I Left My Heart in San Francisco

Kos is at it again.

Then again, the GOP's entire campaign against Mark Udall is that he's a "liberal"...

He goes on, admittedly tongue in cheek:

Today, the liberalist of liberal liberals, Tom Udall (who is liberal), is scheduled to be feted at a liberal party with the liberalist of liberal Democrats in liberal San Francisco, a city full of liberals. Considering liberal Mark Udall is already too liberal for Colorado victories, it seems fitting.

The event of liberals, liberally organized by ultra liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas, a liberal, of the really, really, really liberal blog 'Daily Kos', is liberally scheduled to take place at a liberal bar in liberal San Francisco, a city full of liberals.

The point that he is missing is that we here in Colorado hardly have to try to tag Mark Udall as a liberal. Our friends in the msm and the left leaning blogs do it regularly for us. See our scoreboard at the right. We are going to make a point in not counting this clever little post because we already have enough posts and msm mentions to make a very solid statement as to how far left the left thinks Mark Udall really is.

Kos, you are welcome to follow the bread crumbs that you will find to the right to check our methodology. We've even found your blog calling him a liberal, but we notice that you have stopped, not because he has stopped being a liberal, but because of the baggage that word carries.

Lying Liberal Lawyers For Udall

Since we have remarked so often that Mark Udall is a stranger to the truth, it shouldn't be a surprise that he would have others lying for him.

Today, Dominant Reality put out this gem:

Colorado - Mark Udall still looks like a shoe in to defeat Bob Schaffer for Wayne Allard's open seat. Shaffer's campaign has been worse then anyone anticipated and is bringing on memories of Bob Beauprez' wonderful 2006 loss in the Colorado Governor's race.

We assumed this guy was from out of state and clueless. It turns out that he is a Boulder Lawyer, and therefore, by definition, both clueless and a liar. He should have named his blog "Escape From Reality." Better yet, he might have considered "Lewyers caint spel, wee uz spelck"

OK, maybe we got carried away, but when the rest of the Democrat world is unhappy that Bob Schaffer isn't campaigning enough that they know and can trash his positions, it seems silly to see a comment that his campaign is "worse then anyone anticipated."

(Full disclosure: We spent the day and most of the last week dueling with the Colorado Supreme Court over whether a plain, ordinary non-lawyer would have input into a group dominated by lawyers that is making up the law as they go, literally. Maybe we were a bit hard on this Boulder Lawyer. Nahhh. )

Cutting Off Our Nose

Remember the bill that Mark Udall amended to prohibit drilling on the Roan Plateau? Supposedly it was because the Roan was a unique place.

It turns out that the bill does more:

The Roan Plateau amendment isn’t the only reason oil and gas producers are bitter. One provision within the energy bill would close down seven multi-agency offices in the West that were created to facilitate coordination between the BLM and other agencies and speed up the permitting process.

That provision makes Mark Udall, Diana DeGette, Ed Perlmutter and John Salazar into bald faced liars. They aren't interested in preventing gas production in just the scenic areas in the west. They want to ensure that it doesn't happen anywhere.

Charges Flying in 2CD

It looks like Jared Polis took money from five folks who contributed to the Swift Boat political campaign in 2004. Most people wouldn't care, but in Boulder the reaction is "Gaaassp."

Joan Fitz-Gerald is making as much hay as possible, or so reports the Boulder Daily Camera.

"How does Jared even know these people, who traditionally give only to Republicans?" [ Fitz Gerald campaign manager Mary Alice ] Mandarich said of the donors.

Gaaasp!

The Denver Post reports that the Polis campaign has a comeback:

Polis' campaign manager, Wanda James, countered that Fitz-Gerald's campaign looks more and more like "a front for the oil and gas industry."

She said Fitz-Gerald has taken more than $24,000 from Excel employees.

Gaaassp! Gaaassp!

Singin' & Swingin'

This will be an unusual addition to our scoreboard because two far left wing bloggers are hosting a "Drinks With Mark Udall" event. Markos from Daily Kos simply does not hobnob with run of the mill liberals. They must believe that Mark Udall is at least "reliably left wing" or they wouldn't bother to show up, let alone host the event. We will increment that counter by two on our scoreboard. (We strongly considered incrementing the extremist counter, given how far left Kos is.)

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 7
liberal 25
moderate 0
conservative (chuckle)

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were 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.

Just Wondering About Gun Rights

Today's Rocky Mountain News has an excellent editorial on gun rights. It should be excellent, as it was written by one of the attorneys involved in getting the issue before the US Supreme Court.

Traditionally, left wing politicians, and Mark Udall has been called that more than once by his allies in the press and the blogosphere, have been opposed to gun rights. Of late, the left has tried to finesse the issue by claiming to be in favor of "hunter's rights."

If nothing else, this Supreme Court case will force Mark Udall to clarify his position on gun rights. It remains to be seen if he will be telling his patrons and potential constituents that he would vote to confirm judges who would restrict gun rights, or if he actually favors allowing the public to protect itself by owning guns.

My Old Kentucky Home

Another liberal blogger, politicslug has called Mark Udall a liberal.

This leaves the liberal Rep. Mark Udall ...

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 5
liberal 25
moderate 0
conservative (chuckle)

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were 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

So, Who Will Replace Udall?

Firedoglake is about as far left wing (not counting Kos, HP, and others) as you can find. Mark Udall is leaving a liberal base in Boulder. It is easy to get a sense of how far left Udall is by watching the comments from the left on who will replace him.

Fitz-Gerald is seen as the inside the beltway candidate, which isn't good as Rahm Emanuel sold out the really far left when he helped "reactionary" Democrats win. She has no issues on her site (also bad).

You may recall that last month Establishment insiders held a little training session for favored candidates in Chicago, conducted by Christine Pelosi, who will be visiting with us at FDL later today. Most of the candidates who were invited have no primary opponents and they are busy battling Republicans. A few– one of whom was Joan Fitz-Gerlad– have very serious primaries and this caused some alarm. Was this the dreaded anti-grassroots DCCC interference, the kind of interference that saddled us with a Congress that can’t get much done because of so many reactionaries, some of whom were unscrupulously pushed by Rahm Emanuel last year?

Read only about half of the post. The author wandered away from his original subject and into immigration, which, while interesting, wasn't all that enlightening.

Today's Fun Quiz

One of the problems with today's political environment is the willingness of agenda driven zealots to lie in obvious ways to advance their cause.

This is a site that follows the machinations of Mark Udall in his quest to be US Senator. Udall has lied to advance his cause so often that we created a label for it: Udall as a liar. That label has been appended to this post so that readers can follow it if they care to.

That is not really the fun quiz. Instead, go to yesterday's Aspen Daily News Enviros up pressure on Ritter over the Roan and see if you can find two obvious lies told by the environmentalist extremists in that article.

If you don't find the lies, check out Ritter Watch for the answers.

Annoy an environmentalist today, THINK.

Your Would-Be Senator Embraces Surrender

Hiding Behind Lies and Half-Truth, Mark Udall Defends Attempt To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory

From Mark Udall's website, his statement accompanying his vote in favor of a $50 billion supplemental that commanded a strict timeline for withdrawl from Iraq.

"This bill is the opposite of a blank check for the president. The funds it will provide are those that will be needed to move toward an immediate and orderly redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq.

“In my view, there is no sustainable role for large numbers of U.S. troops to play in Iraq –

HALF-TRUTH: while most of the civilized world does recognize that large numbers of troops have an obvious role in Iraq, Udall cleverly hides behind "in my view" to disguise his ignorance

. . . whether refereeing a civil war or waiting for the Iraqi government to decide to act within the ‘breathing space’ our brave troops have provided and our taxpayers are paying for at $9 billion per month.

HALF-TRUTH: nobody's refereeing a civil war right now--our troops are very busy taking the offensive to the bad guys; and, while the central government has its issues, local governments and civic leaders [read: Sheikhs] are taking a very active role in creating the infrastructure of reconciliation

. . . .However, while this bill sends the right message – that our troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely – regrettably, it does not send it in the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by Democrats, and the president has already promised to veto it.

LIE: The message could be easily sent, with near unanimous support, and with the President's signature, if it didn't insist on a retreat starting in thirty days to be completed in one year.

. . . What we need is consensus here at home on a path forward in Iraq,

LIE: Consensus behind surrender is NOT what is needed; consensus behind victory SHOULD be easy to obtain, but is too antithetical to Liberal orthodoxy to ever achieve.

. . .and today’s quick consideration of this bill doesn’t bring us any closer to that goal. I believe consensus can be found around the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which I introduced as legislation earlier this year, including supporting a course of escalating economic development, empowerment of local government, the provision of basic services, a ‘surge’ in regional and international diplomatic efforts, and lightening the American footprint in Iraq.

HALF-TRUTH: of course, all of these elements are already in place, including the lightening of the US footprint which will begin with the withdrawl of troops in the very near future--ALL ON THE TIMELINE OF THE US COMMANDERS. Of course, Udall also conveniently ignores the ISG's recommendation that a "precipitous withdrawl" would be disastrous.

. . . Only Democrats and Republicans working together can find the path out of Iraq.

LIE: Only the U.S. military, working with a mandate for victory in Iraq, can find--or forge-- the path out of Iraq. Republicans are willing to provide this mandate; whither the Democrats?

. . . I will continue to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle on further steps we can take to change our broader Iraq policy.”

HALF-TRUTH: Name five Republicans, just FIVE "colleagues" from the other side of the aisle that you are working with, Mr. Udall. And why, oh why, would you be working to change the broader Iraq policy now that the new strategy of the President's and Gen. Petraeus is showing such promise? You remind me of the offensive coordinator who decides to go away from the running game, even though it's working, because it wasn't your idea.

THIS is the man who wants to represent Colorado in the U.S. Senate, boys and girls. And he will be well-funded, and he will have the cover of the Denver media.

But idiotic statements like this one need to be held up and shredded for all the public to see. Mark Udall is far too extreme to represent Colorado; Bob Schaffer should be able to make that point, at a minimum.

Whether his campaign can effectively communicate that, and then take the next steps toward victory, remains to be seen.

Boulder Has Its Own Foreign Policy Take 2

Mark Udall once joked that the difference between Colorado Springs and Boulder was that Boulder has its own foreign policy.

Then, he proceeded to announce that he would be introducing a bill requiring the President to adopt the Iraq Study Group recommendations, forgetting that foreign policy is the prerogative of the president.

Of Course, Mark Udall has now also introduced a bill that ties the President's hands on Iran. Iran could detonate a nuke on the Mexican side of the Mexico Border and the President could not respond if this short sighted legislation were to pass.

Now Jared Polis, author and patron of the Polis Amendment (aka Amendment 41) is making his own foreign policy as reported by USA Today. He has declared us invaders and occupiers and claims to be embarrassed to admit it. Since he doesn't have the clout to talk to a real ambassador, he bestowed the title on the first guy he met (think Kentucky Colonel = Iraqi Ambassador):

Polis arrived in Baghdad on Wednesday, local time, and has already done an online chat at Colorado Confidential and blogged at his campaign website about his first day there. In the blog post, he discusses a conversation he had with an Iraqi intellectual he euphemistically refers to as "the Ambassador:"

As we conversed, I didn't want to say "our occupation" or "our invasion" because even though we both knew that was true, I didn't feel it was polite to remind them by overtly stating it. So early on in the discussion when I was searching for words to ask what they were respectively doing 'before the, er, before the ... ." The Ambassador, observing my pause, kindly offered up the more diplomatic term "regime change" and we thereafter used that term liberally."

The Polis candidacy is an attempt by one left wing foreign policy flake who sees no value in the constitutionally mandated separation of powers to exchange places with another.

Campaign Fodder

If THIS doesn't become a campaign ad for 2008, then somebody in the GOP just isn't thinking. On a day in which the Congress has only shepherded two--TWO-- of the required fifteen (?) appropriations bills into law, THIS is what the Senate is going to be doing with three of the next ten business days.

Suggestion for a Shaeffer ad:

In 2006, the country elected a Democratic majority to the U.S Senate--to "get things done."

In 2007, the Democratic Senate attempted to declare defeat in Iraq 42 times.

In 2007, the Democratic Senate attempted to add $15 billion in useless pork projects to needed funding for Veteran's benefits.

In 2007, the Democratic Senate only managed to pass TWO of its 15 required appropriations bills for things like the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense.

Why, you might wonder, did the Democratic Senate accomplish so little in 2007?

[RUN VIDEO]

Don't make the same mistake in 2008. Elect a Republican to the Senate. Elect Bob Shaeffer.



If only the Dems would send Ken Salazar up to do this little charade so we could get that on video. THAT would be priceless.

Owens' Fundraising Letter for Schaffer Signals Growing Party Unity

Awhile back the Lefty blogs around Colorado tried to stoke the flames of intraparty rivalry for the Republican nomination of a U.S. Senate candidate in 2008. But receiving a particular piece of mail today, I was reminded of just how long they have gone quiet on this matter.

The mail was a fundraising letter addressed from former Gov. Bill Owens on behalf of Bob Schaffer. Anyone who remembers the political events of three years ago and what has followed since for the GOP realizes the significance of a wholehearted Owens endorsement of Schaffer's candidacy that includes a request of campaign financial support from the party base.

Why have the Lefties shut up about this issue? Because it wasn't working, and it's losing its credibility. It's becoming less and less true with each passing week. As I wrote nearly a month ago:

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."

Piece by piece, Schaffer has been working to rebuild the trust, the confidence, and the unity of Colorado Republicans. And yes, even Bill Owens is on board this time.

Udall Honors Hero

It should be hard to be critical of a politician who publicly honors a military hero, and yet Mark Udall makes it easy.

He recently presented the Navy and Marine Corps Medal to the family of a marine who died saving lives. For those whose military service is Army, it is the equivalent of the Soldier's Medal, a very high honor reserved for those who save lives at the risk of their own, not necessarily in combat.

It is not an easy medal to win, and in 20 years service, we only knew of one Soldier's Medal awardee. Marine Damon Towne's actions clearly met the requirements, and Mark Udall is to be commended for helping his parents secure it for him. If Towne has a military headstone Udall might want to see if he can secure a replacement so that it can reflect the award.

The one thing that troubles us is that Mark Udall seems to go out of his way to avoid recognizing war heroes from the current era. His anti-war, MoveOn.org constituency can't be offended by this medal, but would have been had Udall attended the Lt Michael Murphy Medal of Honor ceremony or even mentioned it in a press release.

If Udall wants to present awards, let him begin to honor combat awards. His participation as a presenter in this ceremony for this award appears cynical.

As an aside, one would think that the two TV stations that covered this presentation might have included Damon Towne's rank, of which he had a right to be proud.

Udall Flip Flops on Trade

The Left-wing online journal Colorado Confidential wants to know why their preferred U.S. Senate candidate, Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall, has waffled on the issue of free trade agreements:

Colorado's House members voted unanimously in favor of the [Peru Free Trade Agreement], but some state residents don't understand why, because in 2005 four House members -- Democrats Diana DeGette, John Salazar and Mark Udall and Republican Tom Tancredo -- opposed CAFTA, a similar measure that relaxed trade regulations with a block of Central American countries, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

"It's just a mystery," says Reed Kelly, a cattle rancher operating outside of Meeker, Colorado, on the Western Slope, when referring to the House of Representatives' vote on the Peru FTA.

Kelly joined the Western Organization of Research Councils, a rural advocacy organization based in Billings, Montana, to oppose the Peru agreement.

"I really can't quite understand it," Kelly says. "This is basically just an expansion of NAFTA and CAFTA, and if there were reasons to vote against CAFTA, those reasons are even greater for the Peru FTA."

Trade agreements like NAFTA and its extension, CAFTA, are no stranger to controversy. Numerous organizations have opposed the measures due to their more relaxed labor, agricultural and environmental regulations, which have led to an outsourcing of jobs from the U.S. and allegations of workers' rights abuses in places such as Mexico, among other issues.

Kelly says he's personally experienced the effects of the government's free-trade agreements on the ranching industry, where cheaper beef imports have marginalized beef producers on the Western Slope.

"There are a lot less of us in business," Kelly says, claiming that it's getting harder to afford hay costs for ranching because of the lowered prices for beef that have occurred under the agreements. Particularly, Kelly is concerned that with the passage of the Peru FTA, Brazil, a prominent beef producer, will be able to flood the market through Peru, due to inadequate rules on labeling a product's country of origin.

It speaks volumes when your own friends and supporters can't figure out where you stand on an issue like free trade. But not surprising for someone who has been caught selling his vote before. Maybe Udall should start preparing for next year's coming Senate campaign by debating himself.

There's Gold in Them Thar Posts-But Not Water

For the past two days, I've been going back into the archives of this blog to build a cross reference of labels. That is sufficiently time consuming that I haven't had the time to go looking for new items to write about Udall.

I didn't have to look far, as the archives in this blog are a gold mine. In one post, I found a quote by Mark Udall berating an executive branch official for not spending money fast enough. He was also working hard to give Colorado River water rights to New Mexico, where his cousin just happens to be running for Senate.

No one is certain that there are water rights available to meet this new commitment. Water rights, unlike money, can't be printed and issued at just any congressional or executive whim. A visit to Lake Powell would reveal a water level 120 feet below its full "bathtub ring," down 20 feet from last year.

Phil Doe, chair of Citizens Progressive Alliance in Littleton, Colorado writes:

Never once did Mark Udall, the man who would be the next Democratic senator from Colorado, ask questions concerning the baffling hydrologic study; never once did he elicit concern over the adverse impact this settlement would have on Colorado's legitimate rights to water in the Colorado River under the interstate compact;

Since Mark Udall has more loyalty to New Mexico when it comes to water rights than he has to Colorado, perhaps he will consider moving there when he loses his Senate bid. Most voters in Colorado understand that water is a scarce resource in the west, and is not to be simply given away.

As my grandson says, Mark Udall has some "splainin" to do.
----
75 more posts to cross reference.

Observations

We've spent a number of hours doing what we should have done from the beginning - we are cross referencing the posts to make them more useful.

In doing so, we have been reminded of some ongoing and open themes:

1. Ken Salazar used to run interference for some of Mark Udall's wilder, more left wing schemes, and doesn't seem to be doing so as much at the current time.

2. The Denver Post went out of its way to lie to the public about Carolyn Bninski's sentence. Bninski seems to have disappeared from the news. That may be because Mark Udall has very publicly and counter intuitively moved his position on the war leftward at a time when the surge is working.

3. A few months ago, MoveOn.org was publicly threatening Mark Udall that it would cut off donations if Udall didn't move his war policy to the left. It remains to be seen if the move will result in additional money, and more importantly if the additional money it generates will be worth the cost to his chance to reposition himself on the political spectrum as a "moderate."

4. The out of state left wing blogs used to be giddy about Mark Udall's chances to take the Colorado Senate seat. Early in the summer, two days couldn't go by without some over confident comment about how Colorado was turning "Blue." That over confidence is gone.

5. No one is writing about how Hillary and the Democrat convention being in Denver will help Udall. Udall's staff never thought they would, and said so publicly.

6. The very best quote of the fall was from Mark Udall, himself:

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.”

The cross referencing project is only about half done, and will doubtless generate more observations.

Dynamics of Campaign Slowly Turning Against Udall

The earlier conventional wisdom that the 2008 U.S. Senate race in Colorado was Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's to lose has clearly become yesterday's news. Chris Cillizza from the Washington Post, who is following the Senate races as closely as anyone can from inside the Beltway, released his latest rankings today. Colorado has moved from third to fourth in the most likely to switch party control Line:

The downward trajectory isn't because we think Republican prospects have improved markedly here, but rather because when compared the demographics of Colorado to those of the states ranked higher, it's clear there is a larger Republican base here than elsewhere. After a slow start, Mark Udall's fundraising has picked up nicely; he brought in more than $1.1 million in the third quarter and now has $3.1 million in the bank. Former Rep. Bob Schaffer (R) is holding his own on the fundraising front, with $801,000 raised and $1.1 million in the bank. Given the open-seat problems Republicans have in Virginia and New Mexico, national Republican could well choose to focus their financial firepower on Colorado -- a state that looks like it could stay in the GOP column if the right sort of race is run. [emphasis added]

Nearly a year before election day, and the dynamics of the campaign continue to shift slowly away from Udall and the Democrats. The longer they fail to realize it, the better.

Oh, Shenandoah, I long to see you

Scoreboard time again! SquareState has been kind enough to publicly admit that Udall is a "progressive."

If Mark Udall had a last name that wasn't associated with a strong tradition of progressive politics in Arizona, of all places, I would still think he has the makings of an excellent Senator based on his record in Congress.

While the term "progressive" is usually associated with people who want to be thought of as further left than "liberal," we will add this reference to the "liberal" count.

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 5
liberal 24
moderate 0
conservative (chuckle)

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were 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

Added: Another liberal blog has just quoted SquareState verbatim. We are therefore incrementing the liberal count from 23 to 24 without creating another post.

Udall Selling His Vote - Again

Casual observers would never guess that Mark Udall is running to be Senator of all of Colorado when he issues a press release that announces that he will vote to cut and run from Iraq at a time when the surge is obviously working:

Tonight U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Moveon.org, will vote for legislation that requires redeployment in Iraq to begin within 30 days of the bill’s passage and sets a goal of bringing home most U.S. soldiers from Iraq by December 15, 2008.

This is exactly the MoveOn.org position, and we took the liberty of slightly modifying his press release to reflect the people he most wants to be seen as representing, or more likely, the people who are most willing to donate to his campaign if he takes their position.

He even admits in his press release that voting for the bill is a bad idea:

However, while this bill sends the right message – that our troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely – regrettably, it does not send it in the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by Democrats, and the president has already promised to veto it.

This is the second time we have caught Mark Udall selling his vote for campaign contributions. Recall that he went so far as to sponsor a labor bill that he claimed he didn't agree with and then immediately collected $75,000 in campaign contributions from labor unions.

Does Lying Run In The Udall Family?

We have documented elsewhere the propensity of Mark Udall to be less than truthful, in fact, much less than truthful. We're beginning to think it runs in the family - that holding the power of a Congressman or Senator is so important to the Udalls that the truth has become unimportant, even inconvenient.

Remember, last month when Mark Udall said that Tom Udall had been "planning for this moment" to be a US Senator? Then, almost immediately, Tom Udall let it be known, untruthfully, that he wouldn't run.

It turns out that Udall always intended to run, and was playing coy in the hope that Chuck Schumer could clear the field. The field wasn't cleared, but Udall entered anyway. All that Tom Udall got for his gamesmanship was an opportunity for us to point out that the habit of lying to the public does run in the Udall family.

Renewable Mandate Dead?

This past August, Mark Udall tried to stuff a 20% renewable mandate down the throats of every state in the union with an amendment to the "no new energy" bill. His amendment was modified to 15%, but even that appears to be too much:

Last Thursday, Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid said that they would jettison the renewable energy provisions in both the House and Senate versions of the 2007 energy bill in the interest of passing a bill before the Thanksgiving recess begins on November 17.

The Democrats have a problem. They are already being tagged as a do-nothing congress, and the energy bill is being tagged as the "no new energy" bill. They have to get something through the congress, and a bill without the controversial renewable mandate would be much easier to swallow.

Mark Udall and his environmentalist allies are using the global warming scare / scam to force taxpayers and utilities rate payers to invest in uneconomic power sources that can't be sustained without mandates:

While the Renewable Electricity Standard would be a new federal program (31 states already have some kind of renewable mandate), the tax incentives for solar and wind would continue programs already in place. Losing these tax breaks would be devastating to the renewable energy industry, said solar lobbyist Scott Sklar of the Stella Group: "It will cause sales and investment to implode."

All Smoke, No Mirrors

Udall's legislative record is quite spotty this year.

It appears that Mark Udall has been introducing bills solely for the publicity value that they create, with no real intention or hope of getting them passed. One was a bill aimed at pandering hunters by allowing them to cull the elk herds in Rocky Mountain National Park.

In 1994, the Democrats lost the congress in part because of their hostility to guns and gun owners. They are no less hostile to gun owners than they once were, but they try to do a better job of hiding their hostility.

One way to disguise that hostility is by introducing bills like:

H.R.1179 : To clarify the authority of the Secretary of the Interior with regard to management of elk in Rocky Mountain National Park.Sponsor: Rep Udall, Mark [CO-2] (introduced 2/16/2007) Cosponsors (2) Committees: House Natural Resources Latest Major Action: 2/26/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands.

If Mark Udall were serious about getting this bill passed, he would be rounding up co-sponsors, and he would be publicly dissatisfied that it was sent to committee nine months ago where he and others of his party clearly intend to let it die.

Two co-sponsors in 9 months is a joke. No movement out of committee in 9 months is a joke. No, pardon us. It politics on the cheap - all smoke without bothering to purchase the mirrors. Worse, it looks like just another sophisticated Udall lie.

Mark Udall: Putting Our Safety At Risk

Swing Left, Sweet Chariot

Having read and reread the Rocky Mountain News article on Udall's apleanty, we think it would be more than fair to add it to our scoreboard. While El Presedente correctly (see below) chooses not to count the Walt Klein quote, there are actually two comments on Udall's political positioning. The other:

The family's history in politics has led some to call them "the Kennedys of the West."

Tom Udall's father, Stewart Udall, served six years as a Democratic Arizona congressman before being appointed secretary of the interior in 1961.

Mark Udall's father, Democrat Morris "Mo" Udall, replaced his brother Stewart in Congress, where he served for 30 years. Smith is a second cousin to Mark and Tom Udall.

Got all that? By now in its fourth generation, the Udall political family tree has a lot of branches. Most limbs lean left.

We think that we can legitimately count the last sentence as a msm observation about Udall's position on the spectrum without compromising our methodology. We'll add it to the liberal column.

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 5
liberal 22
moderate 0
conservative (chuckle)

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were 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.

Udall Political Dynasty At Stake In 2008 Senate Races

"One reason to call those two the 'Kennedys of the West' is because they share a very liberal voting record with the Kennedys of the East"--Bob Schaffer's campaign manager, Walt Klein, on Mark and Tom Udall's Senate bids in Colorado and New Mexico

Can't add it to the scoreboard, but the analogy hits the liberal record of candidate Mark Udall dead on--his is no ordinary moderate Democrat vote, and his family no ordinary political dynasty:

"I think the West in the 2008 election is all about the Udalls, and it's all about the return of the Udall ethic," said Terry Bracy, chairman of the Udall Foundation, which was founded in part to honor the environmental and civil rights legacy of Mark's father, former U.S. Rep. Morris Udall, D-Ariz.

"The Udall ethic is really an ethic of public service, of conservation, of civility, of seeking to lead, and it reaches into both parties in the West," Bracy said.

The family's history in politics has led some to call them "the Kennedys of the West."

Hagiographical puff pieces by the MSM aside, aren't America's democratic (little d) ideals better supported through the election of a wide variety of citizens from all walks of life instead of political dynasties? Isn't that part of what we fought a revolution for?

Michael Barone had an enlightening piece earlier in the year on the specter of royalism that could occur under the constitution. A Hillary Clinton victory in 2008 and reelection in 2012 would mean 36 years with either a Bush or Clinton in the White House as President or VP. It is already true that a sort of hereditary qualification for office has devolved upon the descendants of politicians or their immediate family. One only needs to look at the political fortunes of the Salazar brothers in Colorado to witness an example. Families like the Udalls have made election to office seem an almost familial duty.

That Udall's family has had such electoral success shouldn't be a reason to vote against him, but it should also not prevent the discussion over the long-term viability of a republic willing to hand over the reins of government to political dynasties from any party. However, being labeled the "Kennedys of the West" won't help too much in establishing either Udall's moderate credentials--certainly a reason not to vote for either candidate in 2008.

Udall Latches on to Baseball Resolution to Break Congressional Slump

Headline from Politico.com: Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall and his political leaders - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi - have gone 1-for-40 on Iraq resolutions since they took over Congress in January.

In baseball terms, Udall and the Democratic do-nothing Congress are in a serious slump. When you reach a 1-for-40 slump, you try a different approach to get your swing back and raise your average. In this case, you latch onto a resolution honoring the National League champion Colorado Rockies:

"We just thought it would be only fair to honor the great work of the Colorado Rockies," said Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo.

Unlike Udall and the Democrats' earlier slump, let's hope the Rox resolution soars through. It may help them get their collective swing back.

Renewable Science Uncertain

Al Gore claims that the science is settled, but is it?

Using biofuel instead of gasoline in cars is generally considered to cut carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, although some scientists say greenhouse gases released during the production of biofuel could offset those gains.

And new studies question the impact on water quality.

More scientists are looking at the entire corn-to-fuel life-cycle of ethanol production and trying to assess the impacts. Researchers at the National Research Council are concerned that growing more corn for ethanol production could harm local water quality, according to a new report released in October

From MIT:

“Agricultural shifts to growing corn and expanding biofuel crops into regions with little agriculture, especially dry areas, could change current irrigation practices and greatly increase pressure on water resources in many parts of the United States,” the committee said in its report. “The amount of rainfall and other hydroclimate conditions from region to region causes significant variations in the water requirement for the same crop.”

The report also urged big agriculture to adopt new technologies that can increase crop yield while conserving water and reducing negative environmental impacts, such as soil erosion and runoff pollution.“We must recognize that the current state of the U.S. agroecosystem is not sustainable,” said Entekhabi, an hydrologist who studies land-atmosphere processes and is director of MIT's Parsons Laboratory for Environmental Science and Engineering.

“The use of energy-intensive and industrially produced fertilizers and pesticides are finding their way into water and food supplies for humans and animals. Soil erosion and loss of soil fertility is continuing unabated. U.S. agriculture needs to shift to more ecologically sound and sustainable conditions.”

Udall Committing a Crime Against Humanity?

Cornfusion isn't the only problem with corn ethanol:

A U.N. expert on Friday called the growing practice of converting food crops into biofuel "a crime against humanity,'' saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry...

The world price of wheat doubled in one year and the price of corn quadrupled, leaving poor countries, especially in Africa, unable to pay for the imported food needed to feed their people, he said. And poor people in those countries are unable to pay the soaring prices for the food that does come in, he added.

''So it's a crime against humanity'' to devote agricultural land to biofuel production, Ziegler said a news conference. ''What has to be stopped is ... the growing catastrophe of the massacre (by) hunger in the world,'' he said.

OK, it is time to put some names to these perps. Who would have guessed that Mark Udall, Ed Perlmutter, Ken Salizar, John Salazar, Bill Ritter and Diana DeGette would stoop to commit a crime against humanity-against the poor in Africa and South America?

One wonders if, when they go to the dock to answer for their crimes, they will use that famous and unsuccessful defense used in Nuremberg "We were just following orders - this time, the orders of the environmentalist lobby."

[ Jean ] Ziegler, a sociology professor at the University of Geneva and the University of the Sorbonne in Paris, presented a report Thursday to the U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee saying a five-year moratorium on biofuel production would allow time for new technologies for using agricultural byproducts instead of food itself.

Energy Bill In Danger

The US Senate is refusing to rubber stamp Mark Udall's personal hobby horse, a 20% renewable mandate by 2020. Actually, the House couldn't stomach the requirement and cut it to 15% in committee.

Now, a Utah paper is reporting that even the 15% mandate is in jeopardy.

In August, the House passed energy measures that included the requirement that investor-owned utilities get at least 15 percent of their power from renewable sources and energy efficiency by 2020. Udall said the proposal failed in the Senate after heavy lobbying by utilities in the South.

"The Southern states think they don't have enough wind and sun and geothermal to meet the renewable energy standard," Udall said, "but many, many experts believe that's not the case."

Mark Udall needs to spend some time in the south. They don't get the kinds of windstorms that are common on the great plains. They have no geothermal features. While the sun does shine, solar power is the most expensive of the potential renewables.

Our bet is that if Mark Udall were a southern congressman, he would be fighting this mandate tooth and nail, too.

It would be useful if Udall named a few of the "many, many experts" he claims believe that the Southern states can produce enough renewables to meet his mandate.

Udall Defending Us from Asteroids

A clipping from Washington, DC, this week, that highlights Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's leading concerns about our national security:

“NASA’s NEO survey program is our ‘insurance policy’ against getting taken by surprise by an incoming asteroid. Much progress has been made in detecting and cataloging the largest NEOs over the last decade. However, much more remains to be done,” said Udall. “We need to survey the smaller but still potentially hazardous asteroids that could do significant damage if they impact or explode above the Earth’s surface. While the probability of such a direct hit is low, we in Congress have a responsibility for the safety of American citizens and we have directed NASA to come up with a survey plan. NASA didn’t deliver a plan that would get the job done. I will continue to work with NASA and hold the agency accountable until their plan is complete.”

It is good to see Udall expressing a concern for our nation's security. While he has no problem slandering an American general leading our forces in the central front in the war against Islamofascist terrorists, Udall at least is taking a strong stand to protect us all from incoming asteroids.

Or then again, maybe he's just feeling a little bit nostalgic.

Udall Adds Another Tax Hike to his Record

A defining issue in the coming 2008 U.S. Senate campaign between Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall and former Congressman Bob Schaffer is the issue of taxes. Yesterday, the House voted to shield many middle-class families from the harsh effects of a scheduled tax increase under the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), while raising taxes on entrepreneurs and the investor class by $81 billion. The better alternative would have been to spare the middle class without a tax hike on anyone. However, Udall voted with bill sponsor Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and the Democrat majority.

Back in 1999, the House had a vote to abolish the harmful AMT structure and provide $800 billion in across-the-board tax relief to Americans. Schaffer voted in favor of tax relief. Udall voted against tax relief, and to keep the AMT in place.

Shifting the tax burden and preserving the AMT is only the first phase in Rangel's plan to slow down the economy with an $800 billion tax hike that more than 80 percent of financial advisors say is a terrible idea.

With Udall's 1999 vote against tax relief and his vote yesterday for $81 billion in new taxes among his long history as a tax-raising Congressman, don't Coloradans have the right to know where Udall stands on Rep. Rangel's crushing $800 billion tax-hike plan? Meanwhile, his campaign remains silent on the issues, going on 10 days now.

Mark Udall: Definitely "Progressive," Not Exactly "Hugely Popular"

Oh, that all our Lefty friends were as ill-informed and overconfident about Colorado's upcoming U.S. Senate race as the Kentucky pacifist blogger who has written:

In Colorado, Rep. Mark Udall (D), a hugely popular progressive, is out-polling possible Republican challengers handily.

For a better informed opinion, please search through the well-sourced links on this site, including analyses of relevant polls here and here and here. Memo to the Bluegrass State: The name of the Republican candidate in this race is former Congressman Bob Schaffer.

Nevertheless, a liberal blogger has tagged Udall as a "progressive," which means it's time once again to update the "Mark Udall is not a moderate" scoreboard. The term "progressive" previously has been determined to fall under "reliably left wing" within the context of the scoreboard, which is updated below as follows:

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 5
liberal 21
moderate 0
conservative (chuckle)

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were 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.

Ritter's Order Taking the Political Heat off Udall?

Our Democratic governor's recent leap into the arms of union bosses at the expense of taxpayers has spurred a closer look at the voting record of fellow Democrat, U.S. Senate candidate, Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall.

Like Ritter, Udall earlier this year received an editorial slap from the Denver Post for co-sponsoring the inaccurately-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). On the floor of the Congress, Udall expressed the difficulties his conscience had with supporting a bill to take away workers' secret ballot election rights, yet he went ahead and supported the bill at the behest of union bosses anyway. All those contributions from union PACs can speak really loud.

Bringing it all together, fellow Colorado blogger Karl Maher gives us some insights into the Democrats' "protection racket," speculating that Big Labor may have persuaded Ritter to take the heat off Udall:

So why would Ritter give employees collective bargaining rights without going through the Legislature?

Maybe it's because the legislative debate would've put the issue on the state's front pages for a couple of weeks. It might have drawn Udall into the debate, reminding people that he co-sponsored the EFCA and that he's taking gobs of money from union PACs. Maybe the party, feeling the need to score one for Labor, prevailed on Ritter to take one for the team and spare the state further debate that might embarrass Udall.

That might give Ritter and the Democrats more credit for strategic thought than they deserve. But really, I can't figure out any other reason Ritter would do such a thing.

Is Karl right on this point? I don't know. But the fact that his argument is plausible reminds us how wary we should be of Udall's homage to Big Labor and his disconnect from the average independent Colorado voter.

Environmentalists Envision Bitter and Costly Medicine

In a Washington Post piece titled Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats that liberal paper warned the Democrat Presidential candidates that they might be going too far in their promises to reduce Greenhouse gases:

The strong medicine Edwards and his fellow candidates are selling -- an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases from 1990s levels by 2050 -- tracks with a plan espoused by scientists. But it is a plan that will require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society...

According to energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.

The Washington Post acknowledges that the cost to Democrats (are you reading this, Mark Udall?) could be very high.

Democrats' boldness, however, could carry a political price. The eventual GOP presidential nominee is almost certain to attack Democrats over the huge costs associated with limiting emissions. "They will come at this hard," said John Podesta, who heads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and sees an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases as necessary.

While the Post doesn't mention it, there have been moves in the past from the environmentalists to claim that beef production contributes to global warming. Anyone who has chased a cow on horseback can testify to the amount of methane it produces. An 80% reduction in methane would likely translate to a 90% reduction in beef production. A family that is used to eating beef three times a week will come to see it as an unaffordable luxury that graces a table three times a year, at best.

The Post did not overstate the situation when it observed that the environmentalists were going to try to transform the economy and society. Will anyone like that society? Where will the pleasures be?

Digging Deeper Into The New Schaffer-Udall Poll

A new poll conducted by SurveyUSA for Roll Call shows Democrat Rep. Mark Udall leading Republican and former Rep. Bob Schaffer 48-41.

Favorability ratings for Schaffer and Udall show that more than half of those surveyed remain neutral or unfamiliar with either candidate (51% for Udall, 72% for Schaffer). That is why it is difficult to discern much from the overall numbers, until the unfamiliars and neutrals begin to shrink:





Udall's favorability is higher than Schaffer's (30-12), but his unfavorables are also greater (19-15).

More SurveyUSA polls.

BBC Writes About Colorado

This isn't posted here for any other reason than that this author found it interesting that the BBC would be writing about Colorado politics in such depth.

New Poll - Udall Leads

Roll Call is reporting that it has done a series of polls on the Senate races in various states. It projects Mark Udall as a 48-41 winner. It provides no internals.

If we recall correctly, the last time this seat was up, Strickland was projected to be the winner and lost by six points.

Time will tell.

That Other Udall

No blog about Mark Udall would be complete without an occasional reference to his cousin, Tom Udall.

Joe Monahan seems to write an exceptionally complete blog about New Mexico politics. He reports:

Top Democratic Party insiders said they agreed that Udall's initial foray into the public arena following his decision to reconsider a Senate race was more muted than expected. They also said they believe he is taking two weeks not to just talk to the Senate leadership, but to see if D.C. Dems intent on getting ABQ Mayor Marty Chavez out of the race can work some magic on Udall's behalf...

Another political veteran offered her assessment where the Chavez-Udall situation stands.

"Chavez sleeps on cement. This is it for him. He is going to do whatever it takes. Udall has a soft pillow with his congressional seat. That's the difference." She said.

Others chimed in that Udall's two week stall could have the effect of drying up Marty's cash and also keeps the focus off of Big Bill who has been wounded by speculation that he might seek the Senate seat if his Prez campaign falters.

We will watch to see if the lefty blogs are as anxious to promote a Chavez-Udall primary in New Mexico as they have been to promote a primary against Schaffer in Colorado.

The Mask Comes Off

As regular readers and commentators on the politics of Mark Udall, we find it interesting that the conventional msm/blog wisdom is that Bill Ritter is a moderate and that Udall is to the left of Ritter.

This past Friday, even the tone deaf and politically blind who write for the msm and for liberal blogs had to note the political earthquake set off by Ritter when he unionized by fiat Colorado state workers.

Both the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post endorsed Ritter as a supposed moderate. Hell has no fury like a newspaper editor scorned.

It will be both interesting and entertaining to see if either tries to endorse Mark Udall, and if so, how they go about it. Will they adopt the once burned, twice shy attitude that would seem reasonable, or will they put their credibility on the line with Udall as they did with Ritter by claiming that Udall is something he is not, and no one claims him to be, including Mark Udall?

There is a fake Chinese curse regarding living in "interesting times." We do.

A Nobel Prize "Co-Winner" Speaks Out

Best Destiny has an excellent essay on John R Christy, and we suggest readers who are not mind numbed by environmentalist propaganda read it. Of course, Mark Udall, who many think believes he is a high priest of environmentalism and thus is entitled to his own facts will want to skip both the Best Destiny and the Christy WSJ article, "My Nobel Moment." Christy writes:

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never "proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time...

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"

We recently wrote about the high relative costs of wind power, but Rossputin put our essay to shame when he published an item which illuminates the costs of ethanol. We are spending $128 Billion to avoid importing 2.3 billion in oil.

Christy notes:

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to marginally limit "global warming."

The Cost of Udall's Pinon Canyon Pandering-Part 2

Some time ago, we wrote about the cost of Mark Udall's pandering to the ranchers in Pinon Canyon with a statement that shows either that he is willing to play games with national defense to score a political point (very likely given his record of untruthfulness), or that he is too naieve about US Defense to be a Senator (not unlikely given some of his actions).

The Gazette recently reported on the efforts to bring Air Force Cyber Command to Colorado.

Rocky Mountain Politics, a new political blog, brings more focus on the impact of Mark Udall's Pinon Canyon pandering:

In the letter, they [ Lousiana Congressional Delegation ] write "We were happy to learn recently that the Army is studying the potential acquisition of additional lands contiguous to the installation." They further add that the additional lands result in "ensuring the continued viability of the base for years to come." To drive the nail home, they say "We feel this is a compelling reason to seize the opportunity to acquire additional lands now, and look forward to assisting the Army in any way possible throughout the process."

So whom do you think the lands will be acquired from? I bet there will be private lands acquired, just as would happen at Pinon Canyon. You have to wonder if the difference in support here won't play out in the halls of the Pentagon on an issue like locating Cyber Command. Guess we will have to wait and see, maybe sooner rather than later.

Gazette: Mark Udall's Handiwork "Excessive"

Once again, Mark Udall's handiwork got mentioned in The Gazette without that paper mentioning his name.

But the House version calls for an excessive 15 percent of U.S. electricity to be generated from subsidized “renewable” sources by 2020, even though only 3 percent today is provided by bio-fuels, solar and wind power. Utilities that fall short of the imposed goal would be fined.

It’s no secret to our readers how we feel about renewable mandates, whether imposed by voters or government officials. We don’t object to the use of renewable energy sources; the more varied sources of energy we have, the less likely consumers will be held hostage by suppliers. It’s the idea that consumers will buy renewables only if they’re forced to. We’d rather see proponents of renewable energy educate consumers in an effort to persuade them to ask utility providers to use renewables.

And while we’re objecting to subsidies and tax breaks for energy providers, let’s include those benefits given to traditional sources, too. Subsidies and tax breaks hide the true cost of energy and don’t allow consumers to make truly informed choices.

We think that if The Gazette feels as strongly as it seems to that a 15% renewable energy mandate by 2020 is "excessive," it has an obligation to tell its readers that Mark Udall wanted the mandate to be 20% and inserted an amendment into the energy bill to that effect.

In one more year, the electorate will be deciding who should be Colorado's next US Senator. Voters are entitled to all the information about who is authoring policies that the Gazette calls "excessive" and "extremist."

The Real Cost of Wind Farms

Today, the Denver Post published an editorial celebrating the wind and solar power initiatives in Colorado. In the process, they appear to have let the cat out of the bag on the costs of these enterprises.

This author left a simple math comment at the bottom of that editorial questioning the Post's math. The Post claimed that it cost $166 thousand per megawatt to build a wind power plant in Weld County. The author misplaced a decimal, meaning that the cost was actually $1.6 million.

Worse, the wind only blows about 30% of the time, meaning that they built a 90 megawatt (less simple and more accurate math) equivalent power plant for $500 million. That works out to $5.5 million per megawatt in construction costs.

A conventional coal plant, again according the the Denver Post, costs $250,000 per megawatt to build. That is less than 1/20th of the price of this wind farm.

Consider that the Colorado legislature has just mandated that by 2020 20% of utility power must come from "renewables." How many $500 million plants that only intermittently produce power will it take to meet that goal? Many more than Colorado can afford.

Mark Udall tried and failed to impose that same goal on the whole nation this summer. He was voted down. At some point, taxpayers and ratepayers will start doing the math and realize that Mark Udall and his band of merry environmentalist extremists are much like Hillary Clinton, but with less honesty. At least she admits that she has more ideas than the country can afford.

Alexander's Ragtime Band

Yesterday, The American magazine called Mark Udall a Liberal.

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 21
moderate 0
conservative (chuckle)

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were 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.

A Fine Time To Legislate Against Both Colorado's and America's Interests

From today's business headlines:

Mindful of a warning from the Federal Reserve Wednesday about inflation, the market nervously watched the price of oil, which passed $96 a barrel overnight for the first time before dipping on profit-taking. The Fed, which cut interest rates a quarter point, said in a statement that inflation remained a concern, and oil’s ascent to another record raised the possibility not only that the Fed might stop cutting rates, but that it might even consider raising them if inflation accelerates.

From The-Man-Who-Would-Be-Senator's website:

Udall worked with Rep. John Salazar (D-Manassa) on a provision requiring all leases for the federal lands on top of the Roan Plateau to include a "no surface occupancy" stipulation. Lands could still be leased, but the minerals could be accessed only from other locations.

Excellent.

So, Mr. Udall, at what price-per-barrel would you think it might be justified for Americans to search for their own energy resources, rather than rely on the rest of the world? $100? $120? $150?

And tell me, Mr. Udall, in a state so heavily dependent on the agricultural economy, a sector heavily dependent on energy supplies, how do you justify continuing to prevent your own state from tapping some of its own natural resources?

Yeah, yeah . . . Roan is about natural gas, and I'm talking about crude oil--energy is energy. Crude oil not used to fuel homes and electricity (because its been replaced by natural gas) is crude oil available for transportation.

But, more importantly, is Mark Udall going to continue to represent out-of-state environmental interests, or at what point is he going to try to represent Colorado's interests?

Where Is Udall on the Issues?

The Left in Colorado has been so bored, they've been complaining that Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer has not taken the time to update his campaign website with clear and detailed opinions on the issues of the day. This fact alone makes a recent development at the campaign site of Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall very interesting: His issues page is down. Who on the Left will take notice that their candidate has withdrawn his official positions on campaign issues important to the people of Colorado?

Meanwhile, as a public service, Schaffer v Udall is picking up the slack with links to Udall's stances on a host of issues, including:

- War on Terrorism
- Energy
- Environment
- Education
- Healthcare
- Taxes
- Second Amendment Rights
- Freedom of Political Speech
- Judicial Filibusters
- Secret Ballots for Workplace Elections

Perhaps, after the relentless analysis and critique of Udall's statements and voting record provided by this website's contributors, his campaign may have decided it's time to rethink the candidate's positions on some key issues. We are most understanding and indulgent, willing to "pardon [the Udall campaign's] dust" for awhile, as Net surfers drop by here to learn more.