New NRSC Ad Identifies Mark Udall as "Part of the Problem in Washington"

The National Republican Senatorial Committee tags Mark Udall's voting record as "part of the problem in Washington":

This is one of the clearer and more straightforward ads of the campaign season. Its claims are well-documented, as Boulder liberal Mark Udall has stood against domestic energy exploration, against middle class tax relief, and against funding our troops in harm's way. On these and other important issues, Udall clearly doesn't represent the values of mainstream Colorado.

NRSC, CBS4 Pan Mark Udall's Military Ad, "Wacky" Support for Department of Peace

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has followed our lead and debunked Boulder liberal Mark Udall's attempt to portray himself as strong on national defense:

Even the local CBS4 News affiliate noticed some of the Mark Udall ad's deception (click on video to play), and highlighted Udall's "wacky" co-sponsorship of the Department of Peace legislation.

The verdict is clear for honest, clear-thinking Coloradans: Mark Udall's attempted pro-military makeover simply doesn't jive with his "wacky" Boulder liberal record on national defense issues.

Mark Udall's "Expert Advice": Same that Counseled Defense Cuts, Dept. of Peace?

Even as evidence mounts of a growing U.S. victory in Iraq, Mark Udall is trapped in the MoveOn.org past. And Denver Post reporter Michael Riley is right there with Udall:

Votes against the 2002 Iraq war resolution — relatively rare as they were — have been political gold for those who cast them, and Democratic Senate candidate Mark Udall plans to take that currency to the bank.

Udall used the release Thursday of a scathing Senate Intelligence Committee report on the White House case for war to take a few swipes at his Republican opponent and telling voters that he had been right to oppose the war.

"Mark Udall used his independent judgment and sought out expert advice to see through the Bush administration's manipulated intelligence and come to his own conclusions," said Udall spokeswoman Tara Trujillo. She said Republican Bob Schaffer "simply rubber-stamped the Bush administration's rush to war."

So whose "expert advice" did Udall seek? Seeing as how this is such an important foundation to the Boulder liberal Congressman's argument that he has great judgment, perhaps Riley or Trujillo could share who these figures were.

Perhaps it was the same "expert advice" that counseled Mark Udall to co-sponsor a bill to create the Department of Peace.

Or perhaps it was the same "expert advice" that counseled Mark Udall to cast these votes in Congress:

* Udall voted against authorizing nearly $289 billion in Fiscal Year 2000 defense funding -- including funds for six F-22 fighters -- twice (RCV#424, 9/15/99; RCV#241, 6/7/00)
* Udall voted to cut $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 defense spending (RCV#194, 5/18/00)
* In 2003, Udall voted against $87 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan including funds for body armor, armored humvees, and health care for National Guard members and reservists (RCV#601, 10/31/03; CQ Weekly, 11/8/03)
* Udall voted against a bill intended to expedite the delivery of armor to troops on the ground in 2004 (RCV#234, 6/14/04)
* Udall voted against $453.5 billion in defense spending in 2005 (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
* In 2005, Mark Udall voted against $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
* And last year, Udall voted against protecting funding for homeless and disabled veterans from cuts, against increasing military housing funding by $275 million, against lowering college loan rates for graduates serving in the military or National Guard, and to prevent senior military officers from working at major defense contractors for a year after retiring. (RCV#714, 7/24/07; RCV#71, 1/31/07; RCV#421, 5/24/07)

There's too much countervailing evidence on this issue for intelligent readers to assume that Mark Udall sought anonymous "expert advice" and displayed good judgment. Especially when his "stuck in the past" focus ignores the real issue of how (or how not) to build on recent American success in Iraq.

Mark Udall Attempts to Run (or Hide?) from Weak Record on National Defense

Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's new ad "Worth" tries to portray the candidate as tough on national defense (H/T Best Destiny). Seriously?

As we reminded readers when Mark Udall made his first show trip to Afghanistan in January, here are the facts about Udall's voting record on national defense:

* Udall voted against authorizing nearly $289 billion in Fiscal Year 2000 defense funding -- including funds for six F-22 fighters -- twice (RCV#424, 9/15/99; RCV#241, 6/7/00)
* Udall voted to cut $3 billion in Fiscal Year 2001 defense spending (RCV#194, 5/18/00)
* In 2003, Udall voted against $87 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan including funds for body armor, armored humvees, and health care for National Guard members and reservists (RCV#601, 10/31/03; CQ Weekly, 11/8/03)
* Udall voted against a bill intended to expedite the delivery of armor to troops on the ground in 2004 (RCV#234, 6/14/04)
* Udall voted against $453.5 billion in defense spending in 2005 (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
* In 2005, Mark Udall voted against $50 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan (RCV#669, 12/19/05)
* And last year, Udall voted against protecting funding for homeless and disabled veterans from cuts, against increasing military housing funding by $275 million, against lowering college loan rates for graduates serving in the military or National Guard, and to prevent senior military officers from working at major defense contractors for a year after retiring. (RCV#714, 7/24/07; RCV#71, 1/31/07; RCV#421, 5/24/07)

Boulder liberal Mark Udall is trying to run to the middle on national security and military issues (note the ad's complete silence on Udall's support of cutting and running from Iraq at all costs), but the facts show he has nowhere to run - or hide.

Production Values Hide Udall's Lack of Values

The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that the DSCC has created a new "disappearing Act" YouTube ad.

The cost of producing things like this is so low that given the proper software, one person could do this in an afternoon, though it might take longer to render. It appears to have been done on something like Lightwave 9. There isn't even all that much animation in it, mostly making the camera move. It is a matter of plopping in a background, creating two foreground objects and making one disappear. They did that three times in 15 seconds. The intro is the reverse.

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?

Expect to see a lot of this kind of thing from now on in this election and all the ones to come.

As to its political value, we would ask just one question: So?

This ad is more a reflection of Mark Udall's willingness to pander to special interests when it comes to national security issues (oil and gas production / military readiness) and his willingness to buy votes with SCHIP than it is a reflection on Schaffer. Schaffer doesn't need to go public on the issues for months.

This ad could be parodied in a way that would make Mark Udall look bad. It isn't well thought out.

Udall Defending Us from Asteroids

A clipping from Washington, DC, this week, that highlights Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's leading concerns about our national security:

“NASA’s NEO survey program is our ‘insurance policy’ against getting taken by surprise by an incoming asteroid. Much progress has been made in detecting and cataloging the largest NEOs over the last decade. However, much more remains to be done,” said Udall. “We need to survey the smaller but still potentially hazardous asteroids that could do significant damage if they impact or explode above the Earth’s surface. While the probability of such a direct hit is low, we in Congress have a responsibility for the safety of American citizens and we have directed NASA to come up with a survey plan. NASA didn’t deliver a plan that would get the job done. I will continue to work with NASA and hold the agency accountable until their plan is complete.”

It is good to see Udall expressing a concern for our nation's security. While he has no problem slandering an American general leading our forces in the central front in the war against Islamofascist terrorists, Udall at least is taking a strong stand to protect us all from incoming asteroids.

Or then again, maybe he's just feeling a little bit nostalgic.

The Cost of Udall's Pinon Canyon Pandering-Part 2

Some time ago, we wrote about the cost of Mark Udall's pandering to the ranchers in Pinon Canyon with a statement that shows either that he is willing to play games with national defense to score a political point (very likely given his record of untruthfulness), or that he is too naieve about US Defense to be a Senator (not unlikely given some of his actions).

The Gazette recently reported on the efforts to bring Air Force Cyber Command to Colorado.

Rocky Mountain Politics, a new political blog, brings more focus on the impact of Mark Udall's Pinon Canyon pandering:

In the letter, they [ Lousiana Congressional Delegation ] write "We were happy to learn recently that the Army is studying the potential acquisition of additional lands contiguous to the installation." They further add that the additional lands result in "ensuring the continued viability of the base for years to come." To drive the nail home, they say "We feel this is a compelling reason to seize the opportunity to acquire additional lands now, and look forward to assisting the Army in any way possible throughout the process."

So whom do you think the lands will be acquired from? I bet there will be private lands acquired, just as would happen at Pinon Canyon. You have to wonder if the difference in support here won't play out in the halls of the Pentagon on an issue like locating Cyber Command. Guess we will have to wait and see, maybe sooner rather than later.