Democrat Mark Udall will need a larger share of the Hispanic vote to take this seat currently held by Republican Wayne Allard. Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer are even at 40%. One-half of Hispanics are undecided.Interesting that the Zogby poll found the contest so close even before Bob Schaffer wiped the floor with Mark Udall in the first debate.
[Udall spokeswoman Taylor] West said that her boss would send a letter to Pelosi today objecting to the fact that the vote wasn't delayed long enough for him to make it from the Washington airport to the Capitol.First, when did Taylor West - one of two people who believed Mark Udall actually won the first debate - resume official PR duties for the Udall campaign?
Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall missed a critical vote today that might have kept Congress from going into summer recess until it passed an energy bill, breaking a vow he made in a recent debate.Whoops! When even the MSM points out the failure . . .
Udall spokeswoman Taylor West said the Boulder County lawmaker was on his way back to Washington at the time and that the vote was called with only 10 minutes' notice. Udall asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to delay the vote without success, and the resolution passed by one vote, 213-212.
With gas prices the No. 1 financial worry of voters, promising to try to keep lawmakers in session until they took action was a bold stroke, but missing that vote could be an equally costly political mistake by the five-term congressman.
Udall's staff said the Democrat stayed in Colorado to attend several campaign-related events, including a meeting with business leaders and a fundraising event — which Udall's Republican opponent quickly jumped on.Udall missed the 1:04 pm vote on adjournment, but made the next vote just 10 minutes later.
"While Coloradans are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, I guess it wasn't important enough for (Udall) to show up for work this week," said Dick Wadhams, the campaign manager for Republican Senate candidate Bob Schaffer. "He made a commitment Monday, he didn't even show up for work Tuesday and then he missed the vote today."
West said that her boss would send a letter to Pelosi today objecting to the fact that the vote wasn't delayed long enough for him to make it from the Washington airport to the Capitol.
Rep. Mark Udall learned Wednesday there are some political promises he shouldn't make.Udall's campaign tries to explain the missed vote, but it doesn't seem to add up--if Udall asked for a delay, and most likely explained why it was needed (even symbolically), then why would the Democrats throw him under the bus and not hold off for a few minutes as he "raced up the stairs"?
Like pledging to oppose sending Congress on its summer break — and then missing the vote altogether.
Wednesday, the House voted 213-212 to adjourn this week.
The vote came two days after Udall vowed, in a televised debate, to oppose recessing unless the House first took up a crucial energy bill.
. . .
But Dick Wadhams, campaign manager for Republican Senate nominee Bob Schaffer, said Udall not only broke a promise, but that his non-vote was worse than had he voted in favor of the adjournment resolution.
"It's one thing to vote wrong, but to not even show up for the vote? Even by 'U-turn Udall''s standards, that's extraordinary," Wadhams said.
Udall, who spent Tuesday campaigning in Colorado, had just landed in Washington Wednesday afternoon when he got word that the adjournment vote was imminent.Perhaps the Dem House leaders failed to grasp the significance of Udall's vote?
He phoned House leaders, asking them to delay the vote, but they didn't.
Udall was racing up the Capitol steps when voting closed. He was one of 10 members absent for the tally.
Tara Trujillo, press secretary for Udall's Senate campaign, said that the Eldorado Springs Democrat was "extremely upset" he was not allowed to cast a ballot.
Boulder Liberal Congressman Mark Udall reneged on a pledge to vote against an adjournment resolution until Congress passed an energy bill when he failed to show up for the vote today in the U.S. House of Representatives. Udall’s vote could have killed the adjournment resolution since it passed by only one vote, 213-212.His failure to keep his promise aside, Udall also failed to show leadership and could have cast an obviously critical vote to keep Congress on task and in the business of finding energy solutions including domestic oil exploration rather than skipping out on holiday.
“Boulder Liberal Mark Udall not only did not fulfill his pledge to vote against adjourning for the summer until an energy bill passed, he didn’t even bother to show up for the vote,” said Schaffer for Senate campaign manager Dick Wadhams. “Boulder Liberal Udall’s u-turns are pretty common but this is extraordinarily low even by his standards.”
During a debate on Monday, July 28 at KDVR-TV Fox 31, Bob Schaffer challenged Udall to vote against adjourning for the summer recess until an energy bill was passed. Udall agreed to the challenge.
Schaffer, meanwhile, accused congressional Democrats of being more concerned with voting to recess at the end of the week than passing an energy plan. Agreeing to Schaffer's challenge, Udall said he would not vote for a recess until an energy bill comes up.At The Colorado Index, Civil Sense highlights the importance of Mark Udall's promise and why it will be difficult for him to keep:
It is unlikely that Nancy Pelosi and the Delay, Don’t Drill, Do Nothing Democrats would allow debate on an energy bill before summer recess as this would force vulnerable Democrat House members to vote against their leadership. Time will tell whether or not Mark Udall will have to follow through or renege on his promise to vote against summer recess.In addition to sitting on their collective hands on expanding domestic energy supply, Mark Udall and the Democratic Congress have failed to pass a single appropriations bill to fund the federal government, to fill numerous judicial vacancies, and to investigate massive corruption uncovered among trial lawyers.
Bob Schaffer's opponents have spent the past two months tarring him as "Big Oil Bob," an advocate of oil drilling and an energy-industry insider. Maybe he should thank them.ProgressNow of course has reason to feel silly, having spent so much time and money on a full-fledged Internet campaign to tar the candidate they hate as "Big Oil Bob." The absurdity of their facile ad campaign had been pointed out as early as April.
Two polls show Mr. Schaffer, the Colorado Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, has erased a double-digit deficit and pulled within a nose of Democratic foe Mark Udall.
The reason, according to one poll, lies in fuel prices. Since gas hit $4 a gallon here, a majority of Colorado voters have come out in favor of offshore oil drilling and exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, said a Quinnipiac Poll released last week.
At the same time, Mr. Schaffer went from trailing Mr. Udall by 10 percentage points in June - 49 percent to 39 percent - to a 44 percent to 44 percent tie in July. The June survey of 1,351 likely Colorado voters had an error margin of 2.7 percentage points; the July poll of 1,425 likely voters had a 2.6-point margin.
In the U.S. Senate race, U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, the Democrat, and Republican Robert Schaffer are tied 44 - 44 percent, compared to a 48 - 38 percent Udall lead June 26.Schaffer managed to erase (and Udall managed to lose) a ten-point deficit in under a month.
Mark Udall's supporters are complaining that Bob Schaffer's "checkmate" moment over the Iraq War at the Senate debate was an unfair attack and are trying to make out like Udall is a darling of the anti-war movement. This YouTube video uploaded by anti-war activists last year shows that they don't seem to like him all that much and suggests that this may be a looming problem for Udall with the Democratic base.Go and check out the video, watch Mark Udall dodge question after question (good thing he didn't have any of his constituents put in jail), and tell a Lefty friend to go with their conscience and give a second look at Bob Kinsey for U.S. Senate.
In the first debate between Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall and far-right Republican Bob Schaffer, Udall came away the clear winner. Udall presented a clear plan for moving the country forward after years of Republican mismanagement of the economy, national security, and our energy policy.Sorry, I should have warned you not to read that with food or drink in your mouth. Hope it didn't cause any unfortunate damage to your computer.
Anyone who actually watched last Monday's debate recognizes this as some of the most outrageous and absurd propaganda of the season. "Udall came away the clear winner"? Yes, if by winning the debate you mean "not tripping and falling on your face in front of hundreds of people." And Mark Udall "presented a clear plan"? What clear plan was that ... "working together"?Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall’s plans to encourage the use of renewable energy could end up benefiting several of the congressman’s investments, according to a review of his recent financial disclosure forms.Mark Udall's relations in the energy world have already evidenced public hypocrisy and possible coordinated smear attacks against his opponent. What abouta little conflict of interest to top it all off?
Udall’s May 22 disclosure to the Senate Ethics Committee reveals he has at least $31,000 invested in mutual funds and IRAs backed by clean-energy investments.
These investments could benefit from policies Udall has announced his support for both on the campaign trail and during his time in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The top holdings for Powershares WilderHill Clean Energy, in which Udall has invested from $16,000 to $45,000, include First Solar Inc., an Arizona-based firm developing solar-energy technology.
Udall has purchased $15,000 to $50,000 worth of shares in the Winsloe Green Growth mutual fund, which also has invested in the solar-technology firm.
Udall purchased shares in both investments Nov. 13, according to his financial disclosure.
Hillside resident Fred Berry took a Schaffer for Senate T-shirt provided by the candidate’s campaign.Of course, the advantage of grassroots energy in Schaffer's campaign was most visible recently at the turnout and enthusiasm of the debate crowd.
"I'm getting work clothes for my wife," the 69-year-old Custer County rancher joked. "When she’s out baling (hay) she can be electioneering for Schaffer."
Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams argued, however, that Udall is burning through money at an unsustainable rate, noting he spent almost $300,000 more than he raised from April through June. The $2 million cash-on-hand advantage the Democrat held over the former Fort Collins congressman in April has been cut almost in half by Schaffer, he said.Back in April, we speculated about where the money was going:
"The only thing that matters from here to the election is how much money you have in the bank, how many more bullets you have left to shoot," Wadhams said. "Even though he had a very good fundraising quarter, when you spend $2.3 million, it negates everything."
Patent leather office chairs or golden bathroom fixtures at campaign headquarters? Solar-powered Blackberries? Or maybe it's being wasted on high-paid online staffers? Udall's friend Governor Bill Ritter probably wishes some of that money could be shared to cover his outstanding campaign debts.This time some of the money was spent on buying television ads - which along with 527 smear ads, has helped to forge a small advantage for Mark Udall. But this rapid depletion of funds - combined with Bob Schaffer's more cost-effective strategy - may later be a source of regret for the Boulder liberal.
Schaffer then asked the crowd to raise their hands if they agreed with the resolution. Udall supports sneered and chuckled until they were told the resolution was introduced by Congressman Udall. An audible gasp was heard from the crowd.Mark Udall's resolution called for more diplomatic action, but clearly left the military option on the table.
I attended the debate as a guest of the South East Business Partnership (SEBP). I sat two rows from the speakers and saw everything live.Any assessment that I could make showing that Bob Schaffer won the debate hands down could not be so persuasive. A diehard Lefty Mark Udall supporter who watched the debate disagreed with one of Schaffer's main points of attack but had to admit his candidate's performance was "platitudinous."
While I was leaning toward Udall for his record on aerospace, I couldn't believe his performance in the debate. A friend of mine (and staunch Udall advocate) was horrified and joked we should have sat in the back so leaving was an option. He was terribly concerned for his candidate following the dbate.
If I heard Udall say "We are all Americans" once more than the 32 times I counted I would have considered driving a srewdriver into my tempel to stop the pain.
This Schaffer guy wiped the floor with Udall who looked like a deer in the headlights. On enegry and Iraq Udall used the famous I voted for it before I voted against it - defense many times but using different words.
Schaffer dominated the debate and won handedly. Any unbiased observor would easily come to this conclusion. I was just sad to see your coverage so very different from the actual event I witnessed. Regardless of who the reporter supports he should report the truth.
It was like watching a wrestler sitting on top of his opponent in every round and reading an account in the paper that is was an even fight.
I want to do more research on Schaffer before saying I support him but based on the debate - the winner was much more clear than your newspaper reported. [emphases added]
Painted into a corner by weeks of attack ads, Bob Schaffer came out swinging this morning in the first U.S. Senate debate of the season, accusing Mark Udall of flip-flopping and of being responsible for high gas prices.
Udall, a Democratic congressman from Eldorado Springs, rarely took the bait from his Republican opponent, responding most often that Congress must work together rather than continue its partisan bickering.
The topics of the debate, which drew a crowd of about 800 to the Wildlife Experience, ranged from energy to the Iraq war to the proposed expansion of Piñon Canyon military training area. But one theme seemed to emerge throughout the morning: Schaffer accusing Udall of being unwilling to make a decision and Udall responding that he prefers finding consensus rather than rushing into a bad decision.
Emblematic of this was a question over whether Colorado needs to extract oil shale from the ground. Udall said that while research is under way to determine the potential of oil shale, Colorado should not be turned into a "national sacrifice zone."
Schaffer responded: "This is part of the reason I'm running for Congress.... I do not believe constant delay is a strategy for America's energy independence."
Put plain and simple: We still don’t really know how to develop oil shale in a way that makes economic sense and in a way that protects scarce water resources.Classic doublespeak. It will be harder for oil shale extraction to make "economic sense" when environmental interests, to whom Mark Udall is beholden, press for additional unreasonable regulations that will make the already challenging process costlier. Udall also has advocated a one-year moratorium on oil shale recovery.
And if we don’t want to send the Western Slope into another economic crash, we’d better figure that out before we try to kick-start another crash program.
But a new technology has emerged that may begin to tap theRecognizing this reality and others,
oil shale's potential. Royal Dutch Shell, in fact, has recently completed a demonstration project (The Mahogany Ridge project) in which it produced 1,400 barrels of oil from shale in the ground, without mining the shale at all.
Instead, Shell utilized a process called "in situ" mining, which heats the shale while it's still in the ground, to the point where the oil leaches from the rock.
We should offer more incentives to grow a more robust renewable energy sector. We should hold out incentives for unconventional technologies such as oil-shale, oil sands and others. We should expand other clean-energy opportunities such as nuclear and geothermal.Bob Schaffer's strategy for oil shale is reasonable and balanced. Among other things, he recognizes that energy companies have made dramatic technological advancements in oil shale extraction that respect the environment.
Sadly, some of the worst culprits are from Colorado. I’m running against one of them – Boulder’s Democratic Congressman Mark Udall.Here's the edited version:
Sadly, some of the worst culprits are from Colorado. I’m running against one of them — Boulder County Democrat Mark Udall.Nothing inaccurate in the original description, but that didn't seem to matter.
The liberal views espoused by Boulder’s Congressman couldn’t be more different than mine.And then what the Sentinel published:
The liberal views espoused by Udall couldn’t be more different than mine.Would the editors justify this change as an essential way to cut extra words and save space? Perhaps, but coupled with the first instance, it looks more like part of a policy that changes one candidate's words while ignoring pertinent facts about his opponent.
Yet the Oversight Committee documents present a very different picture. They include internal Hunt memos describing meetings with U.S. officials in which they talked about the potential leases with no mention of any warning that they were a bad idea. They also include an e-mail from a State Department official in Iraq to Hunt Oil vice president Jeanne Phillips, in which the U.S. official chats amicably about the Kurdish deal and flags a new opportunity the company might be interested in: "Anything I can do from here to give info or whatever, let me know," it reads.More light is shed in today's Rocky Mountain News:
Those documents match what Schaffer says about Aspect's own dealings as the company was arranging the Kurdish lease - that they received no discouragement from U.S. officials in their efforts. It is still unclear exactly what the State Department said to Aspect executives as they worked to line up the lease in 2006, if anything.
But both Wadhams and Alex Cranberg, chairman of Aspect, disagree that the State Department had a clear policy against such contracts. Cranberg said his company received government approval to visit the region.Unfortunately, Mike Saccone - perhaps trying to give legs to the story he broke - misinterprets what Cranberg's message means, trying to suggest that "Cranberg said there was no communication between Aspect Energy and the State Department." But that's not what Bob Schaffer's former boss said. According to Cranberg, government officials gave his company no reason to believe they shouldn't move forward.
"We were not asked by the State Department not to do this deal," he said in an e-mail.
Documents suggest that the situation was much less clear cut. They show that State Department officials in Iraq may even have encouraged some American oil companies in their efforts to secure those leases even as it was publicly describing them as problematic. To the extent that's true, Schaffer and Aspect may be much less culpable than Democratic critics suggest and it may be the State Department that is most to blame for playing the diplomatic game of saying one thing in public and another in private.Yet two critics with Left-leaning records and attachments to Democrat candidates have attempted to come forward allegedly as unbiased experts to perpetuate the myth of wrongdoing.
The state still is closely divided politically and Republicans say they are confident that their candidate, conservative former Rep. Bob Schaffer, will hold the seat by proving to voters that Udall, whose political base is in the liberal college town of Boulder, is too far left for Colorado....Mark Udall currently has the edge, but the race is sure to tighten up as it enters a new phase in which:
wrong, wrong, wrong. He signed on as cosponsor on JULY 11, 2001. Last time I checked July came before September.Absurdicus is correct (and I invite you to follow the link), but foolishly attacks our speck while the beam bulges from his candidate's eye. If 9/11 truly changed Mark Udall's views about the Department of Peace, it seems he would have revoked his co-sponsorship, oh, relatively soon after 9/11. It hardly matters to this point whether Udall first co-sponsored the Department of Peace legislation two months before 9/11 or two months afterward. The question of importance is when he terminated his co-sponsorship.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR02459:@@@P
If you and grandpa mcgrumpy are gonna lie and lie and lie, at least make it something where it's not so easy to find proof of your lies. But, nice job at projecting. That, you do well.
"Kelly is an excellent addition to our hard working staff," said Schaffer in the first release issued by Brady. "She brings a wealth of knowledge and insight into the issues affecting Colorado voters."Actually, a little modesty and a sense of perspective is quite refreshing. Kelly Brady recognizes it isn't all about herself - a sort of elementary discovery that has escaped many on the contemporary political scene.
We assume that Brady wrote the Schaffer quote herself.
And that's all she could come up with about yourself [sic]?
Kelly...you have a pen...use it.
