Mark Udall Wouldn't Join Online Debate Because of Me: The Rest of the Story

If you are one of the handful of people who have been following developments on this blog for months, you may remember that at one point we were working with liberal blogger David Thielen to co-sponsor an online debate between Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer.

In mid-February, David took the lead in sending out invitations to both camps, with my name attached to show that it was a bipartisan effort. On March 18, Bob Schaffer agreed to participate (see also here). Meanwhile, I was told that for weeks the Mark Udall team had dragged its feet and essentially said, "Maybe."

On several occasions I put up posts essentially asking "why in the world is Udall refusing to join a bipartisan online debate?" Well, at long last, here's the answer.

Two weeks after Bob Schaffer's acceptance - on April Fool's Day, in fact - David informed me of the Mark Udall team's official response. Out of deference to David's wishes, I didn't mention the email or divulge its contents publicly - that is, until this weekend when David gave me the green light to explain why Udall refused to join the debate those many weeks ago: The Boulder Democrat didn't want yours truly as the moderator. The alleged reason? The use of the tag "Udall as a Liar" on this blog.

I was quite flattered by the singular reputation I seemed to have acquired from the Mark Udall campaign, but deferentially refused to make public hay out of the matter. Behind-the-scenes negotiations were still under way. The Mark Udall team refused to back down. David mentioned the possibility of a certain anonymous conservative blogger stepping up to fill my place, but that wasn't acceptable. Both sides held firm, and the online debate never materialized.

The Mark Udall camp apparently remains alone in its opinion. As David wrote to me in an email: "I do think you are a reasonable choice and I don't think you are any more partisian than I am - that's why I asked you to do this." I likewise respect David as someone with whom I frequently disagree, but someone who is essentially fair and honest. Unlike Mark Udall surrogates who repeat lies online that this blog is anything but the independent and amateur (though admittedly biased) venture that it is.

David comes from a liberal point of view and often takes strongly critical stances against Bob Schaffer. This blog comes from a conservative point of view and often takes strongly critical stances against Mark Udall. Bob Schaffer isn't afraid of David Thielen. So why is Mark Udall afraid of me? (In all honesty, I hesitate to take this as the high compliment it would seem to be. I'm not sure of any reputable local conservative blogger whom Udall would accept as a debate co-moderator.)

The only question remaining is, Why did David give the go-ahead to disclose all of this now? (These are my best guesses.) First of all, as originally planned, the debate likely would have taken place by now, but no longer seems to be a possibility. Second, it may have something to do with David's newfound low regard for his candidate, whom he now refers to as "Milquetoast Mark."

As for my handful of readers, now you know the rest of the story.

Mark Udall Can Sleep Well

Recall that we always refer to a certain left wing blog as PlagiarismNowAction because it appeared to have lifted whole paragraphs from Wikipedia without giving credit. The author (if you can call someone who appears to have copied the work of others an "author") of that piece now has a celebratory hit piece out on Bob Schaffer.

Before we quote it, recall that the editor of the editorial page of the Denver Post has been quoted as saying that PlagiarismNowAction once wrote that it only had to be right half of the time. They need to flip the coin again because this isn't one of those times when they are right.

With those standards in mind, we quote from Bob Schaffer: boldly full of crap by Alan Franklin:

Stick out your manly chest and just make the stuff up, Bob. Hell yar!

The problem, as Ben DeGrow has effectively documented, is that the folks making the stuff up are Media Matters and PlagiarismNowAction. Benjamin Disraeli observed that there are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics. Media Matters knows how to abuse statistics and works hard to convince its readers that black is white and white is black.

Given his history, we want to give Alan Franklin the benefit of the doubt. We're not sure that he is bright enough to know how badly these statistics are mangled. He is likely just an unwitting, statistically challenged victim of Media Matters. Read his post and determine for yourself if it seems like the product of the brightest bulb in the room.

Mark Udall can sleep well tonight, knowing that these clowns are watching his back.

Local Prognosticator Picks Udall

Liberal and Loving is certain that Mark Udall is a shoo in and says so.

So who loses? Bob Schaffer who is figured the least likely Repub to win in '08. The Repubs don't have the resources or money to fight everywhere. As of today they have probably already cut him lose in their minds.

While our friend at L&LI (and he is our friend) stopped short of calling for an end to contributions to Mark Udall's campaign, it seems obvious that he would like to see the funds go elsewhere.

We don't want him to read Jeff Bridges' comments as discussed by Ben DeGrow below.