Mark Udall Wants to Redecorate Your Future Fourth of July Celebrations

Rocky Mountain Right is correct. I can't add any (serious) comment to this unedited quote in the Rocky Mountain News:

"Green is the new red, white and blue," [Mark] Udall said. "We need new leadership in this country."

You might want to consider re-ordering those Fourth of July decorations. Or just swap them out for the St. Patrick's Day paraphernalia. "Top o' the nation's birthday to ye."

New Ad Asks Mark Udall Why He Doesn't Want Your Workplace Vote to be Private

Seeing the question "Is Mark Udall Selling Out?" might make you think of his environmentalist friends asking why Udall is suddenly pandering away from his career-long opposition to offshore drilling.

In this case, it happens to be about Mark Udall's nearly-convinced appeal in favor of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

The initial question is part of a broader ad campaign by a group called Coloradans for Employee Freedom that questions Mark Udall's support for EFCA and wonders aloud: "Shouldn't your vote still be private?"

As the Daily Blogster puts it:

One value (VOTING) is extremely sacred to Americans and all freedom loving people around the world but Udall wants to make an exception when it comes to one of his most sacred of institutions....labor unions.

Which - going out on a limb here - may have something to do with hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Labor campaign contributions.

After all, Mark Udall co-sponsored EFCA despite admitting "serious reservations," and acknowledged to the Denver Post that the legislation "isn't perfect." That's a nice way to describe depriving millions of workers the right to a secret ballot in workplace elections. After lo these many months, Mark Udall still hasn't had to explain how he can be so out of step with Coloradans and Western values.

Udall Rejects Gas Tax Holiday, Offers No Meaningful Solution To Energy Dependency

Mark Udall took a shot at Sen. Hillary Clinton and GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain in rejecting a "gas tax holiday" proposal:

Yesterday in Indiana, Hillary Clinton challenged every member of Congress to go on the record with a position regarding her proposal to temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax, and state whether they were with her or against her. Senator McCain has offered the same proposal, despite experts from all sides declaring that this plan will not actually lower costs for drivers.

Today, Congressman and Senate candidate Mark Udall responded to the challenge:
. . .
"Senator Clinton claimed yesterday that I either stand with her on this proposal or stand with the oil companies. To that I say: I stand with the families of Colorado, who aren't looking for bumper sticker fixes that don't fix anything, but for meaningful change that brings real relief and a new direction for our energy policy. We can't afford more Washington-style pandering while families keep getting squeezed.

"It is exactly the kind of short-sighted Washington game that keeps us from getting real results to our energy problem. Experts across the ideological spectrum agree that it will increase the deficit, drain money away from Colorado roads and bridges, and hurt the environment, all without actually making prices lower for drivers."

Udall's campaign philosophy on energy avoids any realistic solutions and instead offers a "diverse energy portfolio" solution that neglects current needs while dwelling instead on future energy substitutes for petroleum:

To meet this challenge, we need a more diverse portfolio of energy sources, including renewable energy. A stronger push for energy security based on renewable and sustainable energy sources like solar, biomass, wind and hydrogen does not mean that we can easily abandon oil, however. Other important energy sources like natural gas, coal and nuclear must be part of the mix. A diverse energy portfolio means that we should responsibly develop-and also conserve-these resources. Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region are blessed with many of these resources, including abundant natural gas and cleaner-burning coal. We can find the right balance in developing these resources responsibly, but we cannot drill our way to energy security. A substantial investment in renewable energy is essential if we want our children and future generations of Americans to be more prosperous and secure.

While no doubt worthy of discussion for meeting our long-term energy needs, Udall's plan avoids dealing with the present--playing the "short-sighted Washington game" that caters to environmental special interests that prevent the United States from becoming more energy self-sufficient by drilling for oil here rather than relying on the Middle East and other corrupt regimes.

As the gas prices soar this summer, ask yourself whether or not your elected representatives, including Rep. Mark Udall, are doing everything to alleviate the pain at the pump and not just engaging in more political grandstanding and issuing platitudes about "diverse energy portfolios" while sticking to the "game" he is so quick to criticize. Temporarily ceasing to add to the strategic petroleum reserve or even tapping it briefly provides only limited, ephemeral, calculated relief.

Mark Udall's Policies Continue to Undermine Health of Colorado Forests

Writing at The Colorado Index, a watcher makes a keen point about the damaging effects of Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's environmental policies to Colorado forests. It's worth a look.

Environmentalists Envision Bitter and Costly Medicine

In a Washington Post piece titled Climate Is a Risky Issue for Democrats that liberal paper warned the Democrat Presidential candidates that they might be going too far in their promises to reduce Greenhouse gases:

The strong medicine Edwards and his fellow candidates are selling -- an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases from 1990s levels by 2050 -- tracks with a plan espoused by scientists. But it is a plan that will require a wholesale transformation of the nation's economy and society...

According to energy expert Tracy Terry's analysis of a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, under the scenario of an 80 percent reduction in emissions from 1990 levels, by 2015 Americans could be paying 30 percent more for natural gas in their homes and even more for electricity. At the same time, the cost of coal could quadruple and crude oil prices could rise by an additional $24 a barrel.

The Washington Post acknowledges that the cost to Democrats (are you reading this, Mark Udall?) could be very high.

Democrats' boldness, however, could carry a political price. The eventual GOP presidential nominee is almost certain to attack Democrats over the huge costs associated with limiting emissions. "They will come at this hard," said John Podesta, who heads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and sees an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases as necessary.

While the Post doesn't mention it, there have been moves in the past from the environmentalists to claim that beef production contributes to global warming. Anyone who has chased a cow on horseback can testify to the amount of methane it produces. An 80% reduction in methane would likely translate to a 90% reduction in beef production. A family that is used to eating beef three times a week will come to see it as an unaffordable luxury that graces a table three times a year, at best.

The Post did not overstate the situation when it observed that the environmentalists were going to try to transform the economy and society. Will anyone like that society? Where will the pleasures be?