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?

Update on Yesterday's Manure Post

The Gazette is reporting that Saturday's small scale test of a new pollution control device that scrubs out nitrogen oxide, sulfur, and may scrub out carbon dioxide was a success.

“Our first live test Saturday at the Drake Power Plant . . . greatly exceeded expectations in terms of its ability to capture pollutants,” [Inventor David ] Neumann said. “We showed that it could capture approximately 90 percent of the sulfur pollutants from the flue gas using only tap water as a capture fluid.”

The invention could revolutionize the power industry because standards for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate emissions will be toughened in coming years. Though control technology exists for nitrogen oxide and particulates, none exists for sulfur.

Read more here.

Recall that Bill Ritter is committed to eliminating coal fired electrical generating plants and has appointed a committed environmentalist foe of coal, Matt Baker, to the PUC for that purpose. Not so fast, please, Governor.

Opps, Wrong Blog! This should have been posted on the Ritter Watch Blog. So many blogs, so little time, lol.

Up On One Foot And Spinning

After this author called for Bob Schaffer to withdraw from the race, we wanted to see if Ben had taken our writing priveledges away.

Foolish individual that he is, he hasn't done so yet.

One of David Sirota's colleagues once described him as trying to gain attention by standing on one foot and spinning. We went one better.

Since it works for David, we are going to give it a try with the following:

Hey Denver Post: Are you going to write about Mark Udall's admission on Thrusday that he was a pot smoker?

Hey Rocky Mountain News: Since when is it not news that sitting US Congressman Mark Udall had his automobile confiscated by the cops as a 20 something for ... carrying a lot of marijanua in the back seat (or whatever)

Hey Gazette: Were you aware that there is a US Senate race in Colorado this year and Mark Udall, the guy whose staff tried to send Caroline Bninski to jail for a year, got kid glove treatment when he was caught with pot?

Hey Boulder Camera we know that you like your pot but why the Silence on your favorite son Mark Udall's admission that he lost his car and got a year's suspension in 1972.

I don't see how David Sirota does this. I'm dizzy already. Follow this link for the whole story. Maybe Google will pick it up now.

The Curse of E-85

This week, The Gazette had an E85 editorial:

To appreciate this fuel, one has to adopt compassion for wealthy beneficiaries of corporate welfare. Alternatively, one must believe all of the following: 1. We’re threatened by global warming; 2. human activity causes global warming; and 3. ethanol results in a net carbon emissions decrease that will reduce the problem.

Belief number three requires a wild imagination or wishful thinking, considering the fact American ethanol is made mostly from corn. Just to harvest this low-energy crop requires behemoth diesel-burning combines. Unlike high-energy crude — often transported through more eco-friendly pipelines — low energy corn must be shipped for processing by diesel-powered trucks or trains. In a 2005 issue of the journal Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, University of California-Berkeley geo-engineering Prof. Tad Patzek showed that up to six times more energy is used to make ethanol than the final product contains.

The damage doesn't stop there:

The conundrum rests partly in the fact that most small-business owners live by the natural rules of a free and fair market, while others don’t have to. Jack the price of a penne pasta dish too high, and customers won’t buy it. Conversely, if an entrepreneur wants to build a multi-million dollar plant to refine ethanol that nobody needs, he can do so without fear. The federal government [ prodded by Mark Udall and Ken Salazar ] will pay him to sell a product that makes little sense, and in this case, the ripple effect inflates food costs.

How much does it inflate food costs? Mark Udall, Bill Ritter, Ken Salazar, and John Salazar don't believe that 4.5% inflation is enough. To them, it is just another excuse for more income redistribution:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported in December that 2007 saw the largest increase in food prices since 1990. The agency expects prices to rise at least another 3 percent this year. Products made with wheat and soybean oil are expected to inflate so much that the cost of home cooking will increase 4.5 percent. We can logically expect the price of corn fed beef to continue soaring.

The Gazette Isn't Cowed

On Tuesday, we reported on what we thought was the "dumbest quote ever" by a politician who is actively seeking office. It came from Mark Udall's campaign site:

I believe that it is time for universal acknowledgment of what is already the scientific and public consensus-global climate change is occurring and human activity is a primary contributor to that change. The problem presents a major environmental challenge that requires an immediate response from our state and national government.

The scientific and physical evidence of global climate change is overwhelming. The 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global sea level."

Today, The Gazette not only did not bow to Mark Udall's superior wisdom, it called that "wisdom" into question with a long editorial debunking global warming (read the comments, too):

Growing numbers of global warming science skeptics are making their opposition known. They include experts in climatology, oceanography, geology, biology, environmental sciences and physics, among others. Contrary to alarmist claims, they’re not on the payrolls of the big oil companies. They are affiliated with prestigious institutions worldwide, including Harvard, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, MIT, the International Arctic Research Center, the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and many others. Many shared a portion of IPCC’s 2007 Nobel Peace Prize (cowon with Gore), and others have won previous Nobel Prizes for their research.

A U.S. Senate report accumulated more than 400 of their views to refute Gore’s claim of “consensus.”

For example, physics professor emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut said, “You think SUVs are the cause of glaciers shrinking? . . . Don’t believe what you hear out of Hollywood and Washington, D.C. . . . [C]limate history proves that Gore has the relationship between carbon dioxide concentration and global warming backward. A higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not cause the Earth to be warmer. Instead, a warmer Earth causes the higher carbon dioxide levels.”

On No One's Top Ten Lists

The AP has it's top ten Colorado list out. It is a bit lame. Well, it is more than a bit lame. We thought we could do better with a list of things that didn't make the top ten in Colorado, in no particular order. They didn't make the top ten because they didn't happen. Oh, well!

1. Despite much wishful hoping on the left, the Colorado US Senate race is not a Mark Udall runaway.
2. Caroline Bninski spent Christmas with friends and family, not in jail where Mark Udall and his staff tried to put her for a year. How inconvenient!
3. Neither Mark Udall nor his staff seem to have lied to the public or members of Congress in the last week, setting a new record if not for truthfulness, at least for silence.
4. Rush Limbaugh wasn't humiliated by Mark Udall's Congressional resolution which was written in a way to be an unsophisticated falsehood. No member of the Colorado delegation co-sponsored Udall's anti-Limbaugh resolution.
5. The US didn't cut and run when Harry Reid pontificated "This War is Lost." Nor did Udall object when Nancy Pelosi held useless vote after vote to defund the war.
6. Mark Udall didn't convince Bill Ritter to nix gas drilling on the Roan Plateau.
7. Mark Udall didn't cosponsor the loon in the attic's Department of Peace bill this year, and it is reported that Mark Udall also didn't see a UFO.
8. The Gazette hasn't called Mark Udall an "extremist" for six months, but many of his liberal friends have made certain that he can't claim to be a centrist.
9. Colorado didn't have a roadless wilderness mega forest fire in 2007, but there is still time for one to occur in 2008.
10. The Denver Post hasn't made it's obligatory election year claim that Mark Udall is a "moderate" or "centrist."

List making is so much fun. We're wondering if we are on Bill Ritter's enemies list, yet. We're doing our best.

The Cost of Udall's Pinon Canyon Pandering-Part 2

Some time ago, we wrote about the cost of Mark Udall's pandering to the ranchers in Pinon Canyon with a statement that shows either that he is willing to play games with national defense to score a political point (very likely given his record of untruthfulness), or that he is too naieve about US Defense to be a Senator (not unlikely given some of his actions).

The Gazette recently reported on the efforts to bring Air Force Cyber Command to Colorado.

Rocky Mountain Politics, a new political blog, brings more focus on the impact of Mark Udall's Pinon Canyon pandering:

In the letter, they [ Lousiana Congressional Delegation ] write "We were happy to learn recently that the Army is studying the potential acquisition of additional lands contiguous to the installation." They further add that the additional lands result in "ensuring the continued viability of the base for years to come." To drive the nail home, they say "We feel this is a compelling reason to seize the opportunity to acquire additional lands now, and look forward to assisting the Army in any way possible throughout the process."

So whom do you think the lands will be acquired from? I bet there will be private lands acquired, just as would happen at Pinon Canyon. You have to wonder if the difference in support here won't play out in the halls of the Pentagon on an issue like locating Cyber Command. Guess we will have to wait and see, maybe sooner rather than later.

Gazette: Mark Udall's Handiwork "Excessive"

Once again, Mark Udall's handiwork got mentioned in The Gazette without that paper mentioning his name.

But the House version calls for an excessive 15 percent of U.S. electricity to be generated from subsidized “renewable” sources by 2020, even though only 3 percent today is provided by bio-fuels, solar and wind power. Utilities that fall short of the imposed goal would be fined.

It’s no secret to our readers how we feel about renewable mandates, whether imposed by voters or government officials. We don’t object to the use of renewable energy sources; the more varied sources of energy we have, the less likely consumers will be held hostage by suppliers. It’s the idea that consumers will buy renewables only if they’re forced to. We’d rather see proponents of renewable energy educate consumers in an effort to persuade them to ask utility providers to use renewables.

And while we’re objecting to subsidies and tax breaks for energy providers, let’s include those benefits given to traditional sources, too. Subsidies and tax breaks hide the true cost of energy and don’t allow consumers to make truly informed choices.

We think that if The Gazette feels as strongly as it seems to that a 15% renewable energy mandate by 2020 is "excessive," it has an obligation to tell its readers that Mark Udall wanted the mandate to be 20% and inserted an amendment into the energy bill to that effect.

In one more year, the electorate will be deciding who should be Colorado's next US Senator. Voters are entitled to all the information about who is authoring policies that the Gazette calls "excessive" and "extremist."

Gazette's Comments on the Fires

With luck, the California fires may lead to more rational land management than Mark Udall and his "environmentalist" allies are currently willing to tolerate. The Gazette devoted an editorial to the subject this morning. Here is only a part of what it had to say:

Markets have less influence over government-owned land, however, which is managed based on political considerations, mostly under the influence of special interest groups. Fire risks seem higher in areas of high public (meaning, government) land ownership; lower (with a few exceptions) in places where much of the land is privately owned, mostly due to the strong incentives people have to maintain and protect their property.

When property is owned collectively, there’s less incentive to manage it wisely. Environmental rules and restrictions have leaned in recent times toward non-management, or a policy of benign neglect, under pressure from those who think human meddling in these landscapes is unnatural and wrong. That’s left more fuel to burn when lightning, a fallen power line or an arsonist ignites a fire.

We’d argue for a land management approach that puts humans and human habitats first, whenever practical, and embraces the idea that we can manage these landscapes not just for economic, aesthetic and ecological benefits, but with an eye toward safeguarding public safety as well. We shouldn’t allow the real and rhetorical smoke generated by California’s wildfires to cloud our judgements about the nature of the problem.

Words vs Deeds

Since we pointed out that The Gazette called Mark Udall an extremist in two separate opinion pieces, it has avoided naming him in any opinion piece, even when he should be named.

Today, Sean Paige writes about Bill Ritter's trip to Washington this week to promote unreasonable standards for renewable energy. Ritter testified, and so did Mark Udall. In Congress, this is Udall's baby, so it seems unreasonable to leave the man out. We won't.

“If Colorado can do it, so can the rest of the country,” Gov. Bill Ritter told members of Congress on Thursday. But Colorado hasn’t done it, at least not yet, so Ritter was talking through his hat...

He can take credit for endorsing and signing a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this year, which added to the Amendment 37 mandates, in another fit of irrational exuberance. This amounted to doubling down on a long-shot bet.

Whether these even more Draconian standards are achievable, and what they will eventually cost utility ratepayers, won’t become known for years. So Ritter’s statements to Congress were empty boasts...

Ritter’s appearance won’t even slightly influence what Congress does on renewables, of course. It was designed to elevate his national profile and provide a little warm and fuzzy PR for the state. It was a waste of taxpayer money.

The best thing about this opinion piece was a piece of advice for Ritter that should have been directed at Mark Udall. Udall, though, is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Your job isn’t to invite more federal meddling in Colorado, but to minimize Washington’s claim on our lives, our paychecks and, now, even our utility bills.

Hey, This Sounds Familiar

This is more in the great minds think alike category. Or, at least small minds, depending on your politics, lol.

Today, the Gazette echoed in more detail our A Lot of Fine Print post.

The point that we and the Gazette make is that Mark Udall and Ed Perlmutter threw any requirement for personal responsibility out the window when they sponsored legislation that bails out the folks who bet their fortunes that they could profit handsomely from the inflation in their McMansions.

The Gazette added value and additional points to our essay:

Is the government only going to intervene on behalf of at risk borrowers, leaving those who have already been foreclosed-upon out in the cold? If such assistance is predicated on the idea that these people are all the hapless victims of unscrupulous lenders, aren’t the already-foreclosed-upon entitled to something, as well? Will government aid be means tested, or also go to the couple earning $200,000 who bought a mansion during the boom times? Couldn’t the creation of this new government safety net actually encourage delinquencies and defaults, once people know Uncle Sam will help them out of the jam? And what unfortunate new precedent might we be setting? Will the government next come to the aid of those who get in over their heads with credit cards?

There was a good rationale for the savings & loan bailout. Decades before that debacle, the government had required savings & loans to provide government insurance on savings accounts. This sub-prime problem has no such rationale. The government has no business rescuing speculators, even those dumb enough to speculate on their own home, from their own greed.

Even the NYT is (was) Cornfused

Today the Gazette had a short editorial (scroll to the bottom) on the insane rush to biofuels and mentioned a recent NYT editorial on the subject.

We’ve been warning for a couple years that American politicians need to be enrolled, en masse, in an Ethanolics Anonymous 12-step program, because massive government support for the corn- and plant-based gasoline alternative would raise food prices and have uncertain environmental benefits. But we know a few readers won’t believe anything unless they read it in the editorial pages of the left-leaning New York Times, so we refer them to Wednesday’s edition, in which the gray lady finally awakens to ethanol’s adverse impacts

Mark Udall has shown himself to be "nimble" on this issue-"enthusiastic" to farmers, "skeptical" to energy executives, and calling it "a bridge" when CSU scientists criticize it-and now we know why. The Grey Lady isn't saying nice things about corn ethanol any more.

So far, Americans haven’t really caught on to what is happening to the price of products such as soybean or corn-based foodstuffs. But that may change if and when this rush to all fuels allegedly more environmentally friendly affects the price of beer...

Where will this all stop? Actually, it has barely even begun; most ethanol and bio-fuel production is merely in the planning stages, or under construction (as in the case of refineries to produce this stuff), and years from coming on-stream. At what point might it dawn on people that the “cure” for reducing our dependence on foreign oil is worse than the original disease?

Not So Fast

California sued six auto companies for manufacturing vehicles that create greenhouse gasses. It was a lawsuit that only the Sierra Club and Mark Udall could have loved. The Gazette had a very good editorial on it today.

U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins ruled that the courts aren’t the venue to settle arguments over how much automobiles contribute to greenhouse gases, which the state contends damage the environment by heating the atmosphere. Congress and the federal Environmental Protection Agency are the proper bodies to take up that issue, the judge ruled.

The state asked the court to “balance the competing interests of reducing global-warming emissions and the interests of advancing and preserving economic and industrial development.” But “balancing of those competing interests is the type of initial policy determination to be made by the political branches, not this court,” Jenkins wrote.

Anyone who thinks that the issue is closed hasn't remembered that the 9th Circus will have its say. This will very likely be settled in the Supreme Court.

It is time to think about the kind of Justice that Mark Udall would vote to confirm if he were in the Senate. Would he want a Justice who allowed states to destroy major industries in court on questionable science, or would he require, as Judge Jenkins did, that the issue be settled by the Congress. History suggests that Udall would choose to try to destroy the economy through court action.

Annoy Mark Udall and the Sierra Club today. THINK!

We missed this one-so no music

A msm outlet called Mark Udall a Liberal, upping our scoreboard by one. We feel a little bad about this one because the author is Robert Novak. Even so, if we are to use our methodology consistently, we have to count it.

This is the first obviously conservative msm author using this terminology. The Gazette editorial writer seems to be more libertarian and is responsible for two votes. Every other mention is from a liberal or left wing outlet or blog.

Colorado-2: Rep. Mark Udall (D) is vacating his seat in this district that includes Boulder, the Northwest suburbs of Denver, and many ski areas. It's a left-leaning district that has always liked liberal Udall, re-electing him with 68 percent of the vote last time. Bush received only 41 percent in this district in 2004.

The Mark Udall Is Not A Moderate Scoreboard
Extremist 2
Reliably Left Wing 2
Liberal 12
Moderate 0
Conservative (don't hold your breath)

Remember, we only count msm comments and comments from liberal blogs on this scoreboard. A conservative blog could call Mark Udall a liberal every day and would not get included in the tally. Also, we provide links to each previous instance so that doubters can examine our methodology.

The Gazette vs "Extremist" Environmentalists

Mark Udall's environmental extremist allies must be unhappy that the Gazette editorial pages can't seem to stop using that word when describing him and them.

Today, they did it again:

But surrendering to the blight is a recipe for disaster. Unless we want to be living in a moonscape, and to see the state’s tourism economy tank when the browning and blackening of Colorado becomes even more obvious, we must ignore the public lands pacifists and demand that Ritter and other “leaders” mount a response, no matter how costly or controversial with green extremists.

Man’s meddling, combined with “natural” forces, created these conditions. But that there’s a “natural” component to what’s happening doesn’t absolve human beings from a responsibility to respond, in an attempt to save what forests we can.

Cancer, too, is “natural.” But few people argue that we shouldn’t fight it when a dire diagnosis is handed down. Most of us fight, even though the fight might prove futile. Yet when it comes to Colorado’s forests, some people are calling for surrender.

From where is this defeatist drumbeat coming?

From politicians such as [Mark Udall, Ken Salizar, John Salizar, and Bill ] Ritter, who hope they’ll escape blame for the ecological and economic devastation, and avoid the need to deal with it, if they convince the public that 1.) it’s all just natural and 2.) it’s impossible to prevent.

The Gazette is dead on, even though it didn't call out by name the Colorado politicians (except Ritter) who will be most responsible for the browning of Colorado. Those politicians can see the disaster they and the Sierra Club have created but just can't seem to keep themselves from adding to it with really dumb stuff like Mark Udall's Roadless amendment and Ken Salizar's holding up the confirmation of a BLM nominee.

Salazar No Favorite of the Gazette

Senator Ken Salazar's "antics are arrogant, unproductive." That is today's observation in the Gazette "Our View" editorial. What they didn't say is that Mark Udall is Salazar's close ally on these extremist environmentalist issues.

Salazar called on Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to shelve the drilling plan and avert a “train wreck.” He says he objects to BLM “running roughshod over the Roan Plateau and Colorado’s public lands.” He wants Gov. Bill Ritter to have more “meaningful input” into energy development in the state.

But that’s as phony as the cowboy hat Salazar wears when home on holiday.

Democrats At War On Colorado Economy

In a scathing editorial that did not mention Mark Udall's name, but easily could have, the Gazette once again used the word "extremist"

Gov. Bill Ritter stepped off a helicopter and into hot water July 3, when, after an aerial tour of Northwestern Colorado with Sen. Ken Salazar, he declared that the Vermillion Basin should be off limits to oil and gas drilling. His opposition apparently came in an epiphany. “The governor in a moment of spontaneity asked the pilot to land on the Vermillion,” Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer told the media. “He felt it would be important to stand on the Vermillion with the senator (Salazar) to get a sense of the place.”

In all this communing with nature, Ritter evidently forgot to consult with local elected officials, who worked for years to draw up a leasing plan they are happy with and who say a drilling ban will cost their citizens millions of dollars in tax and royalty revenues. They weren’t pleased...

Commissioners pointed out that energy development in the basin is something they welcome. But suddenly, after years of consultations and public process, Ritter is attempting to monkey-wrench the arrangement. That’s becoming a pattern with this governor. He’s also attempting to derail oil and gas leases on top of the Roan Plateau, another suddenly sacrosanct area for anti-drilling extremists, and is in the process of packing the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission with people who are indifferent or hostile to the industry.

The Gazette appears to be giving Mark Udall a free ride after twice calling him or his environmentalist policies "extremist." They could easily mention, but didn't, that Udall is a very active Ken Salazar / Bill Ritter ally in this war on the Colorado economy. He has tried to restrict public access to roads on federal property and he has tried to deep six drilling on the Roan.

The editorial is really good from beginning to end. We had a hard time cherry picking items to quote. We suggest you read the whole thing.

Just So You Know

A commenter on an earlier post wanted to know where the "votes" labeling Mark Udall as either a liberal or an extremist, but never a moderate, came from. Each time we found someone, usually the MSM, but sometimes "progressive" blog sites labeling Mark Udall as either, we wrote a post on it.

After the fifth such post, we started keeping score. Anyone who cares to question our count or sources, all of which were linked, is welcome to review this blog to find them.

The thing that makes them notable is that a reader could expect a conservative blog or source to label Udall a liberal. That is not where the labels are coming from. With the exception of the Gazette which thought Udall or his actions "extremist," every other attempt to label or describe him came from the left or far left. We invite you go go read the posts.

Appended to another post the same commenter describes this site as "vitriolic," but at no point does he describe even a single post as inaccurate. The public has a right to understand what Udall is doing and saying and how what he is doing and saying will impact it. One could get the impression that the writer is a big fan of Udall, but even if he is, that doesn't change the inconvenient truth.

Thanks for visiting.

The Roan

Today, the Gazette never mentions Mark Udall, but his handiwork is in their thoughts and writings. Today's major editorial was on the Roan.

But those benefits won’t be realized if Ritter, Salazar and other politicians succeed in blocking or vastly scaling back drilling, in a pander to special interests. Sensible people not only concede the need for responsible energy development, in order to keep utility bills and gasoline pump prices in check, but they can see how the resulting revenues might benefit the state.

Quote of the Day

It is no secret that we blame people like Mark Udall, Ken Salizar, and their environmentalist left allies like the Sierra Club for their mindless refusal to allow the forests to be managed responsibly. In the next post down, the Gazette comments on their casual attitude toward the damage caused by improper forest management

Also, today, the Gazette describes the revegitation of one burned over area, the 2005 Mason Gulch 12,000 acre (20 square mile) fire.

Regrowth is where it should be two years after a fire, said Paul Crespin, district ranger for San Isabel National Forest.

Forest Service officials have reseeded 85 percent of the area, and are treating it for noxious weeds. They have been collecting pine cones from the area, and hope to plant ponderosa pine seedlings by the spring of 2009.

“In our lifetime, we won’t see those trees come back in the way they were,” Crespin said.

But, the Quote of the Day was by Dave Van Manen, director of the nearby Mountain Park Environmental Center:

“In a way, now this is safe from a catastrophic fire," he said.

The quote sounds like something Bill Ritter, Ken Salizar, or Mark Udall would say.