Video: Berkeley Bans U.S. Marines ... How Will Udall Respond?

A new video produced by the National Republican Senatorial Committee raises questions about the Congressional Democrats and their priorities:



Notice not only the radicals' self-absorbed, boorish behavior but the local law enforcement's capitulation. If Berkeley insists on boycotting the U.S. Marines, the proposed solution of withdrawing federal earmark subsidies only makes sense.

Then maybe down the road we can consider voting to let Berkeley secede from the union and from our military protection.

But seriously, given his recent troubles with Far Left anti-war activists, how will Mark Udall vote? Or will he beg Nancy Pelosi to keep the proposal off the floor?

Cross posted at Mount Virtus

Udall Selling His Vote - Again

Casual observers would never guess that Mark Udall is running to be Senator of all of Colorado when he issues a press release that announces that he will vote to cut and run from Iraq at a time when the surge is obviously working:

Tonight U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Moveon.org, will vote for legislation that requires redeployment in Iraq to begin within 30 days of the bill’s passage and sets a goal of bringing home most U.S. soldiers from Iraq by December 15, 2008.

This is exactly the MoveOn.org position, and we took the liberty of slightly modifying his press release to reflect the people he most wants to be seen as representing, or more likely, the people who are most willing to donate to his campaign if he takes their position.

He even admits in his press release that voting for the bill is a bad idea:

However, while this bill sends the right message – that our troops cannot remain in Iraq indefinitely – regrettably, it does not send it in the best way, because it will be supported almost exclusively by Democrats, and the president has already promised to veto it.

This is the second time we have caught Mark Udall selling his vote for campaign contributions. Recall that he went so far as to sponsor a labor bill that he claimed he didn't agree with and then immediately collected $75,000 in campaign contributions from labor unions.

Mark Udall: The Modern Michael Dukakis

For those too young to remember, Michael Dukakis lost credibility and the election in 1988 when he stumbled on the first question of the first debate.

That question presupposed the rape and murder of his wife and asked what he would do. He made it look like it was an academic exercise where the criminal had more rights than his wife did. Almost any husband who loved his wife and wanted to protect her would have answered differently. At the end of the debate, Dukakis' body language signaled his knowledge that he had blown the election on that one question.

Now comes Mark Udall with much the same mind set towards Iran. He wants to completely tie the hands of this and future administrations with regard to that country and has proposed a law to that effect.

Udall makes the claim that he loves the soldiers. As with our observation about Dukakis, almost any politician who loved "the soldiers" would do his utmost to protect them.

When they go to Iraq, they face very sophisticated shaped charge roadside bombs.Shaped charges can not be made from parts picked up at the local junkyard or ammo dump. They have to be machined out of copper. None of these shaped charges can be or have been made in Iraq.

It is reported that about 80 per cent of our casualties are due to shaped charges. Most, if not all of these weapons are shipped in from Iran. Iran is at war with us.

Now comes Mark Udall, the modern day Michael Dukakis who wants to protect the criminals in Iran more than the soldiers he claims to love. Of course, Daily Kos is cheering him on.

"We Love the Soldiers"

Bill Kristol reported on Fox today that Lt Michael Murphy was from Long Island. He also observed that fewer Medals of Honor are awarded than Nobel Peace Prizes but the New York Times, Murphy's local paper, can't be troubled to report on his award. It is full of page after page of reporting on Al Gore.

The "we love the soldiers" line that liberals like Mark Udall are taking is far better than the reception my brother got when he returned from Viet Nam. He flew into San Francisco and couldn't get out of his uniform quickly enough for fear of being spit on.

That bit of personal history aside, the question we have for liberals is a simple one. If you love soldiers, why is it so important for you to attempt to conceal from the public their honorable service to their country?

Where's the Beef?

One of the few ways that deployed military members can keep in touch with what is going on at home is Armed Forces Radio and Television. By law, it has no commercials. You don't really realize how important an information source commercials can be until you have lived for three years without seeing a single one.

I served in Germany from 1981-1984. Those of you who recall the 1984 election might remember that Walter Mondale was being asked by his competitors for the nomination "Where's the Beef?" Overseas, we got to see clips of that, but without having seen the Wendy's commercials it was based on, the challenge to Mondale was totally lacking in context. Finally, someone got smart and ran the commercials as part of a special "news" program, so the digs started making sense.

Today's soldiers are luckier than we were. For one hour a day, five days a week, Rush Limbaugh provides context to the day's events. Liberals like Mark Udall may not like the context that Rush provides, but the soldiers do.

Today, Rush announced that the liberals are trying to get him taken off the military's airwaves. The next time you see a photo of Mark Udall with a soldier or hear him tell you how much he loves the soldiers, remember that he is working with Ken Salazar to take their connection with home away from them. Let them answer the 1984 question-Where's the Beef?