Laughing at the Left

Colorado Confidential's Cara DeGette is publicly gnashing her teeth over the fact that Bob Schaffer doesn't have a web site with much on it.

We hope he puts off building one for many more months. The only folks who would look at it this early are the Cara Degette's of the world who wouldn't have a lot of nice things to say.

Michelle Malkin Writes About Mark Udall's Blunder

Rush Limbaugh, phony soldiers, and the Left’s desperate need for its own “Betray Us” moment

Asks [ ABC News' Brian ] Maloney: “Given the overwhelming evidence to support Limbaugh’s contention that he really was talking about phony soldiers who have faked their service, how does the left justify continuing this fabrication?”

Conservatives Salivating

Newsbusters can't wait for Mark Udall to introduce his resolution. They think it will turn into one long Democrat embarrassment:

Conservatives should hope this resolution is offered by the Democrats, for it would give us a tremendous opportunity to expose the Clinton/Soros/Media Matters/Center for American Progress apparatus. This is especially opportunistic for the press will be all over this debate on the House floor like white on rice given the man in the middle.

Just imagine the theatrical potential of Republican after Republican citing the specifics of how this smear campaign occurred, while entering into the Congressional record the actual tapes of the broadcast in question, as well as the verbatim transcript...

Next, said Republicans could point out that Congress just last year passed the Stolen Valor Act to address a number of abuses of so-called "phony soldiers."

Maybe even more delicious, the person who introduced this legislation in 2005 is a member of Udall's Colorado delegation, Democrat Rep. John T. Salazar.

Wouldn't that be a marvelous debate to be in attendance for?

Life will get entertaining beginning tomorrow.

Just a Charade

A long time ago we learned that the more links one puts in an essay the less likely the audience is to follow any of them. That is not a criticism. It is just a fact.

Last night, Ben DeGrow pointed out the outstanding essay by El Presidente. When we went to it, we saw a lot of links. Fortunately we chose to start following them. They demonstrate that Mark Udall will not just be a fool who is unwittingly politicizing the military when he submits his resolution tomorrow. He will knowingly be making himself a part of the big blue lie machine. That may help him with the MoveOn.org crowd, but it is hard to see how getting involved in this attempt to damage Rush Limbaugh through the use of misquotes will help him with the electorate.

By leading this little charade, Mark Udall will be publicly making a mockery of his own ethics standards, such as they are.

Colorado Anti-War Left Blogger: Udall "An Embarrassment"

I'm not sure where this description would fit into a watcher's "Udall is not a moderate scorecard" ... but one anti-war blogger on the Colorado Left has dubbed Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall "an embarrassment":

I mean really ... Udall (and Perlmutter and Salazar) couldn't even screw up enough courage to vote against the MoveOn.org condemnation, but now Udall is introducing a mirror image proposal so the Dimocrats can play 'gottcha' with the Republicans?

For further understanding of Udall's folly, check out the commentary on The Colorado Index and Slapstick Politics for more details.

On Calling Mark Udall a Fool

Earlier this morning we thought long and hard about the advisability of calling Mark Udall a fool on thecoloradoindex. We have been the biggest advocates for a civil discourse in this campaign and didn't want to be seen as hypocritical.

We think that this one time, it is appropriate to illustrate that Mark Udall's attempt to score a political point is foolish, More than foolish, it is dangerous to our democracy in a way that he and his staff should have seen.

When a politician does something as dumb as encouraging the military to politicize itself, we think he deserves to be called a fool. The founders, especially including George Washington, would call him a fool. Why should we avoid calling him a fool except out of an exaggerated and unwise sense of civility?

Now, if only we could get the blogger who called Bob Schaffer "a jackass" in a one paragraph entry yesterday to take the time to justify his use of that term, we couldn't call Mark Udall's supporters uncivil. Since he made no attempt to justify his words, we can, and we will call Mark Udall's supporters uncivil.

Digging Two Graves

Things will get interesting next week. It seems that Mark Udall has put the word out that he is going to introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for using the term "phony soldiers." It looks more like an act of revenge for having been "forced" to vote for a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's "betray us" ad than well thought out policy.

There is a saying about revenge: "Dig two graves." Just by floating it, Mark Udall might have dug his own political grave:

SECTION 1. Congress makes the following findings:
(3) Those who serve in the Armed Forces do not relinquish their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding public policy in a manner consistent with good order and discipline.
SEC. 2. Congress --
(2) commits to judge the merits of the opinions of members of the Armed Forces regarding the policies of the United States, including those related to military actions in Iraq, without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;

This resolution, if it were passed, would remove an important democratic safety net and politicize the military. The founders feared a politicized military. George Washington put down a near coup by the Continental Army with a single speech at Newburgh, NY. That coup was being promoted by a few members of the Continental Congress who wanted a stronger central government.

The founders understood that a military that is free to criticize the government publicly (or privately) can be a danger to our democracy. Officers who have a disagreement with the political establishment have always before been required to retire or resign before expressing that disagreement.

This resolution would destroy the concept of an apolitical military, and do so with the blessings and encouragement of Congress.

This resolution won't make Rush Limbaugh the subject of any discussion. It's implications are so grave and so dangerous that it calls Mark Udall's competence and judgement to serve in Congress into serious question. That will be the subject of the discussion, and it will be a fair discussion.

The Onion Takes On Mark Udall

From the Onion:

"Now, I'm no science major, but if I'm being told by a group of people that the protons, neutrons, and electrons need unifying, then I think we owe it to the American people to go in and unify them," Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) said. "After all, isn't a message of unity what we want to send to our children?"

Fire on Pikes Peak

It looks like Mark Udall can claim his own carbon footprint in El Paso County. We have a fire on Pikes Peak today. He needs to hope that it gets put out before it gets really ugly.

Fisking the Aspen Times Letter

The folks at Drum and Cannon pounded the writer of the letter to the Aspen Times in an essay titled "Regarding a Liberal's Letter to the Aspen Times."

The essay isn't separately linkable, so go to Drum and Cannon and look for it.

Politics Can Be Fun

The Denver Post demonstrates that once elections are over, our Colorado Congressional delegation can be good natured, about coffee and donuts, anyway.

Why We Are Different

One of the obligations of a blog or blogger who wants to be taken seriously is to admit mistakes without being asked. A few days ago, we had a link to the Aspen Daily News go bad. We assumed, incorrectly, it now seems, that it was done maliciously.

It turns out that the newspaper has a routine practice of moving items to its archives and assigning a new url. One of the essays on the subject was "Liberals are Dumb as Dirt, Sometimes." That title seems doubly appropriate in this internet age. What if everyone changed url's quickly after publishing them the first time? Google would either double in value or go broke, and we're not sure which.

Note that ProgressNowAction, aka PlagiarismNowAction and Colorado Media Matters would never consider publishing something like this. Does that make us better than them? Maybe not, but it makes us different.

The Left's Intensifying Tug-of-War over Udall's Political Drift

The battle is on within the Colorado Left. Last Friday, the Dead Governors called a poll showing a three-way race for the U.S. Senate "mythical." Counting on recent voting patterns, they try to ward off the strong pressure from the Left that their anointed candidate Mark Udall has started to feel as he abandons his Boulder liberal roots to run for the center of the political spectrum. There is no Green Party threat, they say:

That's all well and good for Schaffer, but no third party candidate received more than 1% of the vote in the 2006 gubernatorial race or the 2004 Senate race. Even the most well-known and well-funded Green Party candidate in recent history, Ralph Nader, managed just 5% of the vote in Colorado when he ran for President in 2000. Touting this three person poll is beyond ridiculous, because a Green Party candidate in Colorado will be lucky to get 2% of the vote.

Is this wishful thinking on their part? It well may be. The war in Iraq has changed up the political dynamic, so that relying on figures from as recently as the last 2 election cycles might make the Dead Governors' logic just that: wishful thinking.

A palpable anger is growing among the Nutroots, as witnessed in this post today from the Metro Denver Greens:

Finally, Mark Udall, John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter cast very wimpy votes in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday. They voted to condemn an ad in a newspaper because the radical Republicans scared them into doing so.

Hey, you guys, it should be the job of the Congress to bring our troops home, not legislate free speech.

Of course, you can (and should) question the judgment of sanctioning the slander of an honorable American general. But how long will the seething rage among elements of the Left in Colorado abide Udall abandoning the faith?

Green Party candidate Bob Kinsey may become all the more palatable for more and more disaffected Left-leaning Colorado voters. After all, principles never die. The Denver Metro Greens' site says it well: "Progressive and tired of wimply, spineless Dimocrats? Vote Green!"

Udall Votes To Condemn MoveOn's Petraeus Ad, Nutroots Balks

Moonbat Diana DeGette (D-CD 1) gets mad props for her "guts" (which are easy to have in an impenetrable district). Meanwhile Mark Udall, prepping for his Senatorial run to the middle, has earned the ire of the far left, some of whom are promising to withhold their donations:

I received a fundraising request from Mark Udall today.

America desperately needs leadership that will elevate our public debate and reflect the best that our country has to offer. As my track record as Congressman shows, I'm committed to practical, bipartisan solutions to our most pressing issues:

*Finding a way to responsibly leave Iraq: I opposed this war from the start, and I will exhaust every opportunity to bring this conflict to a close so we can rebuild our army and refocus our national security efforts to more effectively fight terrorism.

Rep. Udall, this vote does not reflect the best our country has to offer. It was a waste of resources.

You say you'll exhaust every opportunity to bring the conflict to a close. Is this vote a part of that effort? Are our forces any closer to redeploying now that you and your fellow Democrats have once again succumbed to the Republicans distraction tactics? No sir, they are not.

I will not send money to your campaign when you vote like this.

Stand up to the obstructionists and distractors, Rep. Udall. Stand up for the people of this country who have overwhelmingly expressed their will that the occupation end. Then, sir, I will gladly donate to your campaign.

Udall's purely symbolic bipartisan efforts--attempting to move him to the "middle" in the minds of independents/unafilliateds--have ticked off his key liberal-left constituency and traditional base.

How to read this? They expect Udall to live up to his Boulder liberal reputation and defend the MoveOn Petraeus ads.

And the band played on

We think we can count this generationbluepac comment on our Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:

While the Democrats have painted Mark Udall as a liberal candidate...

Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 17
moderate 0
conservative (hunger strikers waiting for this to happen will lose a lot of weight)

This scoreboard was started when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were calling Mark Udall a liberal, reliably left wing, and even an extremist. This scoreboard does not include data from any conservative blog and excluded a TV interview of a Republican politician. Those who wish to check its methodology can follow the bread crumbs back.

The funny thing is that it is the Democrats who have painted Mark Udall as a liberal. While someone outside the state occasionally tries to slip in the usual "moving toward the center" canard, most are content, as Mark Udall himself seems content, to leave the label at "liberal" and let the election chips fall where they may.

Smell, Taste, Feel the Bile

PlagiarismNowAction wants the public to know just how much it supports both Mark Udall and the free speech editor at CSU. Probably not office safe. We're not sure who it is safe for. If these guys want to write tasteless stuff, we are more than happy to send brave souls their way so long as their candidates get full credit.

But civility is dead.

Recall, they only have to be right 50% of the time (their standard). What if almost everywhere else, civility were alive? Just a thought.

Liberals are Dumb as Dirt, Sometimes

This afternoon, we observed that the Aspen Daily News had something it wanted to hide. Here it is:

Send'em back to the Potato Farm

Letter to the Editor-

Mon 09/24/2007 11:01AM MST

Editor:

I wonder what part of our Constitution Senator Ken Salazar and other Republicans in drag will defile next. By denouncing MoveOn.org's ad on Gen. Betray-us, Salazar (and the other 20 Dems) show their disregard for our (anybody's) First Admendment right of free speech.

At least Mr. Salazar is consistent with his neo-fascist worldview, with past support of the Military Commissions Act (stripping of Habeas) and warrantless wiretapping.

As with brother John (Salazar) in the House, the bros have shown that they stand for the powers behind war: the military industrial complex, big oil, and the Israeli lobby, and not with we the people.

Can't wait to vote against these Bush enablers and send them back to their San Luis potato farm.

Ben Newell
Aspen

Just last week, Can't See The Center found something in the Google cache that Mark Udall was trying to hide. The word should go out. If you put it up, it can be found. You only look bad for taking it down.

Thanks to BC for the original find, for pointing out that games were being played after our post, and for finding the verbiage that might have otherwise been lost. GREAT JOB! We couldn't have done any of it without you and A.

Have a Nice Aspen Day

Yesterday, we wrote a one sentence blurb called "Fear the Leftist Power Brokers." It linked a letter to the editor in the Aspen paper. We reproduce it here:

Anyone who doesn't understand why Mark Udall doesn't disavow the Moveon.org ad might want to read this letter to the editor of the Aspen Daily News.

The folks in Aspen must have been getting some hits. They have taken down the letter and redirected the link to their front page. If you watch your browser address window as you use the link, you can see the original link and the redirection.

We have a note to the Aspen Daily News editor:

By taking that link down, you expose yourself to questions about your judgement and to speculation that your paper is an untrustworthy news source.

You make the contents of the note newsworthy, and as soon as we can get a copy, we WILL print it in full here. You should know that the cover up is always worse than the crime, and it will always get more attention.

Have a nice Aspen day.

Mark Udall Can Sleep Well

Recall that we always refer to a certain left wing blog as PlagiarismNowAction because it appeared to have lifted whole paragraphs from Wikipedia without giving credit. The author (if you can call someone who appears to have copied the work of others an "author") of that piece now has a celebratory hit piece out on Bob Schaffer.

Before we quote it, recall that the editor of the editorial page of the Denver Post has been quoted as saying that PlagiarismNowAction once wrote that it only had to be right half of the time. They need to flip the coin again because this isn't one of those times when they are right.

With those standards in mind, we quote from Bob Schaffer: boldly full of crap by Alan Franklin:

Stick out your manly chest and just make the stuff up, Bob. Hell yar!

The problem, as Ben DeGrow has effectively documented, is that the folks making the stuff up are Media Matters and PlagiarismNowAction. Benjamin Disraeli observed that there are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics. Media Matters knows how to abuse statistics and works hard to convince its readers that black is white and white is black.

Given his history, we want to give Alan Franklin the benefit of the doubt. We're not sure that he is bright enough to know how badly these statistics are mangled. He is likely just an unwitting, statistically challenged victim of Media Matters. Read his post and determine for yourself if it seems like the product of the brightest bulb in the room.

Mark Udall can sleep well tonight, knowing that these clowns are watching his back.

Fear the Leftist Power Brokers

Anyone who doesn't understand why Mark Udall doesn't disavow the Moveon.org ad might want to read this letter to the editor of the Aspen Daily News.

Whistling Dixie

One of the wonderful things about the left wing blogs is that they copy each other, sometimes word for word. There is a post making the rounds that is going to help us with our "Mark Udall is not a moderate" scoreboard.

It is called "My Fantasy Congress Team." These guys don't even change the title. There is no verbiage, just a list of liberals in congress with titles like "upper senator,"" lower senator," "allstars," and "supporting lineup."

Mark Udall is one of two congressmen in the "supporting lineup." Given that the other members of Congress are all easily identifiable liberals, we are assuming that the writers intend to tag Mark Udall as a liberal. There are two left wing blogs with this post so far, here, and here.

We are incrementing the liberal line by two.

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 16
moderate 0
conservative (belly laugh)

This scoreboard was started when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were calling Mark Udall a liberal, reliably left wing, and even an extremist. This scoreboard does not include data from any conservative blog and excluded a TV interview of a Republican politician. Those who wish to check its methodology can follow the bread crumbs back. .

Sen. Salazar Feels Nutroots' Heat For Not Being A "MoveOn" Democrat

"Kiss Ass Ken"

The 2008 Senate election is still more than a year away, and already the hard left in Colorado are bailing out on "moderate" Sen. Ken Salazar. Originally I considered this off-topic for the Schaffer v Udall blog, but the sentiments expressed are indicative of the type of liberal that the hard-left Democrats seek in a Senate candidate, and the "nutroots" that Mark Udall will have to placate in order to get their votes.

For not being a moron MoveOn Democrat:

Salazar apparently is NOT a MoveOn Democrat.
. . .
bed wetter salazar cowers again
. . .
I feel like Salazar just kicked me in the nuts while I was looking elsewhere and took off like a frightened child.

What a spineless JERK!

What must we do with this sad excuse for a Democrat?
. . .
I would like to remind Sen. Salazar that a majority of Americans (not just liberals) want the troops redeployed from Iraq - the sooner the better. They have expressed this time and time again. When will you and your colleagues hear us and respond appropriately?
. . .
And to think I was actually starting to be bamboozled by his line of bullshit about how he might think about voting to de-fund the war.

Ah well, Senator. What's a few thousand more casualties, when you can enjoy the continued warm fuzzies of "bipartisanship"?

I will not vote for this man again for any office. I will not trust any candidate for President who is ignorant enough to put Salazar on the ticket.
. . .
One more reason to show that "centrism" isn't a principled political position but a strategy: allow other people to set the terms of the debate, then split the difference. Like I've said in other threads, by 2010 when Kiss Ass Ken is up for reelection the real question will be who will do the least damage: (a) a senior senator in the majority party who behaves in a destructive and demoralizing manner (Salazar) or (b) a junior senator from the minority party. At this point I'm thinking (b).

If the moonbats in the "MoveOn" wing of the Democratic Party had any intellectual consistency--or guts, for that matter--they would primary Sen. Salazar in 2010.

Perhaps they could convince one of the Democratic millionaires in the "Gang of Four" to buy another election become their champion.

Originally posted at Slapstick Politics

Words vs Deeds

Since we pointed out that The Gazette called Mark Udall an extremist in two separate opinion pieces, it has avoided naming him in any opinion piece, even when he should be named.

Today, Sean Paige writes about Bill Ritter's trip to Washington this week to promote unreasonable standards for renewable energy. Ritter testified, and so did Mark Udall. In Congress, this is Udall's baby, so it seems unreasonable to leave the man out. We won't.

“If Colorado can do it, so can the rest of the country,” Gov. Bill Ritter told members of Congress on Thursday. But Colorado hasn’t done it, at least not yet, so Ritter was talking through his hat...

He can take credit for endorsing and signing a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this year, which added to the Amendment 37 mandates, in another fit of irrational exuberance. This amounted to doubling down on a long-shot bet.

Whether these even more Draconian standards are achievable, and what they will eventually cost utility ratepayers, won’t become known for years. So Ritter’s statements to Congress were empty boasts...

Ritter’s appearance won’t even slightly influence what Congress does on renewables, of course. It was designed to elevate his national profile and provide a little warm and fuzzy PR for the state. It was a waste of taxpayer money.

The best thing about this opinion piece was a piece of advice for Ritter that should have been directed at Mark Udall. Udall, though, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Your job isn’t to invite more federal meddling in Colorado, but to minimize Washington’s claim on our lives, our paychecks and, now, even our utility bills.

Hey, This Sounds Familiar

This is more in the great minds think alike category. Or, at least small minds, depending on your politics, lol.

Today, the Gazette echoed in more detail our A Lot of Fine Print post.

The point that we and the Gazette make is that Mark Udall and Ed Perlmutter threw any requirement for personal responsibility out the window when they sponsored legislation that bails out the folks who bet their fortunes that they could profit handsomely from the inflation in their McMansions.

The Gazette added value and additional points to our essay:

Is the government only going to intervene on behalf of at risk borrowers, leaving those who have already been foreclosed-upon out in the cold? If such assistance is predicated on the idea that these people are all the hapless victims of unscrupulous lenders, aren’t the already-foreclosed-upon entitled to something, as well? Will government aid be means tested, or also go to the couple earning $200,000 who bought a mansion during the boom times? Couldn’t the creation of this new government safety net actually encourage delinquencies and defaults, once people know Uncle Sam will help them out of the jam? And what unfortunate new precedent might we be setting? Will the government next come to the aid of those who get in over their heads with credit cards?

There was a good rationale for the savings & loan bailout. Decades before that debacle, the government had required savings & loans to provide government insurance on savings accounts. This sub-prime problem has no such rationale. The government has no business rescuing speculators, even those dumb enough to speculate on their own home, from their own greed.

The Poll

Someone at the Colorado Green Party managed to snag the cover letter to the elusive Bob Schaffer poll. Those who want to look at the numbers can go to this pdf document. In big picture terms:

The contest is tight-within the margin of error if there is a Green candidate and just outside it if there is not.
The results follow traditional political lines.
The voters would prefer a generic Democrat, but would also prefer a conservative over a liberal.
Hillary will be a drag, big time.
Schaffer is stronger in his Fort Collins base than Udall is in Boulder.
Three out of five think Udall is a liberal.

That is a set of conclusions that shouldn't give the Mark Udall camp a lot of comfort.

Numbers Don't Lie: Bob Schaffer Far More Independent than Mark Udall

Tying together two posts from yesterday ... First, we highlighted GOP U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer's observation that his apparent opponent, Boulder liberal Democrat Mark Udall, is no "independent outsider." Later, we highlighted Schaffer's strong political independence based on his relatively high number of votes against his party while serving three terms in the U.S. House.

Since Schaffer touted his opponent's strong affinity to the national Democrats' liberal agenda, and the Left-wing "watchdog" group Media Matters made such a big deal that Schaffer cast "more than 80 percent" of his Congressional votes with the Republican party line, it seemed appropriate to extend the comparison. The source is the Washington Post's Congress votes database.

During his three terms in the House, Schaffer cast 534 of his 3,246 (or about 1 in 6) votes against the majority Republican party.

During his four-plus terms in the House, Udall has cast only 424 of his 5,372 (or about 2 in 25) votes against the Democratic party. And most of that time, the Democrats were in the minority.

Why is that important? As the statistics bear out, the majority party has a higher ratio of vote solidarity among its members because it carries the agenda. So, despite the fact that Schaffer spent his entire tenure in the majority and most of Udall's tenure has been spent in the minority, the Boulder liberal has toed the party line much more than his Republican counterpart ever did. Moreover, despite the fact that Schaffer cast more than 2,000 fewer votes during his service, he cast 100 more votes in dissension from his own party than Udall has yet to do.

If the Democrats are in charge, Udall follows the party line much more than Schaffer would with his Republicans in charge (unfortunately, a far less likely scenario in 2009): In the current session with the Democrats in charge, Udall has voted along with Nancy Pelosi and the party agenda 95.3 percent of the time!

Conclusion? Schaffer was right to observe that there is no "independent outsider" running on the Democratic ticket in this race. And Media Matters looks very silly for having made an issue out of the percentage of votes Schaffer cast in line with his own party.

Based on the objective measure of their respective Congressional voting records, Bob Schaffer will be a far more independent Senator for Colorado than Mark Udall would.

Even the NYT is (was) Cornfused

Today the Gazette had a short editorial (scroll to the bottom) on the insane rush to biofuels and mentioned a recent NYT editorial on the subject.

We’ve been warning for a couple years that American politicians need to be enrolled, en masse, in an Ethanolics Anonymous 12-step program, because massive government support for the corn- and plant-based gasoline alternative would raise food prices and have uncertain environmental benefits. But we know a few readers won’t believe anything unless they read it in the editorial pages of the left-leaning New York Times, so we refer them to Wednesday’s edition, in which the gray lady finally awakens to ethanol’s adverse impacts

Mark Udall has shown himself to be "nimble" on this issue-"enthusiastic" to farmers, "skeptical" to energy executives, and calling it "a bridge" when CSU scientists criticize it-and now we know why. The Grey Lady isn't saying nice things about corn ethanol any more.

So far, Americans haven’t really caught on to what is happening to the price of products such as soybean or corn-based foodstuffs. But that may change if and when this rush to all fuels allegedly more environmentally friendly affects the price of beer...

Where will this all stop? Actually, it has barely even begun; most ethanol and bio-fuel production is merely in the planning stages, or under construction (as in the case of refineries to produce this stuff), and years from coming on-stream. At what point might it dawn on people that the “cure” for reducing our dependence on foreign oil is worse than the original disease?

Just too Polite to Mention Udall?

The Pueblo Chieftain skewered Diana DeGette yesterday on her new Wilderness bill, but they could as easily have been writing about her close ally, Mark Udall. Udall shares with DeGette a willingness to be co-opted by the environmentalist extremists:

What we are seeing here is an ultra-liberal congresswoman being co-opted by the professional environmentalist lobbies that want to lock up vast stretches of public lands in the West.

Schaffer's Integrity and Independence Highlight Media Matters' Foolishness

Following up on the subject matter of an earlier posting here today, the overpaid, underworked staff of Media Matters has outdone itself once again. Dissecting and parsing words to find any angle of criticism of media and political figures on the right half of the political spectrum, Media Matters often makes itself look all the more foolish. While they link to their sources, they don't really care if their readers follow those links.

In another grand twist of irony, here's one of Media Matters claims that Schaffer's statements were misleading:

According to Cillizza's post, Schaffer also "rejected the perception -- fostered by Democrats -- that he is too conservative to win statewide" and quoted Schaffer's claim that he voted against his party "a lot" while serving in Congress from 1997 to 2003. However, according to The Washington Post's "The U.S. Congress Votes Database," Schaffer voted with the Republican Party more than 80 percent of the time during his three terms in Congress.

Sounds convincing to the uninitiated, but quickly following the links puts Media Matters' "gotcha" into context. Remember that there is a lot of pressure to cast votes with your party when you are in the majority. And newer members of Congress especially are tempted to go along to vie for important posts such as committee chairmanships. So, in that light, here goes.

In his first term as a new Congressman, Schaffer voted with the majority GOP 86.8 percent of the time - less than the average member of the House caucus.

In his second term, Schaffer voted with the majority GOP 82.0 percent of the time - only 11 House Republicans stuck to the party line less.

In his third and final term, honored by a self-imposed term limits pledge, Schaffer voted with the majority GOP 81.3 percent of the time - only Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had a lower rate among House members of his party.

Of the 3,246 votes Bob Schaffer cast in his three terms of Congress, 534 of them (or about one in six) were against his own party. Using Schaffer's own terminology, 534 is a "lot of" votes, and as demonstrated by doing some very simple research, a lot higher ratio than most members of either party (while in the majority) can tout.

Attacking Schaffer for his integrity and his independence is very foolish, but considering the overpaid, underworked operatives that populate the Media Matters office, completely unsurprising.

Boulderite Thinking

Did you know that Boulder has a "Climate Action Plan?" Neither did we. There is a hot race for city council in Boulder this year and all of the candidates were asked to comment on it by the Boulder paper. Our friend, Liberal and Loving it, graded the responses, and he didn't grade on the curve.

His comments are shorter than those of the candidates and provide a glimpse into the mind of Mark Udall and the future of Colorado and the nation if Mark Udall is elected to the US Senate.

Here is the standard he set and his first three comments, and grades:

My answers are predicated upon the economic consensus that the most effective approach is to tax carbon emissions and oil usage. However, I'm not sure any candidate can win in Boulder on that platform as the environmental group endorsements tend to select the winners and those groups generally prefer mandated actions over market pricing.

Matthew Applebaum D+ : Matt definitely takes the "we will force all of you to do these specific things" approach. Under that approach all of Matt's point are good, but the sum total is a significant intrusion into every building in the city (but no vehicles).

Philip Bradley B+ : A decent market oriented approach with the tax credit. And he keeps it simple which is also commendable.

Seth Brigham A- : Seth's comments are not a model of clarity but I think what he is proposing is people & companies (including the city government) are taxed based on their carbon emissions. Good answer.

You are getting an inside look at how Boulderites think, and thus how Mark Udall is forced to think. The hurdle Mark Udall has to overcome, and probably cannot, is that for 10 years he has represented Boulder and this kind of Boulderite thinking in Congress. Do you still question why he supports every hair brained scheme that the Sierra Club throws his way?

LALI gave Applebaum a D+ but as much as admits that he will get elected because the Sierra Club favors mandates.

Keep in mind that one of the reasons that we like LALI is because while he is a liberal, he is a market orientated liberal, which is quite unusual and refreshing. Yes, he has crackpot ideas (favors impeachment), but he is not totally loopy (favors nuclear power).

We Missed This

Bob Schaffer was interviewed by the Washington Post's The Fix.

(See what can happen when there are multiple authors on the same blog, lol)

Schaffer: "There is no independent outsider...on the Democratic side"

(Ssshhh. Don't tell the liberal activists and fundraisers about this post. We want them to keep the Udall campaign on cruise control a little while longer.)

In the course of his recent 5-minute interview with The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, Colorado Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer made quite a simple and profound observation about his looming race: "What's different in '08 is there is no independent outsider running for the United States Senate on the Democratic side."

The conventional wisdom (repeated so often in the Nutroots, that you'd think it was a talisman) has been that Boulder liberal Mark Udall will ride a magic carpet of Blue State momentum to a sweeping victory. But Schaffer is right: Udall can in no way credibly run for office as Ken Salazar did in 2004 or as Bill Ritter did in 2006.

And so, when Cillizza's Washington Post political blog today released its weekly rankings of the U.S. Senate seats most likely to switch party control in 2008, for the first time in a long time Colorado fell from the top of the list. Apparently, Cillizza found Schaffer quite persuasive, among other factors he noted in consideration of dropping Colorado from number 1 to number 3.

3. Colorado (R): The open seat race between Rep. Mark Udall (D) and former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) drops two slots this month but the fundamental dynamic of the race remains unaltered. Republicans are already beginning to paint Udall as a "Boulder liberal" while Democrats are making the counter argument that Schaffer is far more conservative than the average Colorado voter. Having huddled with Schaffer earlier this week, we came away impressed by his plainspokeness and his -- to our mind -- smart strategic plan to run as a reform-minded candidate. Republicans are pushing back hard on the idea that this race is Udall's to lose. Schaffer's campaign released a poll that showed him trailing Udall by just two points in a three-way race. And they make the argument that the Democrats who have been elected in the last few years have run as conservatives, putting to lie the idea that the state had fundamentally changed its ideological underpinnings.(Previous ranking: 1)

Yes, you heard it from the Washington Post, that long-standing bastion of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Sense of the Senate: WWMUD?

The Senate passed a "Sense of the Senate" 72 to 25:

To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, commanding general, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn(s) personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.

Senator Ken Salazar voted for this. All of the Democrat candidates who are currently Senators voted against it, except Obama. Obama was out to lunch when the vote occurred, it would seem. He couldn't be troubled to vote, although he was close at hand and made the vote immediately before this vote and the vote immediately after it.

It's time for someone to ask WWMUD? What WOULD a Senator Mark Udall do? He pays lip service to supporting the troops, but he is far to the left of Ken Salazar as our scoreboard of liberal blogger and msm comments indicates.

Our friends at MoveOn.org will want to know. If he doesn't support them, they might even gin up a primary challenger for him. Likewise, patriotic people, whether or not they support the war, will want to know if he really supports the troops or if those are just convenient words that he mouths at convenient times.

Would Mark Udall be "Out to Lunch" on this issue, too?

Not So Fast

California sued six auto companies for manufacturing vehicles that create greenhouse gasses. It was a lawsuit that only the Sierra Club and Mark Udall could have loved. The Gazette had a very good editorial on it today.

U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins ruled that the courts aren’t the venue to settle arguments over how much automobiles contribute to greenhouse gases, which the state contends damage the environment by heating the atmosphere. Congress and the federal Environmental Protection Agency are the proper bodies to take up that issue, the judge ruled.

The state asked the court to “balance the competing interests of reducing global-warming emissions and the interests of advancing and preserving economic and industrial development.” But “balancing of those competing interests is the type of initial policy determination to be made by the political branches, not this court,” Jenkins wrote.

Anyone who thinks that the issue is closed hasn't remembered that the 9th Circus will have its say. This will very likely be settled in the Supreme Court.

It is time to think about the kind of Justice that Mark Udall would vote to confirm if he were in the Senate. Would he want a Justice who allowed states to destroy major industries in court on questionable science, or would he require, as Judge Jenkins did, that the issue be settled by the Congress. History suggests that Udall would choose to try to destroy the economy through court action.

Annoy Mark Udall and the Sierra Club today. THINK!

Mark Udall, A Sure Winner

Once again, we are getting a recommendation from the left that people thinking about donating to Mark Udall consider putting their money on more competitive races:

In Colorado, Wayne Allard is retiring, and the seat is all but Mark Udall's to take (he's the son of Democratic icon Mo Udall). To boot, the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, so Udall's campaign will get an immediate jump-start by being seen with the next President early and often.

When Will Mark Udall Officially Toe The MoveOn.org Line?

Powerline has been connecting some dots of late. We are still wondering when, if ever, Mark Udall will distance himself from the "Betray Us" ad. We're not holding our breath.

MoveOn.org—an angry, far-left, antiwar group—views the modern Democratic Party and its leadership as its cat’s-paw, and there’s little reason to dispute this judgment. The problem for many Democrats is that a Great Unmasking is taking place. For one thing, it’s difficult to say they oppose the war but support the troops when they train their fire on the commanding general of the troops, whose main transgression appears to be that he’s helping America succeed in an epic struggle against radical Islam.

Beyond that, the Democratic Party’s aversion to any (authentic) good news from Iraq, when combined with their effort to accelerate a premature withdrawal from that traumatized country, would lead to an American defeat and a victory for jihadism. This would be reckless—and it would reinforce the view among many Americans that the Democratic Party cannot be trusted on national security matters.

When MoveOn.org says jump, the Democratic Party asks, “How high?” There should be, and eventually there will be, a political price to pay for this ugly alliance.

A Lot of Fine Print

Congress passed a bill to help distressed homeowners who would otherwise be victims of their own greed.

"I know that people have been attracted to subprime mortgages but they have a lot of fine print," ( Mark ) Udall said.

Udall said a United Airlines employee he met at an airport asked him for help because the 5 percent interest rate on her mortgage was about to nearly double to about 9 percent.

You haven't lived until you have seen mortgages at 13% as happened in 1978. How did this airline employee's parents survive back then? Simple, they bought a house within their means. Those who couldn't live by that rule lost their homes.

At some point people have to take responsibility for their own actions. They made a bet that they could make big money on the appreciation of a house they couldn't afford. They lost the bet, and now Udall wants to rescue them.

OK, so we rescue them. Without pain, what keeps them from making the same bet five years from now? Do we rescue them again when the next bet goes bad? Does this turn into another Federal flood insurance program where every few years the government replaces the same house on the same property?

Is this a bill that has safeguards for the taxpayer, or is it just another big give away? It is a complex issue, but safeguards need to be built in or we will pay and pay and pay and no one will learn.

Today, someone noted that all three Colorado Republicans voted against the bill. They were gleefully rubbing their hands in the expectation that it could be made into a campaign issue. Maybe personal responsibility should be a campaign issue. It would be long overdue.

This May Be No Big Deal

Congress apparently requires that when members and staff receive a subpoena, the information is placed in the Congressional Record.

Mark Udall and two staff members were on the list earlier this fall. It probably had to do with the Caroline Bninski Kangaroo Court...er trial, but it might not have. Someone with more resources might want to ask the question.

It does bring to light a very useful site and foundation, the Sunlight Foundation.

Udall in Moveon.org Ad Flap

From CQPolitics.com:

The NRSC also issued separate press releases calling on four Democratic Senate incumbents who are running for re-election in races to be held in 2008 — Tom Harkin of Iowa, Max Baucus of Montana, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, and Mark Pryor of Arkansas — to condemn the ad, and targeted the same demand at Colorado Rep. Mark Udall, who is running for the Senate seat left open by retiring Republican Wayne Allard.

Today's Chuckle

It seems that Mark Udall does read conservative blogs. One pointed something out about his site and it magically changed that same day. Even if you have followed the link before, the entry has changed with an important update about Udall's change. Follow it again and read the comments.

johne (he signs his name that way) runs a lefty Colorado blog. You don't suppose that he was in on the quick change? Nah, the leftys running Colorado blogs have more integrity than that...don't they?

Who Got the Memo?

It is fun to watch Democrats in action. The new mantra in Colorado is that state workers "don't feel valued."

We actually like that mantra, especially when it is applied to taxpayers. Most taxpayers don't feel valued by Democrats, and we were wondering what Mark Udall and Bill Ritter plan to do about it?

On second thought, never mind. We don't want them to give us a big bear hug as they reach around to take our wallets. We don't want to find out up close and personal that liberals don't just have really expensive bad ideas, they have bad breath.

Who is Driving Wilderness Designation?

The Summit Daily News is reporting on the rush to make much of Colorado off limits to most citizens by declaring it wilderness. It doesn't put it quite that way, but that is what is happening.

In all, the proposal would add about 670,000 acres of wilderness in and around the White River National Forest, with a few pieces of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land and adjacent national forests also under consideration.

"There is an interest in the delegation in a way we haven't seen before," Shoemaker said, singling out Congressman Mark Udall as a wilderness champion.

While the article didn't make clear who was moving this proposal, a commenter did:

This type of designation would shut out huge numbers of trails. This article is incomplete in it's coverage of how these wilderness groups jumped in to make this proposal not from on-the-ground fact finding, but from offices in DC.

It's unfortunate and exclusive, and it's not a win for Summit county without some serious exploration of excluding popular recreation areas.

So, let's get this straight. We have outside groups working secretly from Washington to try to get Congress to set aside huge tracts of national forest in Colorado as "wilderness."

Wilderness isn't managed in any way. Colorado is facing large scale forest die outs from beetles. The forests involved are overgrown and were a potential forest fire even without considering what the beetles would do. If there is a fire similar to the Hayman fire, wilderness designation will make it nearly impossible to try to mitigate the damage to the watershed and start reforestation.

Now, these people want to make it totally impossible to try to manage the problem in 670 thousand more acres. Are they so totally lacking in common sense that they want to create more problems before they fix the ones they are already responsible for? It would appear so.

Annoy Mark Udall and the Sierra Club today. THINK.

Today's Catch of the Day

It seems that Mark Udall doesn't really believe that there is a Great War on Terror or that we should be fighting it.

Can't See the Center From Here has been prowling Mark Udall's web site and makes a great observation. We will let him tell it.

Burning Heretics at the Stake

For those interested in science, the History Channel had a very enlightening show tonight on the geologic history of the Earth called "How the Earth Was Made"

It made the case that most climate change is the result of plate tectonics, with an occasional meteor thrown in (pun intended). The position of the continents either facilitate the flow of warm water to the poles or block it. When that flow is blocked, ice ages occur.

For two million years, the Earth has been in an alternating period of ice ages. 10,000 years ago, the area that is now New York City was buried under a glacier that was hundreds of feet thick. Civilization arose after temperatures moderated in the period following that ice age.

In its last minutes, the show made the point that it isn't unreasonable to expect that a similar ice age could occur within 15,000 years, and if that happened, "global warming" might delay it by 200 years at most. New York City could once again expect to be buried under ice.

Except for that one comment, the show didn't touch on the current environmental debate. It shouldn't be controversial to most watchers, assuming it is good geology.

We currently have a bunch of politicians led by Mark Udall and financed by the Sierra Club driving science and the economy based on the premise that climate is dictated solely by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

One is reminded that the Catholic Church once taught that the Earth was the center of the universe. When a famous astronomer suggested that the Sun might be the center of the universe instead, he was placed under house arrest for 11 years. The more usual punishment at the time for less famous heretics was to be burned at the stake, so he got lucky.

A Congress dominated by Mark Udall and other like minded group thinkers won't try to burn scientists who don't accept an atmospheric cause for global warming at the stake. It will merely defund them.

But, isn't that pretty much the same thing, professionally speaking?

Annoy Mark Udall and the Sierra Club today. THINK.

Calling the Kettle Black

We had to laugh this morning when we found Mark Udall being quoted in the London Guardian:

What are the American people supposed to think, when the president says one thing one day, and something different the next?

Those who go back through this blog and look at the "Cornfused" postings will discover that Mark Udall is, depending on the audience he is speaking to, either enthusiastic about corn ethanol (farmers), skeptical (knowledgeable energy executives), or calls it "a bridge" when talking to CSU research scientists.

Applying Mark Udall's own standard to Mark Udall:

What are Coloradoans supposed to think, when Mark Udall says one thing one day, and something different the next?

An Open Letter to Wayne Wolf

A well known Colorado blogger, writer, and frequent radio and television personality has written an open to Wayne Wolf suggesting that he not run for the US Senate.

While I don't want to overstate your influence on the race, because I think it will be quite small, I still believe that in these days of very close races, a small influence might end up making a difference. If you want to spend the next 6 or 12 or 18 years wondering whether Colorado is suffering through Senator Mark Udall because you chose to create an unwinnable distraction within the GOP, you're certainly free to do so with what liberty we have left in this country. But if your goal is good government and having an exceptionally talented Senator representing Colorado, I would suggest that you don't run and that you try to help Bob Schaffer get elected.

Meanwhile, one of the contributors to this site, Ben DeGrow, writes:

Consider this post a “ditto” to Rossputin’s letter ... because he is spot on. Some reporter needs to fairly and candidly ask Mr. Wolf more questions about his intentions and motivations.

Wolf’s campaign will prove its relative worth soon enough, but the sincere political observer has to ask: Why the U.S. Senate? Why now? Why not run for a seat that lacks a qualified GOP candidate, like the 3rd Congressional District?

Singin' in the Rain

Open Left has just labeled Mark Udall a "Cautious Liberal." That allows us to get our scoreboard out for an update.

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
Extremist 2
Reliably Left Wing 4
Liberal (cautious or not) 14
Moderate 0
Conservative (Anyone know the Roman Numeral for Zero?) 0

This scoreboard was started when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were calling Mark Udall a liberal, reliably left wing, and even an extremist. This scoreboard does not include data from any conservative blog and excluded a TV interview of a Republican politician. Those who wish to check its methodology can follow the bread crumbs back.

Do go read the Open Left posting for his take on the 2CD race:

The race pits Jared Polis, an openly gay progressive businessman and philanthropist, against Joan Fitz-Gerald, an Emily's List candidate and President of the Colorado State Senate (there's a third and largely irrelevant candidate).

In the 2d Quarter, that "irrelevant candidate" out raised Fitz-Gerald and tied Polis if Polis' self funding is ignored.

To answer our own trivia question, the Romans can claim no great mathematicians because their number system didn't have a zero.

End of a Debate?

It seems that the great debate over the appropriate use of a poem is over. "Steve Balboni" tried to lay claim to the high ground by asserting that "First, They Came For The Jews" was

equating the arrest of these protesters with the murder of Jews in the holocaust.

That position was undercut when the Colorado Index responded with "The Ends Don't Really Justify the Means."

We suspect that "Balboni" knew exactly what we were doing, and knew the history of that quote, but in his liberal mind, the ends justify the means. Claiming that we were labeling folks Nazi's served his purpose. It did not, as he well knows, serve the truth.

The Index asked once again if "Steve Balboni" was

too smugly blinded by your politics to see right from wrong.

After "Steve Balboni" complemented Colorado Index and panned schaffer v udall ("The folks at Schaffer v. Udall though couldn't debate themselves out of a wet paper bag") someone pointed out to "Balboni" that "A Watcher" wrote on both blogs. It was good for a chuckle.

Redstate's Take

Not long ago, we reported on a comment by a liberal blogger that the Larry Craig resignation would cause Republicans to cut their losses. Redstate is suggesting that Republicans cut their losses and not donate to some Senate races. Sorry to disappoint some of our readers, but Colorado isn't one of them.

CO (Open) - Former Rep. Bob Schaffer is surprising some in his race against Rep. Mark Udall. Udall has been in this race for two years already and has the early fundraising advantage. Schaffer held his own in the second quarter and his chances will be judged in no small part by how strong his third quarter reports look. Money has a snowball effect so a strong quarter is important. If you're considering contributing to a great conservative this cycle, now would be a great time to send him a few bucks.

A View From The Very Very Very Far Left

Mark Udall had a townhall meeting yesterday afternoon. We found out about it two hours after it happened so we didn't note it here.

We did find a comment on it on PlagiarismNowAction (Note: You only need to appear to plagiarize once to earn a lifetime reputation, so enjoy it).

Keep in mind as you read the comment that this may be part of a clever strategy to make a very left wing Mark Udall appear to be closer to the center than he is. When someone is trying to erect a scale of "moderation," people reading that scale have to ask "as compared to what?"

The Truth Comes Out

In the course of writing about a planned protest against Mark Udall, a commenter observed:

What press the protesters do get out of it will just help Udall moderate his image in the end. Since he's been happily dosey-do'ing with Marilyn Musgrave on occasion, I'm sure he won't mind getting shouted at by the Angry Left.

Another said:

When contacted (about what kind of sentence Caroline Bninski should get), Udall refused to indicate that a 30 or 60 day jail sentence was inappropriate. 30 or 60 days for PEACEFUL protest!

Has anyone stopped to think that the first comment identifies a clear motive for the strange behavior of Congressman Udall's staff in this very strange matter? If Udall wanted to make the Angry Left even angrier, getting a leader thrown in the slammer for a year is almost as good as throwing her under a bus and a lot more deniable.

nah-nah-nah

It seems that the millionaire ( Jared Polis ) and the state senator ( Joan Fitz-Gerald ) who would replace Mark Udall are trying to out anti-war each other.

The only thing missing is the nah-nah-nah as in you said "...." in 2002 nah-nah-nah.

If we can give you folks some advice-no one likes people who are against everything. Clothe your opposition to the war in more positive terms. Instead of being anti-war, you can be pro-defeat.

Fun in Blogland

Is the left really so stupid that one can't answer a question with an intellectual argument and repeat a famous poem in the process without being accused of

equating the arrest of these protesters with the murder of Jews in the holocaust.

So it would seem.

Recall that the author of this tripe set the essay in motion by leaving a comment on The Colorado Index that said:

I cannot for the life of me understand why no one is taking a right-wing blog seriously in their zealous defense of war protesters. I can't imagine why you guys have zero credibility on this one. Windmills, tilting... etc.

He got an answer and he didn't like it. Too bad. Huffing and puffing isn't likely to change the facts, and the Index got the facts right.

Liberal and Loving It Endorses Joan

In blog interview too long to quote, our liberal friend makes Joan Fitz-Gerald sound almost conservative.

She loves the constitution (except when it requires the legislature, rather than the courts to do redistricting).

We need to do right by soldiers (the I love the soldiers but hate the war routine).

She will clearly be a strong intelligent voice on getting us the hell out of Iraq and taking care of our returning troops. And she does mean out - Marine guard at the embassy and that's it for troops in the country.

She doesn't like student loans (???).

Unlike Mark Udall who is by comparison a slacker, and relatively ineffective:

She is not willing to sit back and say it takes years to bring up bills and get them through. She is not willing to feel good about having 1 or 2 bills that matter come through each year. The best way she put it was in terms of when you have kids you have such a short time to raise them and so time matters. She would be one voice of 435 but she would be one of the more effective ones and she would be pushing to get things handled now.

Just Some Interesting History

For history buffs only. This shouldn't and won't have an impact on the election. We knew the story, but didn't know of the connection to Mark Udall's family. Someday it might make a good trivia question, but that's all.

150 years after another Sept. 11 tragedy

"Does Mark Udall Agree with MoveOn.Org?"

The National Republican Senatorial Committee asks the important question: "Does Mark Udall agree with MoveOn.org?"

MoveOn.org published an ad calling an honorable career military officer a traitor. Will Udall denounce the left-wing group, or does he tacitly agree with them? Will Udall publicly refuse to accept campaign contributions from MoveOn.org?

Udall Taken to Task Again for Tainted Contributions

Chris Rodriguez of Wrongmont.com elaborates on a point made earlier on this site - namely, that Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's returned $1,000 contribution from Chinese criminal fundraiser Norman Hsu is just the tip of the iceberg.

Writes Rodriguez:

On top of the $1,000 [Udall is] giving back, let’s not forget the $5,000 he got from the Hsu funded “For A Change PAC”, the $10,000 from the Hsu funded “Searchlight Leadership Fund” (Harry Reid’s PAC), and $40,000 from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committees, also recipients of large Hsu donations.

Given recent history of Chinese contributors (more “Friends of Bill”), wouldn’t you run for the hills if someone like this approached you? This speaks poorly of Congressman Udall and his staff’s judgment at the very least. If accepting these donations were no accident or coincidence, it says much worse. Cunningham and Abramoff better make room for company, and I’m not talking about visitors.

A fine point raised: What will Udall do with the other tainted money his campaign has taken in?

McInnis Says No To A Primary

From the Grand Junction Sentinel:

Former Grand Junction Congressman Scott McInnis said Delta County Commissioner Wayne Wolf’s decision to vie for the Republican nomination for outgoing Sen. Wayne Allard’s seat could be bad for the party.

Udall Blasts Bush, Iraq War

Rep. Mark Udall reacts to Gen. David Petraeus' report on Iraq (video):

Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., blasted President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq as he and other members of the House Armed Services panel prepared to question the administration's top general and diplomat there.

Udall, who also is a 2008 Senate candidate, said Bush has no strategy for the war and that Iraq has distracted and weakened the military when it should be focused on hunting terrorists.

"It's time to do something different and get our military out of this," Udall said in a conference call with reporters.

Gen. David Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told a skeptical and deeply divided House Armed Services Committee on Monday that the military objectives of last winter's buildup of troops in Iraq "are in large measure being met" and the extra troops could be pulled out by next summer. Their report will shape the next stages in the war.

While Republicans urged Congress to hear out Petraeus and Crocker, Udall and other Democrats were critical even before the hearing began. Udall said it's time to withdraw from Iraq and focus on stopping al-Qaida.
http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
"To continue to referee a civil war is obviously not effective," Udall said. "This is weakening us in the war on terror."

Udall believes that the ultimate solution in Iraq is a "political solution"--turning away from an Iraqi "civil war" to other fronts in the war on terror. He also reiterates his initial and continuing opposition to the war. Petraeus gets a pass as Udall saves his criticism for the Bush administration.

Cross posted from Slapstick Politics

Putting Two and Two Together

Caroline Bninski isn't being reported out of jail yet, and we wondered why, so we did a Google search. The result was an essay titled "Did The Denver Post Lie To Protect Mark Udall?"

For those who wonder, we try not to put long posts on this blog, and this particular essay has multiple lengthy quotes. It is impossible to prove a serious assertion of the kind we made without the quotes to back it up.

Our other blog has a better format for long essays. It was easier to write it there and link to it.

A Little Less Name Calling

It's time for our weekly report on Democrat name calling. The first time we did this, there were 11 blogs calling Bob Schaffer names in 10 days. It appears that they took some time off during Labor Day.

This week, they are back at it, but at a much reduced pace: Four in ten days. In addition, the names being used seem to have moderated.

A Challenger?

After several weeks testing the waters, Delta County Commissioner Wayne Wolf is preparing to take on fellow Republican Bob Schaffer for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate.

Where's the Beef?

Now we are hearing from a left wing blog that Bob Schaffer "is so far out of the mainstream of the Republican party" (that he couldn't finish his sentence).

That is new news to us. We have written elsewhere in "Why Mark Udall Will Be In Trouble" that we support Schaffer, and we can't possibly be described as "right wing." Not only that, we heard from two other Colorado Republican bloggers that their views aren't that much different from ours and they are supporting Bob Schaffer.

So, where's the beef in this claim? Don't just throw out a thought, document it. When we comment about Mark Udall being far to the left of people like Ken Salazar and Bill Ritter, we quote left wing blogs and msm sources that have made that observation. Look below for a music themed post for an example. We invite readers to check out our methodology and follow the links.

Mark Udall in Colorado Springs

From the Independent

Oct 13 U.S. Rep. Mark Udall town hall meeting, 3:30-5 p.m., Carnegie Room, Penrose Library. Meet and question the Democratic Senate candidate.

You bet!

Keeping Things in Perspective

From a long ago Morris Udall speech at the Air Force Academy is proof that much of what you will hear in the next year is speech writer generated hyperbole:

At a speech at the Air Force Academy, Udall talked about modern politics (at a time when the incumbent president was most unpopular) with a story about a politician who hired a first-rate speechwriter. One day, the young man asked his boss for a raise. He deserved it: The politician was a rising political star, a great speaker, elected a governor, then a senator. But the politician said he would have done this on his own and said no to the raise.
"The young man departed very unhappy, and that night he met the senator at the auditorium and handed him the speech he had written," Udall said. The senator picked up the draft and read it.
"On the first page it said, 'My friends, I have come here tonight with a message of hope. I have come tonight to tell you that this nation can solve its problems.' And the audience was still. He turned the page, and it said, 'I've come here tonight to tell you that we can settle the war in the Mideast, end the oil shortage, build schools, hospitals and highways for the people of this country.'
"He turned the page and said, 'I've come tonight to tell you that we can do this while increasing federal spending, decreasing federal taxes, balancing the federal budget and paying off the national debt.' There was a stillness in the audience and he thought, 'Damn, this was going to be good, one of my best speeches.' He turned the page and read on ... 'I propose to unveil this 10 point program here, and I propose to unveil it now.' "
Udall said the next line, written in big red letters, read, "All right, Big Shot, you're on your own."

The really sad thing is that Republican and Democrat politicians can get caught up in their speechwriter's hyperbole. Does anyone remember the most effective and eventually most costly speechwriter words ever uttered by a politician? They were "Read my Lips! No New Taxes!" It was, as the politician later admitted, only a speech. The gift to the Republic was the Clinton administration, and it is a gift that seems to keep on giving.

This brings us to another Udall, Mark Udall. His speechwriters seem to think that we can wean ourselves from oil and gas simply by refusing to drill for it; that wind power and solar energy will solve our energy problems; and that there is no need to use or even consider the use of nuclear power. His speechwriters happily tell him that there will be no adverse impact on the Colorado economy from his energy policies.

"All right, Big Shot, you're on your own."

Mark Udall-On The Move!

In an effort to conceal his ties to liberal Boulder, Mark Udall moved to Eldorado, Colorado. Now, apparently, he has moved on to Chickenbutt, CO. We couldn't find a zip code, so perhaps the Congressman can get a post office built there.

Bring On The Schaffer-Udall Polls

ColoradoPols is touting a new poll showing Rep. Mark Udall leading former Rep. Bob Schaffer 45-40% as evidence of Schaffer's weak campaign and signs of Udall's ultimate victory.

At this point, more than a year out, the poll reveals nothing more than a race that is a toss-up, as the margin of error of 4% makes the poll a statistical tie, and revealing of nothing more than an electorate that has yet to catch on with either candidate very strongly. Given that both candidates have never held state-wide office, that media darling Udall has been all but anointed as the next Senator because of fundraising, or that Schaffer has been thought to have stumbled out of the gate, a 1% difference isn't all that strong for Udall.

These results match the more probable "toss-up" scenario for the Schaffer/Udall race, rather than the oft-repeated line that the seat is Udall's to lose. ColoradoPols said that these numbers can and will change (noting the movement in the Beauprez/Ritter gubernatorial race), but that Schaffer is in a poor position not starting off the race at least even.

However, with Democrats and most of the media pounding the "Colorado is turning blue" meme and that the GOP is all but toast in the '08 election cycle, the fact that Udall isn't leading by double-digits should provide a source of some doubt for the Dems. This poll also certainly can't account for the possible party nominee for President and the potential coattails (or anti-coattails) effect that might play a part in determining turnout and final vote margin.

Cross-posted from Slapstick Politics

Hsu Skips Out Again, Caught

Norman Hsu is wealthy enough that even a $2 million bond didn't keep him around. He skipped out and was caught in Grand Junction.

Hsu is the fugitive sugar daddy who gave campaign contributions to Mark Udall ($1000) and many other Democrats.

Readers will recall that Udall then gave the $1000 to a charity.

The choice of charity, the Colorado National Guard Foundation, appeared to be so out of character and politically motivated that we described Udall's action as no more believable than Michael Dukakis' 1988 tank ride photo op.

Get a Clue

It seems that a few hours after we wrote and posted "Why the Left Wing Prognosticators are Wrong," the Prince of Darkness, Robert Novak, blew holes in our essay.

His bottom line:

...it's a bad time to be a Republican in Colorado.

We think it is a bad time to write about Colorado politics without a clue as to what is going on. We spent the morning on our other blog laying out some facts that Mr. Novak clearly missed or got wrong in his extensive (?) research.

Because we are a lifelong fan of Robert Novak, we did try to contact Mr. Novak before we published our piece, but he didn't respond.

Suddenly Polite

It seems that people do read this blog. Last evening, we found two more left wing prognosticators who punctuated their assessment by calling Bob Schaffer a name. One called him a "right wing nut job." Today, that entry has been modified to read "ultra conservative."

While many would disagree with the assessment, it is at least polite.

Why The Left Wing Prognosticators Are Wrong

The Democrats are positively giddy over their prospects in Colorado, but should they be?

There has been no polling in Colorado.

Mark Udall, as his own allies frequently write, is significantly to the left of both Bill Ritter and Ken Salazar. Both men are themselves relatively far left, though they owned the center thanks to some clever, but biased reporting by the Denver Post. One of the reasons we established the "Mark Udall is not a moderate" scoreboard is to keep the Denver Post more honest this time, if that is possible. The Post will also find itself somewhat neutralized by a Rocky Mountain News staff that got snookered by Bill Ritter and endorsed him. Don't expect it to endorse Mark Udall.

Both Ritter and Salazar were helped mightily when self styled "values voters" in the Republican party stayed home as volunteers, as contributors, and as voters. That won't happen this time.

Colorado Republicans enjoy a sizable registration advantage. The legislature is lopsidedly Democrat but the Democrats didn't get more total votes at the legislative level. Republicans did. It is lopsided (41R, 59D) as a direct result of Republican infighting and severe Democrat Gerrymandering. US Senate seats are immune from Gerrymandering. Unfortunately, the usual suspects who love infighting regardless of its impact on the party are hard at work in the 5th CD and may go after State Rep. Al White.

A very clever campaign finance amendment handicapped Republicans at the state level and allowed out of state unions and four Democrat millionaires to buy the legislative elections. It is harder to do that at the Federal level, although the millionaires will try.

It isn't clear that the Iraq war will be the festering sore that Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are trying to make it.

In the blogosphere, Republican bloggers were neutral after Marc Holtzman dropped out-they had supported Holtzman. At least one nominally Republican blogger actively worked against Bob Beauprez in the general election. It is reasonably clear that neither of those situations will be repeated.

This blog neutrality left the funded left wing sites free to hector the media without response. That won't happen this year. In fact, the Republican bloggers will have an advantage if they choose to exploit it-they do what they do out of conviction. All major Democrat bloggers receive significant outside funding.

Colorado Media Matters has developed a nasty habit of trying to chase Republicans who express an opinion out of the media by claiming that their opinions are lies. PlagiarismNowAction appears to have directly copied three paragraphs of the Wikipedia Scott McInnis entry word for word. They only slightly modified a fourth paragraph and claimed that what they wrote was the result months of research. The Wikipedia article was written by a prolific Belgian Lawyer and to be certain that he could have been the author, we did an Internet search. It took 30 minutes to find his sources, not months. Wendy Norris has her own problems as we pointed out last night. If Tim Gill is funding all three operations, he is not going to get his money's worth in 2008.

The 2004 and 2006 election cycles were a perfect storm. Both Ken Salazar and Bill Ritter can thank it and divisive Republican primaries for their current offices. Very little of that storm is reproducible for Mark Udall, except in the 5th CD which could be pivotal.

Mark Udall is leery of the gift that the national Democrats will leave him when they hold their convention in Denver this year. Yet outsiders see it as nothing but positive for him. Colorado isn't a blue state. It isn't even a purple state. While Coloradoans will go out of their way to be hospitable, most will view the inevitable pro-defeat candidate that emerges with skepticism.

And yet, when we go to the left wing Senate prognostication sites, they seem to know none of this. They claim that Schaffer was the last choice of the RSCC. They would be better off assuming that the RSCC cleared the field for Schaffer. They have no facts so they read and repeat each other's misinformation, sometimes word for word. Invariably, they list Colorado as the most certain Democratic pickup, and to seal the deal (or show their contempt), they almost as invariably call Bob Schaffer a name, sometimes an obnoxious name, as though that will help Mark Udall.

Make no mistake, the Colorado Senate seat will be competitive. If the leftys are this far off in Colorado, how can any of their predictions be believed?

More Name Calling

Of course, Open Left, a source of supreme knowledge and civility, is so certain of a Mark Udall win that they manage in a few short words to trump the tossup prognostication of the Denver Post and to help our campaign to embarrass Mark Udall by calling his opponent a "wingnut." His take on the race:

If Mark Udall doesn't win this seat, he will be truly inept.

Denver Post: A Tossup

Yesterday's Denver Post:

With more than a year before the general elections, national pundits are calling the race between U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat, and former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, a Republican, a toss-up

Four Days to Freedom

Sunday may be a slow news day, but we will be thinking of Caroline Bninski. That is the day she will have completed her 30 days in the Boulder calaboose.

For those of you new to this issue, Mark Udall's staff appears to have gone out of its way to set the woman up. We didn't always think that. When the story came out, we supported Udall's actions. As more details came out, the story began to have an offensive odor to it.

1. Ms. Bninski, along with other Green Party members was involved in a planned anti-war protest.

2. Before the protest began, Udall's staff negotiated a set of protest rules with Ms. Bninski, and Ms. Bninski's group lived up to the terms of their agreement for days.

3. On the last day of the protest, Ms. Bninski announced that she would violate the rules. Seconds after the violation commenced, Udall's staff called the police.

4. At trial, Udall's staff didn't limit it's testimony to the few minutes that it took the police to arrive, but complained in court that the whole protest had interrupted its operations for days.

5. The judge should have disallowed that testimony because of the preexisting agreement and the fact that Ms. Bninski had lived up to it. The judge ignored his own duties. For a few seconds of violation, he slapped Ms. Bninski in jail for 30 days.

6. The First Amendment specifically permits citizens to petition their government. This protest took the form of citizens in the act of petitioning, so even though it was inconvenient to Mark Udall, it was protected as long as it was orderly.

The news reporting on this incident makes this is an easy set of facts to assemble. If a Republican Congressman had pulled this stunt, the Denver Post, the ACLU, and every left wing blog within 1000 miles would be screaming to high heaven. Boulder Liberal Mark Udall is running for the Senate, so he gets a total pass.

Sheep "Lover" Goes Postal

Wendy Norris is ranting 50,000 watts of hate over Bob Schaffer's easily defensible comments that Harry Reid is trying to lose the war for political advantage:

but at the same time, for the sake of political advantage I think it's foolish to behave the way you see people like Harry Reid and other, others who are leading the Senate right now, that I think are trying to, at the end, the analysis of their achievement and what they are effectively accomplishing is a deliberate loss and a surrender in Iraq for the sake of their political advantage at election time in 2008. I think they're hoping America loses.

Wasn't it Harry Reid who solemnly announced that "The war is lost" six months ago after one big car bomb went off? Did anyone notice how quickly Democrat Senators distanced themselves from that comment? Isn't Harry Reid the Senate Leader who is orchestrating vote after vote to defund the war? Aren't Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the two leaders most responsible for a Congressional approval rating that is lower than President Bush because of their pro-defeat tactics?

Wendy Norris, who is paid handsomely to be nasty to Republicans, implies that Bob Schaffer called Harry Reid "a traitor" when all he did was to describe what Reid was doing. If Norris sees Reid as a traitor from Schaffer's description, which she doesn't dispute, then Reid might well be walking close to the edge of that abyss.

The last time Wendy Norris ranted "50,000 watts of hate," it was over a new law which made it a crime to learn as much about individual sheep as she apparently suggested she wants to learn. As always, she was tastelessly blaming a totally innocent and uninvolved Republican who wasn't in the legislature when the law was passed. (h/t Colorado Confidential)

We wrote about it here.

A reminder to left wing blogs: If you are dumb enough to put on your blog the kind of stupid, tasteless, mindless stuff that gets you snickers at your private parties and then write about Bob Schaffer, we are quite happy to send Mark Udall down the slide we have described and see what sticks. A candidate is best known by his supporters.

The Violin Goes Solo

5280 has some really novel theories about elections. Apparently, the liberals in Colorado are now so dominant that Mark Udall doesn't need to move to the center to win:

Udall doesn’t have to be a moderate in the mold of Salazar or Ritter...

We're not here to validate or dispute their arguments. We're here to update the scoreboard. In the past, we have noted that when folks admit that Mark Udall is to the left of Bill Ritter, they are acknowledging that Mark Udall is far enough left that he can be tagged "Left Wing." We don't have that category, but we do have "Reliably Left Wing."

The Mark Udall is not a Moderate Scoreboard:
Extremist 2
Reliably Left Wing 4
Liberal 13
Moderate 0
Conservative (Sigh)

We only count liberal blogs and msm comments on this scoreboard. No conservative blog comments have ever been counted. If you want to check our methodology, follow the bread crumbs back.

Opportunity to Question Senator Salazar

Senator Ken Salazar will be the guest on 9News' odd news program "Your Show" this weekend. One of the unique features of this show is the opportunity to submit questions to the guest--I suggest everybody go to the site and submit questions for the Senator.

And let me be the first to propose one:

Senator Salazar, given that the Iraq Study Group cautioned against a precipitous withdrawl from Iraq, and given that the Iraq Study Group cited the need for security before wholesale political change could happen (which security is now being achieved), and given that the Iraq Study Group laid out economic preconditions for peace and then an eventual American withdrawl--many of which are already happening on the local and tribal levels--what, exactly, does your resolution before the Senate actually accomplish? Or is your resolution nothing more than posturing, inserting the Legislature into Executive issues, and giving political cover to members of your caucus worried that the anti-war Left will overrun them in the next election cycle?