Denver Reporters Catch Mark Udall in a Self-Damaging U-Turn on Taxes

Better late than never, I say. Last Friday we brought attention to Mark Udall's hypocritical attacks against Bob Schaffer on the repatriation tax issue.

Today both the major Denver dailies have caught on. The Rocky Mountain News notes that Mark Udall not only supported a 2004 bill that contained the same corporate tax cut provision for which he criticized Bob Schaffer, but also gave a speech on the House floor praising the idea:

In a floor speech before the final vote, Udall said the bill was flawed and filled with unnecessary provisions, according to the Congressional Record.

But he also said, "I will vote for it because it includes provisions to encourage American corporations doing business abroad to repatriate their overseas earnings for investment here at home. This has great potential to stimulate investment in new plants and equipment as well as in the research and development that support innovation, job creation and prosperity."

Meanwhile, the Denver Post confronted the Udall campaign with the facts, forcing his spokesperson to admit the falsehood and recant:

His spokeswoman, Tara Trujillo, said last week that Udall had voted to strip that proposal out of the bill, but that turned out to be wrong.

The campaign is now admitting the mistake, but only after Schaffer's campaign manager pointed to Udall's own floor statement on the bill in which he praised the tax-holiday provision.

Mark Udall has to be careful. Sometimes when he makes his infamous U-turns, he ends up crashing his own campaign bus.

Mark Udall Attacks Himself For Not Supporting, Then Supporting, Then Opposing Repatriation Tax Relief

Bob Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams is not always known for the precision of his quotable quips. But sometimes, like yesterday, he delivered a blow square to Boulder liberal Mark Udall's chin. He couldn't have done it so effectively, though, without the help of Udall's big mouth and voting record.

As observed by reporter Mike Saccone in his Political Notebook, Wadhams called out Udall for an attack that the Democratic candidate might as well have delivered to himself.

At issue is the repatriation income tax levied on companies that bring their operations back onto United States soil. Mark Udall went after Bob Schaffer for his support of temporarily reducing the repatriation tax.

Then Saccone notes:

Turning the tables on Udall, Schaffer and his campaign quickly pointed out that Udall voted in favor of a 2004 bill to lower the repatriation tax during the 2005 tax year. (Udall voted against the bill in June and for it in October.)

And finally:

Never one to let this sort of faux pas slip, Schaffer’s campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, wrote in a statement: “While trying to shoot down Bob Schaffer, Boulder Liberal Mark Udall turned the gun on himself in a blazing act of hypocrisy and contradiction.”

Pow. Right in the kisser.

Bob Schaffer's Clear Debate Victory over Mark Udall Sways Uncommitted Voter

The Denver Post has a decent story about today's debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall, but most interesting is this comment left by an attendee at today's debate:

I attended the debate as a guest of the South East Business Partnership (SEBP). I sat two rows from the speakers and saw everything live.

While I was leaning toward Udall for his record on aerospace, I couldn't believe his performance in the debate. A friend of mine (and staunch Udall advocate) was horrified and joked we should have sat in the back so leaving was an option. He was terribly concerned for his candidate following the dbate.

If I heard Udall say "We are all Americans" once more than the 32 times I counted I would have considered driving a srewdriver into my tempel to stop the pain.

This Schaffer guy wiped the floor with Udall who looked like a deer in the headlights. On enegry and Iraq Udall used the famous I voted for it before I voted against it - defense many times but using different words.

Schaffer dominated the debate and won handedly. Any unbiased observor would easily come to this conclusion. I was just sad to see your coverage so very different from the actual event I witnessed. Regardless of who the reporter supports he should report the truth.

It was like watching a wrestler sitting on top of his opponent in every round and reading an account in the paper that is was an even fight.

I want to do more research on Schaffer before saying I support him but based on the debate - the winner was much more clear than your newspaper reported. [emphases added]

Any assessment that I could make showing that Bob Schaffer won the debate hands down could not be so persuasive. A diehard Lefty Mark Udall supporter who watched the debate disagreed with one of Schaffer's main points of attack but had to admit his candidate's performance was "platitudinous."

Visuals from today's debate are available both at Rocky Mountain Right and Face The State. 9News has the complete video: Those who wish to watch the debate the old-fashioned way can tune in Sunday, July 20, at 10:30 AM, on My20, Comcast Channel 3.

Too bad for Mark Udall that this debate won't be the last one.

Udall Flip Flops on Trade

The Left-wing online journal Colorado Confidential wants to know why their preferred U.S. Senate candidate, Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall, has waffled on the issue of free trade agreements:

Colorado's House members voted unanimously in favor of the [Peru Free Trade Agreement], but some state residents don't understand why, because in 2005 four House members -- Democrats Diana DeGette, John Salazar and Mark Udall and Republican Tom Tancredo -- opposed CAFTA, a similar measure that relaxed trade regulations with a block of Central American countries, including Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua.

"It's just a mystery," says Reed Kelly, a cattle rancher operating outside of Meeker, Colorado, on the Western Slope, when referring to the House of Representatives' vote on the Peru FTA.

Kelly joined the Western Organization of Research Councils, a rural advocacy organization based in Billings, Montana, to oppose the Peru agreement.

"I really can't quite understand it," Kelly says. "This is basically just an expansion of NAFTA and CAFTA, and if there were reasons to vote against CAFTA, those reasons are even greater for the Peru FTA."

Trade agreements like NAFTA and its extension, CAFTA, are no stranger to controversy. Numerous organizations have opposed the measures due to their more relaxed labor, agricultural and environmental regulations, which have led to an outsourcing of jobs from the U.S. and allegations of workers' rights abuses in places such as Mexico, among other issues.

Kelly says he's personally experienced the effects of the government's free-trade agreements on the ranching industry, where cheaper beef imports have marginalized beef producers on the Western Slope.

"There are a lot less of us in business," Kelly says, claiming that it's getting harder to afford hay costs for ranching because of the lowered prices for beef that have occurred under the agreements. Particularly, Kelly is concerned that with the passage of the Peru FTA, Brazil, a prominent beef producer, will be able to flood the market through Peru, due to inadequate rules on labeling a product's country of origin.

It speaks volumes when your own friends and supporters can't figure out where you stand on an issue like free trade. But not surprising for someone who has been caught selling his vote before. Maybe Udall should start preparing for next year's coming Senate campaign by debating himself.