Al Gore, MoveOn.org to Help Pay Campaign Bills for Boulder Liberal Mark Udall

The Lefty tag team of Al Gore and MoveOn.org are digging deep to raise funds for Boulder liberal Mark Udall. Further confirmation of the results of our "Mark Udall is not a moderate" scoreboard.

Rocky Mountain Right aptly notes:

The same people who branded General Petraeus a traitor are now raising money for Mark Udall, saying he would be a Senator in the mold of Al Franken

Funny - Mark Udall is trying so hard these days to portray himself as a bipartisan "independent leader." Yet during his career in Congress, Udall has voted with his party leaders 92 percent of the time - far more than his opponent Bob Schaffer.

Al Gore and MoveOn.org understand this reality. And Mark Udall knows on which side his bread is buttered. In the closing days of a tight election, Udall is leaning on his liberal friends to pay the bills.

Even Mark Udall's Weak Debate Rhetoric on "Working Together" is Pure Fantasy

Rocky Mountain Right has outdone itself this time with a stinging 30-second video:

How bad was Mark Udall's Monday debate performance? Even his empty platitudes were based in fantasy. Udall voted along party lines 96 percent of the time. Bob Schaffer voted along party lines 84 percent of the time.

Who is more independent and non-partisan? Despite Mark Udall's weak rhetoric, the facts don't lie.

Numbers Don't Lie: Bob Schaffer Far More Independent than Mark Udall

Tying together two posts from yesterday ... First, we highlighted GOP U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer's observation that his apparent opponent, Boulder liberal Democrat Mark Udall, is no "independent outsider." Later, we highlighted Schaffer's strong political independence based on his relatively high number of votes against his party while serving three terms in the U.S. House.

Since Schaffer touted his opponent's strong affinity to the national Democrats' liberal agenda, and the Left-wing "watchdog" group Media Matters made such a big deal that Schaffer cast "more than 80 percent" of his Congressional votes with the Republican party line, it seemed appropriate to extend the comparison. The source is the Washington Post's Congress votes database.

During his three terms in the House, Schaffer cast 534 of his 3,246 (or about 1 in 6) votes against the majority Republican party.

During his four-plus terms in the House, Udall has cast only 424 of his 5,372 (or about 2 in 25) votes against the Democratic party. And most of that time, the Democrats were in the minority.

Why is that important? As the statistics bear out, the majority party has a higher ratio of vote solidarity among its members because it carries the agenda. So, despite the fact that Schaffer spent his entire tenure in the majority and most of Udall's tenure has been spent in the minority, the Boulder liberal has toed the party line much more than his Republican counterpart ever did. Moreover, despite the fact that Schaffer cast more than 2,000 fewer votes during his service, he cast 100 more votes in dissension from his own party than Udall has yet to do.

If the Democrats are in charge, Udall follows the party line much more than Schaffer would with his Republicans in charge (unfortunately, a far less likely scenario in 2009): In the current session with the Democrats in charge, Udall has voted along with Nancy Pelosi and the party agenda 95.3 percent of the time!

Conclusion? Schaffer was right to observe that there is no "independent outsider" running on the Democratic ticket in this race. And Media Matters looks very silly for having made an issue out of the percentage of votes Schaffer cast in line with his own party.

Based on the objective measure of their respective Congressional voting records, Bob Schaffer will be a far more independent Senator for Colorado than Mark Udall would.

Schaffer's Integrity and Independence Highlight Media Matters' Foolishness

Following up on the subject matter of an earlier posting here today, the overpaid, underworked staff of Media Matters has outdone itself once again. Dissecting and parsing words to find any angle of criticism of media and political figures on the right half of the political spectrum, Media Matters often makes itself look all the more foolish. While they link to their sources, they don't really care if their readers follow those links.

In another grand twist of irony, here's one of Media Matters claims that Schaffer's statements were misleading:

According to Cillizza's post, Schaffer also "rejected the perception -- fostered by Democrats -- that he is too conservative to win statewide" and quoted Schaffer's claim that he voted against his party "a lot" while serving in Congress from 1997 to 2003. However, according to The Washington Post's "The U.S. Congress Votes Database," Schaffer voted with the Republican Party more than 80 percent of the time during his three terms in Congress.

Sounds convincing to the uninitiated, but quickly following the links puts Media Matters' "gotcha" into context. Remember that there is a lot of pressure to cast votes with your party when you are in the majority. And newer members of Congress especially are tempted to go along to vie for important posts such as committee chairmanships. So, in that light, here goes.

In his first term as a new Congressman, Schaffer voted with the majority GOP 86.8 percent of the time - less than the average member of the House caucus.

In his second term, Schaffer voted with the majority GOP 82.0 percent of the time - only 11 House Republicans stuck to the party line less.

In his third and final term, honored by a self-imposed term limits pledge, Schaffer voted with the majority GOP 81.3 percent of the time - only Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul had a lower rate among House members of his party.

Of the 3,246 votes Bob Schaffer cast in his three terms of Congress, 534 of them (or about one in six) were against his own party. Using Schaffer's own terminology, 534 is a "lot of" votes, and as demonstrated by doing some very simple research, a lot higher ratio than most members of either party (while in the majority) can tout.

Attacking Schaffer for his integrity and his independence is very foolish, but considering the overpaid, underworked operatives that populate the Media Matters office, completely unsurprising.