Shooting Fish in a Barrel

One of the Democrat strategies promoted by David Sirota is called land politics. It has been cynically used but not bought into by Colorado Democrats including Bill Ritter and Mark Udall.

Sirota wants an alliance between environmentalists, Democrats, and hunters / fishermen against Republicans. He wants Democrats to play down their traditional gun control stance and play up "hunting rights."

Bill Ritter so confused his position among voters that this author was told by registered Republicans living ten miles apart that they were voting for Ritter, one because he was for gun control, and one because he would protect hunters rights better than Bob Beauprez!

The Rocky Mountain News reported during the campaign:

Ritter says he would make recreational shooting improvements a priority if he is elected governor. He wants Colorado to take the lead in establishing more shooting ranges, beginning with a pilot program he proposes for the Arapaho-Roosevelt forests.

The words were good, but Ritter turned out to be a gun control governor.

Now Mark Udall is playing the land politics card with hunting in Rocky Mountain National Park. Well, not really hunting. It is killing elk with silenced guns and low velocity rounds.

Udall said he was glad park service managers said they might use sportsmen, but he was concerned the Park Service might give a higher priority to shooters from other federal or state agencies.

“I think if qualified sportsmen or sportswomen are willing to volunteer, they should be first in line,” Udall said.

If the Park Service did use volunteer cullers, it would not be like hunting. They could not take the meat or other trophies, and the work would be done under strict, controlled conditions.

It would be shooting fish in a barrel. These folks might call themselves hunters, but there would be no sport in the process, and no sportsmen involved. We're not sure Mark Udall knows the difference, but this is as close to land politics as he has come.

Catching Up With Democrat Lies - There are so many

We were busily working on another project this weekend and now find that we have fifty Google alerts to go through for our various blogs. This is a partial catch-up post.

One of the accidental themes of this blog is now the willingness of liberals to lie for their "cause," and be nasty or sometimes stupid about it. While David Sirota's current lie is about the political mess Bill Ritter has created for himself and doesn't mention Mark Udall at all, it illustrates the depths that liberals sink to when they are in power to stay in power. John Andrews takes Sirota to task for his latest lie, but is too polite to actually call Sirota a liar:

This weekend, in one of his most overheated blog posts yet -- which is saying something for a commentator who operates close to Fahrenheit 451 at all times -- Sirota hit a new high in slicing and dicing the plain facts.

Gentleman Bob Beauprez obviously took great pleasure in observing that John Murtha has decided that the "surge" is working after all. While he won't call Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Harry Reid political liars intent on damaging our country for political gain, we will.

From Harry Reid’s “this war is lost” and Pelosi’s “The escalation (Surge) has failed to produce the intended results” to Clinton’s September rebuke of Gen. Petraeus (”The reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief”), the Democrats have invested their future in failure by America’s finest.

We would be remiss not to note that this weekend Bill Ritter got accused of being either a liar or terminally stupid (our words, not the Denver Post's).

Either Gov. Bill Ritter knowingly deceived Coloradans and sold them a bill of goods with his executive order on labor unions, or he doesn't understand the law.

While we were gone, another obvious Mark Udall lie (hopefully it was a lie) surfaced regarding his sponsoring a peace department bill at the urging of high school students. It reminded us of Jimmy Carter's famous claim (hopefully it was a lie) during the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate as related by Wikipedia:

[ Ronald ] Reagan would have none of it, and it came as no surprise, then, when the candidates repeatedly clashed over the nuclear weapons issue in their debate. But it was Carter's reference to his consultation with 12 year old daughter Amy concerning nuclear weapons policy that became the focus of post-debate analysis and late-night television jokes.

Should Obama Wear a Flag Lapel Pin?

More to the point, should Barak Obama be considered a serious Presidential candidate if he announces that he will no longer wear the American Flag lapel pin? That is the question Bob Beauprez is asking at his blog this morning:

However, for someone who covets being the next Commander-in-Chief to intentionally remove the flag from his lapel can only be interpreted for what it is. It is impossible to somehow respect and honor the troops while being ashamed of the symbol of all they represent and defend.

Isn't that something someone named Osama, rather than someone named Obama ought to be doing?

Bob adds:

It would seem that in Obama’s disrespect of the flag and the troops, [ Ken ] Salazar and [ Mark ] Udall could actually find a reason to be outraged. A Line of Sight expects only silence and continued political hypocrisy.

Schaffer Exudes Blend of Realism and Confidence on Statewide GOP Tour

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is on the stump crossing the state, speaking to local party groups candidly about where the Colorado GOP is at and optimistically about what it can accomplish. An article in today's Grand Junction Sentinel highlights such a stop for Schaffer along the Western Slope, as he spoke to the Mesa County Republican Party:

Schaffer, who addressed the county party’s monthly luncheon, said the Colorado Republican Party has to figure out where it parted company with mainstream voters.

“Frankly, friends, Republicans, we need to have a candid conversation among ourselves about what it is our party is for and what we exist to do,” Schaffer told onlookers.

He said in light of the Republican Party’s defeats in 2004’s U.S. Senate race between Pete Coors and Democrat Ken Salazar and 2006’s gubernatorial race between Bob Beauprez and Democrat Bill Ritter, some rebuilding is in order.

Schaffer, of Fort Collins, said he plans to travel Colorado over the next several months, “building the base … trying to get our party back up on its feet.”

“That’s a hard thing to say, but I believe it’s true,” Schaffer added. “And I think that even before we get to the point of proposing to take on Democrats, we’ve got to do a good job of getting our own house in line.”

This kind of frank talk is refreshing and necessary after two bitterly divisive election cycles. It helps immensely that the primary field is clear (despite the wishful thinking and hard work of certain liberal bloggers) for Schaffer to carry the party's banner. He's going to need all the time he has to get the job done. But if he stays consistent with his honest, realistic tone and his clear, confident vision, the Republican Party in this state will benefit greatly.