Freedom's Watch: "Do You Know Where That Mark Udall Elk Crossing Bridge Is?"

Freedom's Watch continues to amuse and enlighten us with colorful insights about Boulder liberal Mark Udall's record. From the group that brought us "Skip Udall" and the "Smoke-Filled Van," comes a new ad without any human actors - "Hey Elk":

As Bob Schaffer has pointed out, Mark Udall's "bridge to nowhere works fine--if all the elk know where the crossing is."

I think CBS 4 Got It Wrong-Fact Checking the Fact Checker

In the late 1990's, I worked for the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO), sometimes referred to as "star wars," and now called BMDO.

One day, either Ben or Jerry of ice cream fame came by and wanted a million dollars to do anti-SDIO peace stuff. They didn't expect Congress to allocate an extra million dollars for their boondoggle. They wanted to take it out of the program's hide. We were polite to them.

Now comes the CBS 4 analysis of the peace department ad by Freedom's Watch which says in part:

Bottom line. [ Mark ] Udall did support what appears in hindsight to be a goofy legislative proposal. It's certainly fair game in a tough Senate campaign. However, to imply Udall withheld money from the troops because he wanted it for a department of peace, is a misleading claim unsupported by the facts.

I think they are wrong, but don't have the time to do the research to prove it.

Like Ben (or) Jerry of a decade earlier, Mark Udall wasn't asking congress to appropriate extra billions of dollars to fund his "goofy legislative proposal." If memory serves, he wanted billions taken out of the defense department budget and he didn't care whether it meant fewer bullets, fewer uparmored vehicles, or less care for wounded soldiers. If I am correct, and I think I am, to claim that Udall wasn't trying to take funds from programs that supported troops is a "misleading claim unsupported by the facts."

Otherwise, CBS4 did a good job on a humorous commercial produced at a time when humor is needed.

"Smoke-Filled Van" Makes Catchy Point about Mark Udall and Department of Peace

Freedom's Watch does it again. I think we've found another nominee for most creative ad of the political season in Colorado's U.S. Senate race:

You've heard of the proverbial "smoke-filled back room" in politics? In Mark Udall's case, it appears to be a "smoke-filled van."

Writing at The Colorado Index, a watcher speculates that the vehicle featured in the ad might be the missing car confiscated from Mark Udall three decades ago. I don't know about that, but it's clear that Udall's co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace has been good for humor more than once in this campaign - this time perhaps the best of them all.

Here's the other TV ad nominee from Freedom's Watch.

Flashback: Mark Udall's War Flip-Flop Puts Him Temporarily Out of Left's Favor

Our hats are off to Rocky Mountain Right (RMR) for repeatedly hitting the nail on the head about Mark Udall. The latest coup d'etat is a posted video showing Udall's highly strained relationship with the anti-war Left that had invested so much hope in their Boulder liberal candidate - especially after he co-sponsored the Department of Peace - the result of being hurt by Udall's violent flip-flopping.

Writes RMR:

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.

Mark Udall Blindsided on Iraq Resolution - No Dept. of Peace to the Rescue

Courtesy of Rocky Mountain Right, the blindside on Mark Udall from Monday's debate:

The only question is what hopes Mark Udall had for his Department of Peace to govern our Iraq policy and to protect us from other terrorist dangers.

Despite My Mistake, Mark Udall's Still Dishonest about 9/11 and Dept. of Peace

When an error of fact is pointed out, I'm quick to make a correction. One of our favorite commenters absurdicus noted that I uncritically quoted a misstatement in this post about Mark Udall's deceitful statement that 9/11 changed him. In that post I quoted a watcher, who wrote "Mark Udall's co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace bill didn't take place until after 9/11."

Absurdicus comments in response:

wrong, wrong, wrong. He signed on as cosponsor on JULY 11, 2001. Last time I checked July came before September.

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.

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.

As the National Republican Senatorial Committee documented well, it took Mark Udall two-and-a-half years after 9/11 to drop his co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace: March 17, 2004. Coincidentally, though, it came one week after he first announced he was running for U.S. Senate. Does anyone still want to argue credibly that he changed his position on the issue because of 9/11? Or is it much clearer now that the move is part of Boulder liberal Mark Udall's careful calculation to remake his image as he runs for statewide office?

To absurdicus, I know you were trying to take the heat off Mark Udall and to make us look bad. You're just doing your job. But I also appreciate the opportunity to correct my minor error quickly and to explore the issue again - to re-emphasize the fraud in Udall's claim that 9/11 changed his views on the Department of Peace.

I'm willing to acknowledge and correct my mistake. But the problem with Mark Udall's statement about 9/11 and his support for the Department of Peace remains. Is he willing to acknowledge and correct his "mistake"?

Does Mark Udall Really Not Remember When the 9/11 Attacks Occurred?

Update: Thanks to the commenter's prompt catch, I have posted a correction here.

Over at The Colorado Index, a watcher calls Boulder liberal Mark Udall on a glaring misstatement - a statement in which he claimed to move away from his wacky co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace because he "changed after 9/11".

A watcher astutely and accurately notes:

Mark Udall's co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace bill didn't take place until after 9/11. He only dropped out as a sponsor after he decided to run for the US Senate.

The quote implies that he became more realistic after 9/11. The opposite is true. Mark Udall lies again. The amazing thing is that Ed Sealover didn't catch the lie, or at least didn't note it.

Mark Udall isn't moving to the middle. His campaign is using the classic propaganda tool. Tell a big lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.

Either Mark Udall's memory and other mental faculties are too Swiss-cheesed for him to competently serve as U.S. Senator, or he indeed has been caught in an outright lie.

Does Mark Udall really not remember when our nation was invaded by terrorists? Will we get a retraction and explanation from the Udall campaign?

NRSC, CBS4 Pan Mark Udall's Military Ad, "Wacky" Support for Department of Peace

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has followed our lead and debunked Boulder liberal Mark Udall's attempt to portray himself as strong on national defense:

Even the local CBS4 News affiliate noticed some of the Mark Udall ad's deception (click on video to play), and highlighted Udall's "wacky" co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace legislation.

The verdict is clear for honest, clear-thinking Coloradans: Mark Udall's attempted pro-military makeover simply doesn't jive with his "wacky" Boulder liberal record on national defense issues.

Mark Udall's "Expert Advice": Same that Counseled Defense Cuts, Dept. of Peace?

Even as evidence mounts of a growing U.S. victory in Iraq, Mark Udall is trapped in the MoveOn.org past. And Denver Post reporter Michael Riley is right there with Udall:

Votes against the 2002 Iraq war resolution — relatively rare as they were — have been political gold for those who cast them, and Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall plans to take that currency to the bank.

Udall used the release Thursday of a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report on the White House case for war to take a few swipes at his Republican opponent and telling voters that he had been right to oppose the war.

"Mark Udall used his independent judgment and sought out expert advice to see through the Bush administration's manipulated intelligence and come to his own conclusions," said Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo. She said Republican Bob Schaffer "simply rubber-stamped the Bush administration's rush to war."

So whose "expert advice" did Udall seek? Seeing as how this is such an important foundation to the Boulder liberal Congressman's argument that he has great judgment, perhaps Riley or Trujillo could share who these figures were.

Perhaps it was the same "expert advice" that counseled Mark Udall to co-sponsor a bill to create the Department of Peace.

Or perhaps it was the same "expert advice" that counseled Mark Udall to cast these votes in Congress:

* Udall voted against authorizing nearly $289 billion in Fiscal Year 2000 defense funding -- including funds for six F-22 fighters -- twice (RCV#424, 9/15/99; RCV#241, 6/7/00)
* Udall voted to cut $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 defense spending (RCV#194, 5/18/00)
* In 2003, Udall voted against $87 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan including funds for body armor, armored humvees, and health care for National Guard members and reservists (RCV#601, 10/31/03; CQ Weekly, 11/8/03)
* Udall voted against a bill intended to expedite the delivery of armor to troops on the ground in 2004 (RCV#234, 6/14/04)
* Udall voted against $453.5 billion in defense spending in 2005 (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
* In 2005, Mark Udall voted against $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
* And last year, Udall voted against protecting funding for homeless and disabled veterans from cuts, against increasing military housing funding by $275 million, against lowering college loan rates for graduates serving in the military or National Guard, and to prevent senior military officers from working at major defense contractors for a year after retiring. (RCV#714, 7/24/07; RCV#71, 1/31/07; RCV#421, 5/24/07)

There's too much countervailing evidence on this issue for intelligent readers to assume that Mark Udall sought anonymous "expert advice" and displayed good judgment. Especially when his "stuck in the past" focus ignores the real issue of how (or how not) to build on recent American success in Iraq.

Bob Schaffer Accepts GOP Nomination

Bob Schaffer began his acceptance speech with a tribute to his recently deceased grandmother, Mary Schaffer, born in 1914, an inspiration to his life and campaign.

Schaffer began the substance of his remarks by highlighting the need for reform within the Republican Party and his independent record of challenging GOP leadership, on No Child Left Behind and on earmarks.

But Democrat leadership is wrong more often, he correctly observed. Schaffer compared Democrat calls for "change" to putting lipstick on a pig. The zinger of the speech: What do you call a system of sustained, liberal, one-party rule? "In Colorado, we call it Boulder." Without mentioning his opponent by name, Schaffer reminded the party faithful of Dennis Kucinich's Boulder-like Department of Peace proposal. Subtle, but effective.

Bob Schaffer then focused on the expected philosophical themes that undergird his campaign and unite him with the Republican Party:
- His support of free markets
- Protecting individual rights
- Empowering families to make the most important decisions about health care & education (aka school choice)
- The need for energy independence
- Freedom-based health care, not government-run health care

In case you need a sense of the audience, Bob Schaffer's biggest applause came from his citation of the Declaration of Independence, that our inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" come from God.

Bob Schaffer closed on a personal note, honoring his wife Maureen, "another strong Schaffer woman" and each of his five kids: Mary, named for her great-grandmother; Sarah, with the best penmanship in America. His oldest three children are all military officers in training - Jenny, Emily, and Justin - which provided a springboard to credit those serving in our military overseas as an inspiration for those on the homefront: "Don't you think we owe them the same kind of courage here at home?"

The audience rose to its feet with the powerful conclusion that draws the clear contrast between Bob Schaffer and his opponent: "Freedom is better than bondage. Liberty is better than bureaucracy. Winning on the battlefield is better than losing."

Why Not Ask Mark Udall if He Supports Department of Peace Initiative?

Questions have been raised about the fairness of Politicker's Jeremy Pelzer recent approach to interviewing the two major party U.S. Senate candidates. On this slow news day, it seemed like a good time to put forth a key example.

From Pelzer's interview of Republican Bob Schaffer:

PolitickerCO: [American Right to Life Action head Steve Curtis] also said that you had not weighed in on the personhood referendum, proposed referendum-

And later:

PolitickerCO: I should ask you - what do you think of the proposed referendum to recognize an embryo as a person? Do you have an opinion on that?

Note that it's far from clear at this point that this initiative will collect enough signatures to be on the ballot. And reasonable pro-life advocates disagree on whether this is the right approach. Schaffer declined to answer the question.

Yet, speaking of relevant statewide initiative issues, why didn't Pelzer ask Mark Udall whether he supported the Department of Peace initiative? After all, Udall once was a co-sponsor of a very similar measure in Congress.

But the Department of Peace initiative hasn't even collected enough signatures to appear on the ballot, you say? Exactly. Just looking for a little consistency.

Another Nice Thing to Say About Mark Udall

Some complain that this blog is completely one-sided in its praise of candidates in Colorado's U.S. Senate race. Yet while we tilt heavily to one side, it is simply untrue that we never give Mark Udall credit. (Here's a recent example.) So here goes the latest:

One of Mark Udall's positive traits - his personal financial integrity - is highlighted in contrast with the exploits of his Minnesota counterpart. Yes, to the best of our knowledge, Mark Udall is NOT a Democratic candidate who owes thousands of dollars in income taxes and penalties.

Scott Johnson, one of Power Line's uberbloggers, puts it best:

Since the expiration of the Al Franken decade in 1990, the only kind of humor for which Franken has been responsible is unintentional. Assuming Franken's tax delinquencies are the result of negligence, they would run true to his post-Franken decade form.

By contrast, Mark Udall has not been responsible for much in the way of humor (outside of sponsoring the Department of Peace proposal) and for nothing in the way of tax delinquency.

Colorado at least can be thankful that Mark Udall is no Al Franken.

A Reminder of Mark Udall's U-Turns: Making Our Work Easier

You've got to love it when the other side does our work for us. A new Lefty blog actually went out of its way to remind readers of one of Boulder liberal U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall's more famous U-turns: that he was for the Department of Peace before he was against it.

I really appreciate the break this morning.

Providing Balance to Politico's Profile of Bob Schaffer-Mark Udall Race

University of Colorado law professor Scott Moss has penned an introductory column on the Bob Schaffer-Mark Udall Senate race for Politico. Despite its generally neutral tone and the author's credible job in capturing some of the race's larger themes, the article tends to distort Udall's positives and Schaffer's negatives - which may be an inadvertent product of the author's own biases.

So here's a response in the interest of fairness and balance.

At one point Moss writes:

Udall draws Republican fire as a Boulder liberal who votes against tax cuts and other Bush programs, but Udall’s mixed political persona draws liberal ire, as well. Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District includes the famously liberal college town Boulder, “the Berkeley of the Rockies.”

But Boulder is not nearly large enough to fill a whole congressional district, so Udall also represents many conservative Coloradans in rural mountain towns and Denver-Boulder exurbs....

Note that the only criticism of Mark Udall is veiled in the language of "Republican fire." But the facts are clear: Udall himself claims Boulder as his "touchstone." And Udall has embraced the "Boulder liberal" tag.

Moss, who apparently teaches in Boulder, makes one of the biggest non-statements of the year by noting that Mark Udall is "Perhaps not as liberal as some Boulder constituents...." Perhaps. But even being a centrist in the context of "the Berkeley of the Rockies" puts the liberal Congressman outside the mainstream as a statewide candidate in Colorado. In other words, "perhaps" Udall is just a little bit out of the mainstream, as opposed to way outside the mainstream. Okay.

To the author's credit, he goes on to point out Udall's duplicity on the Department of Peace, though he missed that Udall had previously pandered to one side of the Pinon Canyon issue before his current stance.

As far as Bob Schaffer goes, Moss' article also might have balanced the critique to point out that the former Congressman demonstrated integrity by keeping a term limits pledge.

Another Mark Udall Staffer Lie - But What's New?

We've referred to Taylor West, Mark Udall's spokesperson as God's gift to this blog in the past, and nothing has changed. How difficult and thankless must it be to try to reinvent past Udall positions in a way that will be palatable statewide?

Today, she was reinventing the Department of Peace that Mark Udall co sponsored at the urging of some high school students. The Longmont Times-Call reports:

Udall campaign spokeswoman Taylor West said in a Thursday interview that [ Mark ] Udall initially supported that bill “because there was a severe lack on the part of the Bush administration of using the tools of diplomacy ... as part of our overall foreign policy.”

Misuse of the "tools of diplomacy" sounds like a serious charge, a serious purpose for a Department of Peace. We looked back to see what Dennis Kucinich staffers were telling the Summit Daily News about the Department of Peace when he was pushing it and Mark Udall was still a co sponsor. Look closely to see if the proposal even mentioned diplomacy or foreign policy:

We have lived with war, violence and abuse for far too long," said Kucinich spokeswoman Denise Hughes. "By establishing a Cabinet level Department of Peace, we have the unique opportunity to confront the root cause of these evils and the ability as a society to build a safer world."

Methods would include mediation, nonviolent intervention and encouraging communities, religious groups and nongovernmental organizations to develop initiatives.

The department would be responsible for developing policies that address domestic violence, child abuse and mistreatment of the elderly, create new policies to reduce drug and alcohol abuse, protect animals from violence, develop new approaches to deal with gun-related violence and develop programs that address school violence, gangs and racial violence and violence against gays and lesbians.

Additionally, the department would take under its wing civil rights, labor law, community-based violence prevention and racial tolerance programs.

At the international level, the department would work with the U.S. Secretary of Defense and U.S. Secretary of State to reduce international conflict, train those who work to reconstruct war-torn societies, sponsor countrywide and regional conflict prevention and dispute resolution initiatives and encourage international sister city programs to exchange artistic, cultural, economic, educational and faith-based values.

The department also would submit recommendations to the president regarding how the sales of arms from the United States affect peace and develop strategies for the sustainability and distribution of international funds.

The secretary of the Department of Peace also would develop a peace education curriculum to include the civil rights movement in the United States, how peace agreements have worked to stop conflict and to work with teachers to help students work on peace through reflection and conflict resolutions.

A highlight of that would be a Peace Academy, which would provide a four-year course of instruction in peace education, after which graduates would be required to serve five years in public service in domestic or international nonviolent conflict resolution programs.

It looks to us as though a Mark Udall staffer Taylor West was telling another whopper. But as a now famous unofficial Udall spokesman recently opined, "a lie is just a campaign tactic that someone doesn't like," or something to that effect. (Yes, we are laughing because blogging is so much fun.)

Added: The article quoted extensively above was originally published on Tuesday, April 8, 2003 by the Summit Daily News (Vail, Colorado). Its title was "Udall Backs Creating Department of Peace."

More Deception From Mark Udall

On Sunday, the Denver Post published an article on the relative liberal standings of Mark Udall vis a vis other prominent members of his party. El Presendente did an analysis and we made separate observations.

The article was based on the prolific work of academic Kieth T. Poole. Dr Poole has created a mechanism for rating Congress, congressional leaders, and even presidents against their contemporaries, past and present.

While it appears that Dr. Poole cannot manipulate his statistics, the same cannot be said for active members of Congress. Congressmen need only change their voting pattern to move around on the tables

Sometimes politicians who are running for higher office feel the need to deceive the public as to where they are on the political spectrum. They do this by moderating their positions, their votes and their rhetoric in the hope that no one will look at their past record.

A good example in this election would be Mark Udall's dropping his co-sponsorship of Dennis Kucinich's Deprartment of Peace bill after he decided to run for the Senate.

Ace political analyist David Sirota opined in the Denver Post that no one one in Colorado would know who Dennis Kucinich was or care about this. We lampooned Sirota's argument with our "Nobody Knows About the Loon in the Attic" observations.

While Mark Udall has not moderated his rhetoric, he has tried to make his voting record appear more moderate.

Dr. Poole's statistics show Mark Udall ranked as the 182 d most liberal member of the 110th Congress. Colorado is a conservative leaning state. Ranking 182 of 435 puts him left of center in a left leaning Congress He is near the 40th percentile of liberalism in this Congress.

By voting this way in 2007, he could hope that some, including the Denver Post, would argue that Mark Udall is voting as a moderate in the 110th Congress. The Denver Post has a history of claiming that very liberal politicians are "moderate," and thus helping them over the finish line.

Is Mark Udall really this close to the center of a liberal congress? A very easy way to do a reality check on Mark Udall's voting record is to go back in time. According to Dr. Poole's statistics, Mark Udall's voting records driven standards for the previous congresses are:

109th 68th most liberal
108th 82d most liberal
107th 25th most liberal
106th Not Provided

These statistics make a compelling case that Mark Udall has again attempted to deceive the public. It is a habit, so much so that we have a "Udall as a liar" tag on this blog.

A New Udall Bumper Sticker

We've found another example of Mark Udall's running from his past positions, and this time we're not even sure why.

He might be trying to pander to voters who don't want the homosexual partners of legal immigrants to be admitted to the US as "family members." But to what end?

Those who care about the issue enough to object to Mark Udall's candidacy will already know about his past position and expect it to be his future position. Who does he think he is fooling by declining to co-sponsor the bill this year?

We think that this on again off again sponsorship of controversial legislation like the loon in the attic's Department of Peace and now the "Uniting American Families Act" speaks to Mark Udall's unwillingness to stand up publicly for his own positions, his own beliefs.

Our friends at immigration equality:

Representative [ Mark ] Udall was a cosponsor of the UAFA in the previous (109th) Congress but has not yet signed on in the current (110th) Congress. Hopefully y’all can persuade him to come on.

Those who are interested in promoting this bill might send Mark Udall their suggested letter.

Mark Udall's New Bumper Sticker: "Vote Udall: - A Coward For Today in Every Way"

Schaffer Seeks to Connect Message with Voters; Udall Struggles to Find Mainstream

A story in yesterday's Longmont Times-Call highlights the positive message of the Schaffer campaign:

“We’ve just got to do a better job of articulating our message” in this year’s elections, Schaffer told more than 40 people attending a Longmont Republican Women luncheon at the Terroir restaurant on Thursday.

He suggested the GOP needs to convey that Republicans are pro-business and pro-economic growth, and that they oppose tax increases that would burden the middle class and deter capital investment.

Schaffer cautioned that it won’t be easy for Republicans in races such as his U.S. Senate contest with his likely Democratic opponent Mark Udall, an Eldorado Springs resident who represents Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District.

Schaffer, a onetime state senator and a former congressman from Colorado’s 4th District who’s now on the State Board of Education, acknowledged that he and other GOP candidates have “to hold our base together” but also will need support from non-Republican voters.

To do that, Republican office-seekers must “speak forcefully and articulately in a way that draws people back to us,” he said.

Toward the end of the article came this response:

Insofar as Schaffer’s remarks about Republicans representing mainstream Coloradans’ concerns, [Udall spokeswoman Taylor] West said: “Over the next several months, voters are going to have a chance to really get to know Mark Udall and his record and his reputation and his vision for Colorado.”

Well, for one thing, Udall's record is pretty well documented here at Schaffer v Udall. Here are just a few examples:

- Voted for the largest tax increase in American history
- Voting consistently against Second Amendment rights that Coloradans enjoy
- Sponsoring a bill to create a U.S. Department of Peace
- Sponsoring a bill to open up drilling in Castro's Cuban waters while stopping any energy exploration that would benefit Coloradans
- Throwing away workers' rights to secret ballot elections to benefit union bosses
- Voting to fund the National Endowment of the Arts at the expense of forest management vital to Colorado's natural beauty and economic well-being

Yet West had the laughable audacity to make this comment in yesterday's story:

She added, “I don’t think Bob Schaffer’s record holds up in the mainstream.”

Even as political spin goes, this remark ranks as very unconvincing. I don't think Udall and his crew could identify Colorado mainstream views to save their lives.

A Campaign Quote Raises Questions

Mark Udall was quoted in the Cherry Creek News:

Speaking about the coming campaign and the issues to define it, Udall said “the outlines are clear- Iraq, the economy, immigration.” Udall said that undocumented immigrants must “travel the path to citizenship— pay a fine (for being in the U.S. illegally), speak English, have committed no crimes.” “We must address... the health care system where families are one illness away from bankruptcy.”

Udall, a westerner, said that Colorado issues would play a key role in the Senate race: water, transportation and creating more transit options. He also emphasized that Colorado’s position for renewable energy and the jobs it could create was strong, given our resources and the presence of the National Renewable Energy lab in Golden.

Someday we must remember to ask if Mark Udall considers it acceptable for (as he says) an undocumented immigrant to gain his citizenship if he went through Bill Ritter's agricultural trespass plea bargain mill.

Note that Mark Udall is not all that interested in talking about his part in the bark beetle crisis, his refusal to allow either clear cutting of fire breaks to reduce the size of a probable forest fire or the harvesting of dying trees by lumber companies.

We wonder if Mark Udall will be willing to talk about his part in his staff's railroading of Caroline Bninski into a one year jail term.

Is Mark Udall proud to be associated with Daily Kos to the point that they were setting up his own personal blog on that site?

So many questions and so few answers. Oh, and our favorite, the Department of Peace?

A Profile in Courage, Not

The Denver Post humorously observed that Mark Udall and Ken Salazar can't seem to screw up the courage to tell the public who they will vote for as a Democrat super delegate.

Mark Udall operates on pure fear, but Ken Salazar has well thought reasons for not going public. After all, Barak lives in the same builing as Salazar does and Hillary was polite to Salazar's mother for a few minutes:

Colorado's soon-to-be-senior-senator makes this assessment of the candidates: He lived in the same Washington, D.C., building as Obama, with whom he works out. And he is grateful to Clinton for having chatted with his elderly mom at a reception.

"Picking between the two would be akin to choosing between family members," said [ Ken ]Salazar, who was willing to campaign for Joe Lieberman after the Connecticut senator defected from the Democratic Party.

As for Udall:

Udall also is loath to alienate voters as he vies to replace Republican Sen. Wayne Allard.

Udall has mustered the political courage to oppose bark beetles. Yet on the question of who should run the free world, he remains uncommitted.

But, is this true? Mark Udall has not had the courage to oppose the Sierra Club's and the Wilderness Society's do nothing, let 'em die, let Colorado burn attitude.

We do admit that Mark Udall did have the courage to co-sponsor a Department of Peace - that is until he decided to run for the Senate, when he lost even that level of courage and withdrew as a co-sponsor.

Susan Greene sums it up best:

But officials who try to be everything to everyone risk winding up as nothing to anyone. In politics, guts matter.