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.

Did Mark Udall Duck a Debate to Attend a Boulder Fundraiser with Nancy Pelosi?

An on-the-scene informant tells SvU that Mark Udall skipped an appearance at a candidates lunch debate today in Arvada. The event was hosted by the Arvada Chamber of Commerce, and among the sponsors was retiring state senator Sue Windels, D-Arvada.

Bob Schaffer was there, so what more important activity did Mark Udall have to do? His public calendar shows no conflicts.

Perhaps Mark Udall was at the Jared Polis fundraiser in Boulder keynoted by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, with whom Udall votes 94 percent of the time. After all, Udall might want to thank Pelosi in person for staging a second recorded vote to cover for the fact he missed the crucial vote on energy he promised to make when she thre him under the bus.

Where was Mark Udall today? Inquiring minds want to know. (And bloggers can ask these sorts of questions.) Perhaps some intrepid reader who attended the Polis-Pelosi event in Boulder today can help definitively answer the question.

Grand Junction Sentinel: Mark Udall's Broken Promise Spells Trouble

Getting caught up on an important editorial I missed - this, from the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel last Friday:

So [Mark] Udall took the easy route. Sure, he said, he would vote for keeping Congress in session. That’s a safe enough answer, and one that’s not likely to cost any votes at all. Voters who don’t follow candidates closely, and there are many of those, might even see that interview and conclude Udall supports offshore drilling. That’s the best of both worlds for the congressman.

But anyone who knows Udall’s record knows he takes the Nancy Pelosi line on offshore drilling: He’ll support it when you-know-what freezes over.

This is the funny part. For the past 10 days, the Lefties have been stamping their feet, pointing to a meaningless vote Mark Udall never promised to make, and saying, "Look, see? He did keep his promise to vote against adjournment!"

Never mind he promised to vote for the adjournment resolution - which succeeded by one vote - but missed the vote because he was late getting back to Washington, DC, from a fundraiser - raising funds from whom -- we don't know yet. Never mind that the recorded voice vote on the mere formality of a resolution was contrived by Democrat leaders for the sole purpose of giving Lefties a talking point and shielding Udall from a well-deserved critique.

But the Sentinel gets beyond the issue of the broken promise itself, which simply encapsulates Mark Udall's problematic history and out-of-touch plans on energy policy. Even if Udall had somehow kept his promise, his opposition to drilling until "you-know-what freezes over" and his narrow views of energy solutions remain. The missed vote simply serves to highlight Udall's record and his lack of interest in a comprehensive energy policy.

But the Sentinel's conclusion says something at least as troubling about Mark Udall:

We’d prefer to see candidates simply answer questions honestly. In this case the honest answer would have been to say he’d try to get back for the vote, but he could make no promises.

Though he'd still have his troublesome energy record to defend, Udall would have been better off not making promises he can't keep.

Yesterday, July 30: A Day the Mark Udall Campaign May Look Back On in Regret

213-212. Less than 48 hours after he mad a promise to vote to keep Congress busy to deal with the nation's domestic energy problems, Mark Udall showed up a few minutes too late to cast an important vote. And that favorable interpretation requires taking him at his word.

You know, he was too busy raising funds for his Senate campaign to show up and cast important votes. It doesn't say much about how well Mark Udall would represent Colorado as a U.S. Senator.

Reports the Denver Post:

[Udall spokeswoman Taylor] West said that her boss would send a letter to Pelosi today objecting to the fact that the vote wasn't delayed long enough for him to make it from the Washington airport to the Capitol.

First, when did Taylor West - one of two people who believed Mark Udall actually won the first debate - resume official PR duties for the Udall campaign?

Second, Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have saved Mark Udall from choosing between breaking a public promise and voting against a long history of energy obstruction likely will be too transparent to work. But she didn't do Udall any favor. Pelosi is more concerned about saving many of her House Democrats seeking re-election from having to cast a vote on the issue than securing Colorado's U.S. Senate seat for her party. Translation? Nancy Pelosi threw Mark Udall under the bus.

Of course, this all assumes we give Mark Udall all the benefit of the doubt. After all, based on his record, there's absolutely no reason to believe that Udall has any serious intention to go against his entire Congressional career by seeking to improve America's domestic energy supply. Yes - the only place Mark Udall wants to drill is your wallet.

Fourteen weeks from now, on Election Night, the events of yesterday well may be looked back upon as a critical and decisive moment in the U.S. Senate race. And that would be bad news for Mark Udall.

Mark Udall Obstructing Reasonable Solutions to Skyrocketing Gas Prices

Gas prices in the Denver area are hitting new records again. Meanwhile, syndicated columnist William Hamilton, in mountain Granby's Sky-Hi News, lays out our nation's current energy problems and where our policies have gone wrong:

In December 2007, Congress adopted the Rep. Mark Udall Amendment to prohibit oil-shale development. As recently as May 15, the Senate rejected Sen. Wayne Allard’s attempt to overturn the Udall Moratorium. Obviously, Congress still doesn’t get it.

Meanwhile, the Law of Unintended Consequences remains in effect. Attempts to legislate against brand-name Big Oil will negatively impact the no-name Little Oil companies that develop 90-percent of our domestic oil and gas wells. Little Oil produces 68-percent of our domestic oil and 82-percent of our natural gas. Oil wells cost between $1.5 million to $3.5 million to drill. Most of the time, no recoverable oil is found.

Because corporations do not pay taxes (the consumer does), mandating an excess profits tax on our domestic oil corporations just means we pay more at the pump — albeit a highly efficient way for Uncle Sam to take in more cash.

If Congress wants to be constructive, it could rid us of the oil futures speculators. That would have an immediate downward impact on gasoline and diesel prices.
But the long-term solution to our energy needs rests on the fundamentals of: increasing supply, reducing demand and on a fundamental belief that American ingenuity will, someday, invent a fossil-fuel alternative. [emphasis added]

Hamilton correctly identifies Mark Udall as a leading force obstructing our nation's efforts at reasonable energy independence. While it's a major factor, it's more than just because the oil-shale exploration moratorium bears his name.

Mark Udall also is actively trying to "punish the innocent" in his confused populist crusade to raise windfall profits taxes, sure to hurt consumers.

A watcher concisely explains how Mark Udall's green ideology could well push him out of favor with independent voters:

The ugly truth is that four dollar a gallon gas, going to seven dollar gas is a deal breaker. Mark Udall's politics are too idealistic. He wants the public to go from an economy of plenty to an economy of poverty. That might be possible over a long period of time. It is not possible over a small number of years.

Sensible people like Hamilton place a premium on "American ingenuity" to develop affordable and usable alternative energy, but also recognize it takes time and that government fiat will only make getting there harder.Unlike Mark Udall, Hamilton understands basic natural market forces and the need to increase oil supplies as part of the intermediate solution.

Hamilton says that "Congress doesn't get it." But I think he's being too generous - at least in the case of Mark Udall. Udall and Nancy Pelosi are glad to see gas prices skyrocket at consumers' expense to muscle through a costly, restrictive, and economically harmful green agenda. Seven bucks a gallon, anyone?

Mark Udall and Nancy Pelosi "Shed Crocodile Tears" Over High Gas Prices

Kudos to Boulder liberal Mark Udall for recognizing the federal gas tax holiday is a misguided approach. But, as el presidente pointed out, not only has Udall offered no real viable solution in its place, he also is engaged in his own kind of pandering:

While no doubt worthy of discussion for meeting our long-term energy needs, Udall's plan avoids dealing with the present--playing the "short-sighted Washington game" that caters to environmental special interests that prevent the United States from becoming more energy self-sufficient by drilling for oil here rather than relying on the Middle East and other corrupt regimes.

As the gas prices soar this summer, ask yourself whether or not your elected representatives, including Rep. Mark Udall, are doing everything to alleviate the pain at the pump and not just engaging in more political grandstanding and issuing platitudes about "diverse energy portfolios" while sticking to the "game" he is so quick to criticize. Temporarily ceasing to add to the strategic petroleum reserve or even tapping it briefly provides only limited, ephemeral, calculated relief.

So Mark Udall hasn't brought forward any serious proposals to address rising gasoline prices. But National Review's David Freddoso takes the argument one step further:

...[T]he real problem — and the reason [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi really does deserve blame — is that Democrats’ political goal of reducing carbon emissions continues to trump their populist rhetoric on gasoline prices. The two stances are impossible to reconcile. Try as they might to blame oil companies for the pain Americans feel at the pump, the Democrats want higher prices for gasoline — and for all forms of energy that emit carbon.

Despite all their rhetoric to the contrary, Pelosi Democrats - such as Mark Udall - indeed are glad to see gasoline prices rise. As Freddoso reminds us, Nancy Pelosi and Mark Udall have lied about their concern for the economic health of the nation and individual Coloradans:

High gas prices are bad for the economy, but the point here is not to make moral judgments about the trade-off between high gasoline prices and reduced carbon emissions. The point is that Democrats have taken a dishonest public stance with false promises of lower gasoline prices that they never intended to honor. Democrats are shedding crocodile tears for the end consumer of petroleum. If they say they hate to see you eaten alive by Big Oil, it is only because they would prefer to devour you themselves.

Of course, Nancy Pelosi thinks gasoline costs about $2.56 a gallon right now. Has anyone asked Mark Udall how much it cost him the last time he filled up at the pump?