George McGovern Chides Mark Udall for Trying to Deprive Workers of Secret Ballot

Stalwart liberal Democrat icon George McGovern has spoken out against the terrible legislation that is known as the Employee Free Choice Act:

Did you hear what George McGovern said? "It's hard to believe that any politician would agree to a law denying millions of employees the right to a private vote."

George McGovern, meet Mark Udall, co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. Udall's "serious reservations" about sponsoring the bill appear to have been assuaged by tens of thousands in campaign contributions from the union leaders who McGovern justly fears "are turning their backs on democratic workplace elections."

But ultimately, Mark Udall doesn't have to explain himself to George McGovern. What about the workers victimized by replacing the secret ballot with the card-check process? And what about Colorado voters?

Despite his best attempts, Mark Udall has yet to explain himself out of a paper bag on this issue.

Slow Learner Mark Udall Has It Totally Backwards on Anti-Secret Ballot Bill

Mark Udall never seems to learn. He still struggles to explain why he is co-sponsoring a bill that takes away workers' rights to a secret ballot in union elections, opening them up to intimidation. From Tuesday's Chamber of Commerce debate, via Channel 7 News in Denver:

Udall defended his decision to support the Employee Free Choice Act, which would allow labor organizations to unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections, saying it still provides many worker protections that he supports.

He said the Bush administration and the National Labor Relations Board have been "missing in action" in ensuring that employees are treated fairly. He said the act ensures that employees won't be intimidated by union leaders or employers. [emphasis added]

That is so entirely backwards as to be absurd. Taking away the secret ballot protects workers from intimidation? Mr. Udall, do you wish to reconsider that statement?

At least it appears that Mark Udall has moved past his "serious reservations" about sponsoring the Employee Free Choice Act, "serious reservations" that were overcome by tens of thousands of dollars in union campaign contributions.

Influential ColoradoBiz Magazine Endorses Bob Schaffer for Colorado U.S. Senate Seat

Yesterday the influential ColoradoBiz magazine made its endorsement for U.S. Senate:

Examining the U.S. Senate race solely through the lens of business, we view Republican Bob Schaffer as a candidate better equipped to encourage economic growth, lure large employers to the state and create jobs than his Democratic counterpart, Mark Udall.

While the editors do give Mark Udall a little credit on renewable energy, the decision couldn't have been that difficult -- not with Udall's self-defeating U-turns on corporate taxes or his support of depriving workers of the secret ballot.

How Would Mark Udall Explain Anti-Secret Ballot Stance to Union Intimidation Victims?

Last week we pointed to Mark Udall's feeble attempt to defend his co-sponsorship (with "serious reservations") of the poorly-named Employee Free Choice Act. The examples of South Carolina materials handler Mike Ivey and Kaiser employee Karen Mayhew demonstrated the destructive consequences of Udall's support for the "card-check" process over the secret ballot in workplace union elections.

A recent National Review piece by John Motley offers more examples:

As [former ultra-liberal Democratic presidential candidate George] McGovern warned with this system: “there are many documented cases where workers have been pressured, harassed, tricked or intimidated into signing cards that have led to mandatory payment of dues.” In hearings in the House of Representatives in 2002, Bruce Esgar, an employee of MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas described such a case when he testified that union organizers threatened that workers who did not sign union cards would lose their jobs when the union was recognized. In testimony in 2007, Ricardo Torres, a long-time organizer for the United Steelworkers felt compelled to quit his job, according to his testimony, after “a senior Steelworkers union official asked me to threaten migrant workers by telling them they would be reported to federal immigration officials if they refused to sign check-off cards.” Jen Jason, a former organizer for UNITE-HERE also testified in 2007 to the fact that they “rarely showed workers what an actual union contract looked like because we knew that it wouldn’t necessarily reflect what a worker would want to see. We were trained to avoid topics such as dues increases, strike histories, etc. and to constantly move the worker back to what the organizer identified as his or her “issues” during the first part of the housecall. This technique was commonly referred to as “re-agitation” during organizer training sessions.” [emphases added]

What would Mark Udall have to say to Bruce Esgar? What platitudes would Udall have for Ricardo Torres or the threatened migrant workers? How would Udall defend the tactics Jen Jason described? How would he explain his anti-secret ballot stance to Mike Ivey or Karen Mayhew? Even ultra-liberal George McGovern realizes how out of touch Udall is for holding this position.

But none of it matters that much, because none of these five eyewitnesses to union intimidation have lined Mark Udall's campaign coffers with tens of thousands of dollars like labor leaders have.

Mark Udall "Debunked" by Stories of Abuse from Udall-Funding Union Leaders

Mark Udall has unleashed a new "debunker" page to give his side of the story on issues where he feels his record is being misrepresented. So what does Udall do? You guessed it. He turns around and misrepresents his opponent Bob Schaffer's record -- yeah, that solves the problem.

But going further, some of Mark Udall's responses in defense of his record are just plain weak and laughable. Today I'll focus on his support of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA):

Mark Udall does not support elimination of the secret ballot-- in union elections or anywhere else. Mark Udall has consistently fought for working families in this country and his support of Employee Free Choice Act confirms this.

Yes, we already know about Udall's "serious reservations" about taking away workers' secret ballots, and the thousands of dollars he accepted from labor leaders to co-sponsor the bill anyway.

In that light, Mark Udall's description of the EFCA reads like he has drunk the Big Labor Kool-Aid:

Right now, employees can form a union by conducting a secret ballot election or by having a majority of workers sign cards asking for union representation. However, right now, employers can reject organization by the card-signing method. This is problematic because employers can then delay the vote and use the time to put pressure on employees not to organize.

EFCA would change this law so that employers can't reject the card-check process if that's how workers choose to organize. This does not mean that EFCA will do away with secret ballot. Instead, it strengthens the rights of employees because it requires employers to respect a card check vote that wins over 50% of the staff.

The problem of course is Mark Udall's ridiculous assumptions: first, that unions are quite adept at pressuring employees, too; and second, that signing a card in a union organizing election indicates an employee's free will.

Perhaps Mark Udall should talk to South Carolina materials handler Mike Ivey, who testified:

Employees are told at off-site meetings that signing a card only certifies that they attended the meeting. Employees are also offered a free t-shirt if they sign a card. What they are not told is that these cards are a legally binding document, which states that the employee is pro union -- thus placing the union one step closer to their goal of complete control of the employees’ workplace life without the employee even realizing it.

In the work place, the employees running the organizing campaign for the UAW are relentless in trying to get the employees to sign union cards. This has created a hostile work environment, with employees who once were friends who are now at odds with each other. [emphasis added]

Watch Mike Ivey here:

The United Auto Workers that deceived and harassed Mike Ivey and his colleagues through the card-check process have contributed $50,000 to Mark Udall through the years (Source: Federal Election Commission).

Or, since Mark Udall touts Kaiser as the model for implementing EFCA, the testimony of Kaiser employee Karen Mayhew is especially relevant:

When we were told that 50% + 1 had signed the union’s authorization cards, and that no election would be held, it did not take long for many employees to announce that they would not have signed the cards if they had known that there would be no election. Knowing that the union had just a one-person majority in our department at the time of Kaiser’s recognition, I filed Unfair Labor Practice charges against Kaiser and the SEIU union with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), based in part on the realization that some in our department had signed cards solely due to the union’s misrepresentations....

Throughout this whole ordeal, my colleagues and I were subjected to badgering and immense peer pressure. Some of us even received phone calls at home. While I let my feelings toward this union be known early on, I still was attacked verbally and in e-mail by my pro-union colleagues. I believe this abuse directed towards me was at the request of the union in an effort to intimidate me and have me back down. [emphases added]

The Service Employees International Union that deceived and intimidated Karen Mayhew and her colleagues has given Mark Udall $48,000 in contributions (Source: Federal Election Commission).

Yes, the Employee Free Choice Act technically doesn't outlaw secret ballot elections. But given recorded history, doesn't the EFCA open the door to ensure union leaders will use their "free choice" and organized clout to take the easy route of deceit, intimidation, and abuse of uncooperative workers? A secret ballot protects the integrity of workers' decisions, and Mark Udall is willing to cast the protection aside to appease labor bosses who have loaded his campaign with money--$98,000 from just these two examples alone.

Way to go, Udall. You really "debunked" that one.

In Taking Money from Those Undercutting Workers' Rights, Mark Udall Is Consistent

Mark Udall has received major fundraising support from retired sweatshop owner Susie Tompkins-Buell. On the other hand, Udall also has co-sponsored the Employee Free Choice Act in spite of "serious reservations".

Mark Udall has taken thousands of dollars from union leaders to undercut workers' rights to a secret ballot. Udall also has taken thousands of dollars from a former sweatshop owner cited for illegal interrogation and intimidation of underpaid immigrant laborers. What else can be said? At least he has demonstrated some level of consistency.

Mark Udall Evades "Serious Reservations", Bob Schaffer Stands Up for Secret Ballots

In a U.S. Senate race with plenty of stark differences between the two major candidates, one of the clearest differences came up in the recent YouTube debate between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall. First, the question from Justin Wilson and Udall's evasive answer:

Mark Udall completely avoids answering the question, probably because co-sponsoring a piece of legislation that robs workers of the right to a secret ballot can prove to be quite embarrassing.

By contrast, here's Bob Schaffer's answer (H/T Labor Pains blog):

Bob Schaffer speaks for common sense: "You should have the right to privacy when you are casting votes on something so important."

Wanted: Your YouTube Video Question for Candidates Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer

Both Mark Udall and Bob Schaffer have agreed to take questions in a YouTube style debate. From the citizentube blog:

So, got a question for Schaffer and Udall? Watch our call-out video and submit your question by August 31st!

Here also is a link where you can watch the video and post your response. They're taking the top five questions. Doesn't look like too much competition thus far, so check it out. For my money, I like this question:

You have four days to match or top this.

New Ad Asks Mark Udall Why He Doesn't Want Your Workplace Vote to be Private

Seeing the question "Is Mark Udall Selling Out?" might make you think of his environmentalist friends asking why Udall is suddenly pandering away from his career-long opposition to offshore drilling.

In this case, it happens to be about Mark Udall's nearly-convinced appeal in favor of the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA).

The initial question is part of a broader ad campaign by a group called Coloradans for Employee Freedom that questions Mark Udall's support for EFCA and wonders aloud: "Shouldn't your vote still be private?"

As the Daily Blogster puts it:

One value (VOTING) is extremely sacred to Americans and all freedom loving people around the world but Udall wants to make an exception when it comes to one of his most sacred of institutions....labor unions.

Which - going out on a limb here - may have something to do with hundreds of thousands of dollars in Big Labor campaign contributions.

After all, Mark Udall co-sponsored EFCA despite admitting "serious reservations," and acknowledged to the Denver Post that the legislation "isn't perfect." That's a nice way to describe depriving millions of workers the right to a secret ballot in workplace elections. After lo these many months, Mark Udall still hasn't had to explain how he can be so out of step with Coloradans and Western values.

Mark Udall Almost Looks Convinced He's Overcome "Serious" EFCA Reservations

After co-sponsoring Big Labor's Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) in the House and raking in thousands in campaign cash, Mark Udall almost looks convinced that he has overcome his "serious reservations" about depriving workers of the secret ballot (H/T Labor Pains blog):

Mark Udall almost looks convinced.

Mark Udall Confronted about Cynical Sponsorship of Anti-Secret Ballot Bill

Via the Labor Pains blog, Coloradans for Employee Freedom caught up with Boulder liberal Mark Udall at what appears to be the July 4 Greeley Stampede parade:

EFCA = Employee Free Choice Act. Mark Udall seems to have forgotten his cynical sponsorship of EFCA, despite (as Labor Pains points out) having taken more than $1 million from Big Labor interests. Maybe because Udall realizes how dreadfully unpopular the anti-secret ballot measure is.

Mark Udall: Blindsided again.

Communist Party Joins Mark Udall in Support of Anti-Secret Ballot Bill

Boulder liberal Mark Udall, Big Labor bosses, 20 percent of the American voting public, and now the Communist Party are all in agreement. What's the issue? Why, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) - which deprives workers of a secret ballot in union elections.

What's the connection?

• Mark Udall took $75,000 from union leaders to put his name as a co-sponsor on the Employee Free Choice Act, despite admitting to "serious reservations."


• 8 out of 10 American voters, including 8 out of 10 Democrats, believe the EFCA's approach of robbing workers of the secret ballot is wrong. Opposition to this bill includes majorities "of every age, race, geographic group and both genders."


• Today's big news? Communist Party USA has given its hearty endorsement to EFCA, saying the upcoming elections "must be about working people’s vision — our vision of a new direction for our country." A new direction that apparently includes no secret ballots for workers.

I guess this website's humorous theme isn't quite so far off base, after all.

Mark Udall's Cynical Sponsorship of Big Labor Bill Back in the Spotlight

An astute letter writer from Grand Junction reminds readers of Boulder liberal Mark Udall's cynical sponsorship of legislation that would deprive workers of secret ballots in union workplace elections:

Virtually every Democratic candidate this year, including Mark Udall and Barack Obama, are pushing for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which is a massive handout to organized labor. EFCA would eliminate the private-ballot vote when unionizing a workplace and put in place a system where workers could be intimidated and pressured into signing petitions for unionization.

On the same day, the Denver Post reports that state government has become unionized by the votes of a small minority of workers:

About 6,900 state workers from a pool of 22,500 who were eligible participated in the election, which gave them a choice between Colorado WINS or no union representation. Of those, 5,481 supported the union.

The results were based only on the number of votes cast, but even those who did not vote will now be represented by the union — regardless of whether they pay the voluntary union dues.

Last November we speculated that Gov. Bill Ritter's executive order that set the state employee unionization process in motion may have been done in part to take political heat off Mark Udall. Has the heat been turned back on?

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.

Too Little Information, Too Many Qualifiers in Latest Schaffer-Udall Poll

Our resident gadfly has asked why we haven't posted anything on the recent poll results showing Mark Udall ahead of Bob Schaffer, 44-32.

The answer is simple. While some on the Left have been gleefully touting the numbers, we've been looking for the two C's: cross-tabs and context. Has this firm or agency polled this race before? If so, are there any observable trends? What methodology does the company use? How big was the sample? What was the demographic breakdown of the sample - by party registration, gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geography, etc?

If a reader has access to any of this information, please feel free to share it with us. Otherwise, there are very few conclusions that can be drawn from this information. If the Left wants to draw sweeping conclusions from this outlying survey that shows their candidate cruising to victory, that's their prerogative by all means. But frankly, any discussion that doesn't highlight the major qualifiers isn't credible.

Then again, there's also this gem from the same poll:

Nearly two-thirds of voters in Colorado (68%), Maine (72%) and Minnesota (65%) oppose the ["Employee Free Choice Act"]. Moreover, voters in Minnesota and Colorado would be less likely to support candidates who support the EFCA. Specifically, a plurality of voters would be less likely to vote for Mark Udall (44%) and Al Franken (41%) if they support this legislation. Moreover, at least 80% of voters in all three states believe that secret ballot elections are the cornerstone of democracy and should be kept for union elections.

In a poll that's an outlier showing a big lead for Mark Udall, these measures of Colorado opinion against a Big Labor bill that would take away workers' rights to a secret ballot in the workplace are a bad sign for the Left. Unless they want to argue with a straight face that this polling sample is clearly skewed to the Republican side.

Of course, Udall was a co-sponsor of the EFCA in 2007, even though he had "serious reservations" about the issue (but many union financial contributions).

For more reliable information on trends in the Schaffer-Udall race, we'll wait for the next Rasmussen tracking poll to be released.

Schaffer Seeks to Connect Message with Voters; Udall Struggles to Find Mainstream

A story in yesterday's Longmont Times-Call highlights the positive message of the Schaffer campaign:

“We’ve just got to do a better job of articulating our message” in this year’s elections, Schaffer told more than 40 people attending a Longmont Republican Women luncheon at the Terroir restaurant on Thursday.

He suggested the GOP needs to convey that Republicans are pro-business and pro-economic growth, and that they oppose tax increases that would burden the middle class and deter capital investment.

Schaffer cautioned that it won’t be easy for Republicans in races such as his U.S. Senate contest with his likely Democratic opponent Mark Udall, an Eldorado Springs resident who represents Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District.

Schaffer, a onetime state senator and a former congressman from Colorado’s 4th District who’s now on the State Board of Education, acknowledged that he and other GOP candidates have “to hold our base together” but also will need support from non-Republican voters.

To do that, Republican office-seekers must “speak forcefully and articulately in a way that draws people back to us,” he said.

Toward the end of the article came this response:

Insofar as Schaffer’s remarks about Republicans representing mainstream Coloradans’ concerns, [Udall spokeswoman Taylor] West said: “Over the next several months, voters are going to have a chance to really get to know Mark Udall and his record and his reputation and his vision for Colorado.”

Well, for one thing, Udall's record is pretty well documented here at Schaffer v Udall. Here are just a few examples:

- Voted for the largest tax increase in American history
- Voting consistently against Second Amendment rights that Coloradans enjoy
- Sponsoring a bill to create a U.S. Department of Peace
- Sponsoring a bill to open up drilling in Castro's Cuban waters while stopping any energy exploration that would benefit Coloradans
- Throwing away workers' rights to secret ballot elections to benefit union bosses
- Voting to fund the National Endowment of the Arts at the expense of forest management vital to Colorado's natural beauty and economic well-being

Yet West had the laughable audacity to make this comment in yesterday's story:

She added, “I don’t think Bob Schaffer’s record holds up in the mainstream.”

Even as political spin goes, this remark ranks as very unconvincing. I don't think Udall and his crew could identify Colorado mainstream views to save their lives.

Ritter's Order Taking the Political Heat off Udall?

Our Democratic governor's recent leap into the arms of union bosses at the expense of taxpayers has spurred a closer look at the voting record of fellow Democrat, U.S. Senate candidate, Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall.

Like Ritter, Udall earlier this year received an editorial slap from the Denver Post for co-sponsoring the inaccurately-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). On the floor of the Congress, Udall expressed the difficulties his conscience had with supporting a bill to take away workers' secret ballot election rights, yet he went ahead and supported the bill at the behest of union bosses anyway. All those contributions from union PACs can speak really loud.

Bringing it all together, fellow Colorado blogger Karl Maher gives us some insights into the Democrats' "protection racket," speculating that Big Labor may have persuaded Ritter to take the heat off Udall:

So why would Ritter give employees collective bargaining rights without going through the Legislature?

Maybe it's because the legislative debate would've put the issue on the state's front pages for a couple of weeks. It might have drawn Udall into the debate, reminding people that he co-sponsored the EFCA and that he's taking gobs of money from union PACs. Maybe the party, feeling the need to score one for Labor, prevailed on Ritter to take one for the team and spare the state further debate that might embarrass Udall.

That might give Ritter and the Democrats more credit for strategic thought than they deserve. But really, I can't figure out any other reason Ritter would do such a thing.

Is Karl right on this point? I don't know. But the fact that his argument is plausible reminds us how wary we should be of Udall's homage to Big Labor and his disconnect from the average independent Colorado voter.

Union Campaign Contributions and Udall's "Serious Reservations"

A watcher has published a letter from Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall to constituent Ralph Shnelvar about Udall's co-sponsorship of the ill-named Employee Free Choice Act, and asks the question: "Whose vote is really for sale?"

But then again, one can raise the same question from Udall's House of Representatives floor speech on the same bill:

Madam Speaker, I will vote for this bill. It can help working people, and it will send a strong message that we need a National Labor Relations Board committed to fairness in the workplace.

But as I said 2 years ago, I have serious reservations about lessening the role of the secret ballot in union elections. Workers should not be intimidated by pressure from either business or labor in making decisions about organizing a union.

However, it is clear that the NLRB has clearly failed to protect workers from intimidation and union-busting. That is why I support this bill even though it is far from perfect.

And while I support the rule because it allows the House to consider some meaningful amendments, I am disappointed that others were not included. For example, I thought we ought to have made changes to make the procedure for decertifying unions like those for establishing unions. We should also have considered setting deadlines for NLRB decisions.

I would hope those amendments, and others, maybe even a sunset clause, will be considered in the Senate not only because they could improve this legislation but because open debate on amendments might help reduce the divisions and polarization about this bill.

But the House should pass the bill, imperfect though it is, so the Senate can continue the process of reforming our labor laws to better protect workers' rights while also working towards balance, fairness, and objectivity in the way that the NLRB must do its job.

Rep. Udall had "serious reservations" about taking away workers' right to the secret ballot. But what role did $75,000 in campaign contributions from Big Labor play in quieting his conscience and downplaying his "serious reservations"? In any case, the Boulder Democrat sounds very conflicted.

Even the reliably liberal Denver Post editorial board called Udall on the carpet for his co-sponsorship of the bill:

And Udall, who wants to be Colorado’s next senator, should know that elections here are won by wooing over moderate, independent-minded voters. Casting votes like this won’t help. The proposal died only after Senate Democrats could attract only one Republican vote, from Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter, to stop a GOP filibuster against the bill.

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act also would have denied workers the right to a secret ballot on the question of whether they want to be represented by a union at all. The measure, which passed the House 241-185, is sure to be back because organized labor has made it the top priority in the new Democratic-controlled Congress.

But the tenets of the bill aren’t Western values, and our lawmakers should oppose this unprecedented intrusion of federal power into the collective bargaining process and private workplaces.

I can almost hear the campaign ad now: "Mark Udall... in line with a special interest agenda, out of step with Western values."

Udall Opened up to Attack for Votes Paid for by Union Leaders

A charter school operator makes $4,600 in campaign contributions to well-known school choice supporter Bob Schaffer after Schaffer cast a vote as member of the State Board of Education in favor of the operator's charter school application. And the Left goes into full attack mode, pumped up with manufactured outrage.

Boulder liberal Mark Udall accepts hundreds of thousands of dollars from union leaders before he sponsors and lobbies Congress to pass an onerous bill (HR 800) at their behest, one that would strip workers of the right to secret ballot elections. And you can hear the crickets chirping.

Well, almost. One mixed-up liberal commenter at the Dead Governors site categorized the contributions as follows: "Udall is supported by hard working Americans." Only someone who isn't aware of (or supports) the coercive tactics unions use to raise political funds could make such a naive statement.

Interestingly, most Americans do get it, and do see the problem with Udall's campaign contributions and his support of HR 800. A 2006 poll conducted by Zogby (no link available) found that 55 percent of hard-working Americans believe that "labor unions have too much influence on our political leaders and public policy."

Udall happens to be on the wrong side of that one, choosing the influence of union leaders over the majority of Americans who support the rights of workers to associate but reject the coercive tactics and political corruption that compels some people to furnish funds for causes and candidates they do not support.

So, while some on the Left would like to downplay their own hypocrisy and the point of attack they've opened up for their own candidate, the issue won't go away.

Not a Moderate

Yesterday, David Harsanyi, a writer and blogger for the Denver Post made the following comment on his blog:

But let’s define our terms: A “moderate” means a candidate that sees things a little more clearly — like a Democrat. As my co-blogger David Sirota proves in his posts, there is rarely a conservative who isn’t “far-right” or “extreme.” Conservative positions are by default extreme to many liberals.

So while we’re on the topic of moderate candidates: Udall, who I admire for many reasons, is an unwavering liberal. Not a moderate. His recent vote for the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” is further proof that he stands to the left of the mainstream.

In case you are counting, the score since we began writing on this blog as to whether Mark Udall is a moderate or liberal is as follows:

Extreme 2
Liberal 5
Moderate 0
Conservative 0

Most of those votes come from the MSM, though a couple come from left wing (by their own description) blogs.

Harsani likely wouldn't object if we put him in the "very far left wing" camp, given his comments in this one post.