Schaffer v Udall Debate--Update, Quick First Impressions

**Update--no liveblogging (no wireless at the venue), but Ben will have a full recap, and I'll have photos/video posted later).

Quick takeaways and initial impressions--Schaffer clearly had the upper hand in the debate when it came to vociferous support (the Udall side was not full), a command of the issues and the details involved in policy, and in overall demeanor. Udall's answers were forced when they weren't simply regurgitations of campaign talking points, and his rebuttals routinely eschewed marked policy differences, and instead focused on rhetoric of "bipartisanship" and the notion that "we are all Coloradans, all Americans." Udall certainly didn't appear to be comfortable in his own skin appearing before the cameras and a somewhat more open style of Q&A, with questions drawn from email submissions to 9NEWS' Adam Schrager, who moderated the debate. Schaffer was on offense from the opening remarks, with Udall trying (and failing, miserably) to play catch-up.

As for the supporters themselves (and this will be revealed in the photos and video), Schaffer's proponents were motivated and loud--"fired up and ready to go." Udall's troops showed up much later, had very little presence inside the complex or on the street, and demonstrated a lack of coordination/organization and reflected poorly on a candidate up by 10 points in the latest polls. It will be interesting to see how the MSM plays the debate today--one that favored Schaffer in all meaningful aspects and really exposed Udall as a mediocre debater and Washington insider who would rather cater to special interests and promote delays and politicking with hashed reasoning (health care is a national security issue, ya know!) rather than dealing with issues head on.

Looking forward to the next debates, Udall faces quite a challenge. The format certainly favored Schaffer, and may be one of the reasons that the Udall campaign refused to sign on to Schaffer's debate series. It is clear Udall would prefer the closed-set, no-crowd debate format with canned questions from the host. To his credit Schrager ably kept the candidates in line and on topic, and dealt with unruly Udall supporters by threatening to halt the proceedings.

RMN:

Painted into a corner by weeks of attack ads, Bob Schaffer came out swinging this morning in the first U.S. Senate debate of the season, accusing Mark Udall of flip-flopping and of being responsible for high gas prices.

Udall, a Democratic congressman from Eldorado Springs, rarely took the bait from his Republican opponent, responding most often that Congress must work together rather than continue its partisan bickering.

The topics of the debate, which drew a crowd of about 800 to the Wildlife Experience, ranged from energy to the Iraq war to the proposed expansion of Piñon Canyon military training area. But one theme seemed to emerge throughout the morning: Schaffer accusing Udall of being unwilling to make a decision and Udall responding that he prefers finding consensus rather than rushing into a bad decision.

Emblematic of this was a question over whether Colorado needs to extract oil shale from the ground. Udall said that while research is under way to determine the potential of oil shale, Colorado should not be turned into a "national sacrifice zone."

Schaffer responded: "This is part of the reason I'm running for Congress.... I do not believe constant delay is a strategy for America's energy independence."

Mark Udall Only Telling Half the Story of His Position on the Roan Plateau

The Denver Post gave both Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall the same set of questions on energy policy, and recorded their answers. The results? Some points of agreement. It was slightly annoying to read Schaffer's answers in the third-person voice, but it was entirely predictable to see the lack of depth or detail in Udall's responses.

Besides, Mark Udall is trying to obfuscate his position on natural gas exploration on the Roan Plateau. The Post asks, "Do you support limits to drilling on the Roan Plateau beyond the BLM's current plan?" Udall replies:

Yes. I support Governor Ritter's Roan Plateau proposal and have introduced legislation that would codify his proposal into law.

But that's only half the story. Here's the rest. Yes, Udall introduced the legislation, but has worked behind the scenes in an effort to stall out the clock and put even more of the land off-limits - flushing potential new jobs, a viable energy source, economic growth, and higher education funding away to cater to out-of-state environmental special interests.

Maybe Mark Udall could be made to answer a follow-up question in a debate.

Mark Udall's Energy Plan Lacks Sense

Mark Udall is really good at proposing political solutions that don't work in the real world. Case in point: In an attempt to avoid the real issue of increasing domestic oil production and updating refining capacity, Udall has made diverting oil supply from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve the centerpiece of a new energy plan, according to today's Grand Junction Sentinel:

Udall, who unveiled his proposal Tuesday, said gasoline prices could fall by 25 cents a gallon by not storing away millions of barrels of oil every month.

“We know from history that it’s worked when you suspend filling the (Strategic Petroleum Reserve),” Udall said.

Which history is that? Certainly nothing cited in this article. It would be good for journalists to follow up with Mark Udall on this point. Meanwhile, Udall received reinforcements from one of his Democrat colleagues:

Congressman John Salazar, D-Colo., said he likes Udall’s plan to stop storing oil away in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

“I would support putting a moratorium on that, so that we can actually make more available on the marketplace,” Salazar said. “That always seems to have an immediate impact.”

It does? Here are a few inconvenient facts and bits of expert analysis:

The Energy Department, Mr. Cusimano points out, is not actually buying the oil. But, he says, a DOE examination has found that holding the oil has been a positive investment. Currently, the average "acquisition" cost is $27.73 a barrel.

In recent times, the SPR has been tapped twice. After hurricane Katrina, which destroyed pipelines, the government released 11 million barrels of oil [about 2 days supply]. In 1991, during the Gulf War, it released 17.3 million barrels [about 3 days supply].

Energy experts are divided over whether it would make any difference to release oil today. "It's a tight market, an incredibly tight market when every drop matters," says Tim Considine, who has done a study on the SPR and is a professor at Pennsylvania State University. "But looking at the SPR to alleviate market pressure is only a short-term fix."

Phil Flynn, an oil trader at Alaron Trading in Chicago, doubts it would have any impact. "It is such a small amount of oil," he says. [emphases added]

The Sentinel reports the rest of Udall's plan:

Udall said he hopes to combine his plan for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with eliminating tax breaks for oil companies, increasing drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and removing barriers to ethanol imports, which should lower gas prices over the long term.

“We’re not going to drill our way out of this,” Udall said.

Removing trade barriers to ethanol is a good idea. Credit the Boulder Congressman for that one. But if he's serious, Mark Udall would end the ethanol subsidies, too.

And how in the world is eliminating tax breaks for oil companies going to bring down gasoline prices? (Does Udall really want gas prices to come down?) Will it increase supply? No. Will it cut back demand? No. But it sure makes somebody feel warm and fuzzy inside.

The final question for Mark Udall's incoherent plan: Can we really take his idea to drill in the Gulf of Mexico seriously when he has worked to kill a modest plan to drill on Colorado's Roan Plateau? Or is he only opposed to energy production that would enrich Colorado communities in the form of jobs, economic growth, and funding for public colleges and universities?

Enviro-Radical Campaign to End Up Exposing Mark Udall's Harmful Policies?

The Rocky Mountain News has one of the most un-amazing "dog bites man" headlines of the year: "Five national environmental groups to target Schaffer."

No one is surprised that the out-of-state enviro-radicals like Sierra Club are throwing their political heft behind their champion Mark Udall. But what fewer people may know is that Mark Udall and the Sierra Club are working behind the scenes in Congress to kill a moderate bipartisan compromise plan that would allow clean drilling on the Roan Plateau. Killing the plan means thwarting jobs, economic growth, and higher education funding for Colorado.

In addition, some of the short-sighted policies Udall has championed for the enviro-radical lobby have exacerbated the damage to Colorado forests from fires and pine beetles.

A watcher observes:

The rules are a bit different here in Colorado. While these groups can come in and try to destroy Bob Schaffer's chances, they are quite vulnerable to being hung on their own scaffold. If industries can be punished and regulated for emitting greenhouse gases as Bill Ritter seems intent to do, then environmentalist organizations and their contributors can be held responsible and liable for the carbon dioxide put out by fires and rotting timber. It is the same gas.

A watcher points readers to a new Reuters article that highlights the massive carbon dioxide emissions from pine beetles and forest fires. Udall and the Sierra Club can't have it both ways.

Colorado needs a more moderate, balanced, reasonable approach than Mark Udall and the enviro-radical lobby have to offer.

To Colorado's Detriment, Mark Udall Trying to Take Both Sides on Roan Plateau

Last year, Mark Udall followed his Sierra Club buddies in outright opposition to drilling on the Roan Plateau. Then Gov. Bill Ritter came up with a compromise plan that would slowly phase in drilling leases while still leaving some of the areas of the Plateau under government protection.

Some were surprised to see Bob Schaffer join Udall in support of Ritter's Roan proposal:

Schaffer's campaign points out that Udall first supported a moratorium on drilling on the Roan before getting on board Ritter's compromise plan, which allows some drilling on the environmentally sensitive plateau but calls for phased leasing over time and expands the size of protected areas.

"Boulder liberal Udall opposed any kind of activity on the Roan Plateau and reluctantly supported the Ritter proposal when Gov. Ritter announced it," said Dick Wadhams, Schaffer's campaign manager.

That may not be exactly fair, given the fact that the year-long moratorium wasn't a plan in itself but only a call to hold off on drilling until a better plan was developed. And Ritter's idea, Udall's aides say, counts as that better plan. [emphasis added]

Now, as the Rocky Mountain News points out, Mark Udall has flip-flopped back, working to stall out the clock to prevent even Ritter's modest "better plan" from going into effect:

Like it or not, the clock may run out before energy companies gain access to the massive natural gas supplies beneath federal lands on the Roan Plateau.

Unfortunately, the proposal introduced Thursday by Democratic Sen. Ken Salazar and Reps. John Salazar and Mark Udall would place new development on the Roan on hold. It would jeopardize a financial bonanza for the state that could reach $1 billion.

At this point, delaying new development may be the same as denying it. Whether the next president is Hillary Clinton, John McCain or Barack Obama, domestic fossil-fuel production is likely to have a lower priority than it has under President Bush. And in the case of Clinton and Obama, probably much lower.

Regulators could impose procedural delays that make drilling financially unattractive to energy companies. Investors who have no guarantee where, whether or how soon they can drill on the Roan are likely to sink their capital in locations that are more welcoming to energy production.

In theory, the bill would enact the outline for the Roan offered by Gov. Bill Ritter in December, for which we had kind words. In fact, though, it would impose many more restrictions. It could place much of the estimated 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath federally controlled areas of the Roan out of reach.

Not only could that gas heat every home in Colorado for 20 years; leases and royalties from the wells could also secure essential funding for impacted communities and higher education. That money won't materialize if drilling isn't economically viable. [emphases added]

To echo what one of my colleagues here wrote nearly six months ago:

...[I]s Mark Udall going to continue to represent out-of-state environmental interests, or at what point is he going to try to represent Colorado's interests?

Looking back, Mark Udall's strategy must be to give the impression of willingness to make a reasonable compromise that would benefit Colorado's interests, while working feverishly behind the scenes to tack on unreasonable restrictions that cater to out-of-state environmental interests.

If Mark Udall gets his way, Colorado will see potential new jobs and economic growth, more affordable energy, and even funding for public colleges and universities all will be headed down the drain. Will Udall later act as if there is nothing he could have done to stop it, when he and fellow Democrats Ken Salazar and John Salazar were the ones busy working to pull out the plug?

You can almost picture Mark Udall's aides last month telling reporters that Ritter's compromise was a "better plan," with their fingers crossed behind their backs. Udall's super-secret "even better plan" is to follow lock-step with the Sierra Club agenda while ignoring Colorado's balanced needs.

Off Topic, or Perhaps Not

We've been trying to figure out why Mark Udall and his environmentalist allies are so addicted to lying about important issues. Could it be because environmentalists have a thirty year plus history of lying? Could it be because environmental based lying works?

We found a very long 2001 Sacramento Bee article on environmental organizational fundraising. It lays out the lies that were being told then to raise money. It is far too long and detailed to quote at length, so we will just provide tidbits:

The letters that come with the mailers are seldom dull. Steeped in outrage, they tell of a planet in perpetual environmental shock, a world victimized by profit-hungry corporations. And they do so not with precise scientific prose but with boastful and often inaccurate sentences that scream and shout:

From New York-based Rainforest Alliance: "By this time tomorrow, nearly 100 species of wildlife will tumble into extinction."Fact: No one knows how rapidly species are going extinct. The Alliance's figure is an extreme estimate that counts tropical beetles and other insects -- including ones not yet known to science -- in its definition of wildlife.

From The Wilderness Society: "We will fight to stop reckless clear-cutting on national forests in California and the Pacific Northwest that threatens to destroy the last of America's unprotected ancient forests in as little as 20 years."Fact: National forest logging has dropped dramatically in recent years. In California, clear-cutting on national forests dipped to 1,395 acres in 1998, down 89 percent from 1990.

From Defenders of Wildlife: "Won't you please adopt a furry little pup like 'Hope'? Hope is a cuddly brown wolf ... Hope was triumphantly born in Yellowstone."Facts: "There was never any pup named Hope," says John Varley, chief of research at Yellowstone National Park. "We don't name wolves. We number them." Since wolves were reintroduced into Yellowstone in 1995, their numbers have increased from 14 to about 160; the program has been so successful that Yellowstone officials now favor removing the animals from the federal endangered species list.

Notice that global warming wasn't a subject that environmental fund raisers had tapped into in 2001.

It is instructive to realize that the exact same false kinds of things were said about the Roan Plateau-that it was pristine and beautiful.

The environmentalists aren't the only ones using environmental lies for fundraising. Politicians like Bill Ritter and Mark Udall are doing the same thing. Our children and grandchildren will live in a different world, but it will be a poorer world, a world built on lies.

Roan Plateau Drilling

The Denver Post is reporting that Bob Schaffer has adopted the Bill Ritter position on the Roan Plateau. That should tell all readers that we are not the recipients of inside campaign information. We don't want to be.

Politics is the art of compromise, and we don't object to this pronouncement of position. It isn't a change because Bob Schaffer hadn't announced a position to us or anyone else.

What we do object to, and will continue to write about here and elsewhere is the dishonest way this policy was sold. The environmentalists, including Bill Ritter and Mark Udall, must be held to some standard of truth by someone. If they are not, this kind of dishonest campaign will happen again and again.

We want to puke every time we read about how the Roan Plateau is a pristine natural wonderland, beautiful beyond belief, because it isn't. This newly announced Bob Schaffer position doesn't change the character of the Roan Plateau. It is still scrub land.

added: The Denver Post has rewritten its article this morning.

Theatre of the Absurd

First, let there be no mistake. We are laughing at Absurdicus. Laughing out loud. Belly laughs.

His turn around time is pretty amazing. We only wrote our Dueling with Absurdicus essay a few hours ago and already he has torn it apart. Or tried.

It seems that Mark Udall isn't really lying to the public. He is using perfectly acceptable campaign tactics that just happen to not be truthful. It's not quite the same thing. Anyone who calls his untruths lies is subject to a libel suit:

Telling a lie is quite a different thing than using campaign tactics you don't agree with. I'd love for [ Mark ] Udall to bring a libel case against you.

We stand uncorrected. Is it any wonder that the public dislikes politics and politicians when lies are "campaign tactics you don't agree with." What would Mark Udall bring a libel case for? You should go back and follow the Udall as a liar labels. Perhaps you can help him make a case.

You really shouldn't ask us to list the lies you have told:
1. The main argument that is being used against drilling on the Roan Plateau is that it is pristine, untouched country, beautiful beyond belief, and that is the argument that we have responded to. The published photographs don't show little critters. They try to show the terrain in a deceptive way. Your argument has evolved from an admission that the terrain isn't what is being described to an argument that the argument being put forward is about the critters. That is untrue. We link to the articles we reference. The best label to follow is "Roan Plateau."
2. We don't own an SUV and never have. We have a wonderful little 2000 Ford Ranger with terrible shocks and reasonable gas mileage for a truck. The wife doesn't own a SUV either, and never has. None of our children own SUV's. We don't think any of our siblings or siblings-in-law own SUV's.
3. Grandpa McGrumpy, eh? Name calling isn't lying. It is just good campaign tactics, lol.
4. A claim that misleading photographs and misleading descriptions isn't propaganda is a lie.
5. Your assertion that oil companies could match the campaign donations of Sierra Club members was a lie. Your assertion that oil companies shouldn't have the right to have a mechanism to protect their interests is offensive.
6. You have no idea what your argument is and claiming that you do is a lie. You haven't used the same argument twice. First it was that you couldn't see anything from 10,000 feet. Then it was an admission that the Roan Plateau wasn't all that pretty with an assertion that we shouldn't suck the land up like a milkshake. Now it is that Google Earth doesn't reveal all of the wonderful and unique critters. The middle argument had integrity. The same can't be said for the other two.
7. BLM is not going to allow drilling on all of the Roan Plateau, so your latest critter argument is a misrepresentation of the facts, another lie.

Is seven lies enough?

Your desire to "continue to slap [us] around" if we name the conditions under which we would like to see the discussion in the political realm is telling. We could "respect" an argument free of the kinds of lies and misrepresentations you and Mark Udall seem to love. Lies aren't really lies - they are only campaign tactics in your book. In mine, they are still lies.

This discussion is at an end. Post any comment you like. This author won't respond. You are not consistent enough or ethical enough in your arguments to make continuing worthwhile.

Dueling With Absurdicus

Readers may wonder why we would spend any of our time responding to Absurdicus instead of concentrating on the real subjects of this blog, Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer.

The answer is simple. Absurdicus is a prolific writer. He usually either speaks for Mark Udall in the blogosphere or parrots those who do. Too often he wanders away from the truth, sometimes far away. If Mark Udall wants to get elected surrounded by a bodyguard of lies and liars, the public has a right to know what is happening.

Here is his latest comment left under our Absurdicus makes a plea post:

So you're admitting you didn't read what I wrote. Wonderful.

No, you wrote two sentences. You can't doubt that we read the second sentence because we wrote a whole post around it. We read the first sentence and didn't understand it. Once you clarified your point, we wrote a whole post around what you claimed your first sentence said, something we would have happily done if you had been more clear the first time.

How is showing pictures of the Roan Plateau propaganda? Are you saying they doctored those photos and the Roan plateau doesn't really look like that?

We absolutely are saying that the scrub land character of Roan Plateau is being misrepresented and concealed by the photographs that make the news and made it into the Mark Udall commercial. That makes them propaganda in the same way that a film of any despot patting the head of a little girl is propaganda. It doesn't present the whole picture and that part that it does present is misleading as you admitted in your last argument.

Let's just take your argument to it's eventual conclusion. The Roan Plateau doesn't look all that great at 10,000 feet. Ooops, the Roan plateau doesn't look all that great from 1000 feet away. Just like judging what you look like from any large distance away, why not just not look at all and then make your argument for what the Roan Plateau look like. Let's not even get into the species of plants, animals, etc exceeds that of other lands that already have protected status. You don't even need a picture for that.

Our argument might reasonably be that every square inch of the Earth cannot be protected from human development. We elect politicians to make decisions about what should be protected and what should not. When politicians like Mark Udall and their supporters routinely lie about the nature of the land they want to protect or any other matter of importance, they cannot be trusted to help make public decisions. More importantly, they shouldn't be trusted and shouldn't be placed in a position of trust. That is what elections are about.

Your comment about the "protected status" of other places could easily be turned against those other places if the Roan Plateau is to be the measure.

Your claim that it is impossible to understand the nature of a landscape from 1,000 feet elevation is silly and intentionally misleading. Enough Americans have bought window seats on airliners to know that.

As for big campaign donations. Who are you trying to fool? Do you really put the Sierra club on the same level with Exxon Mobil and their astroturf group Americans for American Energy?

The last we heard corporations cannot make legally campaign contributions at all, and individuals are limited to making $2,300 donations per cycle. The Sierra Club can mobilize individuals to donate. Exxon cannot.

Who are you trying to fool? This isn't a high school debating class where you get to try out an argument or a piece of propaganda and discard it if it isn't convincing. That is what you are doing. If you and Mark Udall are truthful, and make truthful arguments based on accurate facts, you have a right to expect that the public will trust you.

If you and Mark Udall get caught making false arguments often enough, the public won't trust you even when you are truthful. Mark Udall doesn't seem to understand that, which is why we have a "Udall as a liar" tag. For his supporters who can't be truthful or make truthful arguments, we simply dump them into the "Big Blue Lie Machine."

Absurdicus - Part of the Big Blue Lie Machine

Absurdicus (how appropriate) appended a comment to our Roan Plateau post where we explained how to use Google Earth to see for one's self what the roan plateau looked like.

We told readers to go down to a level of 10,000 feet and look around.

Absurdicus writes:

Uh, didn't your oil industry shills already push this laughable explanation some 6 months ago? It was preposterous then and it's preposterous now. In contrast, I look really good from 10,000 feet, so you really can't see what the Roan plateau looks like at that altitude either.

The altitude of the Roan Plateau is 9,000 feet. If you "fly" over it at an altitude of 10,000 feet, third grade math suggests that you are only 1,000 feet over the terrain. If there were anything but scrub land, you would see it at that altitude. A picture is worth 1,000 words. We simply want folks to go look at the picture. You don't.

Your screen name is Absurdicus and your argument is intentionally absurd, intentionally misleading.

We expect that you are not so stupid that you can't do third grade math. That makes you a willing part of the Big Blue Lie Machine. Mark Udall is tarnished by these kinds of lies by his supporters. It happens so often that we have a tag for it: "Big Blue Lie Machine."

Roan Plateau

For those interested in the truth about the Roan Plateau, rather than political subterfuge, we suggest you visit today's Rocky Mountain News article on the Roan Plateau.

Ignore the verbiage for now and just look at the map. Click on it to get a bigger version. Get your bearings. You are looking at the area just to the west of Rifle and to the north of the Interstate.

Now, go to Google Earth. You may have to load the new version, but do so. It is worth it. With Google Earth loaded, type "Rifle, CO" in the location box in the upper left hand corner of the screen. This lets you "fly" to that town.

You will be looking down from 34,000 feet, but you want to get closer. Move your mouse wheel to adjust your altitude down to about 10,000 feet and your left mouse button to move to the west about one screen width. Once you get down low, you can tilt the screen so that you are looking at the land horizontially. To do that, move the slider in the upper right all the way to the right.

What you are looking at has routinely been described by the environmentalists, including Mark Udall, as land too beautiful, too pristine to touch. You decide. You also might want to decide for yourself if the Rocky Mountain News areal photograph is deceptive, given the unrepresentative foreground.

Here is what Mark Udall had to say about the BLM decision:

"It was clear last year that in order for the BLM to give the state's input the serious consideration it deserves, it would be necessary for the agency to change its plan to reopen the Record of Decision regarding drilling leases on the Roan Plateau — as Rep. John Salazar and I asked them to do last year," said Congressman Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs.

"The BLM's refusal to do so is deeply disappointing because it means a refusal to properly fulfill what the Bush Administration should - but evidently does not - recognize as its obligation to the people of Colorado."

If the Bush administration has an "obligation" to protect scrub land, where would Mark Udall allow the Bush administration to drill to fulfill its other obligations to the people of the nation?

We can't overlook the Denver Post's input to the discussion. We wonder if they have looked at Google Earth.

Another Inconsistent Mark Udall Comment

Now that 2008 is two months old, Mark Udall is running from the anti-fossil fuels energy record that he has fought so hard to make since he entered public life.

The Stirling Journal-Advocate reports that Mark Udall said:

“For me, all paths lead to and from energy,” he said Thursday.

He said that while the U.S. needs to explore and develop alternative energy sources, we cannot completely walk away from fossil fuels.

It was just last year that Mark Udall fought as though his political life depended on it against drilling on the Roan Plateau. He would very likely still hold that position if Bill Ritter hadn't seen the pot of tax gold at the end of that rainbow. When Bill Ritter folded on the issue, Mark Udall couldn't do an about face quickly enough.

We would guess that this statement means that Mark Udall now supports development of ANWR oil, or does it? Mark Udall now is willing to promote oil shale development in Western Colorado, right?

In all of Mark Udall's long career, this is the only statement that we know of that even remotely supports US oil and gas oil development and use. Yes, he is willing to allow offshore drilling, but only off the Cuban coast.

Not long ago, Mark Udall dropped a similar comment about nuclear power which he has never before supported. He didn't follow up on it with legislation or a strong advocacy of nuclear power, he just uttered the word so that he could claim both sides of this issue.

We suspect that that is what he is doing here.

We are putting both of these comments under the tag "Udall as a Liar."

With Friends Like These...

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) sent out a release yesterday attacking Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer under the heading "Will "Bobby Boy" Schaffer Break His Silence And Tell Bush To Stop Threatening Roan Drilling...?":

George Bush will touch down in Denver today to raise money for the Senate candidate he affectionately refers to as “Bobby Boy,” former Congressman and current oilman Bob Schaffer. Since the fundraiser will take place behind closed doors, no one will know what the two men actually discuss, but Schaffer has the perfect opportunity to show Coloradans he can stand up for them by urging the president to stop pushing to open the Roan Plateau to oil drilling.

Someone should have told the DSCC to check first with their candidate - Boulder liberal Mark Udall. After all, it was only less than a month ago that Udall agreed to "support expanded natural gas production on public lands atop the Roan Plateau".

Is the DSCC press release therefore a tacit admission that Beltway Democrats believe Udall won't stand up for Coloradans? Is Udall in the pocket of President Bush? Or maybe, as the Rocky Mountain News intimates, he was motivated by a self-serving "political calculus"?

If a 100% off-limits, pristine Roan Plateau that undermines Colorado jobs and the energy economy is part of the DSCC agenda, maybe they should make sure their own guy is on board first. With friends like these pointing out his inconsistent and convenient environmental policies, Udall has got to be a little disconcerted.

Roan Money Being Allocated

The Denver Post is endorsing the Republican plan for setting aside the money from the Roan Plateau gas development for a higher education trust fund.

That's still a lot of money and it's vital to spend it wisely. Part of the cash will, as it should, go to local governments to deal with some of the costs of supporting the energy development. The best plan, so far, for spending the rest of this windfall, as well as some of the $100 million a year or more that eventual production royalties could yield for Colorado for the next 20 or 30 years, was offered by two Western Slope legislators, state Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, and Rep. Al White, R-Winter Park.

We suspect that doing this will require a Constitutional amendment, something that should have happened when the Social Security "Trust" Fund was set up on the Federal level. It immediately became a source of funds for decades of Congressional boondoggles. The same thing will happen here if the hinges and hasp on the lock box aren't welded shut.

A Line in the Scrubland

The GJ Sentinel's number 7 top story of the year was Roan Plateau an emblem of energy debate.

It had a sentence that we found interesting:

Though the plateau is already being drilled from nearby private lands and the BLM’s plan was highly restrictive, conservationists made the land mass their “symbolic” line in the sand, Congressman Mark Udall, D-Colo., said in August.

We found a copy of the original article that this quote referred to. It was titled "Udall vows to keep up fight over Roan drilling."

Udall, who sponsored an amendment to the 2007 energy bill barring the Bureau of Land Management from leasing parcels atop the Roan, said if the measure fails to make the final version of the bill, he and Congressman John Salazar, D-Colo., will continue to fight to halt development...

“I think at heart of our point of view is we’re not going to stop,” Udall said. “We’re not going to quit. We’re not going to give up.

“We think this is the right thing to do, and we’ll look for other ways to keep that 50 percent of the top of the Roan that’s public lands off limits to surface occupancy.”

One of the more interesting lines in that older article was an apparent proposal by Mark Udall to open up American coastal waters to drilling:

There’s so much other area in which we can drill and produce additional fuels to do our part,” Udall said of energy independence.

He said the United States needs to look outside Colorado — to developing coastal areas or renewable energy sources — to fuel domestic energy needs.

We wonder if Mark Udall's Sierra Club contributors have seen this. We'd bet not.

On No One's Top Ten Lists

The AP has it's top ten Colorado list out. It is a bit lame. Well, it is more than a bit lame. We thought we could do better with a list of things that didn't make the top ten in Colorado, in no particular order. They didn't make the top ten because they didn't happen. Oh, well!

1. Despite much wishful hoping on the left, the Colorado US Senate race is not a Mark Udall runaway.
2. Caroline Bninski spent Christmas with friends and family, not in jail where Mark Udall and his staff tried to put her for a year. How inconvenient!
3. Neither Mark Udall nor his staff seem to have lied to the public or members of Congress in the last week, setting a new record if not for truthfulness, at least for silence.
4. Rush Limbaugh wasn't humiliated by Mark Udall's Congressional resolution which was written in a way to be an unsophisticated falsehood. No member of the Colorado delegation co-sponsored Udall's anti-Limbaugh resolution.
5. The US didn't cut and run when Harry Reid pontificated "This War is Lost." Nor did Udall object when Nancy Pelosi held useless vote after vote to defund the war.
6. Mark Udall didn't convince Bill Ritter to nix gas drilling on the Roan Plateau.
7. Mark Udall didn't cosponsor the loon in the attic's Department of Peace bill this year, and it is reported that Mark Udall also didn't see a UFO.
8. The Gazette hasn't called Mark Udall an "extremist" for six months, but many of his liberal friends have made certain that he can't claim to be a centrist.
9. Colorado didn't have a roadless wilderness mega forest fire in 2007, but there is still time for one to occur in 2008.
10. The Denver Post hasn't made it's obligatory election year claim that Mark Udall is a "moderate" or "centrist."

List making is so much fun. We're wondering if we are on Bill Ritter's enemies list, yet. We're doing our best.

When the Dam Breaks, Most Run for High Ground

The Rocky Mountain News is praising Bill Ritter's "moderate" decision to allow drilling on the top of the scrub land covered Roan Plateau. They did get a dig in, though:

It's a refreshing change from the officeholder who has too often sided with organized labor, environmentalists, public employee groups and other narrow special interests - to the detriment of solutions that appeal to the broad majority of Coloradans.

It is almost as though the little dutch boy pulled his finger out from the hole in that very leaky and poorly positioned dam.

While Mark Udall hasn't sought the high ground after Ritter stepped aside, Ken Salazar has:

The governor may have other opponents of the BLM plan reconsidering, however. A spokesman for Sen. Ken Salazar - who tried to delay leasing for one year - told us the senator will work with Sen. Wayne Allard on legislation to make sure that Colorado gets its fair share of revenues from future Roan leases.

Udall Submarined Again

Mark Udall has staked his reputation and his run for the Senate on his ability to keep drilling rigs off the Roan Plateau scrub land. He has had some help from Ken Salazar and the environmentalists.

Salazar managed to get a four month delay, supposedly so that Bill Ritter could review the BLM plan, but really in the hope that Ritter would call the plan completely unacceptable.

That didn't happen, and even the environmentalists seem to be on board with Ritter, not Udall:

Ritter and [ state Department of Natural Resources executive director Harris ] Sherman said they would push for state-of-the-art drilling technology to minimize the environmental impact.

Also, they want to lease the land in phases, which they said would maximize the economic benefits and sustain the local economy over the long haul. Incremental leasing also will allow for new advancements in drilling technology, they said.

Environmental groups praised the plan for "striking a balance" between economic benefits and environmental preservation.

"We want the appropriate balance between responsible drilling and protection of important wildlife habitats and populations," said Suzanne O'Neill, executive director of the Colorado Wildlife Federation.

Mark Udall seems to have a knack for taking positions that his "allies" in Congress, in the state government and even in the environmental community find too extreme to support.

Big Blue Lie Machine In Action

Of the 500 or so YouTube views of the new Democrat ad against Bob Schaffer, we're responsible for at least 25.

The Roan Plateau segment just didn't look right. There is so much blue water and white snowcaps in their photograph that it looks pristine, beautiful, and, well . . . wet!

Most of western Colorado simply doesn't look like that most of the time. It is arid, with little in the way of trees because there isn't much moisture to support them. It is no accident that the Bureau of Land Management owns places like the Roan Plateau. When the west was settled, no one else wanted them because they were too dry to support even dry land farming.

Pull up Google Earth and enter "Roan Plateau." Compare what Google Earth shows to what this new commercial shows. You will see that it is not the idyllic place that the Big Blue Lie Machine and the Sierra Club would have you believe.

It is hard to believe that anyone thinks Mark Udall can expect to be elected when, in this internet era, it is so easy to chase down and expose the lies being told by him and for him.

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.