Superdelegate Mark Udall Taking His Time to Make the Obvious Choice

Superdelegate Mark Udall has not exactly been a profile in courageous leadership. Even as the rest of the world has figured out that Barack Obama will be the Democrats' Presidential nominee, Udall and some of his fellow Colorado Congressional Democrats are stuck on the fence:

Sen. Ken Salazar on Monday met with three other Democratic senators who are uncommitted superdelegates, but he insisted afterward that he hadn't made up his mind whether to back Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He and three other Colorado superdelegates — Congressmen John Salazar and Mark Udall and Gov. Bill Ritter — have yet to publicly back either candidate. Pressure on the uncommitted delegates is mounting as Democratic Party leaders are eager to begin trying to unify the Clinton and Obama camps.

So what's Mark Udall's reason for holding out on Barack Obama?

Rep. Udall's office could not be reached for comment.

Meanwhile, the Udall Watch timer counts down.

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?

To Colorado's Detriment, Mark Udall Trying to Take Both Sides on Roan Plateau

Last year, Mark Udall followed his Sierra Club buddies in outright opposition to drilling on the Roan Plateau. Then Gov. Bill Ritter came up with a compromise plan that would slowly phase in drilling leases while still leaving some of the areas of the Plateau under government protection.

Some were surprised to see Bob Schaffer join Udall in support of Ritter's Roan proposal:

Schaffer's campaign points out that Udall first supported a moratorium on drilling on the Roan before getting on board Ritter's compromise plan, which allows some drilling on the environmentally sensitive plateau but calls for phased leasing over time and expands the size of protected areas.

"Boulder liberal Udall opposed any kind of activity on the Roan Plateau and reluctantly supported the Ritter proposal when Gov. Ritter announced it," said Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager.

That may not be exactly fair, given the fact that the year-long moratorium wasn't a plan in itself but only a call to hold off on drilling until a better plan was developed. And Ritter's idea, Udall's aides say, counts as that better plan. [emphasis added]

Now, as the Rocky Mountain News points out, Mark Udall has flip-flopped back, working to stall out the clock to prevent even Ritter's modest "better plan" from going into effect:

Like it or not, the clock may run out before energy companies gain access to the massive natural gas supplies beneath federal lands on the Roan Plateau.

Unfortunately, the proposal introduced Thursday by Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar and Reps. John Salazar and Mark Udall would place new development on the Roan on hold. It would jeopardize a financial bonanza for the state that could reach $1 billion.

At this point, delaying new development may be the same as denying it. Whether the next president is Hillary Clinton, John McCain or Barack Obama, domestic fossil-fuel production is likely to have a lower priority than it has under President Bush. And in the case of Clinton and Obama, probably much lower.

Regulators could impose procedural delays that make drilling financially unattractive to energy companies. Investors who have no guarantee where, whether or how soon they can drill on the Roan are likely to sink their capital in locations that are more welcoming to energy production.

In theory, the bill would enact the outline for the Roan offered by Gov. Bill Ritter in December, for which we had kind words. In fact, though, it would impose many more restrictions. It could place much of the estimated 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath federally controlled areas of the Roan out of reach.

Not only could that gas heat every home in Colorado for 20 years; leases and royalties from the wells could also secure essential funding for impacted communities and higher education. That money won't materialize if drilling isn't economically viable. [emphases added]

To echo what one of my colleagues here wrote nearly six months ago:

...[I]s Mark Udall going to continue to represent out-of-state environmental interests, or at what point is he going to try to represent Colorado's interests?

Looking back, Mark Udall's strategy must be to give the impression of willingness to make a reasonable compromise that would benefit Colorado's interests, while working feverishly behind the scenes to tack on unreasonable restrictions that cater to out-of-state environmental interests.

If Mark Udall gets his way, Colorado will see potential new jobs and economic growth, more affordable energy, and even funding for public colleges and universities all will be headed down the drain. Will Udall later act as if there is nothing he could have done to stop it, when he and fellow Democrats Ken Salazar and John Salazar were the ones busy working to pull out the plug?

You can almost picture Mark Udall's aides last month telling reporters that Ritter's compromise was a "better plan," with their fingers crossed behind their backs. Udall's super-secret "even better plan" is to follow lock-step with the Sierra Club agenda while ignoring Colorado's balanced needs.

Absurdicus makes a plea

Our friend Absurdicus is back with a comment on the Big Blue Lie Machine Post. It is too long to repeat here and keep to our short post format, so we will pick and choose:

Apparently my entire argument is lost because of my mistake of elevation. God forbid I would assume elevation above the earth was not normalized to elevation above ground level.

Go use Google Earth now. You will find it to be addictive. Your real mistake was to respond to what we wrote without even looking at what we were writing about. Had you done that you would have had to assume nothing.

Absurdicus is now the first individual that we know of to admit that the Roan Plateau is no Garden of Eden, no pristine untouched land worthy of saving because of its uniqueness:

Despite my basic math mistake, the argument that at 1000 feet a piece of land should be drilled on just because it doesn't look "pretty" is still my argument. Please address my point, that just because it looks ugly at any distance it should be drilled and drunk up like a milkshake.

Frankly, we didn't know that was your argument.

No one, not Bill Ritter, not John Salazar, not Ken Salazar, not the Sierra Club, not Trout Unlimited, not the Wilderness Society, not the Denver Post, not the Rocky Mountain News, and especially not Mark Udall nor any other individual or organization involved with pushing the environmental agenda has had the intellectual honesty to make that argument.

Instead, they use words and photographs intended to fool the public into believing that the land is something it is not. We never would have thought to look at the land using Google Earth but for the obviously deceptive video ad that we wrote about in Looking More Closely at The Udall Commercial - Part 3. We've driven through that part of Colorado many times and it is a lot of things, but it is not wet.

Absurdicus, we don't know how to respond to your argument. It is one that needs to be had in an honest way by the politicians who represent us, unencumbered by the false propaganda that is pumped out daily.

Instead, we have the politicians like Mark Udall and Bill Ritter as well as the newspaper editorial boards who should be demanding and engaging in an honest discussion unwilling to do so out of fear that they would lose in that environment. There can't be another reason.

The politicians spend their time pushing the false propaganda and taking big campaign donations from the organizations which generate it. The organizations collect big donations for supposedly "protecting the environment" when they are often doing no such thing.

There will never be a response to your argument from us or anyone else because none on your side, probably including you, will allow it to be held under conditions we could respect.

An Ignorant Denver Post Editorial

The Denver Post published an amazingly ignorant editorial today that it called "With Friends Like These, The West Doesn't Need Enemies."

The bark beetle tree kill in Colorado has been historic in magnitude. With all this tinder lying around on federal land, you might think the government would be redoubling efforts to haul out dead trees, make the forests healthy and support fire management activities.

Unfortunately, that's not the reality reflected in President Bush's budget request for 2009.

His budget actually cuts funding by 11.2 percent for the region of the Forest Service that includes Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas.

To hear the Denver Post tell it, this is all President Bush's fault. It conveniently leaves out the fact that President Bush or his successor could direct the entire Federal budget toward getting rid of the dead trees and not a single tree would be removed.

Why? The Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and their congressional toadies like Mark Udall, Ken Salazar, and John Salazar have laws in place which prevent the building of forest roads necessary to do the work.

If the Denver Post did a Lexus-Nexus search, it would discover that the victims who lost their homes in last summer's Lake Tahoe fire were blaming the Sierra Club for going to court to stop the construction of forest roads. The roads were needed for the thinning that would have saved their homes and at least one life. The problem wasn't a lack of Federal funding. It was a lack of common sense by the Mark Udall's of the congress.

Mark Udall not only doesn't want new roads to be built, he wants existing roads closed. In 2007 he proposed an amendment to do just that.

Yes, the west has friends that it can do without. Ken Salazar, Mark Udall, and John Salazar along with their eco terrorist sponsors in the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society are much higher on that list than President Bush or his successor, Republican or Democrat ever can be.

Wake up, Denver Post, and put some pressure on these turkeys. Your editorial was a cheap shot that gives the real culprits a free pass. It was pure ignorance.

Where Is Mark Udall's Common Sense and Compassion?

It used to be the environmental organizations and their toadies like Mark Udall who accused the timber industry of slash and burn tactics against our forests.

Now, they are being accused of slash and burn tactics against the economies of areas which used to rely on the timber industry and are now being asked to live off tourism revenues in burned out areas that no one wants to visit.

This is one of a series of articles and essays we are bringing forward to show just how dangerous, ruthless, and callous the environmental extremists like the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, and their congressional allies like Mark Udall and John Salazar have become. What is happening in Oregon will happen here in Colorado.

Environmental groups and their allies [ like Mark Udall ] argue that tourism can take the place of the millions of lost timber dollars and revenues from these O&C public lands. But tourism jobs and revenues often simply cannot replace the family-wage jobs and tax revenues that have historically come from timber production on these lands...

Environmental groups have successfully fought efforts to salvage and replant burned areas in Oregon, even when it would benefit forest health. Tourists are not interested in seeing dead, dying and bug infested forests.

The author of this article can only be described as bitter toward the "environmentalist extremists." Before Mark Udall tries to get himself elected to the US Senate, he needs to explain how it is good public policy to allow well paid lawyers and environmental groups to destroy people's livlihoods when they don't pay taxes in the state they are laying waste to.

Wealthy, tax-exempt groups such as the Wilderness Society also work to restrict public access to public lands like the O&C Lands. They work to prohibit the construction of roads into public areas for recreational or economic use. To the Wilderness Society and its executives, and other wealthy groups such as the Sierra Club, the public should be excluded from public lands and those areas shouldn’t be a tax base for local Oregon counties. Ironically, recreationists like hikers and fishermen often access public areas on old logging roads, built by those in the wood products industry.

Cleaning Up The Forests

Mark Udall is opposed to cleaning up the forests. It would require building forest roads. Heaven forbid!

Today, the Rocky Mountain News made a proposal to remove dead timber that will never be allowed to happen, and it admits as much:

But these productive solutions are possible on a large scale only if federal and state lawmakers act quickly to provide the economic assistance and regulatory relief needed to develop viable commercial applications of significant scope.

As unpopular as it may be with some groups, [ and politicians like Mark Udall, John Salazar, Bill Ritter, and Ken Salazar ] relaxing certain zoning and environmental restrictions is as critical as finding funds for new machinery or other start-up costs. Removing barriers to quick production is essential because of the natural timetable at work in Colorado's forests.

The Rocky didn't go far enough. Forest access roads must be built and maintained. Clear cuts must be established as fire breaks. Environmentalist terrorists like Mark Udall and his Sierra Club must be put on notice that their foot dragging won't be tolerated. Does anyone have the courage to do that? Not likely, unless it is the voters.

Say Oink! for 2034

The Gazette has done it again. They have discovered that 1984, or perhaps 2034, is alive and well in California.

Those who don't believe that a major goal of the environmental extremists is to control all aspects of our lives simply aren't paying attention.

The California Energy Commission, whose policies tend to spread to other states, wants to protect the integrity of the power grid by giving state officials hands-on ability to regulate private thermostats. The commission’s proposal would require that all new heating and cooling systems include “nonremovable” FM receivers so state authorities can control them remotely. Big Brother’s virtual hand would enter the living room at will, without invitation.

Politicians like Bill Ritter and Mark Udall and their extremist supporters like the Sierra Club want to make it impossible for the grid to meet demands 100% of the time. That is the dirty little secret of renewable energy. It may be "renewable," but it isn't constant.

When renewable energy can't meet the demand for power, they will resort to turning down thermostats remotely in winter and up remotely in the summer.

Note that the legislature in California has delegated this power to a five person unelected commission, so voters who freeze in winter and broil in summer will not be able to identify, let alone vote the responsible politicians out of office:

The five-member energy commission plans to vote on the proposal Jan. 30. If passed it would become part of California’s building code by May, said Michel Shames, executive director of California’s Utility Action Network — a nonprofit charged with protecting consumers from corporate and utility abuse.

2034 is the new 1984. George Orwell missed the date because the technology didn't support his nightmare, but by 2034, it will. You can thank people like Al Gore, Bill Ritter, John Salazar, Ken Salazar and, most of all, Mark Udall for designing and implementing this Brave New World. They are the pigs on the farm this time around. Oink!

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.

Looking More Closely at The Udall Commercial - Part 3

In Part 1, we talked about the way the anti - Schaffer Disappearing Act ad was produced and how cheaply and easy it was to produce but:

It's impressive for anyone who doesn't understand what is going on. The hard part is getting the photography. We're a bit suspicious of the photography, but who knows?

In Part 2, we began examining the photography:

The Roan Plateau segment just didn't look right. There is so much blue water and white snowcaps in their photograph that it looks pristine, beautiful, and, well . . . wet!

Cynics that we are, we suggested readers use Google Earth to look at the Roan Plateau for themselves. There is not a lot of water there. It is scrub land.

The next photo that we want to examine is the Pinon Canyon photo that appears about 17 seconds into the video. That photo was taken right at sun up. The orange is the color given to the land as the sun's rays go through the thickest part of the atmosphere. The shadows caused by the hills make the areas in shadow look more lush than they are.

No one seems to have thought of this when the photo was used, but anyone who uses the full screen mode on YouTube will see how unproductive and barren this land is. If more land is needed for maneuver training by the Army, it is hard to justify protecting this kind of land from that use. Pandering politicians like Ken Salazar and his brother John who claim otherwise are doing themselves and their own reputation a disservice.

Of Course, Mark Udall is not just a panderer, he is a liar who would sell out the nation's security for a few votes. He told the ranchers in the pinon canyon area that future wars would be against urban based terrorists and that the Army didn't need their land. Never mind that he is a member of the House Armed Services Committee and knows better.

15 Seconds into the commercial (it moves fast) is a photo of Bob Schaffer standing beside a building with a large plaque. Curious minds that might want to know where in Colorado that building and plaque might be will be disappointed to see that a trianglur shaped haze with two embedded rectangles has been produced by the animator to make it unreadable. It is funny to see how clear and sharp the photo is to the left of Schaffer's image and how fuzzy it is where the plaque is located.

The triangle shaped haze is a simple white triangle and two rectangles made translucent by the animator and placed in front of the building image. You can see where both rectangles extend outside the hypotenuse of the triangle. This part is very sloppy and cheaply done animation.

The Washington based producers of this deceptive piece of animation couldn't be troubled to find a photo of a Colorado building and weren't honest enough to let the viewer see that. Going out on a limb, we would go so far as to suggest that this building might be located in Alexandria, Virginia, given the unusually large size of the brick and the round object at the top of the photo. In Colorado, brick buildings are relatively scarce due to the easy availability of quarried building materials. We've never seen a building built with oversized brick.

All in all, we think this commercial is so poorly thought out and executed that it will do Mark Udall much more damage than it will ever do to Bob Schaffer. We actually think Bob Schaffer's campaign should be promoting it!

Another Day, Another Udall Lie?

In what has probably always been a bad habit, but is just now coming to light, Mark Udall may have told another in a long string of lies.

The language that he and John Salazar inserted into the House bill to ensure that the public would never benefit from the immense gas deposits below the Roan Plateau was removed from the bill when it went to conference.

Udall said Senate lawmakers did not want the language in the bill. But Steve Wymer, spokesman for Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said that House Democratic leaders chose not to include it.

Given Mark Udall's habit of lying to the public, we would guess that Wayne Allard was correct. If we can find verification, we will note it elsewhere.

Cutting Off Our Nose

Remember the bill that Mark Udall amended to prohibit drilling on the Roan Plateau? Supposedly it was because the Roan was a unique place.

It turns out that the bill does more:

The Roan Plateau amendment isn’t the only reason oil and gas producers are bitter. One provision within the energy bill would close down seven multi-agency offices in the West that were created to facilitate coordination between the BLM and other agencies and speed up the permitting process.

That provision makes Mark Udall, Diana DeGette, Ed Perlmutter and John Salazar into bald faced liars. They aren't interested in preventing gas production in just the scenic areas in the west. They want to ensure that it doesn't happen anywhere.

Udall Committing a Crime Against Humanity?

Cornfusion isn't the only problem with corn ethanol:

A U.N. expert on Friday called the growing practice of converting food crops into biofuel "a crime against humanity,'' saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry...

The world price of wheat doubled in one year and the price of corn quadrupled, leaving poor countries, especially in Africa, unable to pay for the imported food needed to feed their people, he said. And poor people in those countries are unable to pay the soaring prices for the food that does come in, he added.

''So it's a crime against humanity'' to devote agricultural land to biofuel production, Ziegler said a news conference. ''What has to be stopped is ... the growing catastrophe of the massacre (by) hunger in the world,'' he said.

OK, it is time to put some names to these perps. Who would have guessed that Mark Udall, Ed Perlmutter, Ken Salizar, John Salazar, Bill Ritter and Diana DeGette would stoop to commit a crime against humanity-against the poor in Africa and South America?

One wonders if, when they go to the dock to answer for their crimes, they will use that famous and unsuccessful defense used in Nuremberg "We were just following orders - this time, the orders of the environmentalist lobby."

[ Jean ] Ziegler, a sociology professor at the University of Geneva and the University of the Sorbonne in Paris, presented a report Thursday to the U.N. General Assembly's human rights committee saying a five-year moratorium on biofuel production would allow time for new technologies for using agricultural byproducts instead of food itself.

A Fine Time To Legislate Against Both Colorado's and America's Interests

From today's business headlines:

Mindful of a warning from the Federal Reserve Wednesday about inflation, the market nervously watched the price of oil, which passed $96 a barrel overnight for the first time before dipping on profit-taking. The Fed, which cut interest rates a quarter point, said in a statement that inflation remained a concern, and oil’s ascent to another record raised the possibility not only that the Fed might stop cutting rates, but that it might even consider raising them if inflation accelerates.

From The-Man-Who-Would-Be-Senator's website:

Udall worked with Rep. John Salazar (D-Manassa) on a provision requiring all leases for the federal lands on top of the Roan Plateau to include a "no surface occupancy" stipulation. Lands could still be leased, but the minerals could be accessed only from other locations.

Excellent.

So, Mr. Udall, at what price-per-barrel would you think it might be justified for Americans to search for their own energy resources, rather than rely on the rest of the world? $100? $120? $150?

And tell me, Mr. Udall, in a state so heavily dependent on the agricultural economy, a sector heavily dependent on energy supplies, how do you justify continuing to prevent your own state from tapping some of its own natural resources?

Yeah, yeah . . . Roan is about natural gas, and I'm talking about crude oil--energy is energy. Crude oil not used to fuel homes and electricity (because its been replaced by natural gas) is crude oil available for transportation.

But, more importantly, is Mark Udall going to continue to represent out-of-state environmental interests, or at what point is he going to try to represent Colorado's interests?

Opposition to Roan Drilling Falling Apart?

We get the impression that the Sierra Club is becoming concerned that Mark Udall may have expended a lot of political capital on its behalf to no avail.

The Glenwood Springs Post Independent reports:

Salazar's silence has left those involved in the Roan debate to speculate about what a key player on the issue might be thinking.

"He's sort of on the fence on this because he's being hammered daily by industry and industry groups and people," said Glenwood Springs resident Bob Millette, chair of the Roaring Fork Group of the Sierra Club. "He's not hearing enough from the other side."

Club 20, the Western Slope non partisan political powerhouse favors drilling, as does Wayne Allard.

Reeves Brown, executive director of Club 20, a lobbying group for the Western Slope, hopes Salazar may be giving due consideration to proper process. Both Club 20 and U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., have said the years of planning and public input that led to the BLM's decision to allow drilling on the top of the plateau should be honored rather than trumped by a political process.

Brown said it can be harder for senators than House members to be parochial in their political views and focus only on what's best for their backyards. They are not elected to represent a congressional district, but the state as a whole. As a result, Salazar may be more inclined to consider the Roan's natural gas reserves as well as its environmental and other values.

And, it turns out that even the Governor hasn't really come out in opposition to drilling in a way that the environmentalists would like.

[ Bill ] Ritter never has come out in opposition to drilling on the Roan but has said it is one of the last places that drilling should be allowed to occur.

That leaves Mark Udall hopeful, but not confident:

Asked about Salazar's silence on the Roan amendment, Udall said in a prepared statement, "I have no doubt that Senator Salazar shares his brother John's and my concern about the Roan Plateau. What is important right now is not making speeches, but working inside the halls of Congress - talking to the leadership and to the senators and representatives who will be helping shape the final version of the energy legislation."

Perhaps we are reading more into the report than is there. Check it out and decide for yourself.

A Well Known Environmentalist Puppet

One of the problems with the Federal system of government is that Congressmen who have never been to an area can feel qualified to make policy, or force policy to be made about that area when the residents disagree.

That very complaint came up again this week when 93 members of Congress sent a letter to BLM trying to have 3 million acres of land put off limits to off road vehicles.

The letter comes at a pivotal time for eastern Utah public lands because the BLM in Moab is now taking public comment on a plan that would confine off-roaders to designated routes on public land just over the state line from Mesa County.

When the Moab BLM held a public meeting about its proposed management plan in Grand Junction last month, more than 100 people showed up, many to express their concerns about the potential for having their favorite places for unrestrained riding rendered inaccessible to motorized vehicles...

John Martin of the Western Slope ATV Association blasted the Congress members’ letter.

“Less than four of those people have ever been to Utah,” he said. “Three of them from Colorado [ Democrats Mark Udall, Diana DeGette and Ed Perlmutter ] are very well-known puppets of the environmental community, and we’re certainly not surprised by that kind of silliness by people who have never been out here.”

We find it interesting that John Salazar, whom we consider more of a "puppet" (if that is the right word) than Perlmutter, didn't sign the letter. Do you suppose he thought it might cost him votes? At this point in his Senatorial campaign, Mark Udall is far more interested in collecting out of state environmentalist money than he is fearful of losing ATV owner's votes.

Topic of the Day: Forest Fires - Part 2

Anyone who watched the national news today on any channel would know that the lead story is the out of control fires in California. They don't know how many multi-million dollar homes have been burned, but they estimate that it will be the worst fire in California history.

California has asked for fire crew help from its neighboring states. 250,000 people were forced to flee the fire.

At some point enough people will be burned out or be at risk of being burned out by forest fire after forest fire that people will begin to question the wisdom (if that is the right word) of the environmentalist left and their congressional shills like Mark Udall, John Salazar, and Diana DeGette.

It may not happen this year, or even next, but hopefully these words will still be in some internet archive when it does happen.

Topic of the Day: Forest Fires-Part 1

Last night, 60 minutes had a story about the rise in intensity of forest fires in the US in the last decade. Missing from the story was any mention of the part that the Sierra Club and other organizations that claim to be interested in the environment have played in this disaster.

No mention was made of any of those organization's efforts to convert as many acres of forest as possible to roadless wilderness where fire fighting and insect mitigation are difficult to impossible.

No mention was made of the part politicians like Mark Udall have played in an effort to ensure that the forest service can not easily approve thinning even in areas that can be managed. His support, along with Diana DeGette, and John Salazar of roadless wilderness areas that can't be managed in any way wasn't mentioned, either.

In short, unlike most stories where 60 minutes is quick to assign blame, these forest fires are a natural phenomena that can be blamed on "global warming." The environmentalist extremists are blameless.

The largest fire this year was 600,000 acres. That is 1000 square miles. Another this year was 500,000 acres. Fires of 200,000 acres, once rare, are now commonplace.

If "global warming" is causing these fires and greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are causing global warming, one wonders why 60 minutes couldn't make the connection between the megatons of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere by these fires and the environmentalist extremist communities' refusal to allow reasonable forest management.

60 minutes did report one fact that was new to this author: Half of the area burned was so badly damaged that it won't be reforested in the foreseeable future. That will have a serious impact on water supplies.

Nice Job, Mark! Keep those campaign checks coming from the Sierra Club and its allies.

Is All Speech Free?

Can "free speech" by government officials be very costly? That is the issue being aired in an article by the Glenwood Springs Post.

Mark Udall is only one of several politicians including Bill Ritter, Diana DeGette, and John Salazar being accused of depressing the eventual value of the gas gusher on the Roan Plateau by introducing regulatory uncertainty. The amount of devaluation being mentioned is a billion dollars in state revenues.

These people pretend that their words have no impact:

Deb Frazier, spokesperson for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, said she doesn't see a link between what elected officials say and potential Roan revenues. She added, "The last time I looked we were a democracy and we could comment on it."

Most of these idealists and extremists have never had a job in the private sector and either do not understand how it thinks, or more likely pretend that they don't.

We will try to create an example that they might be able to understand.

Suppose several competing investors were considering building a super luxury hotel on a south sea island. Suppose also that one was willing to pay a billion dollars for the land at auction. Now, suppose that several government officials began publicly promoting the eviction without compensation of all civilians from that island and the creation of a military base.

Even if the military base were never created, investors would be unwilling to pay much for the island, certainly not a billion dollars, out of fear that they might eventually be evicted. Worse from their standpoint is that eviction might come sooner, rather than later.

Does anyone recall when Bill Owens remarked offhandedly that "Colorado is on fire?" Those words were free speech, but no one thought them cheap.

The Americans for American Energy group is correct when it says:

...negative statements by elected officials regarding drilling on the Roan causes energy developers to "foresee heightened regulatory risk" associated with possible drilling there and "erodes the confidence of investors that they will be able to realize a reasonable and timely rate of return." That could affect bidding prices for gas leases, it argues.

AAE added that "given the magnitude of the potential bonus bid at stake - in excess of $1 billion - the loss Colorado taxpayers already may have suffered is likely to be substantial."

Joshua: Follow the Money

Joshua Sharf says that we should just follow the money if we want to determine why Democrats like Mark Udall are so gung-ho about trashing Rush Limbaugh and ensuring that gasoline costs $10 a gallon by the end of the next decade.

OK, he didn't put it quite that way, but what he said was stark enough. He did say:

It explains Governor Ritter's impending sellout of affordable energy in the state. It explains Ken Salazar and Mark Udall - both either holding or running for statewide office - jumping on the chance to lie about Rush Limbaugh's comments on his radio show, and an attempt to corral the power of the Congress into doing the same. (It also explains John Salazar's sponsorship of the Stolen Valor Bill, which according to the Sorosians, addresses a problem that doesn't exist, although it might be embarrassing for Tom Harkin.)