Citizens Against Government Waste Endorse Schaffer

Udall really is liberal--with your money:

U.S. Senate Candidate Bob Schaffer was endorsed by The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste Political Action Committee yesterday for his “outstanding record of fiscal discipline and fighting on behalf of all taxpayers.”

“Bob Schaffer continues to be the only low tax, pro-economic growth candidate in this race,” said Campaign Manager Dick Wadhams. “The current liberal congress has done nothing to curb out of control spending and earmarks.”

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste gave Schaffer a lifetime rating of 85 percent while he served in Congress from 1996 to 2002. He was named a “Taxpayer Hero.”

Boulder Liberal Mark Udall has only a 15 percent lifetime rating and it hit a low of 4 percent in 2007.

What's at stake?

Six years of spend, spend, spend.

Freedom's Watch: "Do You Know Where That Mark Udall Elk Crossing Bridge Is?"

Freedom's Watch continues to amuse and enlighten us with colorful insights about Boulder liberal Mark Udall's record. From the group that brought us "Skip Udall" and the "Smoke-Filled Van," comes a new ad without any human actors - "Hey Elk":

As Bob Schaffer has pointed out, Mark Udall's "bridge to nowhere works fine--if all the elk know where the crossing is."

Mark Udall's "bridge to nowhere works fine -- if all the elk know where the crossing is."

What a great one-liner from Bob Schaffer on the campaign trail, as he highlights Mark Udall's low threshold for approving taxpayer-funded earmarks.

The Wall Street Journal's Brendan Miniter explains in his Political Diary:

Washington really is going to the animals. Rep. Mark Udall, a Democrat running for an open Senate seat in Colorado, is coming under fire for a $500,000 earmark to build an animal bridge. The funding would be seed money to construct a $10 million bridge over Interstate 70 so elk and large animals would, in theory, be able to cross the road without impeding traffic.

Miniter calls it a "bridge for nobody," providing a cute anecdote that by itself wouldn't mean much, except for the current mood of voters:

This year members of Congress are finding wasteful spending is a political liability.

That's bad news for Mark Udall. And good news for Bob Schaffer - one of the few true fiscal conservatives to serve in Congress in recent years.

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.

EarMark Udall--Pro-Pork Votes

The ad:



From Club for Growth:

Washington -- Today, Club for Growth.Net began running a television ad on broadcast television and cable systems throughout Colorado. The $400,000 ad buy will run for two weeks.

Entitled "Waste," the ad details all the wasteful pork projects Rep. Mark Udall has voted for and urges taxpayers in Colorado to call Rep. Udall and tell him to stop sending their tax dollars on such outlandish projects. These projects include a ballet theatre in New York City (RC #668), a park in San Francisco (RC #839), and a lobster institute in Maine (RC #735). In fact, out of 50 separate amendments to remove pork projects from the FY 2008 appropriations bills, Mark Udall voted against 49 of them. In other words, Rep. Udall voted in favor of wasteful earmark spending 98 percent of the time.

"Mark Udall needs to change his wasteful spending policies," said Club for Growth.Net President Pat Toomey. "If Mark Udall wants to spend his own money on a ballet theatre in New York and a lobster institute in Maine, that's his prerogative, but Colorado taxpayers shouldn't be expected to foot the bill. This ad seeks to educate people in Colorado about how Rep. Udall is voting. We encourage them to call Mark Udall and tell him to stop wasting taxpayer dollars on pork projects."

Boulder Liberal Udall. Can't Keep His Promises Udall. EarMark Udall.

Or as we like to say here at SvU: Mark Udall-The Only Place He Wants To Drill Is Your Wallet.

Oink.

Just another broken promise, as SvU has tracked Udall's "no earmarks" pledge.

If Orr's Earmark Came from Liberal Pat Leahy, the Attack on Bob Schaffer Fizzles

The Lefty blogosphere is all abuzz these days, trying to build another guilt by association case against Bob Schaffer. This time it has to do with William Orr, who lied to secure an earmarked federal grant:

Congress in 2000 awarded Orr the $3.6 million to research the fuel. The money, to come from the Environmental Protection Agency, was in the form of an earmark in an appropriations bill. Earmarks have become controversial in recent years because they are viewed as ways for politicians to slip in money for pet projects.

Schaffer, who served in Congress from 1997 to 2003, said he does not believe he met Orr before 2004.

"I did not advocate his earmark. In fact, I was unaware of his earmark," Schaffer said, adding he voted against the bill that contained the earmark.

Schaffer's enemies would have a real story and a big club to beat him with if he had had anything to do with securing the earmark, rather than merely serving a brief stint on a board connected to Orr's nonprofit ex post facto and stepping down when he learned the facts. But that doesn't make for as juicy a story.

In fact, sources tell me that word on the street is the earmark came from liberal Democrat Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont - one of the figures in Congress least connected to Bob Schaffer. While it may take an intrepid fact-checker to verify Leahy is indeed behind the earmark, it would make sense: If it were anyone even closely related to Schaffer, the Lefty attack machine would have already made hay out of it.

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.

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.

Questions of Earmark Ethics Dog Big Congressional Spender Mark Udall

The Denver Post reports:

While U.S. Rep. Mark Udall has sworn off budget earmarks for next year, records show he secured at least two contracts in the past for a Boulder-based company that has contributed thousands to his campaign.

Otologics, a maker of high-tech hearing implants, received $1.4 million and $1 million contracts in 2005 and 2007 — the same period in which the company's executives gave $6,850 to Udall, according to public records and the congressman's staff.

Udall and the many other lawmakers who push pet projects for campaign donors risk the appearance of impropriety, Steve Ellis of the Washington D.C.-based nonprofit Taxpayers for Common Sense said Thursday. [emphasis added]

As the story goes on to point out, it's all part of Mark Udall's record as Colorado's biggest purveyor of pork:

The Boulder County politician ranks as the Colorado congressman who brought home the most money in earmarks last year, according to rankings from the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste.

At $27.6 million for his district, he ranks $1 million above Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, a Republican who has also sworn to forgo earmarks next year.

It was only last month that Udall flipped against earmarks only to flop back a day later.

Bringing home the pork in exchange for campaign contributions. This must be what the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee means by "helping" a Congressional district. In that sense, Mark Udall helps a lot more than Bob Schaffer.

U-turn Udall Breaks Earmark Moratorium Pledge

Boy, that didn't last long:

U.S. Rep. Mark Udall on Monday wouldn't agree to extend to the Senate his promise of forgoing requests for special-project funding, or "earmarks," should he win the seat he's campaigning for in November.

"This is a one-year moratorium," Udall spokesman Tara Trujillo said.

A timeout is needed, she said, to review the practice.

"It's not that earmarks are bad, it's that the process for securing them is broken," Trujillo added. "He may go back to securing earmarks if some additional reforms are enacted and if we can make progress on reducing the federal deficit."

Why the flip-flopping (Ben had prepared a nice welcome for Udall to the side of fiscal responsibility)?

If Udall wins in November, he will bank his first term and first reelection campaign in 2014 on the amount of "pork" he brings home. This phony 1-year moratorium is just a campaign ploy--and a cheap one at that.

How's that for some expedient campaign flip-flopping?

Our Monthly Be Nice to Mark Udall Post

We have written elsewhere that we find Mark Udall the easiest Colorado politician to criticize, and we do.

It is hard to maintain credibility as a blogger if one only provides unending criticism of a politician. That is the mistake that sites like Media Matters and PlagiarismNowAction make.

We'd like to not repeat that mistake, so here are three things that we think that Mark Udall did right recently. We apologize for not providing links and may add them later as we have time to do a Google search to find them. (Edited to fix the English. Written English is sometimes our fourth or fifth language. Edited to two hours later to add: Google Alerts picked our mangled sentence to highlight, but even bad publicity is good publicity, lol)

1. Mark Udall said something very nice about John McCain and McCain's treatment of his father, Mo Udall, who was McCain's mentor and friend in Congress. He told how McCain was one of Mo Udall's very few regular hospital visitors in Mo Udall's dying days, and how he took the time to read to him and talk about what was going on in Congress.

Mark Udall could have kept that story to himself. To his credit, he did not.

2. What comes next may or may not be to Mark Udall's credit because it is part of a Nancy Pelosi scheme to try to take the earmarks issue away from Republicans. Udall is reported to have spoken to his staff about forgoing earmarks this year. We don't know what the outcome of that conversation was, but earmarks are a congressional disgrace. They need to be addressed in some way.

We (this author at least) would hate to see earmarks go away entirely. They are a good mechanism for funding small, worthwhile projects that otherwise wouldn't see the light of day in Congress. On the other hand, too many earmarks is a lot like too much food. It isn't healthy.

If it turns out that Mark Udall is insincerely playing politics with this issue, we will be the first to hammer him over it.

3. Finally, it is good that Mark Udall and Doug Lamborn can work together to solve the Leadville mine drain problem. They have a joint bill requiring that two government agencies work together to pump out and treat the water.

Again, this is a bit of a political football as the left wing blogs and left wing newspapers are trying to claim that there isn't and never was a problem. How they would know that is beyond knowing given that they have no engineers on their staff and cite no engineering studies. They just spew mindless propaganda that would quickly change to blame every Republican in sight if there was a blowout. How convenient. How transparent.

Kudos to both Mark Udall and Doug Lamborn for trying to keep this from becoming an environmental disaster.

Wasn't that refreshing? See how we try to be different?