Helpful Neighbors

Yesterday, one of my colleagues called into question the Mark Udall campaign's judgment in letting Cara DeGette carry their latest gem of opposition research into the public square. Last night, Michael at Best Destiny issued a substantive response exposing the utter lack of logic in DeGette's attack:

But, again, what's most laughable is the complete lack of an argument from DeGette. Maybe it no longer matters in the Democratic world to actually articulate your points and defend them with reason--certainly, Barack Obama seems content not to actually make an argument about anything.

But if this "professional" is to be the standard of argument we should expect from the Udall campaign, then I feel better about Schaffer's chances.

In the meantime, DeGette should try to get some editorial assistance. Or, at least a friend willing to say to her "Yeah. And?"

Good point, Michael.

DeGette's supposed "expose" only exposes her foolishness (and by extension, the Udall team that trusted her with the story) on two levels: reminding Coloradans that Bob Schaffer has a consistent record as a mainstream conservative and letting Coloradans know how far out of the mainstream you are for trying to label his record as extreme.

We're just trying to be helpful neighbors here.

Mark Udall's Policies: Leaving Us "Vulnerable to an Attack"

Over at View from a Height, Joshua plies his typically keen insights on the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate. He begins his argument this way:

Mark Udall - a good, patriotic American - is a threat to national security.

And concludes more precisely:

Mark Udall's policies leave us both more vulnerable to an attack, and more vulnerable to the effects of that attack.

Read the whole post - titled "Mark Udall, Natural Gas, Iran, and You" - and see another instance of how good intentions often don't translate to good policy.

But if you're Mark Udall, where do you find time to focus on good policy when you're busy working on your golf game?

Udall Claims Limbaugh Resolution Not Partisan

Senate hopeful Mark Udall's claim that his resolution bears no partisan intentions and is a meaningful use of Congress' time rings hollow:

Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to advance a partisan message with this resolution. Nor is it my intention that Congress waste time and effort in exposing partisan hypocrisy, however tempting that goal may be.

It is my intention, however, to make clear to the men and women serving in uniform, many of whom are risking their lives on foreign soil to defend our civil liberties, that it is not acceptable for anyone to accuse them of being "phony" or false patriots because their political views may differ from those of their commander-in-chief.

Not even his supposed MoveOn cronies buy what Udall's shoveling.

Official Text of Udall's Resolution

The official text of the Mark Udall, (D) MoveOn.org, resolution against Rush Limbaugh appears on the Library of Congress site.

The list of original co-sponsors is also at that site. He couldn't even get Diana DeGette to sign on, which shows just how far out this resolution is ("where the buses don't run" as Brit Hume said about MoveOn.org on Sunday).

Not surprisingly, Mark Udall's ally in trying to establish a department of peace in the President's cabinet (no kidding), Dennis Kucinich, is on the list.

Mark Udall Update: Resolution Introduced Late Monday Night

Looks like Mark Udall finally followed through on his promise to introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh:

U.S. Rep. Mark Udall offered legislation Monday condemning talk-show host Rush Limbaugh for remarks he made about "phony soldiers."

"Congress should make clear that Mr. Limbaugh's use of the term 'phony soldiers' is beneath contempt," Udall said.
. . .
Udall's resolution, introduced Monday night, says that Congress condemns "the personal attacks made by the broadcaster Rush impugning the integrity and professionalism of Americans serving in the Armed Forces."

There were 19 co-sponsors Monday night. None were from Colorado.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked other senators to sign a letter of censure.

This will make a nice campaign ad next year, as Udall's attempt to placate his left flank by politicizing the military in a cheap use of a phony smear only reveals his truly immoderate positions.

The only thing "beneath contempt" is the political grandstanding by Udall and other Democrats based on a debunked "scandal".

As pointed out over at Schaffer v Udall, is the would-be Senator simply groveling to the MoveOn crowd and throwing them a bone--and thus moving further to the left and out of Ken Salazar and Bill Ritter's "middle-of-the-road" moderate Democrat positioning, while not actually enjoying any accolades (indeed being criticized and opposed for his "meaningless resolution") from his supposed supporters?

More at Slapstick Politics, including earlier pre-resolution analysis.

A Change in Strategy and Messenger

It looks like the Senate Democrats aren't quite as anxious as Mark Udall to put Republicans on record as wanting to politicize the military. Now, Harry Reid is asking them to voluntarily sign a letter to the President of Clear Channel condemning Rush Limbaugh.

“On Friday, many Democrats joined me in drafting a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel, Mark Mays that we will send out this week.

Oh, Friday, eh? The same day Mark Udall was peddling his embarrassing draft.

Reid's letter tries to make the point that Udall made without putting Congress on record as politicizing the military:

Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.

One wonders if this language suggests that Harry "The War is Lost" Reid and his band of merry Senate Democrats have now come around to the position that American soldiers should be "fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted." Hopefully, someone will ask Mark Udall and Harry Reid if they now favor the war and its goals or if these are just more empty words from empty suits.

If they are the latter, they only embarrass themselves further.

Phantom Resolution?

As this is written it is almost 4 pm in Washington. We are yet to see evidence that Mark Udall has actually submitted the resolution he imprudently announced he would introduce today. His official site says nothing. Care to bet that he is having second thoughts?

The left wing blogs, which were cheering for this last Friday seem to have fallen silent. There are two probable reasons for this: 1) it was based on a fraudulent charge, and 2) even the left is unwilling to risk seeing the military politicized for a short term and probably illusive gain.

Ben DeGrow observes on Mount Vitus that the incident will cost Udall respect. What Ben doesn't say is that a failure to introduce this might cost him dearly among the MoveOn.org crowd. He has put himself between a rock and a hard place.

Michelle Malkin Writes About Mark Udall's Blunder

Rush Limbaugh, phony soldiers, and the Left’s desperate need for its own “Betray Us” moment

Asks [ ABC News' Brian ] Maloney: “Given the overwhelming evidence to support Limbaugh’s contention that he really was talking about phony soldiers who have faked their service, how does the left justify continuing this fabrication?”

Just a Charade

A long time ago we learned that the more links one puts in an essay the less likely the audience is to follow any of them. That is not a criticism. It is just a fact.

Last night, Ben DeGrow pointed out the outstanding essay by El Presidente. When we went to it, we saw a lot of links. Fortunately we chose to start following them. They demonstrate that Mark Udall will not just be a fool who is unwittingly politicizing the military when he submits his resolution tomorrow. He will knowingly be making himself a part of the big blue lie machine. That may help him with the MoveOn.org crowd, but it is hard to see how getting involved in this attempt to damage Rush Limbaugh through the use of misquotes will help him with the electorate.

By leading this little charade, Mark Udall will be publicly making a mockery of his own ethics standards, such as they are.

Colorado Anti-War Left Blogger: Udall "An Embarrassment"

I'm not sure where this description would fit into a watcher's "Udall is not a moderate scorecard" ... but one anti-war blogger on the Colorado Left has dubbed Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall "an embarrassment":

I mean really ... Udall (and Perlmutter and Salazar) couldn't even screw up enough courage to vote against the MoveOn.org condemnation, but now Udall is introducing a mirror image proposal so the Dimocrats can play 'gottcha' with the Republicans?

For further understanding of Udall's folly, check out the commentary on The Colorado Index and Slapstick Politics for more details.

On Calling Mark Udall a Fool

Earlier this morning we thought long and hard about the advisability of calling Mark Udall a fool on thecoloradoindex. We have been the biggest advocates for a civil discourse in this campaign and didn't want to be seen as hypocritical.

We think that this one time, it is appropriate to illustrate that Mark Udall's attempt to score a political point is foolish, More than foolish, it is dangerous to our democracy in a way that he and his staff should have seen.

When a politician does something as dumb as encouraging the military to politicize itself, we think he deserves to be called a fool. The founders, especially including George Washington, would call him a fool. Why should we avoid calling him a fool except out of an exaggerated and unwise sense of civility?

Now, if only we could get the blogger who called Bob Schaffer "a jackass" in a one paragraph entry yesterday to take the time to justify his use of that term, we couldn't call Mark Udall's supporters uncivil. Since he made no attempt to justify his words, we can, and we will call Mark Udall's supporters uncivil.

Digging Two Graves

Things will get interesting next week. It seems that Mark Udall has put the word out that he is going to introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for using the term "phony soldiers." It looks more like an act of revenge for having been "forced" to vote for a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's "betray us" ad than well thought out policy.

There is a saying about revenge: "Dig two graves." Just by floating it, Mark Udall might have dug his own political grave:

SECTION 1. Congress makes the following findings:
(3) Those who serve in the Armed Forces do not relinquish their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding public policy in a manner consistent with good order and discipline.
SEC. 2. Congress --
(2) commits to judge the merits of the opinions of members of the Armed Forces regarding the policies of the United States, including those related to military actions in Iraq, without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;

This resolution, if it were passed, would remove an important democratic safety net and politicize the military. The founders feared a politicized military. George Washington put down a near coup by the Continental Army with a single speech at Newburgh, NY. That coup was being promoted by a few members of the Continental Congress who wanted a stronger central government.

The founders understood that a military that is free to criticize the government publicly (or privately) can be a danger to our democracy. Officers who have a disagreement with the political establishment have always before been required to retire or resign before expressing that disagreement.

This resolution would destroy the concept of an apolitical military, and do so with the blessings and encouragement of Congress.

This resolution won't make Rush Limbaugh the subject of any discussion. It's implications are so grave and so dangerous that it calls Mark Udall's competence and judgement to serve in Congress into serious question. That will be the subject of the discussion, and it will be a fair discussion.