Mark Udall Has a Low Threshold to Be Convinced a Tax-Funded Earmark is Needed

Taking a closer look at the Club for Growth's recent ad exposing Mark Udall's record on earmarks, 9News conducted a "Truth Test." What was the official response of the Udall campaign?:

The campaign's response to the commercial states, "Mark Udall has voted against eliminating earmarks where the proponent of the earmark makes a public and convincing case for keeping it." (E-mail to 9NEWS, Aug. 11, 2008)

Judging by the earmarks he's approved, Mark Udall has a pretty low threshold for what constitutes a convincing case for an earmark.

Hey, at least Mark Udall voted against 1 earmark out of 50 - better than 105 members of Congress. And he could plead the "everybody else is doing it" defense. Fewer than half the members of Congress voted against as many as two earmarks on the list. (And he did show up to vote for 49 earmarks, unlike the vote for an adjournment resolution he promised to make.) But that's simply the career politician culture Udall represents - and a big part of the reason that Congress has a 9 percent approval rating.

If he's searching for a reformer role model within his own party, Mark Udall could look to fellow Democrat Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee - who has a mirror image record to his own, voting against 49 of 50 earmarks. Cooper is much harder than Udall to convince that the people's money should be frittered away on pet projects.

Altogether, this report is further proof that Mark Udall is a newcomer to the anti-earmark club.

Splitting Hairs on Mark Udall's Failure to Vote against the Adjournment Resolution

Is Mark Udall off the hook for his failure to keep a key promise to vote to keep Congress working on domestic energy supply solutions for Colorado? A notorious commenter on this site brought my attention to a ColoradoPols diary that he says answers the question affirmatively:

Only problem is, it appears that the vote everybody's got their panties in a bunch about was preliminary, and the final vote to adjourn just happened a few minutes ago.

Udall was present for today's vote to adjourn--and voted "no" with the Republicans. Despite this, the motion passed 213-197.

But Tuesday's vote that Mark Udall missed was a vote on the key resolution which set up the parameters and dates of Congress's August recess. A vote that passed 213-212 because Udall was late getting back from campaign fundraising to cast. It's also specifically the resolution vote that Udall promised to vote No on:

Bob Schaffer asked: "Are you willing to vote No on an adjournment resolution until an energy bill passes?" After some hemming and hawing, Mark Udall agreed to the challenge.

If the Lefties want to split hairs to try to get Mark Udall off the hook for his promise, we can split hairs right back. Attempts by the Big Blue Lie Machine to rewrite history to protect their "Do Nothing, Delay, Drill Your Wallet" candidate will not escape scrutiny.

Mark Udall misses the vote he promised to make, a vote he could have made a difference on, the importance of which was universally undisputed. Now the Lefty apologists for Udall's economically-unfriendly policies point to a symbolic vote on which Udall couldn't effect any change as a way to excuse his absence and his broken promise.

Is Mark Udall going to follow the lead of the well-known statement made by one of his party's infamous leaders, and start to explain: "I failed to vote for adjournment before I voted against it"? Absurdity imitating absurdity.

Then again, if he really cared about stopping the adjournment, Mark Udall could have joined other members of Congress who protested the failure to work on increasing America's energy supply.

On Mark Udall's Crucial Missed Vote: Just One Minute Late? Fundraising with Whom?

Blogger Civil Sense over at The Colorado Index has some keen insight into Mark Udall's disastrous missed vote in Congress on Tuesday:

Apparently, Mark Udall missed the vote by one minute as he traveled from the airport, and the House leadership would not delay it any longer for Udall to arrive at the Capitol. Congressman Udall would have voted yes on the issue and plans to issue a statement for the Congressional Record noting this....

We at this blog are tough on Democrats, but we also try to be fair. As the Denver Post story confirms the Udall staffer's telephone call to a friend, Mark Udall deserves the benefit of the doubt in this situation. Nancy Pelosi likely did throw Udall under the proverbial bus. It is unlikely that lefty bloggers would cut a Republican candidate similar slack for inadvertently breaking a promise.

However, I agree with Ben DeGrow that even though it was not Mark Udall's fault that he missed the vote, his alliance with the Delay, Don't Drill, Do-Nothing Democrat energy agenda will continue to harm the people of Colorado.

My commentary that Civil Sense is referencing can be found here.

Meanwhile, the Bob Schaffer campaign has issued a challenge to Mark Udall:

The Bob Schaffer for Senate campaign today called on Boulder Congressman Mark Udall to reveal details of fundraising events in Colorado this past Tuesday that resulted in Udall missing two days of votes in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“By his campaign’s own admission, Boulder Liberal Udall chose to attend campaign fundraising events in Colorado rather than to show up for the work in Washington that he was elected to do as a Boulder congressman,” said Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams. “Colorado voters deserve to know the identity of these campaign donors who Boulder Liberal Udall considers more important than showing up and voting in Congress.”

It's a good question: From whom was Mark Udall raising funds that cost him apparently one crucial minute to follow through on an important promise to represent Colorado's domestic energy needs? We'll be waiting with bated breath for a response.