attention to defending a colleague who delivered a tasteless smear of our military on the floor of Congress.

This turn of events does not reflect well at all on Udall's judgment. Such votes may represent the 2nd Congressional District, but they don't represent the state of Colorado. That doesn't bode well for the Democrat's aspirations to be a U.S. Senator.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Topic of the Day: Forest Fires - Part 2

Anyone who watched the national news today on any channel would know that the lead story is the out of control fires in California. They don't know how many multi-million dollar homes have been burned, but they estimate that it will be the worst fire in California history.

California has asked for fire crew help from its neighboring states. 250,000 people were forced to flee the fire.

At some point enough people will be burned out or be at risk of being burned out by forest fire after forest fire that people will begin to question the wisdom (if that is the right word) of the environmentalist left and their congressional shills like Mark Udall, John Salazar, and Diana DeGette.

It may not happen this year, or even next, but hopefully these words will still be in some internet archive when it does happen.

Honoring Soldiers, but not Lt Michael Murphy

As a member of Congress who wants to be a US Senator, Mark Udall could have chosen to attend the Medal of Honor ceremony for Lt Michael Murphy. He did not. The ceremony took place only a few hundred yards from his office.

One of the three team mates on that mission who Lt Murphy died trying to save was Danny Dietz of Colorado.

If Udall couldn't take the time to attend the ceremony, one would think that he could at least have made note of it on one of his two web sites. It was too much trouble, or more likely doing so ran too much risk of losing campaign donations.

Mark Udall is great at photo ops with live soldiers, but like so many on the left, he can't seem to pay honor in any way to a real hero. Once again, the left's claim to love the soldiers is demonstrated to be nothing more than an empty, meaningless phrase.

Topic of the Day: Forest Fires-Part 1

Last night, 60 minutes had a story about the rise in intensity of forest fires in the US in the last decade. Missing from the story was any mention of the part that the Sierra Club and other organizations that claim to be interested in the environment have played in this disaster.

No mention was made of any of those organization's efforts to convert as many acres of forest as possible to roadless wilderness where fire fighting and insect mitigation are difficult to impossible.

No mention was made of the part politicians like Mark Udall have played in an effort to ensure that the forest service can not easily approve thinning even in areas that can be managed. His support, along with Diana DeGette, and John Salazar of roadless wilderness areas that can't be managed in any way wasn't mentioned, either.

In short, unlike most stories where 60 minutes is quick to assign blame, these forest fires are a natural phenomena that can be blamed on "global warming." The environmentalist extremists are blameless.

The largest fire this year was 600,000 acres. That is 1000 square miles. Another this year was 500,000 acres. Fires of 200,000 acres, once rare, are now commonplace.

If "global warming" is causing these fires and greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are causing global warming, one wonders why 60 minutes couldn't make the connection between the megatons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by these fires and the environmentalist extremist communities' refusal to allow reasonable forest management.

60 minutes did report one fact that was new to this author: Half of the area burned was so badly damaged that it won't be reforested in the foreseeable future. That will have a serious impact on water supplies.

Nice Job, Mark! Keep those campaign checks coming from the Sierra Club and its allies.

Sunday, October 21, 2007

Mark Udall, A Practiced Liar

It should make people outside Colorado angry when they read a statement like the one Mark Udall recently issued promoting his very limited bill to thin Colorado forests:

“As quickly as the beetle epidemic is spreading throughout Colorado, the needs related to forest health and fuel reduction in our national forests are vast and urgent. These funds are critically important for the health and safety of our forests and communities--and ultimately the west, as Colorado stands at the source of life giving rivers that can be impacted by our unbalanced forest condition," said Rep. Mark Udall.

That statement is very impressive until one realizes that Udall's bill does nothing to promote fuel reduction in "our national forests" except close in to mountain towns. In fact, he and the Sierra Club strongly oppose "promoting forest health and fuel reduction" in our national forests

Colorado, as Udall correctly states, is at the source of rivers that can be impacted by "our unbalanced forest condition." Neither Mark Udall nor his environmentalist extremists give a whit about those rivers or the 17 downriver states they irrigate. Instead of allowing the management of the forests in a way that would protect those rivers, Udall wants to make the forests into wilderness areas that cannot, by law, be managed.

Udall's bill does allow and fund very limited fuel reduction near Colorado ski towns and some very local watersheds. No roads are to be built. His goal is to get elected US Senator. Having ski areas burned out before the election wouldn't help. That is why he is so willing to give the Sierra club what it wants while publicly pretending his bill does something it doesn't do.

As Always, Having It Both Ways

We don't pretend to know the answer to this issue, but it once again illustrates how the left wing wants to have it both ways.

Post Katrina they complained about the inability of the Federal Government to use the military to provide aid in disaster situations. In the 1870's, in the aftermath of reconstruction, Congress passed the posse comitatus law. That law prohibits the use the Federal military (but not the non-Federalized national guard) in law enforcement until a state of insurrection is declared under the 200 year old insurrection law.

Louisiana Governor Blanco was asked by the Federal Government to declare a state of insurrection within New Orleans to allow Federal troops to be used. She refused.

In response to Katrina, Congress loosened the insurrection law. Now, Mark Udall thinks that we should go back to the old law because the new law puts too much power into the hands of the President.

As a retired Army Officer, I think he might be right. I liked the old system. It offered great protections to our democracy.

The problem is that Mark Udall and other liberals are always quick to pass laws which hobble the Federal Government and then are the most vocal in criticizing its inability to act, especially when the President is a Republican. Does anyone remember anything good being said about the fact that Federal troops weren't being used in New Orleans?

If this passes and is signed, there won't be anything good said about the failure to use troops in the next major disaster. Mark Udall will be out front in trying to place the blame somewhere else. That is what he has done in the past and what he will do again.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

Bob Schaffer "On The Issues" Parody Site Emerges

Note to liberals--aren't parody sites supposed to be funny? Just askin'. (Bob Schaffer's official campaign site).

Another thing--does the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee really think that voters are so unintelligent that they will fail to figure out that the site is meant to be a parody, what with all the links going directly to the DSCC site?

Of course, moonbattery and condescension do go hand-in-hand.

Cross posted at Slapstick Politics.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Coloradoan or Coloradan?

In what appears to be a coordinated attempt by Democrats to smoke Bob Schaffer out on the issues so that they can attack him and force him to spend money defending himself, Cara DeGette made the following comment:

(Note: Colorado Confidential noted back in August how you can always tell when something is likely coming from inside the Beltway when the material refers to "Coloradoans" rather than the commonly accepted use of "Coloradan.")

Ever notice the superior airs that liberals put on?

I have been a Colorado resident since 1990 and lived in the state for five more years than that as a non-resident military officer. I personally use "Coloradoan" in my writing. Since I saw this comment, I have rolled the word off my tongue several times and might actually pronounce it "Coloradan."

I was raised in Missouri. Missouri residents pronounce the name of their state differently than non residents, although everyone spells it the same. That experience should make me sensitive to the two words. It hasn't.

I did serve inside the beltway at the Pentagon for almost three years in the late 1980's, but I don't recall anyone using any term to describe the citizens of Colorado. The subject never came up, at least in my small office in the E-Ring.

At the risk of being tagged as something I am not, I plan to continue to use "Coloradoan" in my writing. Let ms. DeGette get uppity about it if she chooses.

And on the subject she was really writing about, we hope Bob Schaffer continues his low profile. It gives us the chance to illustrate how far away from the center Mark Udall is without interference from the left.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

Permanently Forfeiting the High Ground

PlagiarismNowAction, aka ProgressNowAction is at it again. Alan Franklin, the "author" who apparently lifted three paragraphs from Wikipedia and only slightly modified a fourth and then had the gall to claim that what he wrote was the result of "months of research" has written (or maybe copied) a challenge to Bob Schaffer.

He titles it "Bob Schaffer, the hideout candidate." The election is almost 13 months away. Even if Schaffer started issuing position papers, no one would pay attention except for PlagiarismNowAction.

We, on the other hand, have some questions that deserve answers now:

Hey Alan, am I getting your name right? Do you want to explain again how the Wikipedia editor actually copied your work from an email? When I asked for the email, you couldn't, or wouldn't, provide it. Do you want to explain how it is possible to duplicate the "months of research" in 30 minutes of Google searches? Dan Haley quoted your web site as only needing to be right half the time. Does that apply to original writing too? Curious minds want to know.

I love publicly reminding you about this stuff because you have no answers that make sense. You will never again have the high ground on any subject. Posture to your heart's content.

Maybe Schaffer Should Speak Up

Nah! Let the Democrats stew. It's fun to watch.

Is All Speech Free?

Can "free speech" by government officials be very costly? That is the issue being aired in an article by the Glenwood Springs Post.

Mark Udall is only one of several politicians including Bill Ritter, Diana DeGette, and John Salazar being accused of depressing the eventual value of the gas gusher on the Roan Plateau by introducing regulatory uncertainty. The amount of devaluation being mentioned is a billion dollars in state revenues.

These people pretend that their words have no impact:

Deb Frazier, spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, said she doesn't see a link between what elected officials say and potential Roan revenues. She added, "The last time I looked we were a democracy and we could comment on it."

Most of these idealists and extremists have never had a job in the private sector and either do not understand how it thinks, or more likely pretend that they don't.

We will try to create an example that they might be able to understand.

Suppose several competing investors were considering building a super luxury hotel on a south sea island. Suppose also that one was willing to pay a billion dollars for the land at auction. Now, suppose that several government officials began publicly promoting the eviction without compensation of all civilians from that island and the creation of a military base.

Even if the military base were never created, investors would be unwilling to pay much for the island, certainly not a billion dollars, out of fear that they might eventually be evicted. Worse from their standpoint is that eviction might come sooner, rather than later.

Does anyone recall when Bill Owens remarked offhandedly that "Colorado is on fire?" Those words were free speech, but no one thought them cheap.

The Americans for American Energy group is correct when it says:

...negative statements by elected officials regarding drilling on the Roan causes energy developers to "foresee heightened regulatory risk" associated with possible drilling there and "erodes the confidence of investors that they will be able to realize a reasonable and timely rate of return." That could affect bidding prices for gas leases, it argues.

AAE added that "given the magnitude of the potential bonus bid at stake - in excess of $1 billion - the loss Colorado taxpayers already may have suffered is likely to be substantial."

Thinking the Implications All the Way Through

The environmentalist left, personified by the Sierra Club and it's poster boy, Mark Udall, has adopted a strategy of allowing forest fires to burn, not only burn, but burn hot.

He and they don't want there to be forest roads which might be used to thin forests to prevent severe burn overs that put a crust on the soil. Crusted soil, like that in the Hayman burn area make it difficult to reforest the area. Estimates are that it will take 700 years before that area is fully restored.

Yes, Udall has sponsored a bill to thin near mountain communities. That is a half measure intended to protect him from criticism should there be the large scale property loss that would accompany a fire near one of those communities. He was careful to assure the environmentalist left that the thinning would be very limited.

Now, his allies at Colorado Confidential are reporting that forest fires release large amounts of mercury into the atmosphere:

"The mercury in the forest is not harming anything,. But when a fire releases it from the vegetation and the soils, it comes down again, precipitated in rain or snow, where it may end up in a body of water. There it gets converted in methyl mercury. That's what we're concerned about. The more fires we have, the more mercury will end up in the waterways," [ NCAR scientist Hans Friedli ] says."

This is one more argument for forest thinning. It demonstrates once again that the Sierra Club, Mark Udall, and the rest of the environmentalist left can't seem to think the policies they want to impose on the rest of us all of the way, or even part of the way through.

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Writing One's Congressman

It turns out that Rossputin lives in Boulder and so took Mark Udall up on his suggestion that Ross write his Congressman about SCHIP. Well, almost:
Dear Congressman Udall,

On Thursday, I urge you to vote to sustain President Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program bill. This veto helps protect the best, if not perfect, health care system in the world...

If even auto workers realize that socialism is doomed to failure, it's hard to imagine why anyone else should still support it.

I urge you to stand up for liberty, for quality health care, for the right of people and their doctors to make medical decisions without the interference of Big Nanny government, and vote to sustain President Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion.

Thank you.

Joshua: Follow the Money

Joshua Sharf says that we should just follow the money if we want to determine why Democrats like Mark Udall are so gung-ho about trashing Rush Limbaugh and ensuring that gasoline costs $10 a gallon by the end of the next decade.

OK, he didn't put it quite that way, but what he said was stark enough. He did say:

It explains Governor Ritter's impending sellout of affordable energy in the state. It explains Ken Salazar and Mark Udall - both either holding or running for statewide office - jumping on the chance to lie about Rush Limbaugh's comments on his radio show, and an attempt to corral the power of the Congress into doing the same. (It also explains John Salazar's sponsorship of the Stolen Valor Bill, which according to the Sorosians, addresses a problem that doesn't exist, although it might be embarrassing for Tom Harkin.)

Kos Says It's Not In The Bag

Kos, that paragon of wisdom, now observes that the election in Colorado is not quite the foregone conclusion he had hoped.

Given perceptions of this race, I would've expected Bob Schaffer's fundraising to dry up (as it has for the NRSC). But in fact, he's not trailing that badly.

He then goes on to quote the numbers but fails to note, as so many papers have, that Udall dumped $1.5 million into the race from his Congressional campaign. That means that the fundraising is even closer than he might know, or want to admit.

Thanks Mark

After almost two weeks of criticizing Mark Udall for pretending that the Colorado Rockies were really based in some other state, it would be unfair of us not to note this press release.


Monday, October 15, 2007

Schaffer Reports 3Q Fundraising

A little original reporting from one small corner of Colorado's right-of-center blogosphere: the Bob Schaffer for U.S. Senate campaign is prepared to report 3rd quarter fundraising totals of $802,570. Combined with the $717,047 he raised during the 2nd quarter, Schaffer has compiled $1,519,617 since he began in earnest in May.

The most recent numbers are solid, certainly not stellar - they reflect a slowing of the torrid pace he achieved during the first six weeks of active fundraising. Meanwhile, Schaffer's Democrat rival - Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall - has indicated that his campaign raised more than $1.1 million in the recent quarter.

It seems like a fair assessment to make that the Schaffer campaign is being held back far more by a general Republican donor fatigue than the candidate himself or the mechanics of the campaign. Considering the political climate, Schaffer's revenue totals are pretty good. The more evidence showing the competitiveness of this race and the consistency of the Republican candidate's message, we have every reason to believe that fundraising will pick up the pace again. Schaffer is an excellent candidate worth backing.

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Colorado is Still Conservative

One of the reasons that the Republicans lost their majorities in the House and Senate was that they lost their way on spending. Elections can be bitter medicine.

Now comes Mark Udall and Bill Ritter trying to lobby or pressure the three remaining Colorado Republican representatives into changing their votes on SCHIP so that the President's veto can be overridden. The Rocky Mountain News observes:

The bills now before Congress could bring Colorado approximately $618.3 million in new federal funding for children's health coverage over the next five years, three times the amount the state would have otherwise gotten for SCHIP, according to the Colorado SCHIP Coalition, a coalition of business and health care groups.

The bill would allow families earning up to $80,000/year to go on the federal dole for their children's health care. The President has told congress that he will sign a more modest bill, so why aren't Mark Udall and Bill Ritter urging Democrats to pass a bill that the President can sign? The answer is simple. They don't want a reasonable bill. They want a political issue.

Our guess is that this kind of posturing won't help, and could hurt Mark Udall in the upcoming election. Colorado is still a conservative state.

In The Hands of the Environmentalists

We can all sleep well tonight knowing that Governor Bill Ritter has been meeting privately with climate activists and that we will soon have a 70 point plan. When Ritter ran for Governor, he ran on "the Colorado Promise." He appears to have made a lot of promises that he didn't tell us about.

Keep in mind that no one in the Democrat party, the msm, or the liberal blogosphere has ever claimed that Mark Udall is as "moderate" or "centrist" (if those are the words) as Ritter.

The Denver Post reports:

Scientific projections show Colorado needs a goal at least as aggressive as New Jersey's or California's, said Lisa Dilling, a professor and climate researcher at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

The governor's policy announcement will follow a 70-point plan released last week by three Front Range mayors as part of the Colorado Climate Project.

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Losing Favor

One of our favorite liberal bloggers lost some favor with us today when he suggested that:

we are to a large degree sitting back as the administration take us down the road of totalitarianism.

Unfortunately, he is serious as the next quote demonstrates. This isn't just a little over the top. It is paranoia in need of diagnosis and medication.

Yes I write letters to my congressman, which again matters here as it is Mark Udall and he should be out in front on congress flexing it's muscle rather than hiding in the crowd. But in spite of my sharply worded letters, he remains in the crowd (busily running for Senator). And just how hard should we pressure him since winning the senate seat here is important.

It is nice to know that Mark Udall doesn't share or respond to this guy's paranoia. What is scary is someone can suggest that the country is any where near totalitarianism and expect to be taken seriously. It is illustrative of the condition of today's Democrat party.

"We Love the Soldiers"

Bill Kristol reported on Fox today that Lt Michael Murphy was from Long Island. He also observed that fewer Medals of Honor are awarded than Nobel Peace Prizes but the New York Times, Murphy's local paper, can't be troubled to report on his award. It is full of page after page of reporting on Al Gore.

The "we love the soldiers" line that liberals like Mark Udall are taking is far better than the reception my brother got when he returned from Viet Nam. He flew into San Francisco and couldn't get out of his uniform quickly enough for fear of being spit on.

That bit of personal history aside, the question we have for liberals is a simple one. If you love soldiers, why is it so important for you to attempt to conceal from the public their honorable service to their country?

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Premature Celebrations

It is early for Mark Udall and his gang of environmentalist extremists to get too euphoric over Al Gore's winning the Nobel Peace prize.

Most of the awards funded by the Nobel estate are for hard science. The Peace prize is for politics. No science awards have gone to global warming science, and hell may freeze over (or more relevantly, the Earth may enter another ice age) before they do.

The fact that the political prize, rather than a scientific prize has gone to Al Gore et al. should be enough to bring the whole award process into question. We wonder if a hundred years from now, when better science is available, this award will be seen as an embarrassment.

The Denver Post is flat out wrong when it states:

...the theory that the Earth's climate is growing warmer and that human activity plays a significant role in that warming has gone from an intriguing thesis to an overwhelming scientific consensus.

It would be more accurate to state that a majority of recent peer reviewed science articles do not support the theory that the Post calls "overwhelming scientific consensus." It would also be accurate to note that NASA has been backpedaling on its claims as to which years were the hottest in the 20th century.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Rush Limbaugh's Revenge

Today, Rush announced that he was putting the original copy of the letter signed by 41 Democrats asking Clear Channel to fire him up for sale on ebay. The proceeds are going to a US Marine related charity that funds the education of the children of battle casualties.

Rush invited each of the 41 Senators who signed the letter to match the high bid and donate that amount to the charity to show their support for the troops. We think that he should also have issued a special invitation to Mark Udall to do likewise, given Udall's ill-advised decision to write a resolution condemning something that didn't happen.

Tax Them Out of Colorado

The Pueblo Chieftan observes that Mark Udall's brother is taking a different, but equally effective tack to try to destroy the oil and gas industry in Colorado. He just wants to tax it out of existance, and he is not above twisting facts and figures to make it happen:

Perhaps Colorado could have increased the $132 million it collected in mineral severance taxes in 2005 to $382 million by using Wyoming’s tax system. But it’s doubtful. First of all, energy companies could stop or greatly reduce drilling in Colorado if the tax burden becomes too onerous, meaning less production and less revenue.

Consider, too, that Wyoming levies no - zero, zilch, nada - personal and corporate income tax. Colorado’s state income taxes yield $5.5 billion a year, including nearly $500 million from corporations. Oil and gas revenues are chump change by comparison...

Many environmentalists’ real agenda is to drive oil and gas development out of Colorado entirely, not actually collect more revenue from it. That’s the inconvenient truth.

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Why are Liberals Such Wet Blankets?

Wouldn't it be wonderful if Mark Udall shared our enthusiasm for the Colorado Rockies? It wouldn't take all that much to let the folks back in Colorado know that he cared. Just a press release posted on one of his two web sites would be enough to avoid criticism.

Perhaps Mark Udall has a hatred for baseball night games. Think of the carbon footprint that one creates, what with the travel, the illumination, the high usage of water for urinals and toilets, and so on. Heck, it likely doesn't rival one of Al Gore's global warming rallies by the time one includes the stretch limos and the business jets. What Al Gore does is politically correct while baseball probably isn't.

Anyone ever think about what wet blankets liberals are about life in general and baseball in particular?

Rossputin Comments on the Race

We are wondering if anyone has noticed that the bloggers who are commenting on the Schaffer Udall race are either 1) so far left that you can only see specks on the horizon and almost to a person living out of state who favor Mark Udall; or 2) center-right bloggers with emphasis on the "center" part of that label who live here in Colorado.

There are a very few exceptions, and today, Rossputin takes one of them on.

If the race is Udall's to lose, it is because of the exceptionally bad political environment for Republicans right now, not because he is the better candidate. To the extent that the race hinges on independents (who, by definition, are open to voting for a person in any party), this is good news for Bob Schaffer. Udall's camp does not want to appear over-confident in part out of political strategy but also because there's no reason they should be highly confident.

Face the State's Take on the Post Article

On Monday, we commented on the Denver Post's analysis of the Bob Schaffer - Mark Udall race. We thought the title was way off base and that the report was essentially sound. We should have also shined a light on the first paragraph, which is definitely not sound. Below is a part of what Face the State says.

The report, written by Karen Crummy, began with the following lead: “He served nine years in the state legislature, three terms in Congress and is now a member of the State Board of Education. Yet, Bob Schaffer can't get any respect.”

But according to Wadhams, Schaffer is already getting strong support from power brokers and party insiders, including the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the state party. “He is our de facto nominee and next year after the primary election, he will be our official candidate. This is a huge advantage allowing him to get ready for [ Mark ] Udall.”

This makes one wonder why Karen Crummy didn't bother to check her hypothesis with Dick Wadhams or name names of Republicans who don't support or respect Schaffer. We know that she and the Denver Post can do better than this.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Doug Lamborn on HASC

Last week, Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis, (R) VA passed away, leaving a vacancy on the House Armed Services Committee. Doug Lamborn has been taking some artificial heat in the 5th CD because he didn't immediately get a slot on that committee. About two months ago, he did get a letter from the leadership promising him a seat at the next vacancy.

He was seated on that committee this morning, but apparently was in no hurry to make an announcement out of courtesy to Congresswoman Davis' family. That is commendable circumspection.

Mark Udall, who also serves on that committee, did do a polite press release. We haven't seen it, but The Gazette mentions it tonight.

We usually give Mark Udall a hard time because he almost always deserves it. Not tonight. We think he did the citizens of Colorado a favor that Doug Lamborn wasn't in a position to do. Nice Going, Congressman Udall.

And for those who are interested, someone appended Lamborn's subsequent press release to the comment section of this blog entry.

El Paso County Dems "Thrilled"

The EPC Democratic Party is thrilled to announce that Congressman Mark Udall will be the keynote speaker at the El Paso County Democratic Party fall fundraiser.

With such a high profile speaker as the almost certain winner of the contest with Bob Schaffer, one would think that they could charge more than $60/seat and hold it in a prominent place like, say, the Broadmoor.

Nope. If we're not mistaken, they are holding it in a very old, but refurbished motel with a pretentious name for it's meeting room: "The Paragon Royal Bathroom"

More on the Rush Limbaugh Smear

Mark Udall knowingly and maliciously participated in a smear of Rush Limbaugh in the halls of Congress. Brent Bozell III has take down on the smear, noting that still more "stolen valor" cases are being prosecuted and that 60 are being investigated by the VA. Bozell ends his essay with these words:

Rush has beaten them all back now. In fact, as with the Petraeus/"Betray Us" attacks by MoveOn, this newest round of attempted character assassination backfired and did nothing but re-energize conservatives.

But this won't stop the left. Tomorrow it will be Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin, or maybe Laura Ingraham. This group plays for keeps.

And what of all those media outlets giving aid and comfort to the leftists who attacked Rush? Now that we know there are several dozen cases of "phony soldier" scandals, just as Rush suggested, how many stories have they devoted to them, thus vindicating Rush? Check for a Jesse Macbeth story in a Nexis database search on CBS, NBC and NPR. Search Time and Newsweek. Look up The Washington Post, The New York Times and USA Today.

You won't find a one.

Tuesday, October 9, 2007

Mark Udall to Co-Sponsor This Too?

Mark Udall, as we have pointed out before, co-sponsored a bill to create a US Department of Peace written by the loon in the attic whose name David Sirota claims no one in Colorado knows.

It turns out that a couple of folks want to put the recommendation to establish a US Department of Peace in the Colorado Constitution.

Make no mistake. We would think for a second or two about signing the petition to get this on the ballot. It wouldn't pass, and even if it did, it would be meaningless. Think of the spotlight it will turn on Udall. It can only help to illuminate Mark Udall's unfitness for office. Maybe the loon in the attic will get some Colorado name recognition, too, just in time for the National Democrats to show up.

The reason we would only think for a second or two is that if this makes the ballot, it will give the folks who want to destroy the initiative process more ammunition.

Not to put a bug in anyone's ear, but the Green Party could attend a Mark Udall Town Hall meeting and publicly ask him to sign this. We would be more than happy to report on the outcome.

Where's the Beef?

One of the few ways that deployed military members can keep in touch with what is going on at home is Armed Forces Radio and Television. By law, it has no commercials. You don't really realize how important an information source commercials can be until you have lived for three years without seeing a single one.

I served in Germany from 1981-1984. Those of you who recall the 1984 election might remember that Walter Mondale was being asked by his competitors for the nomination "Where's the Beef?" Overseas, we got to see clips of that, but without having seen the Wendy's commercials it was based on, the challenge to Mondale was totally lacking in context. Finally, someone got smart and ran the commercials as part of a special "news" program, so the digs started making sense.

Today's soldiers are luckier than we were. For one hour a day, five days a week, Rush Limbaugh provides context to the day's events. Liberals like Mark Udall may not like the context that Rush provides, but the soldiers do.

Today, Rush announced that the liberals are trying to get him taken off the military's airwaves. The next time you see a photo of Mark Udall with a soldier or hear him tell you how much he loves the soldiers, remember that he is working with Ken Salazar to take their connection with home away from them. Let them answer the 1984 question-Where's the Beef?

Highlighting Recent Blog Essays

Sometimes we skip over essays that are written about the race out of lack of time and space. Here are some recent ones that we didn't comment on. Some we may go back to as we have more time.

Face the State Schaffer-Udall Dead Heat Will Likely Benefit GOP

Line of Sight Udall Walks the Plank

The Colorado Index Are Democrats Vulnerable on the Environment?

Slapstick Politics Schaffer And Udall Tied In Senate Poll

Mount Virtus Schaffer v Udall Dead Heat Unsurprising: Cause for GOP Hope

The Colorado Index Pointing the Finger of Blame the Other Way

Monday, October 8, 2007

Good Analysis, Really Sloppy Title

Today, the Denver Post did a reasonably fair analysis of the Schaffer v Udall race. It's title writers got a bit carried away, as frequently happens with that paper. They titled the article GOP's Schaffer faces doubters in Senate race. Out of 25 paragraphs, only one suggested that there were doubters, and that paragraph can be discounted because it didn't name names:

And a number of Republicans, including some well-heeled donors and power brokers, are exhibiting a significant lack of enthusiasm, and some are still hoping another Republican front-runner emerges.

A more accurate title might have been "Colorado Can Look Forward To A Hard Fought Senate Race." That is what the other 24 paragraphs are saying.

It is clear that Eric Sondermann doesn't read this blog or he wouldn't sound so out of touch when he says:

While he predicted a tough and competitive race, Sondermann said that Schaffer's biggest challenge may be convincing voters he is a moderate because many perceive him as a social conservative.

"There is somewhat more confidence in Udall's political ability and malleability and willingness to get to the middle," Sondermann said. "Schaffer may have a harder time moving there, coming from an ideological place."

Mark Udall embraced the Boulder Liberal label himself last week. In addition, his liberal blogging friends and the msm routinely refer to him as a "liberal," "reliably left wing," or "extremist."

Lamborn Rebukes Udall

Doug Lamborn issued a well deserved rebuke to Mark Udall and Ken Salazar on the House Floor without mentioning them by name.

“I rise today to denounce the liberals' fraudulent attacks on Rush Limbaugh,’’ Lamborn said. “Anyone who reads the widely available transcript, as I have done, sees that Mr. Limbaugh was appropriately referring to the pretenders who pose as medal winners, or who falsely claim to have committed atrocities in Iraq, when he used the phrase "phony soldiers."

Should Obama Wear a Flag Lapel Pin?

More to the point, should Barak Obama be considered a serious Presidential candidate if he announces that he will no longer wear the American Flag lapel pin? That is the question Bob Beauprez is asking at his blog this morning:

However, for someone who covets being the next Commander-in-Chief to intentionally remove the flag from his lapel can only be interpreted for what it is. It is impossible to somehow respect and honor the troops while being ashamed of the symbol of all they represent and defend.

Isn't that something someone named Osama, rather than someone named Obama ought to be doing?

Bob adds:

It would seem that in Obama’s disrespect of the flag and the troops, [ Ken ] Salazar and [ Mark ] Udall could actually find a reason to be outraged. A Line of Sight expects only silence and continued political hypocrisy.

Sunday, October 7, 2007

The History of Propaganda: Still Being Written

The Brown Pelican Society provides a thumbnail guide to the history of propaganda and examines its modern usage by the left in America. Mark Udall gets a one liner because of his participation in the Big Lie targeting Rush Limbaugh.

We found the following two paragraphs most interesting:

There is an old maxim that if one repeats a lie often and loud enough, it will eventually be perceived as the truth.

Adolf Hitler defined that dictum in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf, writing that a big lie must be so “colossal” that the public would be confident that no national leaders “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”

There has been a post WWII taboo, enforced by the Anti-Defamation League, against comparing modern activities with those of Nazi's. They fear that doing so will eventually devalue what the Nazis did.

Brown Pelican is careful to stick to history and allow the reader to draw his own conclusions about the activities of organizations like media matters.

Even so, the left has become so brazen about telling outright lies in an effort to silence conservative speech that they will eventually risk seeing themselves and their financial angels directly compared to Joseph Goebbels. We are being careful to say that we are not there yet, but each day the left seems willing to push the envelope farther in that direction. Eventually, the taboo dam will break as it should if the society is to remain free of demagoguery.

A demagogue is defined by the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition as: "A politician who seeks to win and hold office by appeals to mass prejudice. Demagogues often use lies and distortion. (See Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin.)"

On this one issue, where he was inciting prejudice against Rush Limbaugh using a lie and distortion in the hope that it would help him win an office, Mark Udall's actions clearly identify him as a willing demagogue.

Udall Applies "Boulder Liberal" Label To Himself

Could this be more clear?

Said [ Mark ] Udall, who lives in Eldorado Springs: “It’s wonderful to be home.” He said Boulder County is “home base for me. This is the touchstone; this is where I take my inspiration.”

Saturday, October 6, 2007

News Mark Udall Can't Use

Mark Udall and his fellow "peace" Democrats don't really want peace. They want the United States to lose in Iraq.

It isn't good news for them or Mark Udall when the editor of a paper in a Colorado Democrat stronghold writes something like this:

Back in Iraq, Mr. Bull notes that American troops have shown enormous skill and bravery in helping the Iraqis fight their real enemies, and enormous goodwill in sending our young men to protect Iraqi schools, mosques and polling booths. The reason we and the Iraqis are beginning to win this war together is that its purpose is to give Iraqis what they want...

We have stuck it out, and we are slowly but surely liberating Iraq from the clutches of death and mayhem.

Pulling for the Rockies

Or Not.

As this is written, the third game starts in 20 minutes. If we were running for a state wide office, we think we would have the sense to be publicly rooting for the Rockies. It would offend few and win many friends.

It appears that Mark Udall is pulling for the Phillies, or Diamondbacks, or perhaps even the Yankees. It is clear that he couldn't give a hoot about the Rockies. Look to your right to click on Udall's official and campaign web sites to see for yourself.

Since he won't say it, we will say it for him:

Go Rockies!

Friday, October 5, 2007

Nobody Knows About the Loon in the Attic

Today, David Sirota made the "nobody knows about the loon in the attic" argument when writing about a Mike Saccone blog entry.

Notice, his first reaction is the guilt-by-association move, pointing out that the bill Udall is pushing is supported by - gasp! - Dennis Kucinich. He seems to imply that this is some sort of political taboo - even though most people in Colorado have absolutely no idea who Dennis Kucinich is. And, of course, by Saccone's logic, any bill that Udall and Kucinich both voted for is some proof that Udall's politics are exactly Kucinich's politics. What a silly assertion.

It isn't just that they vote for the same bills. They co-sponsor each other's flaky bills. Take the bill that Kucinich wrote to establish a cabinet level Department of Peace, complete with a Peace Academy. Yes, it is wonderful idealism, but we can't afford idealists in Congress during a time when people are willing to fly airplanes into tall buildings or nuclear reactors. We had a lot of fun making fun of the concept.

Like this latest Mark Udall resolution, that bill didn't have all that many co-sponsors, but one of them was the Congressman from Colorado's second district. Even if a lot of Coloradoans don't know the identity of the loon in the attic, it isn't likely that it will remain a state secret in an environment where both candidates have millions of dollars to work with.

Sirota's next argument shows his contempt for those of us who have lived in Colorado more than the six months he has been here. Recall that he is writing about a Grand Junction blog and says about one of the most prominent politicians in that area, and one of the three or four most prominent Republicans in the state senate:

But what I find even more short-sighted is Saccone's obsessive focus on how Udall's resolution supposedly allows people like Josh Penry - again, a person who most Coloradoans have never heard of - to call Udall a "Boulder liberal.

Readers of this blog know that no Republican need call Udall a Boulder liberal. The msm and left wing blogs are doing it for them. Let them quote the scoreboard we keep. That's why we keep it.

Then Sirota says something astounding:

Any objective look at Rocky Mountain politics over the last few years has shown that these charges - whether they are "Boulder liberal!" or "Missoula liberal!" - are failing miserably. They just aren't sticking any more. That's not to say that Democrats shouldn't be wary of the brand, but the concept that these attacks are powerful vote-shifters is absurd.

If Bill Ritter and Ken Salizar had run as the liberals they have turned out to be, it is unlikely that they would have won. They ran wearing "moderate" burkhas and only dropped them after they were elected. One of the reasons we are keeping our scoreboard is to keep everyone honest.

Dennis Kucinich isn't the only loon in the attic, it would seem.

More Wisdom From The West

Mike Saccone of the Grand Junction Sentinel is having a war of words with the lefties. He comments:

So why is criticizing conservative talking head Rush Limbaugh a bad tactic ahead of the 2008 election? … In a nutshell: it does nothing to burnish Udall’s moderate credentials. Indeed, allying oneself with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, on a resolution that will have no binding effect is, well, kind of a nonstarter. Sure it’s a principled stance, but it’s nothing more than that.

More importantly, it lets politicos, from Schaffer to state Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, stand back and lob the “Boulder liberal” label * at Udall...

Nonetheless, it’s a political stance and an electoral risk [Mark ] Udall did not have to take.

This is the second Saccone essay on the subject. He got beat up by the local liberals and David Sirota on the first one. We like short essays, so we will take on Sirota (the commentator, who according to a gang of four colleague, grabs attention by standing on one foot and spinning. Picture him in a pink tutu with fuzzy yellow bedroom slippers.) in another post.

*Note that we normally kill links embedded in quotes, but the Saccone link was so full of wisdom that we left it in. (Yes, we are laughing as this is being written.)

Udall's Resolution Folly Bound to Hurt Him on Western Slope

In light of the justifiably stern rebuke Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall received from the Grand Junction Sentinel yesterday, this nugget of information on Colorado's recent U.S. Senate race poll numbers doesn't bode well for Udall's performance on the Western Slope:
According to the poll results, 39 percent of Western Slope voters prefer Schaffer, and 27 percent support Udall. Twenty-six percent of Western Slope voters, the poll shows, are undecided.

Already 12 points behind, since the survey was conducted before Udall's anti-Limbaugh resolution folly, the Democrat's numbers on the far side of the state only figure to push him even further behind. That 27 percent figure may recede, while independent conservative Republican Bob Schaffer could very well pick up more support from the large crop of undecideds.

Old News, But Still News

Last month, Bill Ritter and Mark Udall went to testify to Congress on renewable energy. The Grand Junction Sentinel was so unhappy with Ritter that they have begun calling him "Denver Governor:"

But for the governor of Denver, nuclear power didn’t rate a mention when it came to talking about how Colorado can save the earth.

We note that Mark Udall's name is strangely missing from this article, even though he is a sponsor of an amendment to the bill and he, too, ignored the potential for clean nuclear energy. He not only ignored the potential, he followed his Sierra Club masters like a little puppy on a leash to ensure that nuclear energy would not be counted as clean energy.

Udall Fans To Be Disappointed

A long time New Mexico political reporter/blogger is reporting that Tom Udall will be giving the NM Senate race a pass.

If you want to read good political reporting, read the whole post. It is quite long.

It does make one mistake. We would guess Colorado political news passes slowly across the border:

For Udall, who recently assumed a position on the House Appropriations Committee, the politicos said the decision was wise. His importance to the NM Congressional delegation has grown with his new House assignment and a statewide senate run would have been brutal for the liberal lawmaker. However, he will probably still be a frequent visitor to the Senate side of the Capitol come 2009. Tom's cousin, Mark Udall, is heavily favored to capture a Colorado senate seat next year.

Last poll we heard about, Mark Udall's "lead" was one percent in a poll with a 4.4% margin of error.

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Planning For This Moment...

CQPolitics reports:

Democratic Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado said his cousin, Tom Udall, has “been planning for this moment,” but noted that [ Bill ] Richardson remains a key player in the process. Udall was not expected to announce anything Thursday.

New Poll Results

The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that the race is a dead heat between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall.

According to Ciruli's poll, Udall has 36 percent of voter support and Schaffer 35 percent, with 9 percent hoping someone else will join the race and 21 percent undecided.

Of course, the Rocky got comments from both camps, with the most interesting comment from the Mark Udall camp:

Mike Melanson, Udall's campaign manager, said Schaffer is having trouble with his Republican base because he opposed Referendum C, a measure approved by voters to shore up the state budget and had support from many Republicans, including business leaders.

We suspect that this is wishful thinking. This writer voted for Refs C and D and has come to regret it. It passed with 52%, which isn't a big margin. If C and D were up again, and they may well be in 2010, it isn't certain that either would pass. Further, if Bill Ritter hooks his star to tax increases, as he seems to be doing, it isn't certain that he would win reelection.

A Day Late, A Dollar Short

Yesterday, we pointed out that the active military wasn't at all upset about Rush Limbaugh's comments.

Really? Jim ought to ask the average man or woman in uniform before he throws more fodder into the big blue lie machine. Rush Limbaugh's program plays on Armed Forces Radio. If there was any feeling among the military itself that Rush was disrespectful of the military, the military would be taking action to replace him.

It's nice to see that we have an audience that acts on our observations. Today PeakDems tried to gin up a response. There isn't a lot of point in following that link unless you need the KVOR Advertising Sales Manager's name, email, and phone number. A not so subtle threat, we would guess.

All you phony soldiers in Colorado Springs should contact KVOR about Rush

One of their "fans" wrote a response:

Gee, I didn't know that there was anyone in Colorado Springs who washed out of boot camp after 44 days, and then went around claiming to be an Army Ranger ordered to commit atrocities in order to gin up opposition to the war based on total lies.

And here, Mike, you have always bitched and whined and complained about Mr. Bush supposedly lying to get us INTO the war, now you're doing nothing but repeating total bullshit in an obviously bogus attempt to get us out. Have you no shame?

The funny thing isn't the response, though that is funny. It is that the fine folks at the El Paso Democrat Party (I hope I have that right) wouldn't think to start trying to organize a response from "soldiers" until we pointed out that there hadn't been one. They aren't a day late. They are a week late.

The reason they are a dollar short is that they threw it into the big blue lie machine and Tim Gill hasn't replaced it yet. Not to worry. He will.

The first three notes just happen to be: do re mi

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 19
moderate 0
conservative (not in this lifetime)

It was incremented today when the Grand Junction Sentinel made the following comment:

It’s curious that Udall, a certified liberal who is seeking statewide office in a state that does not always vote in a certifiably liberal fashion, has bought into a phony attack on Limbaugh propagated by Media Matters, the liberal Internet group. Even after reading the transcript of Limbaugh’s Sept. 26 show posted on Media Matters’ Web site, it takes a considerable stretch to conclude Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment referred to military personnel who merely favor a speedy U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm was routinely calling Mark Udall a "liberal," "reliably left wing," and even "extremist." We do not count comments from conservative blogs and we didn't count a comment on a liberal show by a conservative politician. Those who would like to check our methodology can follow the bread crumbs backwards.

And yes, we know that we linked to the same article on two sequential posts, but each post had a different purpose.

Wisdom from Grand Junction

Wisdom from Grand Junction:

Although one might presume that they would know better, that hasn’t kept two Democrats [ Mark Udall and Ken Salazar ] who represent Colorado from joining the braying pack led by the hard-left loonies at alleging that Limbaugh has impugned the character of American servicemen with his reference last week to “phony soldiers.”

ProgressNow Attacks to Distract Attention from Udall's Attacks

How foolish, embarrassed, obsessed, outrageous, and "phony" does Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall look for his time-wasting resolution against Rush Limbaugh? How bad is this self-inflicted political wound?

It's so bad, that the Rocky Mountain News reports today an effort by Udall's Left-wing surrogates at ProgressNow to rehash tired and discredited charges against Udall's Republican opponent, Bob Schaffer.

Writes the Rocky:
On Wednesday, Schaffer said the contributor was not himself a party to the case before the board. Schaffer dismissed the allegation as an attack by Democrats on his support for school choice.

[ProgressNow leader Michael] Huttner, a lawyer who teaches at the University of Denver Law School, agreed that Schaffer did not violate Colorado's campaign finance law. But Schaffer's vote is still a conflict of interest that should be illegal, he said. "It's a loophole in the law," Huttner said.

Schaffer took contributions from David Brennan for his 2004 Senate race and again this year for his 2008 run. Brennan heads White Hat Management, which runs charter schools.

Huttner said he'll present a petition this morning calling for Schaffer to return the contributions or resign.

Even ProgressNow knows there is nothing to the controversy. They're just doing the best to take the media scrutiny off Udall for his foolish, embarrassing, self-obsessed, and phony attack on Limbaugh.

What's ironic is that neither Udall's time-wasting resolution nor Huttner's media-clamoring demand is grounded in reality. But when has the truth slowed down the Left's attacks before?

Wednesday, October 3, 2007

Udall for Senate???

The WSJ reports:

New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici said he will step down from Congress after six terms next year and not seek re-election...

Even before Domenici’s decision, Democrats have been pressing Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico to consider a run. If he should decide to do so, he would be joining a 2008 Senate field in which his cousin, Colorado Rep. Mark Udall, already is running for the Senate next door.

Jim Spencer's Curious Quote

Today, Jim Spencer made a curious comment:

Still, I'm glad Udall called out Limbaugh. Limbaugh's disrespect for the military is every bit as bad as MoveOn's.

Really? Jim ought to ask the average man or woman in uniform before he throws more fodder into the big blue lie machine. Rush Limbaugh's program plays on Armed Forces Radio. If there was any feeling among the military itself that Rush was disrespectful of the military, the military would be taking action to replace him.

Further, embedded reporters in Iraq would have long ago filed stories about the discontent in the ranks over the comments. Most embedded reporters are liberals and would love to push any theme that damages Rush Limbaugh. There hasn't been a single story about soldier discontent, which suggests that the military down to the individual soldier has great respect for Rush and knows that he has great respect for them.

Spencer is right about one thing, though.

well, you got yourself a re-election campaign issue.

My guess, as a Retired Army Officer, is that Udall has handed Republicans in Colorado a campaign issue. I would be very disappointed if they didn't use it to beat Mark Udall bloody among veterans and military voters and their families. Most of us see through this stunt.

A Letter to the Editor of the Denver Post

An Aurora man took Mark Udall to task today in the Denver Post for his resolution.

The Udall apologists were immediately all over him, including a claim that Limbaugh "doctored his tape."

Could Limbaugh or anyone "doctor" a tape? Not likely considering the number of tape copies that must exist. For example, the show in Denver is broadcast two hours later than the same show is broadcast in Colorado Springs.

The next guy admits that Limbaugh put his comments in context within two minutes.

It wasn’t until two minutes later, after lots of shuffling in the background–presumably when Rush or one of his staffers realized his gaffe, that Rush mentioned Jesse Macbeth and provided the “context” you refer to well after the fact.

One wonders what period...20 seconds...2 seconds...would have satisfied this guy, or Mark Udall for that matter. A reasonable man would think that nothing would have satisfied either.

Udall's "Self-Righteous Obsession"

Add "self-righteous obsession" to the list of descriptions of Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's resolution to condemn radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh. Other descriptions from across the political spectrum include "bottom-of-the-barrel desperation" and "charade" and "embarrassment."

Udall and the Rockies

Did anyone else notice that Mark Udall has said nothing about the Rockies win on Monday night? The game was being played at the same time that he and his staff were feeding the big blue lie machine with his Rush Limbaugh resolution, so apparently he was too preoccupied to notice.

On Tuesday, he wouldn't have wanted to step all over his message with something so mundane as a comment about the Rockies win. He was too busy being the Representative from

Maybe today?

Tuesday, October 2, 2007

Whistling a Happy Tune

The Political Realm says about Mark Udall:

The race will present a contrast for Colorado voters, will both campaigns gearing up to portray the other as too extreme. Democrats have had recent success in the state, but with more moderate candidates. If Udall is able to define his own candidacy and record, he should be in good shape.

That qualifies as calling Udall a liberal. Mark Udall, (D), hasn't even tried to define himself as anything but a flaming liberal. His allies on the left and in the msm always call him "liberal," "reliably left wing" or, occasionally "extremist." It has happened so often that we have a scoreboard that never includes conservative blogs as sources for labeling Udall. People who want to check our methodology are welcome to follow the bread crumbs backwards.

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 18
moderate 0
conservative (no one would believe it)

Udall Claims Limbaugh Resolution Not Partisan

Senate hopeful Mark Udall's claim that his resolution bears no partisan intentions and is a meaningful use of Congress' time rings hollow:
Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to advance a partisan message with this resolution. Nor is it my intention that Congress waste time and effort in exposing partisan hypocrisy, however tempting that goal may be.

It is my intention, however, to make clear to the men and women serving in uniform, many of whom are risking their lives on foreign soil to defend our civil liberties, that it is not acceptable for anyone to accuse them of being "phony" or false patriots because their political views may differ from those of their commander-in-chief.
Not even his supposed MoveOn cronies buy what Udall's shoveling.

So, Who Does Hillary Represent?

If Mark Udall represents as Eric Sondermann suggested yesterday, What does Hillary represent?

Newsbusters has the answer and an audio tape:

We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.

So, from now on, it will be Senator Hillary Clinton, (D) Media Matters.

Official Text of Udall's Resolution

The official text of the Mark Udall, (D), resolution against Rush Limbaugh appears on the Library of Congress site.

The list of original co-sponsors is also at that site. He couldn't even get Diana DeGette to sign on, which shows just how far out this resolution is ("where the buses don't run" as Brit Hume said about on Sunday).

Not surprisingly, Mark Udall's ally in trying to establish a department of peace in the President's cabinet (no kidding), Dennis Kucinich, is on the list.

Mark Udall Update: Resolution Introduced Late Monday Night

Looks like Mark Udall finally followed through on his promise to introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh:
U.S. Rep. Mark Udall offered legislation Monday condemning talk-show host Rush Limbaugh for remarks he made about "phony soldiers."

"Congress should make clear that Mr. Limbaugh's use of the term 'phony soldiers' is beneath contempt," Udall said.
. . .
Udall's resolution, introduced Monday night, says that Congress condemns "the personal attacks made by the broadcaster Rush impugning the integrity and professionalism of Americans serving in the Armed Forces."

There were 19 co-sponsors Monday night. None were from Colorado.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked other senators to sign a letter of censure.
This will make a nice campaign ad next year, as Udall's attempt to placate his left flank by politicizing the military in a cheap use of a phony smear only reveals his truly immoderate positions.

The only thing "beneath contempt" is the political grandstanding by Udall and other Democrats based on a debunked "scandal".

As pointed out over at Schaffer v Udall, is the would-be Senator simply groveling to the MoveOn crowd and throwing them a bone--and thus moving further to the left and out of Ken Salazar and Bill Ritter's "middle-of-the-road" moderate Democrat positioning, while not actually enjoying any accolades (indeed being criticized and opposed for his "meaningless resolution") from his supposed supporters?

More at Slapstick Politics, including earlier pre-resolution analysis.