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."

Mark Udall's Hypocrisy on "Big Oil" Attacks Made Clear Through Wife's Investments

Today's Denver Post headline misses the point: "Udall's wife invested in renewables". From the story:

Maggie Fox last year purchased between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of PowerShares Exchange Traded Fund Wilderhill Clean Energy, according to a financial disclosure released Monday.

Fox also held between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of Progress Energy Inc., a Fortune 250 energy company pursuing renewable energy technologies. Most of the electricity it produces, however, still comes from oil, gas and coal. [emphasis added]

Dick Wadhams raised the point, but the Post story let it go:

Wadhams said it was "deep hypocrisy" that Udall "attacks Big Oil while the Udall family personally profited from Big Oil stocks."

One watchdog-group spokesman, however, said there isn't a clear conflict.

The primary issue here is not about conflict of interest, but about public hypocrisy.

Both Aspect Energy where Bob Schaffer worked and Progress Energy from which Mark Udall's wife profited both produce most of their energy from traditional fossil fuels. Both companies also invest in developing renewable energy sources (Bob Schaffer himself was active in promoting renewable energy development in his role with CHx Capital, part of Aspect Energy). What's the difference between the two companies, beyond public relations and political consciousness?

How about the relative size of the two companies? Aspect Energy brought in about $360 million in 2007. Progress Energy reported $9 billion-plus in 2007 operating revenues, about 25 times larger. If Aspect Energy is Big Oil, Progress Energy must be Gargantuan Oil.

And Progress Energy, which provides utilities directly to Florida consumers, has recently sought a rate hike on the families and businesses who get electricity from its oil and gas production. Is Mark Udall's wife profiting off Big Oil exploitation of hard-working Americans?

Simply put, No, unless you buy into the populist demagoguery that Mark Udall and his pro-Democrat surrogates have been practicing. But the hypocrisy and duplicity of those complaining about Bob Schaffer's ties to "Big Oil" - and silent on Maggie Fox's ties to a bigger producer of fossil fuels - are now writ large over this campaign.

Mark Udall Can't Even Get Populist Rhetoric on Gasoline Prices Straight

It's not just Taylor West. No matter who his spokesperson is, Mark Udall can demagogue the energy issue, but he has a problem doing it coherently. From yesterday's Aspen Times:

Udall called a news conference to tell voters high gasoline prices aren't going away and drivers need to be more fuel efficient. [emphasis added]

No surprise there. Despite all the populist rhetoric to the contrary, we know that Mark Udall and Nancy Pelosi - beholden to a radical environmentalist agenda - have no interest in lowering gas prices. They would rather dictate the way you live. And that doesn't even include Udall and the Democrats' love for the "windfall profits tax" on oil companies, which would only end up further raising the price at the pump.

All of which makes this statement in the same Aspen Times article perfectly hollow:

"While Mark Udall is working to lower gas prices, Bob Schaffer was taking close to $400,000 a year from the oil and gas industry he worked for. Now we know why gas prices are so high," said Udall's campaign spokeswoman, Tara Trujillo.

At a conference in which Mark Udall tells people to get used to higher gas prices, his spokesperson makes a deceptive statement that Udall is "working to lower gas prices."

Mark Udall will continue repeating nonsense like this on the presumption that enough Coloradans are idiots and will lap it all up. Yes, Tara, Bob Schaffer made a six-figure salary working to develop many different kinds of energy (including oil, including renewable sources), and that has raised the price of gasoline? Clearly, Udall is operating the typical Democrat strategy of promoting and feeding off rampant economic illiteracy.

Meanwhile, Mark Udall goes on advocating policies (e.g., blocking domestic energy exploration) that actually work to raise gasoline prices. To distract voters from this fact, expect his campaign to continue dishing out the incoherent populist nonsense.

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.

Mark Udall's Priorities Out of Whack as Skyrocketing Energy Prices Hit Coloradans

Vince Carroll of the Rocky Mountain News, having seen the animated Left-wing attack ads on his newspaper's website, took a minute to investigate the claims behind the facile label attached to Republican candidate Bob Schaffer:

Has it really come to this: that working for an energy company is now a liability - an actual badge of shame - for a candidate for public office in Colorado?

It's hard to believe most voters are so unsophisticated - about economics and the price of gasoline, among other things. In fact, I don't believe they are. But some people do.

The left-wing activists over at ProgressNowAction recently took out an ad on the Rocky Web site trumpeting the claim that GOP Senate candidate Bob Schaffer is actually "Big Oil Bob," a fellow somehow complicit not only in escalating gas prices but also in war profiteering in Iraq. And these sleazy themes may well become a staple promoted by independent political groups as we approach Election Day.

After Schaffer left Congress in early 2003, he did indeed go to work for Denver-based Aspect Energy. But far from being a member in good standing of Big Oil (not that it would be damning anyway), Aspect Energy is a medium-sized independent. It's an aggressively entrepreneurial outfit whose current hydrocarbon production, moreover, is 80 percent in natural gas, according to its Web site.

At first, Schaffer worked mostly on Aspect's charitable efforts, which focus heavily on education. Eventually he shifted to the business side, where he ended up, he told me, as vice president for business development.

ProgressNowAction professes outrage (it's always hard to tell if a political hit squad's indignation is sincere) because Schaffer "voted for over $33 billion in tax breaks for Big Oil" in 2001, naturally neglecting to mention that the price of oil averaged $23 a barrel that year, as opposed to the stratospheric level of today.

Meanwhile, Mark Udall is a ranking member of the majority party running the "worst Congress ever," a Congress that sits idly by while gasoline and other energy prices skyrocket. No drilling in ANWR. No new oil refineries. No new nuclear energy plants.

Even a very carefully studied and limited drilling exploration of the Roan Plateau (a moderate bipartisan approach supported by Gov. Bill Ritter and Bob Schaffer) is not good enough for Udall.

So while the Big Blue Lie Machine uses "sleazy themes" to tar Bob Schaffer, it's Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall whose energy policies are actually harming the pocketbooks of average Coloradans. As Investor's Business Daily astutely points out:

Failing to allow drilling in ANWR. We have, as Bush noted, estimated capacity of a million barrels of oil a day from this source alone -- enough for 27 million gallons of gas and diesel. But Congress won't touch it, fearful of the clout of the environmental lobby. As a result, you pay at the pump so your representative can raise campaign cash.

That hits close to home. Coloradans "pay at the pump" so Mark Udall "can raise campaign cash." But then again, we already knew that Udall's - and ProgressNow's - priorities were out of whack.

Another Inconsistent Mark Udall Comment

Now that 2008 is two months old, Mark Udall is running from the anti-fossil fuels energy record that he has fought so hard to make since he entered public life.

The Stirling Journal-Advocate reports that Mark Udall said:

“For me, all paths lead to and from energy,” he said Thursday.

He said that while the U.S. needs to explore and develop alternative energy sources, we cannot completely walk away from fossil fuels.

It was just last year that Mark Udall fought as though his political life depended on it against drilling on the Roan Plateau. He would very likely still hold that position if Bill Ritter hadn't seen the pot of tax gold at the end of that rainbow. When Bill Ritter folded on the issue, Mark Udall couldn't do an about face quickly enough.

We would guess that this statement means that Mark Udall now supports development of ANWR oil, or does it? Mark Udall now is willing to promote oil shale development in Western Colorado, right?

In all of Mark Udall's long career, this is the only statement that we know of that even remotely supports US oil and gas oil development and use. Yes, he is willing to allow offshore drilling, but only off the Cuban coast.

Not long ago, Mark Udall dropped a similar comment about nuclear power which he has never before supported. He didn't follow up on it with legislation or a strong advocacy of nuclear power, he just uttered the word so that he could claim both sides of this issue.

We suspect that that is what he is doing here.

We are putting both of these comments under the tag "Udall as a Liar."

Production Values Hide Udall's Lack of Values

The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that the DSCC has created a new "disappearing Act" YouTube ad.

The cost of producing things like this is so low that given the proper software, one person could do this in an afternoon, though it might take longer to render. It appears to have been done on something like Lightwave 9. There isn't even all that much animation in it, mostly making the camera move. It is a matter of plopping in a background, creating two foreground objects and making one disappear. They did that three times in 15 seconds. The intro is the reverse.

It's impressive for anyone who doesn't understand what is going on. The hard part is getting the photography. We're a bit suspicious of the photography, but who knows?

Expect to see a lot of this kind of thing from now on in this election and all the ones to come.

As to its political value, we would ask just one question: So?

This ad is more a reflection of Mark Udall's willingness to pander to special interests when it comes to national security issues (oil and gas production / military readiness) and his willingness to buy votes with SCHIP than it is a reflection on Schaffer. Schaffer doesn't need to go public on the issues for months.

This ad could be parodied in a way that would make Mark Udall look bad. It isn't well thought out.

We're Begging For It

This may belong on the Ritter Watch blog. Our friends at Colorado Confidential have discovered that Colorado is one of the five most hospitable jurisdictions in the world for oil and gas exploration. Their comment:

It turns out there's a reason that Colorado is such a hotbed of oil and gas activity: We're begging for it.

The report they quote is here:

Essentially, this survey was designed to determine in which jurisdictions public policy factors, such as taxation and regulation, and the business environment more generally, constitute significant barriers to investment in the upstream petroleum industry...

It seems odd that they should be worried. The Democrats are working overtime, from Mark Udall in Congress to Bill Ritter and the legislature to make Colorado as inhospitable to business as possible. Give them two more years and they will not only chase the oil and gas industry out of state, they will chase everything else out.

They and Hillary are alike: She has more ideas than the country can afford. They and Hillary are different in that Hillary admits her addiction to big government, but they don't seem smart enough to have figured it out.

Udall Spokesman Says Ad is False, Denver Post Verifies Ad is True

As documented by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) blog, the spokesman for Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall (the would-be Senator from DailyKos) is not telling the truth. The dispute is over an ad posted by an independent group that highlights Udall's sponsorship of a bill to open offshore Cuba to the drills of American oil companies:



From NRSC:

The Denver Post says the ad is true:

Title: Cuban Hero Award

Sponsor: Common Sense Issues, Inc.

Type: Television

Message: Democratic senate candidate Mark Udall has introduced a bill that would allow American companies to drill for oil in environmentally-sensitive waters controlled by the Cuban government, potentially helping the economy of an American enemy.

Grade: True

Yet, Mark Udall continues to claim that the ad is false:

Udall campaign spokesman Mike Melanson called both ads false and misleading. (Rocky Mountain News, 12/4/2007)

Why is Mark Udall trying to mislead the people of Colorado?

An excellent question. Instead of explaining or justifying Udall's leading support behind this issue, his spokesman tries to deny a fact that can easily be verified. What's going on here?

Tax Them Out of Colorado

The Pueblo Chieftan observes that Mark Udall's brother is taking a different, but equally effective tack to try to destroy the oil and gas industry in Colorado. He just wants to tax it out of existance, and he is not above twisting facts and figures to make it happen:

Perhaps Colorado could have increased the $132 million it collected in mineral severance taxes in 2005 to $382 million by using Wyoming’s tax system. But it’s doubtful. First of all, energy companies could stop or greatly reduce drilling in Colorado if the tax burden becomes too onerous, meaning less production and less revenue.

Consider, too, that Wyoming levies no - zero, zilch, nada - personal and corporate income tax. Colorado’s state income taxes yield $5.5 billion a year, including nearly $500 million from corporations. Oil and gas revenues are chump change by comparison...

Many environmentalists’ real agenda is to drive oil and gas development out of Colorado entirely, not actually collect more revenue from it. That’s the inconvenient truth.

Rocky: Wrong on the Roan

The Rocky Mountain News, in a soft spoken and polite rebuke of Ken Salizar, Bill Ritter, John Salizar, and Mark Udall said that a drilling ban on the Roan was "wrong."

Like it or not, "old energy" is still economy's lifeblood...

In their public statements, backers of "clean" or renewable energy are often modest about the potential these power sources offer today's consumers. Even the most ambitious legislation, for instance, usually provides for a decade or longer for renewables to make up 15 percent or 20 percent of a utility's energy portfolio.

In practice, however, many of the same people oppose virtually all opportunities for major production of "old energy," such as on the Roan and the Outer Continental Shelf. Such opposition could of course force green technologies to assume a larger role even where they're not yet realistic options to coal, oil and natural gas...

Sen. Ken Salazar pressured the Bureau of Land Management to delay leases on the Roan for at least another four months, as requested by Ritter. And the energy bill passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month includes a provision from Colorado Reps. Mark Udall and John Salazar that would ban drilling on BLM land at the top of the plateau forever.

...it would be foolish to ban the carefully regulated extraction of natural gas from huge deposits such as the Roan in the hope that the economy can survive unscathed a forced march into a green energy future.

"Scenic" Colorado

It is fun to watch the choice of words that editors and reporters make and how that choice is used to try to sway opinion. To read the Rocky Mountain News, you would think that the Roan Plateau was a Rocky Mountain National Park like feature:

The scenic Roan, beloved by hunters and anglers for its wilderness backcountry and diverse wildlife, is estimated to contain enough natural gas to heat 9 million homes for nine years.

It might be "beloved" by a very small number of folks, but it isn't a name that was well known to very many Colorado citizens until the the last month or so.

And of course, we can't forget the national treasure that the Vermillion basin has become since Bill Ritter's flyover.

Ritter also has asked the BLM not to lease the scenic Vermillion Basin in northwest Colorado for oil and gas drilling.

If the Rocky really believes that those are two unique and irreplacable treasures that gas drilling will destroy, it needs to make that case. If it can't make that case, then it needs to be more careful in its descriptions. Every square inch of Colorado is beautiful and beloved by someone, but that doesn't mean that we should put the whole state off limits to mining and drilling even if Mark Udall, John Salazar, and Ken Salazar think we should.

Drilling Off Cuba, OK, Drilling In Colorado Nixed

In Mark Udall's consistent struggle to be inconsistent, he has sponsored a bill to allow US Oil Companies to drill for oil and gas off Cuba.

Wouldn't it be nice if he allowed the people and elected officials of Western Colorado the same opportunity to benefit from gas drilling that he is willing to give Castro?

Democrats At War On Colorado Economy

In a scathing editorial that did not mention Mark Udall's name, but easily could have, the Gazette once again used the word "extremist"

Gov. Bill Ritter stepped off a helicopter and into hot water July 3, when, after an aerial tour of Northwestern Colorado with Sen. Ken Salazar, he declared that the Vermillion Basin should be off limits to oil and gas drilling. His opposition apparently came in an epiphany. “The governor in a moment of spontaneity asked the pilot to land on the Vermillion,” Ritter spokesman Evan Dreyer told the media. “He felt it would be important to stand on the Vermillion with the senator (Salazar) to get a sense of the place.”

In all this communing with nature, Ritter evidently forgot to consult with local elected officials, who worked for years to draw up a leasing plan they are happy with and who say a drilling ban will cost their citizens millions of dollars in tax and royalty revenues. They weren’t pleased...

Commissioners pointed out that energy development in the basin is something they welcome. But suddenly, after years of consultations and public process, Ritter is attempting to monkey-wrench the arrangement. That’s becoming a pattern with this governor. He’s also attempting to derail oil and gas leases on top of the Roan Plateau, another suddenly sacrosanct area for anti-drilling extremists, and is in the process of packing the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission with people who are indifferent or hostile to the industry.

The Gazette appears to be giving Mark Udall a free ride after twice calling him or his environmentalist policies "extremist." They could easily mention, but didn't, that Udall is a very active Ken Salazar / Bill Ritter ally in this war on the Colorado economy. He has tried to restrict public access to roads on federal property and he has tried to deep six drilling on the Roan.

The editorial is really good from beginning to end. We had a hard time cherry picking items to quote. We suggest you read the whole thing.