U-Turn Udall: From "Stand" To "Sand" On Domestic Drilling

U-turn Udall goes flippity-floppity once again, this time on offshore drilling.

Mark Udall Ad--“Stand”--5/14/08

Mark Udall: Standing on your own: that's just the Colorado way, and it's what America's got to do with our energy policy. Which is why I've led Republicans and Democrats to end our addiction to foreign oil, develop renewable fuels, and provide tax incentives to grow Colorado's new energy economy.

We need energy solutions--green jobs and a cleaner future--for Colorado.

I'm Mark Udall and I approve this message because we've got to get this right.

Well apparently Udall didn't get it right back in May. Domestic drilling now? Great! Back in May? Not so much. There appears to be more air in this ad than the ones powering those turbines:
Mark Udall Ad--“Line in the Sand”--8/12/08

Mark Udall: We got to draw a line in the sand, that starting today, right now, America’s going to work toward energy independence.

Through new technology and increased efficiency, and with all this wind, why depend so much on foreign oil? We got to produce our own oil and gas, here in our country. And keep it here to power America’s economy.

I’m Mark Udall, I approve this message because we have so much at stake, and together we can get this right.

Besides the rather annoyingly colloquial "we got" instead of "we have to" (paging my old English teachers--see, I was paying attention in class!), this rather large shift in policy outlook reveals a candidate who has read the tea leaves and is slowly losing his once sizable lead. With 67% of Americans supporting domestic petroleum production increases, it was quickly becoming obvious that Udall's special interest allies and environmental record was turning into a distinct liability.

Bob Schaffer's campaign manager Dick Wadhams summed up what that 10 year record of domestic drilling opposition looks like:

“Boulder Liberal Mark Udall has made a remarkable transformation from domestic drilling opponent to suddenly deciding it should be a part of our energy policy,” said Bob Schaffer for Senate campaign manager Dick Wadhams. “It is quite amazing how public pressure for more domestic drilling has forced Boulder Liberal Udall to make such a remarkable u-turn on domestic drilling.”

“Boulder Liberal Udall has voted against offshore drilling fifteen times, voted against drilling in Alaska four times, voted against exploration on Colorado’s Roan Plateau, blocked legislation for oil shale development, voted against expanding refinery capacity six times, and voted against clean coal technology six times,” Wadhams said.

Nothing like running from your record--and tossing in a little domestic oil production as part of "energy independence" that once precluded drilling from the "new energy economy."

Democrats may claim that we will not be able to "drill our way out" of high energy costs, but Udall is hoping to drill his way out of what would be an unexpected defeat in November.

Schaffer v Udall Debate--Update, Quick First Impressions

**Update--no liveblogging (no wireless at the venue), but Ben will have a full recap, and I'll have photos/video posted later).

Quick takeaways and initial impressions--Schaffer clearly had the upper hand in the debate when it came to vociferous support (the Udall side was not full), a command of the issues and the details involved in policy, and in overall demeanor. Udall's answers were forced when they weren't simply regurgitations of campaign talking points, and his rebuttals routinely eschewed marked policy differences, and instead focused on rhetoric of "bipartisanship" and the notion that "we are all Coloradans, all Americans." Udall certainly didn't appear to be comfortable in his own skin appearing before the cameras and a somewhat more open style of Q&A, with questions drawn from email submissions to 9NEWS' Adam Schrager, who moderated the debate. Schaffer was on offense from the opening remarks, with Udall trying (and failing, miserably) to play catch-up.

As for the supporters themselves (and this will be revealed in the photos and video), Schaffer's proponents were motivated and loud--"fired up and ready to go." Udall's troops showed up much later, had very little presence inside the complex or on the street, and demonstrated a lack of coordination/organization and reflected poorly on a candidate up by 10 points in the latest polls. It will be interesting to see how the MSM plays the debate today--one that favored Schaffer in all meaningful aspects and really exposed Udall as a mediocre debater and Washington insider who would rather cater to special interests and promote delays and politicking with hashed reasoning (health care is a national security issue, ya know!) rather than dealing with issues head on.

Looking forward to the next debates, Udall faces quite a challenge. The format certainly favored Schaffer, and may be one of the reasons that the Udall campaign refused to sign on to Schaffer's debate series. It is clear Udall would prefer the closed-set, no-crowd debate format with canned questions from the host. To his credit Schrager ably kept the candidates in line and on topic, and dealt with unruly Udall supporters by threatening to halt the proceedings.

RMN:

Painted into a corner by weeks of attack ads, Bob Schaffer came out swinging this morning in the first U.S. Senate debate of the season, accusing Mark Udall of flip-flopping and of being responsible for high gas prices.

Udall, a Democratic congressman from Eldorado Springs, rarely took the bait from his Republican opponent, responding most often that Congress must work together rather than continue its partisan bickering.

The topics of the debate, which drew a crowd of about 800 to the Wildlife Experience, ranged from energy to the Iraq war to the proposed expansion of Piñon Canyon military training area. But one theme seemed to emerge throughout the morning: Schaffer accusing Udall of being unwilling to make a decision and Udall responding that he prefers finding consensus rather than rushing into a bad decision.

Emblematic of this was a question over whether Colorado needs to extract oil shale from the ground. Udall said that while research is under way to determine the potential of oil shale, Colorado should not be turned into a "national sacrifice zone."

Schaffer responded: "This is part of the reason I'm running for Congress.... I do not believe constant delay is a strategy for America's energy independence."

Udall Rejects Gas Tax Holiday, Offers No Meaningful Solution To Energy Dependency

Mark Udall took a shot at Sen. Hillary Clinton and GOP presumptive nominee Sen. John McCain in rejecting a "gas tax holiday" proposal:

Yesterday in Indiana, Hillary Clinton challenged every member of Congress to go on the record with a position regarding her proposal to temporarily suspend the federal gasoline tax, and state whether they were with her or against her. Senator McCain has offered the same proposal, despite experts from all sides declaring that this plan will not actually lower costs for drivers.

Today, Congressman and Senate candidate Mark Udall responded to the challenge:
. . .
"Senator Clinton claimed yesterday that I either stand with her on this proposal or stand with the oil companies. To that I say: I stand with the families of Colorado, who aren't looking for bumper sticker fixes that don't fix anything, but for meaningful change that brings real relief and a new direction for our energy policy. We can't afford more Washington-style pandering while families keep getting squeezed.

"It is exactly the kind of short-sighted Washington game that keeps us from getting real results to our energy problem. Experts across the ideological spectrum agree that it will increase the deficit, drain money away from Colorado roads and bridges, and hurt the environment, all without actually making prices lower for drivers."

Udall's campaign philosophy on energy avoids any realistic solutions and instead offers a "diverse energy portfolio" solution that neglects current needs while dwelling instead on future energy substitutes for petroleum:

To meet this challenge, we need a more diverse portfolio of energy sources, including renewable energy. A stronger push for energy security based on renewable and sustainable energy sources like solar, biomass, wind and hydrogen does not mean that we can easily abandon oil, however. Other important energy sources like natural gas, coal and nuclear must be part of the mix. A diverse energy portfolio means that we should responsibly develop-and also conserve-these resources. Colorado and the Rocky Mountain region are blessed with many of these resources, including abundant natural gas and cleaner-burning coal. We can find the right balance in developing these resources responsibly, but we cannot drill our way to energy security. A substantial investment in renewable energy is essential if we want our children and future generations of Americans to be more prosperous and secure.

While no doubt worthy of discussion for meeting our long-term energy needs, Udall's plan avoids dealing with the present--playing the "short-sighted Washington game" that caters to environmental special interests that prevent the United States from becoming more energy self-sufficient by drilling for oil here rather than relying on the Middle East and other corrupt regimes.

As the gas prices soar this summer, ask yourself whether or not your elected representatives, including Rep. Mark Udall, are doing everything to alleviate the pain at the pump and not just engaging in more political grandstanding and issuing platitudes about "diverse energy portfolios" while sticking to the "game" he is so quick to criticize. Temporarily ceasing to add to the strategic petroleum reserve or even tapping it briefly provides only limited, ephemeral, calculated relief.