Washington Post Gets It Wrong - Again

Today's "The Fix" shows exactly why people on the east coast shouldn't be writing about Colorado Politics. It also demonstrates one of the several reasons that Washington is called "foggy bottom."

The Washington Post describes the Colorado race not as it is, but as it would like it to be. There is a big difference:

[ Dick ] Wadhams, a Colorado native, has been nearly perfect in the campaigns with which he has been associated in his home state. Can he keep the streak alive in Schaffer's up hill fight against Rep. Mark Udall (D)? Expect the phrase "Boulder liberal" to become a staple of Wadhams' vocabulary between now and November.

It is difficult to see how this race can be described as "up hill." There have been three polls that we know of, and all three showed a separation between the two of one percentage point. The first two showed Mark Udall to be ahead and the last one showed a slight Bob Schaffer lead.

This is still a conservative state, admittedly with a well gerrymandered left wing legislature and a chameleon governor, Bill Ritter who ran as a pro business moderate and is governing as an anti-business liberal. The Denver Post, which supported him in the 2006 election with comments designed to make him appear moderate has opined that he may be a one term governor.

In November Cillizza himself wrote: "a state that looks like it could stay in the GOP column if the right sort of race is run," so we want to know what has changed to make it "up hill."

As for whether Mark Udall can fairly be described as a "Boulder Liberal," The Fix would do well to note that Mark Udall is a self described Boulder Liberal. His campaign spokesperson, Taylor West, opined publicly that being called a Boulder Liberal wouldn't hurt him. The Denver Post recently called Mark Udall "solidly liberal" There is no evidence either that Mark Udall is running as anything but a liberal or that he can run as anything but a liberal. His friends in the msm and the liberal blogs have routinely called him "liberal," "reliably left wing/progressive," and "extremist." It has happened so often that we keep a scoreboard.

Given all of this data, it is hard to see how Dick Wadhams could avoid noting the obvious. He doesn't have to call Mark Udall a Boulder Liberal. All he has to do is restate the information here.

It is also hard to see how Chris Cillizza could have suggested that it would be wrong or inaccurate to call Mark Udall what he calls himself, a Boulder Liberal. Is this another example of the Big Blue Lie Machine in action? It wouldn't be the first time that the Washington Post was a big cog in that machine.