Lamborn Rebukes Udall

Doug Lamborn issued a well deserved rebuke to Mark Udall and Ken Salazar on the House Floor without mentioning them by name.

“I rise today to denounce the liberals' fraudulent attacks on Rush Limbaugh,’’ Lamborn said. “Anyone who reads the widely available transcript, as I have done, sees that Mr. Limbaugh was appropriately referring to the pretenders who pose as medal winners, or who falsely claim to have committed atrocities in Iraq, when he used the phrase "phony soldiers."

A Day Late, A Dollar Short

Yesterday, we pointed out that the active military wasn't at all upset about Rush Limbaugh's comments.

Really? Jim ought to ask the average man or woman in uniform before he throws more fodder into the big blue lie machine. Rush Limbaugh's program plays on Armed Forces Radio. If there was any feeling among the military itself that Rush was disrespectful of the military, the military would be taking action to replace him.

It's nice to see that we have an audience that acts on our observations. Today PeakDems tried to gin up a response. There isn't a lot of point in following that link unless you need the KVOR Advertising Sales Manager's name, email, and phone number. A not so subtle threat, we would guess.

All you phony soldiers in Colorado Springs should contact KVOR about Rush

One of their "fans" wrote a response:

Gee, I didn't know that there was anyone in Colorado Springs who washed out of boot camp after 44 days, and then went around claiming to be an Army Ranger ordered to commit atrocities in order to gin up opposition to the war based on total lies.

And here, Mike, you have always bitched and whined and complained about Mr. Bush supposedly lying to get us INTO the war, now you're doing nothing but repeating total bullshit in an obviously bogus attempt to get us out. Have you no shame?

The funny thing isn't the response, though that is funny. It is that the fine folks at the El Paso Democrat Party (I hope I have that right) wouldn't think to start trying to organize a response from "soldiers" until we pointed out that there hadn't been one. They aren't a day late. They are a week late.

The reason they are a dollar short is that they threw it into the big blue lie machine and Tim Gill hasn't replaced it yet. Not to worry. He will.

The first three notes just happen to be: do re mi

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 19
moderate 0
conservative (not in this lifetime)

It was incremented today when the Grand Junction Sentinel made the following comment:

It’s curious that Udall, a certified liberal who is seeking statewide office in a state that does not always vote in a certifiably liberal fashion, has bought into a phony attack on Limbaugh propagated by Media Matters, the liberal Internet group. Even after reading the transcript of Limbaugh’s Sept. 26 show posted on Media Matters’ Web site, it takes a considerable stretch to conclude Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment referred to military personnel who merely favor a speedy U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm was routinely calling Mark Udall a "liberal," "reliably left wing," and even "extremist." We do not count comments from conservative blogs and we didn't count a comment on a liberal show by a conservative politician. Those who would like to check our methodology can follow the bread crumbs backwards.

And yes, we know that we linked to the same article on two sequential posts, but each post had a different purpose.

Wisdom from Grand Junction

Wisdom from Grand Junction:

Although one might presume that they would know better, that hasn’t kept two Democrats [ Mark Udall and Ken Salazar ] who represent Colorado from joining the braying pack led by the hard-left loonies at MediaMatters.org alleging that Limbaugh has impugned the character of American servicemen with his reference last week to “phony soldiers.”

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?”

Conservatives Salivating

Newsbusters can't wait for Mark Udall to introduce his resolution. They think it will turn into one long Democrat embarrassment:

Conservatives should hope this resolution is offered by the Democrats, for it would give us a tremendous opportunity to expose the Clinton/Soros/Media Matters/Center for American Progress apparatus. This is especially opportunistic for the press will be all over this debate on the House floor like white on rice given the man in the middle.

Just imagine the theatrical potential of Republican after Republican citing the specifics of how this smear campaign occurred, while entering into the Congressional record the actual tapes of the broadcast in question, as well as the verbatim transcript...

Next, said Republicans could point out that Congress just last year passed the Stolen Valor Act to address a number of abuses of so-called "phony soldiers."

Maybe even more delicious, the person who introduced this legislation in 2005 is a member of Udall's Colorado delegation, Democrat Rep. John T. Salazar.

Wouldn't that be a marvelous debate to be in attendance for?

Life will get entertaining beginning tomorrow.

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.

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.