Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Grand Junction Sentinel: Mark Udall's Broken Promise Spells Trouble

Getting caught up on an important editorial I missed - this, from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel last Friday:
So [Mark] Udall took the easy route. Sure, he said, he would vote for keeping Congress in session. That’s a safe enough answer, and one that’s not likely to cost any votes at all. Voters who don’t follow candidates closely, and there are many of those, might even see that interview and conclude Udall supports offshore drilling. That’s the best of both worlds for the congressman.

But anyone who knows Udall’s record knows he takes the Nancy Pelosi line on offshore drilling: He’ll support it when you-know-what freezes over.
This is the funny part. For the past 10 days, the Lefties have been stamping their feet, pointing to a meaningless vote Mark Udall never promised to make, and saying, "Look, see? He did keep his promise to vote against adjournment!"

Never mind he promised to vote for the adjournment resolution - which succeeded by one vote - but missed the vote because he was late getting back to Washington, DC, from a fundraiser - raising funds from whom -- we don't know yet. Never mind that the recorded voice vote on the mere formality of a resolution was contrived by Democrat leaders for the sole purpose of giving Lefties a talking point and shielding Udall from a well-deserved critique.

But the Sentinel gets beyond the issue of the broken promise itself, which simply encapsulates Mark Udall's problematic history and out-of-touch plans on energy policy. Even if Udall had somehow kept his promise, his opposition to drilling until "you-know-what freezes over" and his narrow views of energy solutions remain. The missed vote simply serves to highlight Udall's record and his lack of interest in a comprehensive energy policy.

But the Sentinel's conclusion says something at least as troubling about Mark Udall:
We’d prefer to see candidates simply answer questions honestly. In this case the honest answer would have been to say he’d try to get back for the vote, but he could make no promises.
Though he'd still have his troublesome energy record to defend, Udall would have been better off not making promises he can't keep.

3 comments:

Alan said...

The Dead Governors have narrowed the possible explanations for this odd little incident down to two:

"Grand Junction Sentinel Ignores Own Reporting"
http://www.coloradopols.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7003

1. Sunday's editorial was created in a parallel universe, strikingly like our own except that Udall wasn't present for the vote to adjourn Congress on August 1 like he was in our universe, or,

2. A battery of phone calls from Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams to the Sentinel persuaded them to ignore their own reporter--not to mention the Congressional record--and print a demonstrably false hit piece.

Actually, there's only one possible answer.


Good of them to at least mention a possible alternate universe, though, because that's probably what I would stick with if I were you. Facts being facts and all--of course, you've never been one to let some pesky fact get in the way of your deceitful prattle, Ben. Like Bob Ewegen of the Denver Post said about this nonsense recently:

"When the facts disagree with the myth, go with the myth."

Got you pegged pretty well, doesn't he? When this is all over, after Schaffer concedes defeat and retreats in shame in the wake of this singularly arrogant and disingenuous campaign you guys are running, I hope you find the total debasement of whatever credibility you came into 2008 with was worth it.

Point taken, there wasn't much to begin with.

Ben DeGrow said...

Wow ... I bow before the deep, impenetrable logic of ColoradoPols. If you wish to point out where the actual error is in this post, please proceed.

This issue really hits a raw nerve with you guys, doesn't it? Sometimes the facts are painful.

And to think, you went through all that trouble and missed the main point of the post. Keep doing your job.

Curious Stranger said...

Ben, do we really need to go over this again? What part of "stunt" do you not understand. Had Udall shown up for the vote, Blunt would have held back another member so they could still have their #dontgo party the following week. In the end, Udall voted against adjournment, which as far as 99% of the public is concerned is exactly the same thing as voting against the adjournment resolution and had the exact same end result.

What's amazing to me is that this is the best line of attack the Schaffer campaign can rustle up. Looks like its going to be a rough fall for the GOP.