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.

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.

Missing the Point of Bob Schaffer's Powerful Zing on Mark Udall's Iraq Record

The most striking blow in today's debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall came when 9News moderator Adam Schrager read a question submitted by a viewer: Why are we in Iraq, and how will we know when we we've won the war?

Bob Schaffer answered the first part of the question by reading from a Congressional resolution that included many of the charges against Saddam Hussein's regime - including his chemical weapons program, his state sponsorship of terrorism, and his treatment of the Kurds. A campaign press release said:

Schaffer then asked the crowd to raise their hands if they agreed with the resolution. Udall supports sneered and chuckled until they were told the resolution was introduced by Congressman Udall. An audible gasp was heard from the crowd.

Mark Udall's resolution called for more diplomatic action, but clearly left the military option on the table.

The point of this elucidating moment? That even in opposing the war, Udall clearly acknowledged the reasons that 296 other Congressmen (including 81 Democrats) reasonably relied upon to make their judgment for authorizing military force. And as Schaffer himself explained in the debate, those who voted to support the war didn't want to telegraph our nation's intentions to the regime that had perpetrated the things highlighted in the resolution.

The disagreement was not over the facts in evidence that justified the invasion of Iraq. But Schaffer's question to the audience demonstrated that those supporting Mark Udall fail to recognize the pertinent facts before the nation in Congress and 2002 that were weighed as we debated whether or not to depose the Saddam Hussein tyranny. And those facts remain, even if some conveniently seem to have forgotten them.

Over at the Dead Governors blog, one paid Lefty propagandist thought he caught Bob Schaffer in a gotcha moment - claiming that the Republican candidate "just makes stuff up." The propagandist may have a legitimate disagreement about a foreign policy decision, but he utterly missed the point. Still the Big Blue Lie Machine tries to churn out distractions to hide their candidate's pathetic showing on the debate stage today.

Well, for the sake of an honest debate, I suggest the paid Lefty propagandist give a more careful viewing of the video. But the outcome might just be too painful to watch.

For open-minded independent voters, the debate is a worthwhile watch. They can decide for themselves.

Schaffer v Udall Debate--Update, Quick First Impressions

**Update--no liveblogging (no wireless at the venue), but Ben will have a full recap, and I'll have photos/video posted later).

Quick takeaways and initial impressions--Schaffer clearly had the upper hand in the debate when it came to vociferous support (the Udall side was not full), a command of the issues and the details involved in policy, and in overall demeanor. Udall's answers were forced when they weren't simply regurgitations of campaign talking points, and his rebuttals routinely eschewed marked policy differences, and instead focused on rhetoric of "bipartisanship" and the notion that "we are all Coloradans, all Americans." Udall certainly didn't appear to be comfortable in his own skin appearing before the cameras and a somewhat more open style of Q&A, with questions drawn from email submissions to 9NEWS' Adam Schrager, who moderated the debate. Schaffer was on offense from the opening remarks, with Udall trying (and failing, miserably) to play catch-up.

As for the supporters themselves (and this will be revealed in the photos and video), Schaffer's proponents were motivated and loud--"fired up and ready to go." Udall's troops showed up much later, had very little presence inside the complex or on the street, and demonstrated a lack of coordination/organization and reflected poorly on a candidate up by 10 points in the latest polls. It will be interesting to see how the MSM plays the debate today--one that favored Schaffer in all meaningful aspects and really exposed Udall as a mediocre debater and Washington insider who would rather cater to special interests and promote delays and politicking with hashed reasoning (health care is a national security issue, ya know!) rather than dealing with issues head on.

Looking forward to the next debates, Udall faces quite a challenge. The format certainly favored Schaffer, and may be one of the reasons that the Udall campaign refused to sign on to Schaffer's debate series. It is clear Udall would prefer the closed-set, no-crowd debate format with canned questions from the host. To his credit Schrager ably kept the candidates in line and on topic, and dealt with unruly Udall supporters by threatening to halt the proceedings.

RMN:

Painted into a corner by weeks of attack ads, Bob Schaffer came out swinging this morning in the first U.S. Senate debate of the season, accusing Mark Udall of flip-flopping and of being responsible for high gas prices.

Udall, a Democratic congressman from Eldorado Springs, rarely took the bait from his Republican opponent, responding most often that Congress must work together rather than continue its partisan bickering.

The topics of the debate, which drew a crowd of about 800 to the Wildlife Experience, ranged from energy to the Iraq war to the proposed expansion of Piñon Canyon military training area. But one theme seemed to emerge throughout the morning: Schaffer accusing Udall of being unwilling to make a decision and Udall responding that he prefers finding consensus rather than rushing into a bad decision.

Emblematic of this was a question over whether Colorado needs to extract oil shale from the ground. Udall said that while research is under way to determine the potential of oil shale, Colorado should not be turned into a "national sacrifice zone."

Schaffer responded: "This is part of the reason I'm running for Congress.... I do not believe constant delay is a strategy for America's energy independence."

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.

Mark Udall Pokes Barb at General Petraeus, Passed Up Opportunity to Ask Questions

Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's stint on the House Armed Services Committee appears to have been more about political resume-building than any sort of real conviction on military issues. Remember that photo-op junket to Afghanistan?

As successful military commander David Petraeus was promoted to head Central Command, Mark Udall seized the opportunity to pontificate in a press release:

"Taking over Central Command may give Gen. Petraeus context and perspective to answer the question he couldn't answer last year, namely, whether the war in Iraq has made America less secure."

Yet when Petraeus came to Washington recently to report on progress in Iraq, Mark Udall let the whole hearing go by without asking a single question - tough or otherwise - of the General. (Hearing transcript available at Congressional Quarterly - registration required.)

I guess it's a lot easier to unleash cheap political barbs against a military leader from the press office than to question him directly.

Mark Udall Flip-Flops On War In Afghanistan

Then:
"To put troops in there seems like folly"--Mark Udall on Afghanistan, Sept. 2001

Now:
"The real central front in the war on terror . . . This is the right fight . . . It's a war of necessity as opposed to the war of choice"--Mark Udall on Afghanistan, Jan. 2007, after his recent 36 hour trip


He was against it before he was for it--Mark Udall's opinions on the war in Afghanistan have changed just a bit

After what was likely a staggeringly comprehensive 36 hour stop in Afghanistan, Democrat and Senate candidate Mark Udall was prepared to repudiate his earlier feelings on taking the war to the terrorists in Afghanistan which he originally believed to an erroneous, if not outright dangerous move:

"I returned believing more than ever that we have to finish the job in Afghanistan...that we have to return our focus — which I think has been fuzzy — to the importance of the effort underway there," Udall told reporters in a conference call Wednesday.

Udall, a longtime opponent of the Iraq war, calls Afghanistan "the real central front in the war on terror."
. . .
Udall said he agreed with the Pentagon's recent decision to add 3,200 U.S. Marines to the battlefield, bringing the U.S. commitment to more than 30,000 troops. But he said more forces would be available if the military began a phased redeployment of troops currently stationed in Iraq.

"This is the right fight," Udall said of Afghanistan. "It's a war of necessity as opposed to the war of choice."
. . .
"At this point, because of the instability in Afghanistan, and frankly the increase over the last year of violence and the (rebuilding) of the Taliban presence in the south, I think we have no choice but to continue our presence there and even build on it," he said.

Udall even endorses a "surge" in Afghanistan by redeploying troops currently in Iraq, and advocates the type of "nation building" that he vehemently opposes in Iraq (from his press release):

“I came back from Afghanistan in awe of our troops and the work they are doing with the Afghan people to make their country a stable and secure place to live.

“If there is a message I want to convey to my fellow Coloradans, it is that we cannot allow the Taliban or Al Qaeda to defeat us in this part of the world.

“The American people understand who attacked us on 9-11. They also understand that after nearly 7 years we still haven’t fully defeated the Taliban, or Al Qaeda and we haven’t eliminated Osama bin Laden. Finishing those jobs are critical, and we have to get them done.

“Afghanistan and Pakistan are the true central front of the fight against Islamic terrorism and I believe the U.S. needs to do more to counter growing instability in those countries. However, I am deeply concerned that the Bush Administration’s focus on nation-building in Iraq has led us to neglect nation-building in Afghanistan.

“I opposed the war in Iraq in part, because I was worried that this would happen – and my fears have borne out. We are not losing in Afghanistan, but unless we can secure more resources – including additional NATO forces – we could lose ground in this critical part of the world, and the consequences would be disastrous.

“The Administration is belatedly coming around to the view that we need more forces in Afghanistan. A ‘surge’ in Afghanistan makes sense, but it should be linked to a redeployment strategy I’ve called for in Iraq.

A true change of heart or political expediency?

Let's take a look at those earlier feelings on Afghanistan.

Blame America first, of course, and questioning any action in Afghanistan just one week after 9/11 (9/19/2001):

Udall said the global barrage of American culture is seen as the U.S. flaunting its opportunities to lands that have very little. "They see these images and think it's not possible for them."

Of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, few "really have functioning democracies" where they live, with "safety-valves" for social resentment, such as protest or elections. Anti-Americanism is the only real outlet for anger, he said.

But pressing a ground war into Afghanistan could be counterproductive, he said. The Soviet Union sowed the rugged land with bombs during a 10-year occupation and still pulled out in defeat. Dragging Pakistan into the conflict could bring nuclear rival India, and possibly China, to the battlefield, Udall said.

From the same meet-and-greet with CU-Boulder students that day, Udall questioned the need for military action and actually suggested that President Bush push democracy in the region:

"Military effort may only have short-term benefits," Udall said.

He said he is supporting an initiative that is gaining consensus on Capitol Hill to place more spies and special forces on the ground in Islamic fundamentalist countries like Afghanistan.
. . .
"To put troops in there seems like folly," Udall said of Afghanistan.
. . .
The Bush administration, he said, should encourage and promote democracy abroad.

Later that day at Boulder High School, Udall riffed on students' "Blame America" meme:

Many students questioned the United States' past military policies, noting the government trained and financed Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan during the Cold War.

"U.S. foreign policy is not guiltless," said junior Keely Rew. "Saying it's 'good vs. evil' is just propaganda."

For the most part, Udall seemed to share students' concerns.

"We should acknowledge that we've helped to fuel rage and despair in other parts of the world," the Boulder Democrat said. And "our war is not with the Afghan people," he said. "I'm not convinced that sending ground troops to Afghanistan makes sense."

Well, well, well.

Amazing what political expediency in a state-wide run for Senate will do to one's feelings on the war against terrorists in Afghanistan.

This can't possibly please the anti-America, anti-war, "progressive", impeachment wing of Udall's Democrat party. The Representative from Boulder realizes that Boulder viewpoints don't play that well in the rest of the state, and has backed away from them in an attempt to push his "moderate" credentials in a clear toss-up of a race for Senate that was once touted by Democrats as an "easy" pickup.

Exit question: how will Udall explain this shift in policy support to his constituency in the People's Republic of Boulder?

A Little Remediation for Out-of-State Observers

A new team of Web writers for "The Seminal" - originally from Northwestern University, no less - has declared its intention "to follow four key Senate races in 2008," including Colorado. Like the authors of Schaffer v Udall, these writers are independent (or so they assert), but unlike us they are avowedly Leftward-leaning. Here's their introduction to Colorado:

With republican [sic] incumbent Wayne Allard out of the race, Colorado is looking like one of the best pickup opportunities the Democrats have in 2008. Possible Republican candidates for the seat include former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer, Delta County Commissioner Wayne Wolf, U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez and a slew of others.

The Democratic challenger will be popular Congressman Mark Udall. Udall is a strong proponent of responsible redeployment from Iraq, as he explains in this statement:

We must end our continued entanglement in this war, but we must do so in a way that inhibits the development of terrorist bases, manages to salvage our national reputation in the region and keeps faith with the humanitarian obligation we have to the Iraqi people.

I believe that we should begin the process with a phased withdrawal that makes clear to the Iraqi political leadership that they alone have the ultimate power to settle their differences and build a stable society. America can help. The United Nations should help. But in the end, the solution to unending war in Iraq rests with the political will of the Iraqi people.

He is also focusing his campaign on education, health care and energy independence. You can contribute to Udall's campaign here.

Since I look forward to reading their analysis of the race in the coming weeks and months, I thought it would be best first, as a kind gesture, to save some of their readers from confusion and misinformation, and to point out the need to stay up-to-date with events in our fair Centennial State.

Basic facts:

1. Wayne Wolf is running for the 3rd Congressional District, not the Senate.

2. Bob Schaffer is the only declared Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate race. Bob Beauprez, who is not running, wrote on his own blog in early October:

Udall’s chief opponent in his quest for the Senate is the rock solid Bob Schaffer, but the Boulder liberal is also concerned that he may get challenged by a candidate from the left that could slice off 5-7% of the electorate that otherwise would be his.

3. Speaking of a marginal challenge from Udall's Left, the only other declared candidate in this race from either major party is Left-wing Kucinich activist Mark Benner.

Other observations:

1. Udall, who The Seminal describes as favoring "responsible redeployment from Iraq," has voted several times for an irresponsible "cut-and-run" strategy, even as the "surge" showed signs of success.

2. For awhile, the issue statements on Udall's site were down. As a public service, we reposted some of them here.

3. To provide balance to The Seminal's link to Udall's contribution page, here is where you can go to donate money to the campaign of principled former Congressman Bob Schaffer.

Snatching Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

Mark Udall got a chance to say his piece about peace in the Denver Post today.

As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I believe we can achieve consensus by implementing the bipartisan recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. This legislation, which I co-authored with a Democrat and two Republicans earlier this year, is now more critical than ever. The bill calls for increasing international economic development, a "surge" in diplomatic efforts and a careful, yet timely, phased withdrawal of American forces.

He claims his service on the HASC gives him the credibility to require by legislation that we surrender under the terms set out by the Iraq Study Group. Does anyone recall the level of military expertise that Congress infused into the membership of the ISG? None.

Diplomacy only works in an environment of strength. Stalin once asked "How many battalions does the Pope have?" Mark Udall wants to place the US in a position where it has no battalions in Iraq and then pretend to expect that a "surge" of diplomacy will work.

Boulder Has Its Own Foreign Policy Take 2

Mark Udall once joked that the difference between Colorado Springs and Boulder was that Boulder has its own foreign policy.

Then, he proceeded to announce that he would be introducing a bill requiring the President to adopt the Iraq Study Group recommendations, forgetting that foreign policy is the prerogative of the president.

Of Course, Mark Udall has now also introduced a bill that ties the President's hands on Iran. Iran could detonate a nuke on the Mexican side of the Mexico Border and the President could not respond if this short sighted legislation were to pass.

Now Jared Polis, author and patron of the Polis Amendment (aka Amendment 41) is making his own foreign policy as reported by USA Today. He has declared us invaders and occupiers and claims to be embarrassed to admit it. Since he doesn't have the clout to talk to a real ambassador, he bestowed the title on the first guy he met (think Kentucky Colonel = Iraqi Ambassador):

Polis arrived in Baghdad on Wednesday, local time, and has already done an online chat at Colorado Confidential and blogged at his campaign website about his first day there. In the blog post, he discusses a conversation he had with an Iraqi intellectual he euphemistically refers to as "the Ambassador:"

As we conversed, I didn't want to say "our occupation" or "our invasion" because even though we both knew that was true, I didn't feel it was polite to remind them by overtly stating it. So early on in the discussion when I was searching for words to ask what they were respectively doing 'before the, er, before the ... ." The Ambassador, observing my pause, kindly offered up the more diplomatic term "regime change" and we thereafter used that term liberally."

The Polis candidacy is an attempt by one left wing foreign policy flake who sees no value in the constitutionally mandated separation of powers to exchange places with another.

Udall Selling His Vote - Again

Casual observers would never guess that Mark Udall is running to be Senator of all of Colorado when he issues a press release that announces that he will vote to cut and run from Iraq at a time when the surge is obviously working:

Tonight U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Moveon.org, will vote for legislation that requires redeployment in Iraq to begin within 30 days of the bill’s passage and sets a goal of bringing home most U.S. soldiers from Iraq by December 15, 2008.

This is exactly the MoveOn.org position, and we took the liberty of slightly modifying his press release to reflect the people he most wants to be seen as representing, or more likely, the people who are most willing to donate to his campaign if he takes their position.

He even admits in his press release that voting for the bill is a bad idea:

However, while this bill sends the right message – that our troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely – regrettably, it does not send it in the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by Democrats, and the president has already promised to veto it.

This is the second time we have caught Mark Udall selling his vote for campaign contributions. Recall that he went so far as to sponsor a labor bill that he claimed he didn't agree with and then immediately collected $75,000 in campaign contributions from labor unions.

Schaffer's Optimism, Passion, and Focus Shine at Jeffco GOP Event

As the early phase of Colorado's U.S. Senate campaign unfolds, Bob Schaffer is clearly exuding a growing confidence as he delivers a commonsense conservative message. Tonight at a well-attended event sponsored by the Mountain Republican Women (in west Jefferson County, for the uninitiated), Schaffer delivered a powerful keynote speech that picked a somewhat wearied and skeptical crowd off the ground and fired them up for the 2008 election.

Schaffer noted that he is more optimistic about the prospects of his candidacy and that of the GOP than he has been for many months. Considering that he has been in the race for 5 months and Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall has been angling for the seat since 2004, it is a good sign that the contest polls as a dead heat. The former 4th District Congressman's fundraising has been steady and solid but, in a race that will cost the winner at least $12 million, can use more help.

An articulate and charismatic candidate with a clear focus, Schaffer stands on an increasingly well-developed, three-fold platform of:
1) Tax relief
2) Foreign policy strength
3) Border enforcement and responsible immigration policy

The first point gives the Republican a big hammer to drive home, especially if Udall decides to support something outlandish like Rep. Charlie Rangel's economy-busting boondoggle proposal. On the second point, with mounting evidence of success, the issue of Iraq is disappearing off the Democrats' table much more quickly than they would like - leaving only echoes of Sen. Harry Reid ready to toss in the white flag on our troops. On the third point, Schaffer quipped to one questioner that he could not vote for amnesty lest he lose the support of his own mother.

Without losing an eye on his longterm strategy of reaching out to unaffiliated voters, Schaffer is working hard to unify a wounded party one phone call at a time. Talking to party activists and supporters who pour out their anger and frustration at the infidelity to core principles displayed by many GOP officials, Schaffer said he typically tells them, "Hey, I'm a frustrated Republican, too."

Schaffer closed with his dramatic delivery of Patrick Henry's famous "Give Me Liberty" speech, which only serves to remind you of this candidate's passion, depth, and devotion to the cause of liberty and self-government. These are the values dear to the hearts of most Coloradans, not those represented by Udall. The more voters learn about the real man, the more this race will tilt away from the out-of-orbit predictions by liberal Democrats to a repeat of Sen. Wayne Allard's victories in 1996 and 2002.

Watch out, Udall.

Mark Udall: The Modern Michael Dukakis

For those too young to remember, Michael Dukakis lost credibility and the election in 1988 when he stumbled on the first question of the first debate.

That question presupposed the rape and murder of his wife and asked what he would do. He made it look like it was an academic exercise where the criminal had more rights than his wife did. Almost any husband who loved his wife and wanted to protect her would have answered differently. At the end of the debate, Dukakis' body language signaled his knowledge that he had blown the election on that one question.

Now comes Mark Udall with much the same mind set towards Iran. He wants to completely tie the hands of this and future administrations with regard to that country and has proposed a law to that effect.

Udall makes the claim that he loves the soldiers. As with our observation about Dukakis, almost any politician who loved "the soldiers" would do his utmost to protect them.

When they go to Iraq, they face very sophisticated shaped charge roadside bombs.Shaped charges can not be made from parts picked up at the local junkyard or ammo dump. They have to be machined out of copper. None of these shaped charges can be or have been made in Iraq.

It is reported that about 80 per cent of our casualties are due to shaped charges. Most, if not all of these weapons are shipped in from Iran. Iran is at war with us.

Now comes Mark Udall, the modern day Michael Dukakis who wants to protect the criminals in Iran more than the soldiers he claims to love. Of course, Daily Kos is cheering him on.

News Mark Udall Can't Use

Mark Udall and his fellow "peace" Democrats don't really want peace. They want the United States to lose in Iraq.

It isn't good news for them or Mark Udall when the editor of a paper in a Colorado Democrat stronghold writes something like this:

Back in Iraq, Mr. Bull notes that American troops have shown enormous skill and bravery in helping the Iraqis fight their real enemies, and enormous goodwill in sending our young men to protect Iraqi schools, mosques and polling booths. The reason we and the Iraqis are beginning to win this war together is that its purpose is to give Iraqis what they want...

We have stuck it out, and we are slowly but surely liberating Iraq from the clutches of death and mayhem.

The first three notes just happen to be: do re mi

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 19
moderate 0
conservative (not in this lifetime)

It was incremented today when the Grand Junction Sentinel made the following comment:

It’s curious that Udall, a certified liberal who is seeking statewide office in a state that does not always vote in a certifiably liberal fashion, has bought into a phony attack on Limbaugh propagated by Media Matters, the liberal Internet group. Even after reading the transcript of Limbaugh’s Sept. 26 show posted on Media Matters’ Web site, it takes a considerable stretch to conclude Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment referred to military personnel who merely favor a speedy U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm was routinely calling Mark Udall a "liberal," "reliably left wing," and even "extremist." We do not count comments from conservative blogs and we didn't count a comment on a liberal show by a conservative politician. Those who would like to check our methodology can follow the bread crumbs backwards.

And yes, we know that we linked to the same article on two sequential posts, but each post had a different purpose.

Jim Spencer's Curious Quote

Today, Jim Spencer made a curious comment:

Still, I'm glad Udall called out Limbaugh. Limbaugh's disrespect for the military is every bit as bad as MoveOn's.

Really? Jim ought to ask the average man or woman in uniform before he throws more fodder into the big blue lie machine. Rush Limbaugh's program plays on Armed Forces Radio. If there was any feeling among the military itself that Rush was disrespectful of the military, the military would be taking action to replace him.

Further, embedded reporters in Iraq would have long ago filed stories about the discontent in the ranks over the comments. Most embedded reporters are liberals and would love to push any theme that damages Rush Limbaugh. There hasn't been a single story about soldier discontent, which suggests that the military down to the individual soldier has great respect for Rush and knows that he has great respect for them.

Spencer is right about one thing, though.

well, you got yourself a re-election campaign issue.

My guess, as a Retired Army Officer, is that Udall has handed Republicans in Colorado a campaign issue. I would be very disappointed if they didn't use it to beat Mark Udall bloody among veterans and military voters and their families. Most of us see through this stunt.

The Left's Intensifying Tug-of-War over Udall's Political Drift

The battle is on within the Colorado Left. Last Friday, the Dead Governors called a poll showing a three-way race for the U.S. Senate "mythical." Counting on recent voting patterns, they try to ward off the strong pressure from the Left that their anointed candidate Mark Udall has started to feel as he abandons his Boulder liberal roots to run for the center of the political spectrum. There is no Green Party threat, they say:

That's all well and good for Schaffer, but no third party candidate received more than 1% of the vote in the 2006 gubernatorial race or the 2004 Senate race. Even the most well-known and well-funded Green Party candidate in recent history, Ralph Nader, managed just 5% of the vote in Colorado when he ran for President in 2000. Touting this three person poll is beyond ridiculous, because a Green Party candidate in Colorado will be lucky to get 2% of the vote.

Is this wishful thinking on their part? It well may be. The war in Iraq has changed up the political dynamic, so that relying on figures from as recently as the last 2 election cycles might make the Dead Governors' logic just that: wishful thinking.

A palpable anger is growing among the Nutroots, as witnessed in this post today from the Metro Denver Greens:

Finally, Mark Udall, John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter cast very wimpy votes in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday. They voted to condemn an ad in a newspaper because the radical Republicans scared them into doing so.

Hey, you guys, it should be the job of the Congress to bring our troops home, not legislate free speech.

Of course, you can (and should) question the judgment of sanctioning the slander of an honorable American general. But how long will the seething rage among elements of the Left in Colorado abide Udall abandoning the faith?

Green Party candidate Bob Kinsey may become all the more palatable for more and more disaffected Left-leaning Colorado voters. After all, principles never die. The Denver Metro Greens' site says it well: "Progressive and tired of wimply, spineless Dimocrats? Vote Green!"

When Will Mark Udall Officially Toe The MoveOn.org Line?

Powerline has been connecting some dots of late. We are still wondering when, if ever, Mark Udall will distance himself from the "Betray Us" ad. We're not holding our breath.

MoveOn.org—an angry, far-left, antiwar group—views the modern Democratic Party and its leadership as its cat’s-paw, and there’s little reason to dispute this judgment. The problem for many Democrats is that a Great Unmasking is taking place. For one thing, it’s difficult to say they oppose the war but support the troops when they train their fire on the commanding general of the troops, whose main transgression appears to be that he’s helping America succeed in an epic struggle against radical Islam.

Beyond that, the Democratic Party’s aversion to any (authentic) good news from Iraq, when combined with their effort to accelerate a premature withdrawal from that traumatized country, would lead to an American defeat and a victory for jihadism. This would be reckless—and it would reinforce the view among many Americans that the Democratic Party cannot be trusted on national security matters.

When MoveOn.org says jump, the Democratic Party asks, “How high?” There should be, and eventually there will be, a political price to pay for this ugly alliance.

"Boulder Has Its Own Foreign Policy"

Today, I found an old article from Colorado Confidential and also a new one from Media Matters.

The CoCo article observed that Mark Udall was trying to dodge the "Boulder Liberal" label. The "joke" he tells to avoid criticism is telling in ways he might not have intended:

"I’ve had some fun saying that Colorado Springs and Boulder are exactly alike. They both have world class mountain backdrops, Olympic athletes in-residence, nonprofit communities like no other, a high tech presence important to the economies and beautiful downtowns.

"The only difference is that Boulder has its own foreign policy."

Colorado Media Matters reported yesterday that Udall has said:

"So, when Congress reconvenes after the Memorial Day recess I will introduce legislation making the Iraq Study Group's recommendations our national policy."

Ken Salizar has now done that. It would be very useful if our Congressmen, Senators, and would be Senators were required to take an introductory course in the functions of the various branches of government.

Boulder's "foreign policy initiative" simply isn't supported by the Constitution, foreign policy being the prerogative of the executive. It will be very hard for Udall to shake the Boulder Liberal label if he insists on pushing its foreign policy.