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.)

Mark Udall Attacks Himself For Not Supporting, Then Supporting, Then Opposing Repatriation Tax Relief

Bob Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams is not always known for the precision of his quotable quips. But sometimes, like yesterday, he delivered a blow square to Boulder liberal Mark Udall's chin. He couldn't have done it so effectively, though, without the help of Udall's big mouth and voting record.

As observed by reporter Mike Saccone in his Political Notebook, Wadhams called out Udall for an attack that the Democratic candidate might as well have delivered to himself.

At issue is the repatriation income tax levied on companies that bring their operations back onto United States soil. Mark Udall went after Bob Schaffer for his support of temporarily reducing the repatriation tax.

Then Saccone notes:

Turning the tables on Udall, Schaffer and his campaign quickly pointed out that Udall voted in favor of a 2004 bill to lower the repatriation tax during the 2005 tax year. (Udall voted against the bill in June and for it in October.)

And finally:

Never one to let this sort of faux pas slip, Schaffer’s campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, wrote in a statement: “While trying to shoot down Bob Schaffer, Boulder Liberal Mark Udall turned the gun on himself in a blazing act of hypocrisy and contradiction.”

Pow. Right in the kisser.

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

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

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

The contrast couldn't be clearer.

Mark Udall's Ranks of Undecided Superdelegates Continue to Dwindle

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

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

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

Water Wars and Courage

Mike Saccone has an excellent article in the Grand Junction Sentinel on water as a potential issue in the November contest between Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer. It essentially says that old news is...old news.

It does, however, reinforce a theme that we have often repeated here. Mark Udall is a coward when the interests of his favorite special interest, the environmentalist lobby, conflict with the interests of Coloradoans:

[ Josh ] Penry said an examination of [ Mark ] Udall’s voting record shows he also has made some bad decisions on water.

During a July 2000 vote on the House Resources Committee, [ Mark ] Udall voted “present” on a more than $343 million water storage project that drew from the Animas and La Plata rivers.

Penry, who worked for the bill’s sponsor, Congressman Scott McInnis, R-Colo., said everyone was stunned upon hearing Udall’s vote.

“Mark Udall didn’t vote yes, he didn’t vote no,” Penry said. “He voted present.”

Penry said that vote shows that Udall’s priorities on water storage are much closer to groups opposing all water storage than those of widely revered Congressman Wayne Aspinall, D-Colo.

We say that it was just another example of a lack of courage by Mark Udall. Does it remind anyone of Mark Udall's refusal to buck the environmentalists to authorize the needed forest roads to create fire breaks in our dead and dying pine forests, even when that refusal has already cost lives and will cost more?

Can anyone say "Mark Udall, (D-Sierra Club)?

Mike Saccone on Schaffer's Silence

Mike Saccone is the political writer for the Grand Junction Sentinel:

So is Schaffer’s silence a bad thing?

For Democrats, yes. Schaffer’s silence on igneous issues gives his opponent, Congressman Mark Udall, D-Colo., or liberal political organizations little to attack the veteran statesman on. It also allows him to work on his announced goal or rebuilding his party’s core, waiting for the right moment to go public with his views.

For Schaffer and the GOP, his silence is — to use a tried and tired cliche — golden. Schaffer’s silence while he works to build up his base ahead of what is certain to be an intensely competitive contest should be frustrating for Democrats and political reporters. Nonetheless, it’s a good idea if you want to keep free from early inning errors.

Nobody Knows About the Loon in the Attic

Today, David Sirota made the "nobody knows about the loon in the attic" argument when writing about a Mike Saccone blog entry.

Notice, his first reaction is the guilt-by-association move, pointing out that the bill Udall is pushing is supported by - gasp! - Dennis Kucinich. He seems to imply that this is some sort of political taboo - even though most people in Colorado have absolutely no idea who Dennis Kucinich is. And, of course, by Saccone's logic, any bill that Udall and Kucinich both voted for is some proof that Udall's politics are exactly Kucinich's politics. What a silly assertion.

It isn't just that they vote for the same bills. They co-sponsor each other's flaky bills. Take the bill that Kucinich wrote to establish a cabinet level Department of Peace, complete with a Peace Academy. Yes, it is wonderful idealism, but we can't afford idealists in Congress during a time when people are willing to fly airplanes into tall buildings or nuclear reactors. We had a lot of fun making fun of the concept.

Like this latest Mark Udall resolution, that bill didn't have all that many co-sponsors, but one of them was the Congressman from Colorado's second district. Even if a lot of Coloradoans don't know the identity of the loon in the attic, it isn't likely that it will remain a state secret in an environment where both candidates have millions of dollars to work with.

Sirota's next argument shows his contempt for those of us who have lived in Colorado more than the six months he has been here. Recall that he is writing about a Grand Junction blog and says about one of the most prominent politicians in that area, and one of the three or four most prominent Republicans in the state senate:

But what I find even more short-sighted is Saccone's obsessive focus on how Udall's resolution supposedly allows people like Josh Penry - again, a person who most Coloradoans have never heard of - to call Udall a "Boulder liberal.

Readers of this blog know that no Republican need call Udall a Boulder liberal. The msm and left wing blogs are doing it for them. Let them quote the scoreboard we keep. That's why we keep it.

Then Sirota says something astounding:

Any objective look at Rocky Mountain politics over the last few years has shown that these charges - whether they are "Boulder liberal!" or "Missoula liberal!" - are failing miserably. They just aren't sticking any more. That's not to say that Democrats shouldn't be wary of the brand, but the concept that these attacks are powerful vote-shifters is absurd.

If Bill Ritter and Ken Salizar had run as the liberals they have turned out to be, it is unlikely that they would have won. They ran wearing "moderate" burkhas and only dropped them after they were elected. One of the reasons we are keeping our scoreboard is to keep everyone honest.

Dennis Kucinich isn't the only loon in the attic, it would seem.

More Wisdom From The West

Mike Saccone of the Grand Junction Sentinel is having a war of words with the lefties. He comments:

So why is criticizing conservative talking head Rush Limbaugh a bad tactic ahead of the 2008 election? … In a nutshell: it does nothing to burnish Udall’s moderate credentials. Indeed, allying oneself with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, on a resolution that will have no binding effect is, well, kind of a nonstarter. Sure it’s a principled stance, but it’s nothing more than that.

More importantly, it lets politicos, from Schaffer to state Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, stand back and lob the “Boulder liberal” label * at Udall...

Nonetheless, it’s a political stance and an electoral risk [Mark ] Udall did not have to take.

This is the second Saccone essay on the subject. He got beat up by the local liberals and David Sirota on the first one. We like short essays, so we will take on Sirota (the commentator, who according to a gang of four colleague, grabs attention by standing on one foot and spinning. Picture him in a pink tutu with fuzzy yellow bedroom slippers.) in another post.

*Note that we normally kill links embedded in quotes, but the Saccone link was so full of wisdom that we left it in. (Yes, we are laughing as this is being written.)