Bob Schaffer Barnstorms Western Slope In Search of Late-Breaking Undecided Votes

Some have given up on his cause. He embraces the label "underdog". Yet as reported in today's Rocky Mountain News, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is touring the Western part of the state to churn out every vote from where internal polling shows the most undecideds remain:

He came to the Western Slope armed with messages about cutting taxes to spur the economy and increasing domestic energy production - something that played especially well with the employees of the natural gas company he addressed in the morning. But more than usual, Schaffer emphasized the need to keep Democrats from winning nine more Senate seats this year and holding a filibuster-proof majority.

In answering a question at one event, Schaffer implied that the integrity of the U.S. Constitution is at stake if Democrats control all top federal offices.

Debates over international treaties and Supreme Court justices will not happen if Democrats can cut off dissenting Republican voices, Schaffer told voters at five different stops.

"It will ensure a strategy toward higher taxes," he said. "It will ensure a strategy toward surrender and defeat in the war on terror. It will ensure a strategy on energy that involves less production instead of more."

A similar argument for divided government was made by both the Grand Junction Sentinel and Pueblo Chieftain in endorsing Bob Schaffer.

Next week's results will tell us how successful was Bob Schaffer's last-minute pitch to western Coloradans.

We Would Have Guessed Mark Udall Did His Campaign Shopping at Banana Republic

We don't have much to add, but we'd be derelict in our blogging if we failed to bring attention to this tidbit that the Grand Junction Sentinel's Mike Saccone uncovered: Mark Udall reported spending $524.04 on "ad clothing" at Eddie Bauer from his campaign funds.

That's funny. With his support of taking away the secret ballot from workplace elections, we would have guessed Mark Udall did his campaign shopping at Banana Republic. (Let the subtle humor sink in, if you must.)

Pueblo Chieftain Backs Bob Schaffer

Having heard rumors that this decision was up in the air, and may even swing to Boulder liberal Mark Udall, it is good to see the Pueblo Chieftain has endorsed Bob Schaffer:

On the national scene, we believe Bob Schaffer would provide a rational, conservative voice to the Senate at a time when liberal Democrats hope to make greater inroads in growing government. Bob Schaffer is committed to limited government as the best way to assure our personal liberties.

A Sen. Schaffer would support nominees for the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court, who are constitutional constructionists. He, like we, believes in the separation of powers in the federal government, with legislation being the sole province of Congress and constitutional review of legislation being the sole province - the sole role - of the judiciary.

Bob Schaffer has made it clear that he supports American victories in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have too much at stake in assuring our national security to let the terrorists claim victory in the Middle East.

The Chieftain's editors go on to make an argument also made by the Grand Junction Sentinel in their endorsement - namely, that a principled and articulate conservative like Bob Schaffer will be needed to provide balance in a U.S. Senate that looks to be much more liberal next session.

Interestingly, conservative commentator Mike Rosen makes the same argument in his unsurprising endorsement of Bob Schaffer.

With the Chieftain weighing in, that makes two major newspapers coming down for Mark Udall (the Left-leaning Denver Post and Boulder Daily Camera) and two for Bob Schaffer.

Grand Junction Sentinel Gives Nod to GOP's Bob Schaffer on Energy, Taxes, Balance

Round 1 of the major newspaper endorsements in Colorado's U.S. Senate race goes to Bob Schaffer. The Republican candidate yesterday secured the support of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel:

We believe Schaffer’s staunchly conservative ideas are more in line with what Colorado and this country need right now than Udall’s liberal views.

Take energy development, for instance. Schaffer, who worked for an oil company immediately after retiring from Congress, has been a long-time supporter of opening up more areas for drilling along the U.S. coast, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the continental United States....

Similarly, on taxes, we believe Schaffer has the better approach. He would extend the tax cuts passed by Congress at the urging of President Bush early in this decade. He wants more tax relief for small businesses and seeks to maintain investment incentives. He also would like to eliminate the estate tax.

But here also is an argument that independent voters should strongly consider:

Finally, this is a year when there is a very good chance of Democrats winning the White House and maintaining control of both houses of Congress. But there is something to be said for a bit of gridlock, and for preventing either party from not only controlling both the executive and legislative branches, but from having a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

Critical in that effort this year will be maintaining GOP control of the Colorado seat in the Senate now held by Republican Wayne Allard, Doing that means voting for Bob Schaffer.

It's difficult to speculate how much impact newspaper endorsements have in major candidate races any more (though the longer they wait to weigh in, certainly the less impact they will have). But you can be sure Bob Schaffer won't look a gift horse in the mouth: He's happy to have the backing of the leading newspaper on the Western Slope - a region crucial to winning the statewide vote.

Sentinel: Mark Udall "a Johnny-come-lately" on Comprehensive Energy Solutions

I won't say the editors of the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel have followed the lead of this blog's writers, but it's safe to say they've studied many of the same materials and come to a similar conclusion. From their editorial yesterday (you really ought to read the whole thing):

[Mark] Udall is a Johnny-come-lately to the we-have-to-do-everything-we-can solution to the nation’s energy woes. Of course, he really doesn’t mean everything, and some of what he wants to do is nothing more than silly ideas designed to do nothing other than generate votes for his Senate race.

Couldn't have said it any better ourselves. For just a few recent examples:
- Mark Udall: "Shifting Sand"
- Nailing Down Mark Udall's Shifting, Cuban-Centered "Comprehensive" Energy Policy
- Mark Udall Still Says "Heck No" to Offshore Drilling as Part of Comprehensive Energy Solution
- If Mark Udall Has Changed His Mind About Drilling, then What About ANWR?

Bob Schaffer Prefers Flat Tax to "Fair Tax"; Mark Udall Just Wants to Raise Your Taxes

Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reporter Mike Saccone has fresh video of Bob Schaffer on the stump in Mesa County, explaining why the "Fair Tax" is preferable to our current tax system but not as feasible as reform that would bring a lower flat income tax.

What about Boulder liberal Mark Udall? He's just been busy this year voting to raise taxes on middle-class families in Colorado.

The contrast couldn't be clearer.

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.

Add Possible Conflict of Interest to Mark Udall's List of Energy-Related Problems

The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel reports:

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall’s plans to encourage the use of renewable energy could end up benefiting several of the congressman’s investments, according to a review of his recent financial disclosure forms.

Udall’s May 22 disclosure to the Senate Ethics Committee reveals he has at least $31,000 invested in mutual funds and IRAs backed by clean-energy investments.

These investments could benefit from policies Udall has announced his support for both on the campaign trail and during his time in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The top holdings for Powershares WilderHill Clean Energy, in which Udall has invested from $16,000 to $45,000, include First Solar Inc., an Arizona-based firm developing solar-energy technology.

Udall has purchased $15,000 to $50,000 worth of shares in the Winsloe Green Growth mutual fund, which also has invested in the solar-technology firm.

Udall purchased shares in both investments Nov. 13, according to his financial disclosure.

Mark Udall's relations in the energy world have already evidenced public hypocrisy and possible coordinated smear attacks against his opponent. What abouta little conflict of interest to top it all off?

If this story were about Bob Schaffer, it would be a blazing headline in the Denver papers. Will the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News dig deeper into Mark Udall's energy-based hypocrisy and apparently conflicted interests?

Oil Shale: Mark Udall's Obstructionism vs. Bob Schaffer's Comprehensive Approach

Sunday's Grand Junction Daily Sentinel features dueling columns between U.S. Senate candidates Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall on the issue of energy production and the potential of western Colorado oil shale, in particular. A careful look at the two articles highlights a vital contrast

Mark Udall's piece is full of warnings about irresponsible oil shale development, but leaves only the vaguest of hints of what he thinks needs to be done in moving forward.

In one place, Mark Udall writes:

Put plain and simple: We still don’t really know how to develop oil shale in a way that makes economic sense and in a way that protects scarce water resources.

And if we don’t want to send the Western Slope into another economic crash, we’d better figure that out before we try to kick-start another crash program.

Classic doublespeak. It will be harder for oil shale extraction to make "economic sense" when environmental interests, to whom Mark Udall is beholden, press for additional unreasonable regulations that will make the already challenging process costlier. Udall also has advocated a one-year moratorium on oil shale recovery.

The fact that Mark Udall neglected to mention Royal Dutch Shell's Mahogany Ridge Project may speak louder than anything he actually wrote:

But a new technology has emerged that may begin to tap the
oil shale's potential. Royal Dutch Shell, in fact, has recently completed a demonstration project (The Mahogany Ridge project) in which it produced 1,400 barrels of oil from shale in the ground, without mining the shale at all.

Instead, Shell utilized a process called "in situ" mining, which heats the shale while it's still in the ground, to the point where the oil leaches from the rock.

Recognizing this reality and others,
Bob Schaffer's piece is full of faith in American ingenuity. His approach to energy policy is comprehensive:

We should offer more incentives to grow a more robust renewable energy sector. We should hold out incentives for unconventional technologies such as oil-shale, oil sands and others. We should expand other clean-energy opportunities such as nuclear and geothermal.

Bob Schaffer's strategy for oil shale is reasonable and balanced. Among other things, he recognizes that energy companies have made dramatic technological advancements in oil shale extraction that respect the environment.

As MSNBC has reported, even Democrat Governor Bill Ritter has spoken out clearly about the promised benefits of oil shale extraction: "If we go forward with oil shale, it could be the biggest commercial development in the history of the state of Colorado."

Despite using the rhetoric of responsibility, Mark Udall's energy obstructionism represents irresponsible behavior. Bob Schaffer's plan respects the environment but gives incentive to speed a process that can give a huge boost to America's energy supply and a major boon to Colorado's economy.

Grand Junction Sentinel Joins Act of Airbrushing "Boulder" from Mark Udall

Rocky Mountain News reporter Lynn Bartels appears to have started a trend in airbrushing the "Boulder" label in quoted descriptions of Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall.

Mark Udall's opponent Bob Schaffer submitted an op-ed to the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel that was published this morning. A copy of Bob Schaffer's draft was shared with this blog, bringing to light a couple interesting changes made by the Sentinel. (Emphases are added to highlight the differences.)

1. Here is Bob Schaffer's draft:

Sadly, some of the worst culprits are from Colorado. I’m running against one of them – Boulder’s Democratic Congressman Mark Udall.

Here's the edited version:

Sadly, some of the worst culprits are from Colorado. I’m running against one of them — Boulder County Democrat Mark Udall.

Nothing inaccurate in the original description, but that didn't seem to matter.

2. From Bob Schaffer's draft:

The liberal views espoused by Boulder’s Congressman couldn’t be more different than mine.

And then what the Sentinel published:

The liberal views espoused by Udall couldn’t be more different than mine.

Would the editors justify this change as an essential way to cut extra words and save space? Perhaps, but coupled with the first instance, it looks more like part of a policy that changes one candidate's words while ignoring pertinent facts about his opponent.

It looks like the Western Slope's biggest newspaper has adopted Lynn Bartels' "case-by-case" approach to deciding when and how the term Boulder can be used to describe the man who has represented Boulder in Congress for nine years, who for years was officially recognized by the Congressional clerk as "Mark Udall, D-Boulder", who has publicly referred to Boulder as his "touchstone", and who stated last year that he would not be affected by the "Boulder liberal" tag.

In what ways did the Sentinel edit Mark Udall's column?

Official Documents Refute Naked Partisan Attack against Bob Schaffer

This week the Grand Junction Sentinel ran with a story that made it look like Bob Schaffer was engaged in wrongdoing when he traveled in his role as an energy executive to discuss a development deal with the Kurdistan Regional Government. Reporter Mike Saccone elaborates in a blog post here.

As more facts have come forward in this case, there appears to be no wrongdoing whatsoever by Bob Schaffer or his former employer, Aspect Energy. In particular, the Denver Post's Michael Riley - clearly no fan of Schaffer - did a little more digging. Here's what he says about evidence he found that contradicts the allegations of wrongdoing:

Yet the Oversight Committee documents present a very different picture. They include internal Hunt memos describing meetings with U.S. officials in which they talked about the potential leases with no mention of any warning that they were a bad idea. They also include an e-mail from a State Department official in Iraq to Hunt Oil vice president Jeanne Phillips, in which the U.S. official chats amicably about the Kurdish deal and flags a new opportunity the company might be interested in: "Anything I can do from here to give info or whatever, let me know," it reads.

Those documents match what Schaffer says about Aspect's own dealings as the company was arranging the Kurdish lease - that they received no discouragement from U.S. officials in their efforts. It is still unclear exactly what the State Department said to Aspect executives as they worked to line up the lease in 2006, if anything.

More light is shed in today's Rocky Mountain News:

But both Wadhams and Alex Cranberg, chairman of Aspect, disagree that the State Department had a clear policy against such contracts. Cranberg said his company received government approval to visit the region.

"We were not asked by the State Department not to do this deal," he said in an e-mail.

Unfortunately, Mike Saccone - perhaps trying to give legs to the story he broke - misinterprets what Cranberg's message means, trying to suggest that "Cranberg said there was no communication between Aspect Energy and the State Department." But that's not what Bob Schaffer's former boss said. According to Cranberg, government officials gave his company no reason to believe they shouldn't move forward.

If Saccone could make the case that Aspect Energy had no communication with State Department officials, then he might be able to give traction to the original argument. But if State Department officials told Aspect Energy there was no problem, then Schaffer did nothing wrong. And the charge against the U.S. Senate candidate looks like nothing more than a naked partisan political attack.

Interestingly, Mike Riley appears to have correctly pinned the blame on the State Department for what, at best, appears to be sending mixed messages (though he understates its significance):

Documents suggest that the situation was much less clear cut. They show that State Department officials in Iraq may even have encouraged some American oil companies in their efforts to secure those leases even as it was publicly describing them as problematic. To the extent that's true, Schaffer and Aspect may be much less culpable than Democratic critics suggest and it may be the State Department that is most to blame for playing the diplomatic game of saying one thing in public and another in private.

Yet two critics with Left-leaning records and attachments to Democrat candidates have attempted to come forward allegedly as unbiased experts to perpetuate the myth of wrongdoing.

Who are these two? Lawrence Korb performed the bidding of Congressional Democrats to attack the credibility of General David Petraeus back in 2007. Democrats and Korb since have been left with egg on their face, after Petraeus has led a successful military strategy in Iraq and quashed their defeatist agenda.

Rand Beers has been a senior foreign policy adviser to Democrat Presidential candidates John Kerry and Barack Obama. Beers recently went out of his way to attack John McCain for his honorable military service, in particular the suffering he went through as a Prisoner of War in Vietnam.

A couple of Democrat operatives are trying to keep the story alive for Mark Udall's sake - to score political points. But the problem here very much seems to be with officials in the U.S. State Department. Mike Saccone should do the decent thing and publish a follow-up story bringing the new, relevant information to light - and helping to expose the agendas of those behind the original attack.

Mark Udall's Ranks of Undecided Superdelegates Continue to Dwindle

Grand Junction Sentinel political reporter Mike Saccone points out today that Colorado's list of undecided superdelegates has been whittled down to four: Congressman John Salazar, Sen. Ken Salazar, Gov. Bill Ritter and Congressman Mark Udall.

Superdelegate Mark Udall has 2 months, 26 days until the Democratic National Convention to state his preference. Most everyone seems to be taking it for granted that Barack Obama has all but secured the nomination. Is Udall waiting to be the last Colorado superdelegate to make up his mind?

Mark Udall says a decision is coming in June. We'll wait and see.

Udall Watch Unveiled ... Mark Udall Says Decision to Come in June ... Coincidence?

Last Friday, Schaffer v Udall unveiled the "Udall Watch", giving a countdown to the Democratic National Convention for superdelegate Mark Udall to make a decision between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Yesterday the Grand Junction Sentinel reported (before the results from the Indiana and North Carolina primaries were made apparent):

Congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall, D-Colo., said Tuesday he remains committed to being formally undecided until sometime in June.

“If the contest is still under way in June, I think it’s incumbent on superdelegates who are uncommitted to weigh in at that point,” Udall said.

Coincidence? Probably so.

Mark Udall's Energy Plan Lacks Sense

Mark Udall is really good at proposing political solutions that don't work in the real world. Case in point: In an attempt to avoid the real issue of increasing domestic oil production and updating refining capacity, Udall has made diverting oil supply from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve the centerpiece of a new energy plan, according to today's Grand Junction Sentinel:

Udall, who unveiled his proposal Tuesday, said gasoline prices could fall by 25 cents a gallon by not storing away millions of barrels of oil every month.

“We know from history that it’s worked when you suspend filling the (Strategic Petroleum Reserve),” Udall said.

Which history is that? Certainly nothing cited in this article. It would be good for journalists to follow up with Mark Udall on this point. Meanwhile, Udall received reinforcements from one of his Democrat colleagues:

Congressman John Salazar, D-Colo., said he likes Udall’s plan to stop storing oil away in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

“I would support putting a moratorium on that, so that we can actually make more available on the marketplace,” Salazar said. “That always seems to have an immediate impact.”

It does? Here are a few inconvenient facts and bits of expert analysis:

The Energy Department, Mr. Cusimano points out, is not actually buying the oil. But, he says, a DOE examination has found that holding the oil has been a positive investment. Currently, the average "acquisition" cost is $27.73 a barrel.

In recent times, the SPR has been tapped twice. After hurricane Katrina, which destroyed pipelines, the government released 11 million barrels of oil [about 2 days supply]. In 1991, during the Gulf War, it released 17.3 million barrels [about 3 days supply].

Energy experts are divided over whether it would make any difference to release oil today. "It's a tight market, an incredibly tight market when every drop matters," says Tim Considine, who has done a study on the SPR and is a professor at Pennsylvania State University. "But looking at the SPR to alleviate market pressure is only a short-term fix."

Phil Flynn, an oil trader at Alaron Trading in Chicago, doubts it would have any impact. "It is such a small amount of oil," he says. [emphases added]

The Sentinel reports the rest of Udall's plan:

Udall said he hopes to combine his plan for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with eliminating tax breaks for oil companies, increasing drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and removing barriers to ethanol imports, which should lower gas prices over the long term.

“We’re not going to drill our way out of this,” Udall said.

Removing trade barriers to ethanol is a good idea. Credit the Boulder Congressman for that one. But if he's serious, Mark Udall would end the ethanol subsidies, too.

And how in the world is eliminating tax breaks for oil companies going to bring down gasoline prices? (Does Udall really want gas prices to come down?) Will it increase supply? No. Will it cut back demand? No. But it sure makes somebody feel warm and fuzzy inside.

The final question for Mark Udall's incoherent plan: Can we really take his idea to drill in the Gulf of Mexico seriously when he has worked to kill a modest plan to drill on Colorado's Roan Plateau? Or is he only opposed to energy production that would enrich Colorado communities in the form of jobs, economic growth, and funding for public colleges and universities?