More Wisdom From The West

Mike Saccone of the Grand Junction Sentinel is having a war of words with the lefties. He comments:

So why is criticizing conservative talking head Rush Limbaugh a bad tactic ahead of the 2008 election? … In a nutshell: it does nothing to burnish Udall’s moderate credentials. Indeed, allying oneself with Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, on a resolution that will have no binding effect is, well, kind of a nonstarter. Sure it’s a principled stance, but it’s nothing more than that.

More importantly, it lets politicos, from Schaffer to state Sen. Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, stand back and lob the “Boulder liberal” label * at Udall...

Nonetheless, it’s a political stance and an electoral risk [Mark ] Udall did not have to take.

This is the second Saccone essay on the subject. He got beat up by the local liberals and David Sirota on the first one. We like short essays, so we will take on Sirota (the commentator, who according to a gang of four colleague, grabs attention by standing on one foot and spinning. Picture him in a pink tutu with fuzzy yellow bedroom slippers.) in another post.

*Note that we normally kill links embedded in quotes, but the Saccone link was so full of wisdom that we left it in. (Yes, we are laughing as this is being written.)

Udall's Resolution Folly Bound to Hurt Him on Western Slope

In light of the justifiably stern rebuke Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall received from the Grand Junction Sentinel yesterday, this nugget of information on Colorado's recent U.S. Senate race poll numbers doesn't bode well for Udall's performance on the Western Slope:

According to the poll results, 39 percent of Western Slope voters prefer Schaffer, and 27 percent support Udall. Twenty-six percent of Western Slope voters, the poll shows, are undecided.

Already 12 points behind, since the survey was conducted before Udall's anti-Limbaugh resolution folly, the Democrat's numbers on the far side of the state only figure to push him even further behind. That 27 percent figure may recede, while independent conservative Republican Bob Schaffer could very well pick up more support from the large crop of undecideds.

Old News, But Still News

Last month, Bill Ritter and Mark Udall went to testify to Congress on renewable energy. The Grand Junction Sentinel was so unhappy with Ritter that they have begun calling him "Denver Governor:"

But for the governor of Denver, nuclear power didn’t rate a mention when it came to talking about how Colorado can save the earth.

We note that Mark Udall's name is strangely missing from this article, even though he is a sponsor of an amendment to the bill and he, too, ignored the potential for clean nuclear energy. He not only ignored the potential, he followed his Sierra Club masters like a little puppy on a leash to ensure that nuclear energy would not be counted as clean energy.

Udall Fans To Be Disappointed

A long time New Mexico political reporter/blogger is reporting that Tom Udall will be giving the NM Senate race a pass.

If you want to read good political reporting, read the whole post. It is quite long.

It does make one mistake. We would guess Colorado political news passes slowly across the border:

For Udall, who recently assumed a position on the House Appropriations Committee, the politicos said the decision was wise. His importance to the NM Congressional delegation has grown with his new House assignment and a statewide senate run would have been brutal for the liberal lawmaker. However, he will probably still be a frequent visitor to the Senate side of the Capitol come 2009. Tom's cousin, Mark Udall, is heavily favored to capture a Colorado senate seat next year.

Last poll we heard about, Mark Udall's "lead" was one percent in a poll with a 4.4% margin of error.

Planning For This Moment...

CQPolitics reports:

Democratic Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado said his cousin, Tom Udall, has “been planning for this moment,” but noted that [ Bill ] Richardson remains a key player in the process. Udall was not expected to announce anything Thursday.

New Poll Results

The Rocky Mountain News is reporting that the race is a dead heat between Bob Schaffer and Mark Udall.

According to Ciruli's poll, Udall has 36 percent of voter support and Schaffer 35 percent, with 9 percent hoping someone else will join the race and 21 percent undecided.

Of course, the Rocky got comments from both camps, with the most interesting comment from the Mark Udall camp:

Mike Melanson, Udall's campaign manager, said Schaffer is having trouble with his Republican base because he opposed Referendum C, a measure approved by voters to shore up the state budget and had support from many Republicans, including business leaders.

We suspect that this is wishful thinking. This writer voted for Refs C and D and has come to regret it. It passed with 52%, which isn't a big margin. If C and D were up again, and they may well be in 2010, it isn't certain that either would pass. Further, if Bill Ritter hooks his star to tax increases, as he seems to be doing, it isn't certain that he would win reelection.

A Day Late, A Dollar Short

Yesterday, we pointed out that the active military wasn't at all upset about Rush Limbaugh's comments.

Really? Jim ought to ask the average man or woman in uniform before he throws more fodder into the big blue lie machine. Rush Limbaugh's program plays on Armed Forces Radio. If there was any feeling among the military itself that Rush was disrespectful of the military, the military would be taking action to replace him.

It's nice to see that we have an audience that acts on our observations. Today PeakDems tried to gin up a response. There isn't a lot of point in following that link unless you need the KVOR Advertising Sales Manager's name, email, and phone number. A not so subtle threat, we would guess.

All you phony soldiers in Colorado Springs should contact KVOR about Rush

One of their "fans" wrote a response:

Gee, I didn't know that there was anyone in Colorado Springs who washed out of boot camp after 44 days, and then went around claiming to be an Army Ranger ordered to commit atrocities in order to gin up opposition to the war based on total lies.

And here, Mike, you have always bitched and whined and complained about Mr. Bush supposedly lying to get us INTO the war, now you're doing nothing but repeating total bullshit in an obviously bogus attempt to get us out. Have you no shame?

The funny thing isn't the response, though that is funny. It is that the fine folks at the El Paso Democrat Party (I hope I have that right) wouldn't think to start trying to organize a response from "soldiers" until we pointed out that there hadn't been one. They aren't a day late. They are a week late.

The reason they are a dollar short is that they threw it into the big blue lie machine and Tim Gill hasn't replaced it yet. Not to worry. He will.

The first three notes just happen to be: do re mi

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 19
moderate 0
conservative (not in this lifetime)

It was incremented today when the Grand Junction Sentinel made the following comment:

It’s curious that Udall, a certified liberal who is seeking statewide office in a state that does not always vote in a certifiably liberal fashion, has bought into a phony attack on Limbaugh propagated by Media Matters, the liberal Internet group. Even after reading the transcript of Limbaugh’s Sept. 26 show posted on Media Matters’ Web site, it takes a considerable stretch to conclude Limbaugh’s “phony soldiers” comment referred to military personnel who merely favor a speedy U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

We started this scoreboard when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm was routinely calling Mark Udall a "liberal," "reliably left wing," and even "extremist." We do not count comments from conservative blogs and we didn't count a comment on a liberal show by a conservative politician. Those who would like to check our methodology can follow the bread crumbs backwards.

And yes, we know that we linked to the same article on two sequential posts, but each post had a different purpose.

Wisdom from Grand Junction

Wisdom from Grand Junction:

Although one might presume that they would know better, that hasn’t kept two Democrats [ Mark Udall and Ken Salazar ] who represent Colorado from joining the braying pack led by the hard-left loonies at MediaMatters.org alleging that Limbaugh has impugned the character of American servicemen with his reference last week to “phony soldiers.”

ProgressNow Attacks to Distract Attention from Udall's Attacks

How foolish, embarrassed, obsessed, outrageous, and "phony" does Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall look for his time-wasting resolution against Rush Limbaugh? How bad is this self-inflicted political wound?

It's so bad, that the Rocky Mountain News reports today an effort by Udall's Left-wing surrogates at ProgressNow to rehash tired and discredited charges against Udall's Republican opponent, Bob Schaffer.

Writes the Rocky:

On Wednesday, Schaffer said the contributor was not himself a party to the case before the board. Schaffer dismissed the allegation as an attack by Democrats on his support for school choice.

[ProgressNow leader Michael] Huttner, a lawyer who teaches at the University of Denver Law School, agreed that Schaffer did not violate Colorado's campaign finance law. But Schaffer's vote is still a conflict of interest that should be illegal, he said. "It's a loophole in the law," Huttner said.

Schaffer took contributions from David Brennan for his 2004 Senate race and again this year for his 2008 run. Brennan heads White Hat Management, which runs charter schools.

Huttner said he'll present a petition this morning calling for Schaffer to return the contributions or resign.

Even ProgressNow knows there is nothing to the controversy. They're just doing the best to take the media scrutiny off Udall for his foolish, embarrassing, self-obsessed, and phony attack on Limbaugh.

What's ironic is that neither Udall's time-wasting resolution nor Huttner's media-clamoring demand is grounded in reality. But when has the truth slowed down the Left's attacks before?

Udall for Senate???

The WSJ reports:

New Mexico Sen. Pete Domenici said he will step down from Congress after six terms next year and not seek re-election...

Even before Domenici’s decision, Democrats have been pressing Rep. Tom Udall of New Mexico to consider a run. If he should decide to do so, he would be joining a 2008 Senate field in which his cousin, Colorado Rep. Mark Udall, already is running for the Senate next door.

Jim Spencer's Curious Quote

Today, Jim Spencer made a curious comment:

Still, I'm glad Udall called out Limbaugh. Limbaugh's disrespect for the military is every bit as bad as MoveOn's.

Really? Jim ought to ask the average man or woman in uniform before he throws more fodder into the big blue lie machine. Rush Limbaugh's program plays on Armed Forces Radio. If there was any feeling among the military itself that Rush was disrespectful of the military, the military would be taking action to replace him.

Further, embedded reporters in Iraq would have long ago filed stories about the discontent in the ranks over the comments. Most embedded reporters are liberals and would love to push any theme that damages Rush Limbaugh. There hasn't been a single story about soldier discontent, which suggests that the military down to the individual soldier has great respect for Rush and knows that he has great respect for them.

Spencer is right about one thing, though.

well, you got yourself a re-election campaign issue.

My guess, as a Retired Army Officer, is that Udall has handed Republicans in Colorado a campaign issue. I would be very disappointed if they didn't use it to beat Mark Udall bloody among veterans and military voters and their families. Most of us see through this stunt.

A Letter to the Editor of the Denver Post

An Aurora man took Mark Udall to task today in the Denver Post for his resolution.

The Udall apologists were immediately all over him, including a claim that Limbaugh "doctored his tape."

Could Limbaugh or anyone "doctor" a tape? Not likely considering the number of tape copies that must exist. For example, the show in Denver is broadcast two hours later than the same show is broadcast in Colorado Springs.

The next guy admits that Limbaugh put his comments in context within two minutes.

It wasn’t until two minutes later, after lots of shuffling in the background–presumably when Rush or one of his staffers realized his gaffe, that Rush mentioned Jesse Macbeth and provided the “context” you refer to well after the fact.

One wonders what period...20 seconds...2 seconds...would have satisfied this guy, or Mark Udall for that matter. A reasonable man would think that nothing would have satisfied either.

Udall's "Self-Righteous Obsession"

Add "self-righteous obsession" to the list of descriptions of Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall's resolution to condemn radio talk show personality Rush Limbaugh. Other descriptions from across the political spectrum include "bottom-of-the-barrel desperation" and "charade" and "embarrassment."

Udall and the Rockies

Did anyone else notice that Mark Udall has said nothing about the Rockies win on Monday night? The game was being played at the same time that he and his staff were feeding the big blue lie machine with his Rush Limbaugh resolution, so apparently he was too preoccupied to notice.

On Tuesday, he wouldn't have wanted to step all over his message with something so mundane as a comment about the Rockies win. He was too busy being the Representative from MoveOn.org.

Maybe today?

Whistling a Happy Tune

The Political Realm says about Mark Udall:

The race will present a contrast for Colorado voters, will both campaigns gearing up to portray the other as too extreme. Democrats have had recent success in the state, but with more moderate candidates. If Udall is able to define his own candidacy and record, he should be in good shape.

That qualifies as calling Udall a liberal. Mark Udall, (D) MoveOn.org, hasn't even tried to define himself as anything but a flaming liberal. His allies on the left and in the msm always call him "liberal," "reliably left wing" or, occasionally "extremist." It has happened so often that we have a scoreboard that never includes conservative blogs as sources for labeling Udall. People who want to check our methodology are welcome to follow the bread crumbs backwards.

The Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 18
moderate 0
conservative (no one would believe it)

Udall Claims Limbaugh Resolution Not Partisan

Senate hopeful Mark Udall's claim that his resolution bears no partisan intentions and is a meaningful use of Congress' time rings hollow:

Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to advance a partisan message with this resolution. Nor is it my intention that Congress waste time and effort in exposing partisan hypocrisy, however tempting that goal may be.

It is my intention, however, to make clear to the men and women serving in uniform, many of whom are risking their lives on foreign soil to defend our civil liberties, that it is not acceptable for anyone to accuse them of being "phony" or false patriots because their political views may differ from those of their commander-in-chief.

Not even his supposed MoveOn cronies buy what Udall's shoveling.

So, Who Does Hillary Represent?

If Mark Udall represents Moveon.org as Eric Sondermann suggested yesterday, What does Hillary represent?

Newsbusters has the answer and an audio tape:

We are certainly better prepared and more focused on, you know, taking our arguments, and making them effective, and disseminating them widely, and really putting together a network, uh, in the blogosphere, in a lot of the new progressive infrastructure, institutions that I helped to start and support like Media Matters and Center for American Progress.

So, from now on, it will be Senator Hillary Clinton, (D) Media Matters.

Official Text of Udall's Resolution

The official text of the Mark Udall, (D) MoveOn.org, resolution against Rush Limbaugh appears on the Library of Congress site.

The list of original co-sponsors is also at that site. He couldn't even get Diana DeGette to sign on, which shows just how far out this resolution is ("where the buses don't run" as Brit Hume said about MoveOn.org on Sunday).

Not surprisingly, Mark Udall's ally in trying to establish a department of peace in the President's cabinet (no kidding), Dennis Kucinich, is on the list.

Mark Udall Update: Resolution Introduced Late Monday Night

Looks like Mark Udall finally followed through on his promise to introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh:

U.S. Rep. Mark Udall offered legislation Monday condemning talk-show host Rush Limbaugh for remarks he made about "phony soldiers."

"Congress should make clear that Mr. Limbaugh's use of the term 'phony soldiers' is beneath contempt," Udall said.
. . .
Udall's resolution, introduced Monday night, says that Congress condemns "the personal attacks made by the broadcaster Rush impugning the integrity and professionalism of Americans serving in the Armed Forces."

There were 19 co-sponsors Monday night. None were from Colorado.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked other senators to sign a letter of censure.

This will make a nice campaign ad next year, as Udall's attempt to placate his left flank by politicizing the military in a cheap use of a phony smear only reveals his truly immoderate positions.

The only thing "beneath contempt" is the political grandstanding by Udall and other Democrats based on a debunked "scandal".

As pointed out over at Schaffer v Udall, is the would-be Senator simply groveling to the MoveOn crowd and throwing them a bone--and thus moving further to the left and out of Ken Salazar and Bill Ritter's "middle-of-the-road" moderate Democrat positioning, while not actually enjoying any accolades (indeed being criticized and opposed for his "meaningless resolution") from his supposed supporters?

More at Slapstick Politics, including earlier pre-resolution analysis.