Congrats, Senator-Elect Udall

It's official: Colorado is a Blue state. As much as it pains me to say it, congratulations to Senator-elect Mark Udall. I can only hope Republicans draw the correct lessons from this election result.

Farewell to the campaign. The eyes of Colorado are now upon Mark Udall to see how he will govern.

Bob Schaffer's Most Confident Prediction Needed to Secure a Victory Tomorrow

The Pueblo Chieftain reports a confident prediction from the Republican candidate in Colorado's U.S. Senate race:

Former U.S. Rep. Bob Schaffer drew heavily on that theme Saturday morning as he spoke to about 40 fellow Pueblo Republicans about his Senate race against U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo, at the McCain-Palin headquarters Pueblo office on Main Street. Schaffer has been trailing Udall in recent polls but he argued that was also true for past GOP winners, including retiring U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard and former Gov. Bill Owens.

Noting that he'd sat with both men at a recent rally for Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain, Schaffer said, "Senator Allard told me he'd have been glad to be just 5 points down in the polls at this time (in 2002). And he went on to win by 4 points."

This is an exaggeration, but still contains hope for a shred of optimism. The final Denver Post poll before the 2002 election had Tom Strickland leading Wayne Allard 42-41. Allard indeed won by 4 points - a 5-point swing in his direction.

Trailing by 4 points according to the Post's final poll, Bob Schaffer would need a similar favorable swing to eke out a victory. Except the unpredictable dynamics of 2008 make this development far from a guarantee. We'll refrain from making our own prediction, but will report back to comment on the final results tomorrow evening.

And regardless of the polls, get out and vote.

Denver Post: Bob Schaffer-Mark Udall Race Closer Than Many Have Suggested

No one is saying that Bob Schaffer is exactly a lock, or even a favorite, at this point. But obituaries of his campaign have been written prematurely. Polls showing Mark Udall with a double-digit lead? You think they might be skewed a bit?

From today's Denver Post:

Overall, Udall leads Republican Bob Schaffer by 47 percent to 43 percent, a small drop from the five-point lead he enjoyed in a Denver Post poll a month ago and one that shows a significantly smaller lead for Udall than other recent polls.

Green Party candidate Bob Kinsey is the choice for 3 percent of voters, while 7 percent remain undecided.

The Post's survey mirrors the result of the Schaffer campaign's own internal polling, which Friday showed Udall with a 46-43 lead.

Tuesday will tell us the whole story, and turnout will be a big factor.

Does Colorado really need another Ken Salazar in Washington?

Although I've been listed as a contributor to Schaffer v Udall for some time, this is my first post here. The demands of two jobs, school, and teenage children at home have prevented me from being as involved in this campaign as I would like to have been. I thought it important that I weigh in now before the campaign is over, to give my perspective on the choice before us.

Back in 2006, Ken Salazar ran against Republican candidate Pete Coors for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the retiring Ben Nighthorse Campbell. During that campaign, Salazar assured us that he was a moderate, and would consider the views of everyone in Colorado. For his first two years, as a member of the minority party in the House, he did work in a bipartisan manner. Once the Democrat party took the majority, this behavior changed immediately.

Over the past two years, Salazar has been in lock-step with the Senate leadership, which has accomplished almost nothing during its tenure. Mark Udall, has done the same thing during his time in the U.S. House of Representatives. Udall was against drilling for our own oil before he was for it. Salazar is fine with us having to pay $10/gal. for gasoline. Senator Obama, whom Mark Udall supported as a Democratic Party Superdelegate wants to bankrupt the coal industry. This will cost Colorado a substantial number of jobs if he goes through with it, and Mark Udall will support him.

Many people talk about the unpopularity of our current President. There is no doubt that this is true. He has frustrated members of both major parties with his policies. Yet, there is another branch of government that is even less popular than the Executive branch. It is the 110th Congress, of which Mark Udall is a member. Their favorability ratings are half that of the President's; they have even seen single digits for the first time in history.

Change has been discussed often during this political campaign. Almost everyone will agree that we need some sort of change. The question I have to ask you is this: Will electing Mark Udall help to bring change, when he is currently a part of the problem?

Ultimately, this election comes down to character and trust. Mark Udall promised to vote against the summer House recess so we could have real debate on energy policy. He broke that promise because he was too busy meeting with fundraisers instead of doing his job.

Bob Schaffer keeps his promises. When he ran for the U.S. House of Representatives years ago, he promised to only spend two terms there. He kept his promise, even after a plea from the President of the United States.

We need someone in Washington to represent us that will keep his promises. We need someone that will fight for Colorado, not by bringing home bacon, but by strengthening the economy of the nation, and allowing us to utilize the natural resources that we have to our benefit and that of our nation.

We don't need another Ken Salazar in Washington. That's what electing Mark Udall will give us. We need a man of character, and someone that knows how to get things done.

The choice is clear. Colorado needs Bob Schaffer, for U.S. Senate.

Facilitating Fraud by Disabling Online Contribution Security ... Mark Udall, Too?

Apparently the disabling of basic security settings on online contributions isn't isolated to the Barack Obama campaign. According to Ed Sealover in the Rocky Mountain News, an intrepid Coloradan tested Mark Udall's contribution system:

Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams said that because Udall accepts money from sources such as prepaid credit cards that allow users to be anonymous, he can skirt campaign-finance limits and laws....

Wadhams said that after he'd gotten a tip that Udall, a Democrat, allowed the same practice, a Schaffer supporter made two $1 donations under the name of Steve Mason and included a fake address without questioning from Udall's Web site. The unnamed supporter tried the same thing with Schaffer's site but was prohibited from doing so, Wadhams said.

Schaffer finance director Janel Domenico said the Republican's Web site requires credit card users to input their billing ZIP code and rejects anyone whose ZIP code does not match with the cards. This is standard practice among stores, too, and a campaign would have to disable part of its security settings to accept prepaid cards without a billing address, she said.

Without any proof of who the donor is, a campaign could take money from individuals who want to give more than the $2,300 limit or from foreign residents who are banned from donating, Wadhams said.

"It opens the door for fraud," Wadhams said. "I don't understand why they would do it."

Nor do I.

Is this in the Democratic playbook for 2008? Congratulations if they've found a legal loophole whereby they can disable basic security and collect funds from who knows where. I'm sure once they're in power over all branches of government, closing the loophole will be at or near the top of their reform agenda.

Latching On to Bridget Johnson's Live-Blog of the Final (Phew!) Schaffer-Udall Debate

We here at Schaffer v Udall are too burned out for the final debate between Colorado's two major U.S. Senate candidates. The Rocky Mountain News' Bridget Johnson live-blogged the CBS4 showdown. Here are a few key excerpts we enjoyed:

The closed captioning on TV says that Udall just said "filly blusstering," Schaffer fires back -- still with that forced smile -- about how he would represent values in U.S. Senate.

And:

Udall asks what Schaffer even did in Congress. Bob is on a tear, rattling off stuff from the CDC to ranchland to missile defense.

And:

Lynn asks about Department of Peace moonbattery proposal. Udall said it was "duplicative" and "made some sense at the time." He said he made his point and then it was time to move on. Is Congress just for grandstanding, then? No wonder nothing gets done. [link added]

And:

Udall is asked on card check, without the panel describing that it's a labor bill for the folks at home. Schaffer happily provides the explanation and goes after Udall's jugular on it. The closed captioning called it "car check." This debate is so unfair to the deaf. [link added]

And finally:

Schaffer is on a cool tear against socialism. No redistributing of wealth and take from those of ability to give to those in need, he says.

Thanks, Bridget. We look forward to meeting you in person some day.

Analysis: Mark Udall's Agenda Would Boost Federal Spending by 55 Billion Dollars

From the National Taxpayers Union Federation cost analysis of Colorado's U.S. Senate candidates' policy proposals:

[Mark] Udall has offered 54 proposals that would affect federal spending -- 25 of which would increase annual outlays, three of which would decrease expenditures, and 26 of which have unquantifiable fiscal effects -- for a net annual spending hike of $55.3 billion. [emphasis added]

By comparison, Bob Schaffer's proposals would increase federal outlays by a net amount of $5.8 billion. Not terrific, but nearly $50 billion better on taxpayers.

For those interested in reining in government spending, there's simply no contest. Mark Udall will be too costly for Colorado. If you think the recent record of the Bush administration in increasing federal government expenditures is one we need to continue, by all means vote for Udall. If you think we need to shift gears and head toward greater fiscal responsibility, Bob Schaffer is a much better choice.

Mark Udall Wants to Redecorate Your Future Fourth of July Celebrations

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

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

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

Fact Confirmed: League of Conservation Voters a Democrat Partisan Attack Arm

Remember the League of Conservation Voters (LCV)?

• Spent a boatload of money attacking Bob Schaffer


• Connected with Mark Udall's wife Maggie Fox


• Fined $180,000 for campaign finance violations

Well, this week has brought more confirmation that LCV is nothing more than a highly partisan attack arm of the Democratic Party:

An article in the trade publication Greenwire reaffirms the findings of Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK) ongoing oversight investigation into the multi-million dollar funding and partisan political activities of environmental groups. The Greenwire article by reporter Alex Kaplun reported that “since the start of the fall campaign, every dollar spent by these organizations has been aimed at helping Democrats.”...

Greenwire excerpt: With the 2008 campaign in the homestretch, major environmental groups are spending money and time on a half-dozen or so congressional candidates who figure to play prominent roles in future Capitol Hill energy and conservation debates. The charge is being led by the League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club. While the three have endorsed dozens of congressional candidates, each has focused on just a couple of contests. The environmentalists have spent more than $3 million in congressional races on "independent expenditures" -- essentially campaigns the groups are running to assist or attack a particular candidate, campaign finance records show. That amount does not include campaign contributions given directly to the candidates, though those dollars tend to represent only a small percentage of the amount the organizations actually spend in a typical election year. And while environmental groups have endorsed a number of Republican candidates, since the start of the fall campaign, every dollar spent by these organizations has been aimed at helping Democrats.

Hardly a shock to us, of course, but perhaps enlightening to undecided Colorado voters.

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.)

NRSC Ad: Liberal Mark Udall in Lockstep with Nancy Pelosi 94 Percent of the Time

The latest ad from the National Republican Senatorial Committee - still in Colorado - reminds voters of Mark Udall's lockstep Left-wing voting record (voting with Nancy Pelosi 94 percent of the time):

Sure, the marching effect is a little weird, but it makes a point for undecided voters that we made about Mark Udall's record many months ago.

Rumored DSCC Pullout Leaves One of Two Possibilities of Democrat Deception

The Denver Post reports that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) is pulling out of Colorado. Now frankly, I'm not ready to buy it, seeing as how the media jumped off the cliff last week with inaccurate reports about the DSCC's counterpart withdrawing from the state.

But if it is true, maybe there's a connection with this fundraising email sent out very recently from the Mark Udall campaign:

The bad news: Bob Schaffer's report revealed he has stockpiled a huge sum of money -- nearly $3 million -- for use in the final weeks before Election Day. That's a far higher "cash-on-hand" figure than we reported, an alarming advantage we must act to remedy right now.

So we've set an urgent internet fundraising goal of $250,000 -- which we absolutely need to reach to close the money gap before Election Day. Please contribute whatever you can afford towards this final effort.

Mark Udall is telling his supporters that his opponent Bob Schaffer has an "alarming advantage." Meanwhile, we're supposed to believe the PR of "state Democratic sources" that Udall "is comfortably ahead."

So we're left with two choices. Either:

• Democratic leaders are lying to the Denver Post and its readers in an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy, OR


• Mark Udall is lying to his supporters to wring money out of them that he doesn't need

With undecided voters starting to tune in for the last two weeks of the campaign, now would seem an inopportune time for Mark Udall and the Democrats to cede the airwaves. We'll have to wait and see which alternative is indeed the case.

Thank You, Rocky Mountain News, for Spotlighting Mark Udall's Pandering

You've seen the mind-numbingly grating ad. Well, yesterday the Rocky Mountain News called out Mark Udall for his silly pandering:

Udall believes the economy is totally rigged against average Americans? And he says he's going to solve it with tax cuts and new energy technologies? Next thing you know, some politician is going to announce that clean energy is the long-awaited cure for the common cold, such are the miraculous powers routinely ascribed to it these days.

If this economy were totally rigged against the middle class there wouldn't be a middle class for politicians to pander to with ads like Udall's. But in fact there is a huge swath of middle-income Americans. And while they are understandably worried about the future, they remain as well or better off by most relevant standards than their counterparts almost anywhere else in the world.

It's commercials like the one hacked apart by this editorial that make me nearly unable to withstand the wait for election season to end.

Mark Udall's own votes in Congress denied needed oversight to the government mortgage institutions at the center of the economic crisis. Then he hypocritically blamed his political opponents for "laissez-fail" policies that he alleged to be the cause of the crisis. Finally, Udall descended into silly and shameless pandering to the "middle class".

Thanks to the Rocky Mountain News for performing the small public service.

Westword: "Who wouldn't want a wiseguy representing Colorado?"

I'm not sure of any real education value to it, but this Westword blog piece on Mark "Wiseguy" Udall is sure good for a laugh. And a good laugh is about what we all need at this point in the campaign.

Question About Clothes vs. Charity Suggest It's Time for Schaffer-Udall Debates to End

With two weeks to go before Election Day and early votes already being cast, the final U.S. Senate debate in Colorado between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall draws headlines for this discussion:

Residents wanted to know how much Colorado’s two senatorial candidates spend on their suits versus their gifts to charity.

Both candidates Democratic Rep. Mark Udall and Republican Bob Schaffer faced the uncommon question as their first in a line of 16 in Greeley at the Union Colony Civic Center Monday night during their last in a series of debates.

“I’m into recycling my suits,” Udall joked.

He said he gives $5,000 to $6,000 a year to charity, while Schaffer said he gives 10 percent of his income. Both said they haven’t bought a suit in years.

The candidates also had 60 seconds to say something nice about their opponents.

What this all might indicate about the state of the race I am not going to venture to guess. But it probably suggests that now is a good time to stop the debates. What a relief ... home stretch, here we come!

Mark Udall's Deceitful Attack Ends Up Exposing His Own Wasteful Record

So Mark Udall is falsely slamming candidate Bob Schaffer by suggesting that he "voted against veterans." The facts? Schaffer opposed the bills cited in the commercial for their tens of millions of dollars in wasteful pork projects.

Money for the Institute for Software Research, the Anchorage Zoo, the Stax Museum of American Soul Music, the Gorilla Forest Exhibition, Sacramento Urban League Workforce Development Center, a Las Vegas job training facility, St. Petersburg Sunken Gardens the Mid-Atlantic Aerospace Complex, and projects to restore college libraries and historic property - to name a few. Schaffer voted against pet projects proposed by Democrats and by fellow Republicans. Perhaps this is why Citizens Against Government Waste has endorsed Bob Schaffer for U.S. Senate.

Not exactly the same as "voting against veterans." Mark Udall has shamelessly produced a misleading attack campaign ad in his own name. Hardly the stuff of a confident, allegedly bipartisan candidate on his way to victory.

Then again, maybe Mark Udall didn't notice because he was so busy voting for pork in Washington, and is only an election season convert to the cause of reducing wasteful government spending.

Last Debate Between Schaffer, Udall In Greeley

In Greeley:

This Monday, October 20th, is your last chance to see Bob debate Boulder Liberal Mark Udall. The Young Republicans and Young Democrats of Colorado are the hosts of the final live audience debate. The debate will be held at the Union Colony Civic Center (701 10th Avenue, Greeley). We invite you to join us at 5:30pm for a rally prior to the actual debate. You can reserve a ticket for the debate by calling 720-377-1600 or emailing teamschaffer@bobschafferforsenate.com. Upon reserving a ticket, you will receive a confirmation email with additional event details.

Hill Consulting: Udall 43, Schaffer 38; Rasmussen: Udall 51, Schaffer 44

Facing a stiff national political headwind, Bob Schaffer no doubt is currently trailing in Colorado's race for the U.S. Senate. But polling distortions have Lefties gleefully imagining that Mark Udall leads by 11 - or even 14 - points. Okay, let's get real for a moment.

Hill Research Consultants, a firm with an excellent track record in Colorado, sent a memo to its client the Bob Schaffer campaign yesterday with some heartening news:

As you know, following the financial turmoil in the markets, ballot shares for the Republican candidates, John McCain and Bob Schaffer, were down. But I am pleased to report that in the past three days there has been a return to the Republicans, narrowing the deficit to just outside the margin of error.

What are the results according to Hill's tracking survey?

Mark Udall 43
Bob Schaffer 38
Other candidates 6
Undecided 13

And according to Hill, the characteristics of the undecided voting population indicate they likely will break in Bob Schaffer's direction. At this stage in the game, Mark Udall remains the beneficiary of some national anti-Republican sentiment and the favorite to prevail on November 4. Rasmussen has Udall ahead by seven, 51-44.

But it ain't quite over yet.

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.

Citizens Against Government Waste Endorse Schaffer

Udall really is liberal--with your money:

U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer was endorsed by The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste Political Action Committee yesterday for his “outstanding record of fiscal discipline and fighting on behalf of all taxpayers.”

“Bob Schaffer continues to be the only low tax, pro-economic growth candidate in this race,” said Campaign Manager Dick Wadhams. “The current liberal congress has done nothing to curb out of control spending and earmarks.”

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste gave Schaffer a lifetime rating of 85 percent while he served in Congress from 1996 to 2002. He was named a “Taxpayer Hero.”

Boulder Liberal Mark Udall has only a 15 percent lifetime rating and it hit a low of 4 percent in 2007.

What's at stake?

Six years of spend, spend, spend.