Bob Schaffer Ad Goes After Mark Udall for Votes Against Mortgage Lender Oversight

The Bob Schaffer campaign's latest ad attacks Mark Udall where it hurts:

Go here for more details on Mark Udall's votes against oversight of government mortgage lenders at the center of our current financial crisis. His hypocritical denial has only made the situation worse.

The Rumors of the NRSC's Demise in Colorado Are Greatly Exaggerated

Exuberant Lefties started prematurely popping the corks on their champagne yesterday, pouncing on rumors that the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) had abandoned candidate Bob Schaffer - which would have effectively marked a victory for Boulder liberal Mark Udall. Even career .229 hitter Steve Balboni got in on the act.

Of course, none of them bothered to ask the NRSC if they were actually, you know, leaving Colorado. Jeremy Pelzer at Politicker was among the first to publish the factual account: "NRSC releases new anti-Udall ad, says it's staying in Colorado". Speaking of the ad, here it is:

It's still an uphill climb for Bob Schaffer, but he isn't quite out of it yet. Lefties might want to postpone their celebration for a little while.

Mark Udall Was For Tax Cheat Rangel Stepping Down Before He Was Against It

It appears Mark Udall is having second - or is it third? - thoughts about Congressional colleague and admitted tax cheat Charlie Rangel. Even after the revelations of Rangel's dirty dealings, Udall refused to return the $12,000 in campaign contributions from Rangel's PAC.

Then during last Sunday's Meet The Press debate, Mark Udall suggested that Charlie Rangel should step down from his committee chairmanship - even if Udall wasn't willing to return the campaign funds.

But by Friday Mark Udall decided to clarify his remarks:

“My quotes were misreported,” Udall said in a brief interview outside the Capitol Friday morning, where he was to cast his vote on the financial rescue package coming before the House. “I said, in effect, that if I were in Mr. Rangel’s shoes I might step aside. But it’s up to Mr. Rangel. He’s an American hero, he’s an enormous asset to the Congress...” ...

Contrary to media reports, Udall said Friday, it was a mistake to read his comments as a call for Rangel to step aside.

“The headlines suggesting I called on him to resign couldn’t have been more wrong. I was saying if I were in his shoes I might step aside as chair of the committee and let the ethics process play out," Udall said. “But we need him. We need him." [emphases added]

So Charlie Rangel is a "hero" and "an enormous asset to the Congress" who is needed in his post, despite tax fraud. But Mark Udall said if he were the one who committed tax fraud, he would have stepped down. Why the distinction? Because Udall indeed is anything but "an enormous asset to the Congress," and no one else there would say they "need him"? Sounds like a campaign commercial I can believe in.

Either Mark Udall is chronically unable to make up his mind about important ethical issues, or he is working hard to obscure the truth from voters. Whichever it is, do Colorado voters need such (lack of) leadership in the U.S. Senate?

Mark Udall's Votes Abet Economic Crisis, Aided by Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac Money

When it comes to the current economic crisis, liberal Washington insider Mark Udall once again proves he is more a part of the problem than of the solution. In February 2005, then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan warned Congress of letting the bloated institutions Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to grow with low capital and high risk.

On October 26, 2005, Udall voted against amendments that would have added capital to the mortgage lending giants and authorized them to sell off or acquire assets or liabilities, "if an asset or liability is deemed to be a potential systemic risk to the housing market, the capital markets or the financial system."

Let's be honest here. There are Democrats and Republicans in Congress who screwed up by making these votes. Mark Udall is with them on the wrong side of history.

More interestingly, according to the Federal Election Commission, Mark Udall has taken $3,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now that's not nearly as much as Barack Obama has taken from the failed financial institutions.

And it's not as much as Udall has taken from tax cheat Charlie Rangel's PAC, from retired sweatshop owner Susie Tompkins-Buell, or from campaign finance violator Norman Hsu, and twice as much as Udall received from jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Just trying to put things in perspective.

Mark Udall Mum on Overlooking Reported Scandal in Interior Department Agency

From the Denver Post this morning:

The alarm bells started more than two years ago about a culture of rule-breaking by government workers now embroiled in a scandal of sex, drugs and potential bribery.

A top government investigator repeatedly warned members of Congress that he had uncovered severe ethical lapses at the Minerals Management Service in Lakewood, where workers oversee billions of dollars worth of oil and gas leases.

He said it bluntly at House hearings in 2006. He said it again in early 2007. He warned a Senate committee in January of last year as well.

Congress did little to tighten the rules for the MMS.

According to the article, the costly problem of "severe ethical lapses" is finally being addressed now. Where was Mark Udall through all of this, though?

Reps. Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Springs Republican; Tom Tancredo, a Littleton Republican; and Mark Udall, a Democrat from Eldorado Springs, are on the Natural Resources Committee, which held a February 2007 hearing where [Interior Department Inspector General Earl] Devaney testified about ethical problems at MMS. He also said problems in calculating royalties may have cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

The transcript from that hearing does not show any of the Colorado lawmakers asking questions. There is no roll that would show whether they attended. [emphasis added]

The relevant question is whether Mark Udall was at the hearing. If so, why so silent on the issue? If not, where was he: Sick in bed? Gone golfing with lobbyists? At an out-of-state fundraiser with wealthy liberal donors?

Udall, through an aide, did not answer a question about whether more should have been done earlier or what Congress should do next.

Is Mark Udall just hoping the story goes away before he has to answer any questions? Does he have to think up a tale? Cover his tracks? The answer is that we don't know. But his silence feeds the speculation. Lamborn and Tancredo aren't off the hook yet, either.

Perhaps what is most intriguing is that this story is coming out of a locally-based federal government agency that oversees oil and gas leases. Did the "severe ethical lapses" in the agency affect the ability to distribute leases? Given his longstanding opposition to domestic oil and gas exploration, what did Mark Udall think about this?

As noted of Mark Udall in a March 2008 Congressional Quarterly article (subscription required):

His uncle, Stewart Udall, was Interior secretary in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. And from his seat on the Natural Resources Committee, Udall can see a portrait of his father, who chaired the panel (then known as Interior) from 1977 to 1991 and wrote legislation doubling the size of the national park system and tripling the extent of the national wilderness system.

With such a family legacy both in the Interior Department and on the Natural Resources Committee, you would think Mark Udall would take a strong interest in a potential scandal there. Did he simply ignore the warnings? Was something else afoot?

More investigation and reporting is needed to answer these questions.

New NRSC Ad Identifies Mark Udall as "Part of the Problem in Washington"

The National Republican Senatorial Committee tags Mark Udall's voting record as "part of the problem in Washington":

This is one of the clearer and more straightforward ads of the campaign season. Its claims are well-documented, as Boulder liberal Mark Udall has stood against domestic energy exploration, against middle class tax relief, and against funding our troops in harm's way. On these and other important issues, Udall clearly doesn't represent the values of mainstream Colorado.

Mark Udall Has a Low Threshold to Be Convinced a Tax-Funded Earmark is Needed

Taking a closer look at the Club for Growth's recent ad exposing Mark Udall's record on earmarks, 9News conducted a "Truth Test." What was the official response of the Udall campaign?:

The campaign's response to the commercial states, "Mark Udall has voted against eliminating earmarks where the proponent of the earmark makes a public and convincing case for keeping it." (E-mail to 9NEWS, Aug. 11, 2008)

Judging by the earmarks he's approved, Mark Udall has a pretty low threshold for what constitutes a convincing case for an earmark.

Hey, at least Mark Udall voted against 1 earmark out of 50 - better than 105 members of Congress. And he could plead the "everybody else is doing it" defense. Fewer than half the members of Congress voted against as many as two earmarks on the list. (And he did show up to vote for 49 earmarks, unlike the vote for an adjournment resolution he promised to make.) But that's simply the career politician culture Udall represents - and a big part of the reason that Congress has a 9 percent approval rating.

If he's searching for a reformer role model within his own party, Mark Udall could look to fellow Democrat Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee - who has a mirror image record to his own, voting against 49 of 50 earmarks. Cooper is much harder than Udall to convince that the people's money should be frittered away on pet projects.

Altogether, this report is further proof that Mark Udall is a newcomer to the anti-earmark club.

Yesterday, July 30: A Day the Mark Udall Campaign May Look Back On in Regret

213-212. Less than 48 hours after he mad a promise to vote to keep Congress busy to deal with the nation's domestic energy problems, Mark Udall showed up a few minutes too late to cast an important vote. And that favorable interpretation requires taking him at his word.

You know, he was too busy raising funds for his Senate campaign to show up and cast important votes. It doesn't say much about how well Mark Udall would represent Colorado as a U.S. Senator.

Reports the Denver Post:

[Udall spokeswoman Taylor] West said that her boss would send a letter to Pelosi today objecting to the fact that the vote wasn't delayed long enough for him to make it from the Washington airport to the Capitol.

First, when did Taylor West - one of two people who believed Mark Udall actually won the first debate - resume official PR duties for the Udall campaign?

Second, Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have saved Mark Udall from choosing between breaking a public promise and voting against a long history of energy obstruction likely will be too transparent to work. But she didn't do Udall any favor. Pelosi is more concerned about saving many of her House Democrats seeking re-election from having to cast a vote on the issue than securing Colorado's U.S. Senate seat for her party. Translation? Nancy Pelosi threw Mark Udall under the bus.

Of course, this all assumes we give Mark Udall all the benefit of the doubt. After all, based on his record, there's absolutely no reason to believe that Udall has any serious intention to go against his entire Congressional career by seeking to improve America's domestic energy supply. Yes - the only place Mark Udall wants to drill is your wallet.

Fourteen weeks from now, on Election Night, the events of yesterday well may be looked back upon as a critical and decisive moment in the U.S. Senate race. And that would be bad news for Mark Udall.

Bob Schaffer's Reasonable Comprehensive Energy Policy: A Contrast with Mark Udall

This ad, touting Bob Schaffer's record in support of comprehensive energy solutions, also highlights a key contrast with Mark Udall. Schaffer supports extending tax incentives to renewable energy providers. So does Udall.

What's the difference? Mark Udall also voted to impose tax offsets on oil and gas companies - all part of Udall's efforts to raise prices on average, hard-working Coloradans who still depend on these traditional energy sources.

Bob Schaffer has a more reasonable and moderate approach that recognizes the advantages of renewable energy without running roughshod over the economic well-being of families and small businesses. Schaffer's solution - a comprehensive energy policy - is more sensible than Udall's, because it's friendlier to the pocketbooks of average Coloradans.

Mark Udall Puts Big Labor Unfunded Mandate Ahead of Taxpayers, Local Control

This morning, a watcher astutely points to another glaring contradiction in the rhetoric of Boulder liberal Mark Udall.

In March, Mark Udall took sides in favor of the Washington D.C. gun ban on the principle of local government control.

Now, Mark Udall is the co-sponsor of the Public Safety Employee-Employer Cooperation Act, which "would make the top officials at local unions the exclusive bargaining agents for public safety officers in every town or city with more than 5,000 people." An unfunded mandate that would impose unionization on local governments and make local taxpayers bear the cost? As a watcher correctly notes: "It looks a lot like local control to us, NOT."

So, let's get this straight. For Mark Udall, local control trumps the Second Amendment, but the Big Labor agenda trumps both. Does anyone else think Udall has been in Washington, DC, so long that he has confused the importance of the Constitution with the agenda of special-interest lobbyists? It sure looks like a reasonable explanation for Udall's hypocrisy and duplicity.

Reminder for Slow-Learning Left about Mark Udall, Harry Reid, and Jack Abramoff

A certain Lefty blogger betrayed the chronic case of self-denial that is plaguing the Big Blue Lie Machine (aka Mark Udall campaign surrogates) following the less-than-effective attempt to smear Republican candidate Bob Schaffer with innuendo, half-truths, and exaggeration.

Referring to Dick Wadhams, the Lefty blogger in the chorus writes:

It's now 2008 and his "bloggers" (if they are indeed that) efforts to spin for Bob Schaffer are amusing. Case in point, trying to allege that Mark Udall and Harry Reid have any connection to Jack Abramoff. [Link Added]

As usual, we are pleased to provide links to helpful information, because we can't assume that every Lefty blogger has read every post here.

So here's a blast from the recent past ("Five Unanswered Jack Abramoff Questions from Vote-Switching Mark Udall") that reporters and political observers might wish to review.

Let's start with the most absurd point in the Lefty blogger's characteristic off-the-cuff rant. It takes a certain brand of brash, self-imposed partisan blindness to assert the connection between Harry Reid and Jack Abramoff is merely alleged. Further, other links included in the post we wrote highlight Mark Udall's connection to Harry Reid, and yes, the money he accepted from Jack Abramoff firms - money that has a clear correlation with Udall's votes on Abramoff's Internet gambling legislation.

(And it's not that difficult to figure out who the contributors to Schaffer v Udall are.)

Memo to Lefty bloggers (and the rest of the Big Blue Lie Machine): Self-denial and self-imposed partisan blindness only reflect your inability to convince anyone beyond your fellow Kool-Aid drinkers.

Here's another approach you should consider: Wrestle with the facts. Think for yourselves. Open your minds. Be honest with yourselves, so we can have an honest debate.

On second thought, keep living in your fantasy world, contriving accusations, and making this blog the issue. It's more entertaining.

A Tale of Two Fundraisers: Dana Perino for Bob Schaffer vs. Daily Kos for Mark Udall

One of the major necessities of political campaigns is fundraising - this is especially true for a high-profile office like U.S. Senate. Tonight Colorado residents are holding a fundraiser for Republican candidate Bob Schaffer. The guest of honor is local Colorado woman Dana Perino, who happens to work as the President's press secretary. This was enough to set off the alarm bells from the Mark Udall camp:

"Bob Schaffer's agenda is all about continuing the policies of the Bush administration that have failed our families, our national security, and our economy," said Udall's campaign spokeswoman, Taylor West.

"It's no wonder that President Bush, Dick Cheney, and now even their employees are doing everything they can to prop up his candidacy."

Schaffer's campaign manager, Dick Wadhams, said the Udall campaign "should be ashamed of themselves for attacking a Colorado woman who has distinguished herself as a spokeswoman for the president of the United States.

"I think she does an excellent job," Wadhams said.

There's a little political back-and-forth jousting not uncommon for this campaign, though as demonstrated here before, you do have to be very skeptical of what Taylor West says. Especially when West tries to take attention away from her own candidate's Washington insider, liberal ties.

But the more important distinction missed in the story is that Bob Schaffer raises more money from Coloradans (including myself: a small contributor), while Mark Udall is collecting more money from out-of-state liberal interest groups. Perhaps that's why Udall's fundraising events with Far Left groups like the Daily Kos don't make the local news. But they do tell a lot about the candidate.

Pueblo Chieftain Highlights Mark Udall's New, Temporary Decision to Fight Earmarks

The Pueblo Chieftain today lauds Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall:

Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a Republican seeking re-election in the 4th District, and Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate, are joining the “no-earmark” movement. As Rep. Udall notes, Congress needs to adopt clear rules so that all budget amendments are identified by sponsor and cannot be added to House-Senate conference reports....

Note that neither of them is opposing spending targeted for local projects. Rather, they support a more open process of passing those spending proposals.

A few other relevant things to note:

1. Mark Udall is a latecomer to the no-earmark movement, and still doesn't have the clear, principled stand that his opponent Bob Schaffer has had for the past decade.
2. Mark Udall has said he doesn't plan to carry his no-earmarks pledge into the U.S. Senate, essentially admitting that it's a temporary political ploy to help him win office.
3. Mark Udall, Colorado's biggest purveyor of pork, has given seven-figure earmark contracts to a Boulder company that was a large contributor to his Congressional campaign.

So I guess it's nice that Mark Udall has decided to join the movement against earmarks, though it goes against the grain of his career and he admits it's only temporary.

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.

Five Unanswered Jack Abramoff Questions from Vote-Switching Mark Udall

The Left wanted to make Jack Abramoff an issue, so rather than change the subject we're willing to explore it further. In light of recent revelations that Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall "accepted campaign contributions from jailed lobbyist Jack Abramoff – contributions that correspond to Udall’s change in position on Internet gambling legislation," here are a few questions that should clear the public record:

1. Has Mark Udall ever met Jack Abramoff? Bob Schaffer hasn't.

2. Did Jack Abramoff ever attend a Mark Udall fundraiser to drop off checks from his PAC?

3. Did Jack Abramoff or any of his associates lobby Mark Udall to change his position on the Internet gambling legislation?

4. Knowing that Mark Udall is one of the top golfers in Congress and Jack Abramoff was a notorious golfer, did they ever hit the links together?

5. If Mark Udall is disgusted enough with Jack Abramoff finally to return $1,500 in PAC contributions made 6 or more years ago, what about the $10,000 Udall has collected from Harry Reid's Searchlight Leadership Fund PAC? Among his many connections to the imprisoned ex-lobbyist, Reid collected more than $68,000 from Abramoff and Company.

Mark Udall: The Candidate Who Took Money from Jack Abramoff Firms

The Left in Colorado must be bitterly upset to learn that only one candidate in Colorado's U.S. Senate race has ever taken money from Jack Abramoff-associated firms, and that's Mark Udall:

U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall took $1,500 in contributions from two firms that once employed disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Udall's campaign spokeswoman Taylor West said the donations from the companies' political-action committees to the Eldorado Springs Democrat's congressional campaigns were legal.

But, she said, Udall plans to donate the $1,500 to an organization in the Marianas Islands that assists victims of human trafficking.

Though we have reason to be skeptical about anything Taylor West says, if this is indeed true, it is the right thing for Mark Udall to do. It took him a long time to come around to it, though, seeing as the contributions were made in 2000 and 2002.

Better late than never. At least perhaps this story will begin to shut up the Big Blue Lie Machine's attempted slime job on Republican opponent Bob Schaffer. Maybe, just maybe, they'll stop trying to manipulate connecting the Abramoff dots and look for some other bit of gotcha politics to play. Mark Udall will want them to stop, lest it brings up this bit of unfortunate news again.

Hollywood Democrat Supporting Bob Schaffer Because of DSCC Anti-Ukraine Bias

Five days ago we highlighted why a new attack ad from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) against Republican U.S. Senate candidate was pure folly: it ended up contrasting Schaffer's integrity and fiscal conservatism with his Democratic opponent Mark Udall, a tax-and-spend liberal career politician.

Now its folly is exposed for another reason. A Hollywood Democrat who blogs at Cyber Cossack is angry with the DSCC for using the ad to exploit anti-Ukrainian prejudice in a low political attack:

The video ridicules Bob Schaffer, a former Congressman who is now running for Senate from Colorado on the Republican ticket. Mr. Schaffer is part Ukrainian and has been very supportive of Ukraine’s struggle against communism and for democracy and a free market economy – both supposedly laudable goals on both sides of the aisle in the United States Senate.

This commercial is blatantly both anti-Ukrainian and anti-American in its racist bias. To rub in the point, the commercial “just happens” to accompany the video image with Mexican mariachi music, thus extending the insult to an even larger important American minority community.

I find it appalling that in 2008, in the United States of America, such cheap racism would be posted by a major political party’s official senatorial campaign committee. There are myriad nations that have received hundreds, if not thousands of times as much aid from the United States as does Ukraine. Why has the DSCC not campaigned against support for any other nation? Why has the DSCC singled out Ukraine for ridicule?

Either the Democratic Party is in fact anti-Ukrainian racist or it believes that Ukrainian-Americans are so inept and impotent that they can be abused at will without consequence.

I don't necessarily accept all the writer's assumptions (the national Democratic party does not generally favor free market economic principles) or his conclusions (I think the DSCC is likely more motivated by narrow political ambition and blind to the consequence of its rhetoric than it is anti-Ukrainian or racist).

But his anger and frustration does an excellent job in further highlighting the folly and the unintended consequences of Mark Udall's supporters in trying to bring down their political opponent. This is the Cyber Cossack's best idea:

I call on the Democratic candidate Mark Udall to personally refute this racist characterization of Ukraine, immediately withdraw this commercial and to replace it with an apology to all Americans and Ukrainian-Americans together with a strong statement of support for Ukraine’s struggle for democracy and a free market economy.

Contact candidate Mark Udall at 1100 Bannock Street, Denver CO 80208, tel. 303-820-2008, fax 303-893-4078, e-mail via his web site http://www.markudall.com/page/s/contact

If it seems like good advice to you, too, feel free to take it.

Finally, the Cyber Cossack's endorsement:

Mr. Schaffer deserves only our admiration – and, Yes – THE THANKS OF ALL AMERICANS – for his hard work in defense of democracy.

His words, not mine. But I can give them a hearty "Amen."

Mark Udall's Cynical Sponsorship of Anti-Secret Ballot Bill Out of Step

A new national poll from American Solutions finds:

We discovered that 79% of the American people support a worker’s right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether or not to join a union.

The tri-partisan agreement to defend this right is overwhelming, as 77% of Republicans, 82% of Democrats, and 79% of independents believe in protecting private ballots. Support for private ballots was so broad it also spanned every subgroup examined, including majorities of every age, race, geographic group and both genders.

The so-called "Employee Free Choice Act" (EFCA) before the Congress last year, and figures to be again this year, would deprive workers of the secret ballot. Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's cynical sponsorship of the EFCA (he took big union contributions to put his name on the legislation, even though he claimed he had "serious reservations") already has him "out of step with Western values."

Now we have confirmation that Mark Udall is out of step with 8 out of 10 voting Americans, including 8 out of 10 members of his own Democratic Party. Currying favor with Big Labor bosses may have added money to Udall's campaign coffers, but it threatens to alienate him from many members of the electorate.

Proof of Mark Udall as Career Politician: Taxpayer-Funded Stop in Colorado Springs

In a morning press release, Dick Wadhams and the Bob Schaffer campaign gave us another reminder today of why Mark Udall is the consummate career Washington politician:

The Bob Schaffer for U.S. Senate campaign charged today that Boulder Liberal Mark Udall is using taxpayer funds to hold a thinly veiled campaign event billed as a "subcommittee field hearing" in Colorado Springs.

"Boulder Liberal Udall needs to be reminded that Colorado Springs is not in his Boulder congressional district," said Schaffer campaign manager Dick Wadhams. "Taxpayers should not be financing Boulder Liberal Udall's campaign events."

"Boulder Liberal Udall's taxpayer funded campaign event comes on the heels of revelations that Udall secured federal earmarks for a Boulder company and then received campaign contributions from that same company."

Boulder Liberal Mark Udall represents the Boulder dominated Second Congressional District and chairs the House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics. Udall is holding a taxpayer funded subcommittee "hearing" today in Colorado Springs which is in the Fifth Congressional District. Udall's press release did not indicate any other members of the subcommittee would be present for the "hearing."

Nothing illegal in what Udall did that I know of - just a sign of how comfortable Mark Udall the career politician is in using taxpayer money to give himself a little extra campaign exposure.

Udall, Colorado's biggest purveyor of pork, also recently has been embroiled in an inquiry about his raising funds from groups to which he earmarked million-dollar plus federal government contracts.

Anyone expecting Mark Udall to change the corrupt Washington culture is sadly naive. Coloradans have a much better chance for ethical government and honest representation from Bob Schaffer, the candidate with real-world business experience who kept his term-limits pledge.