Fouling up the Planet by the Numbers

In what was obviously a warning to Bill Ritter and Mark Udall without mentioning either by name, the Rocky Mountain News said the following about corn ethanol:

"This dramatic expansion has substantial implications for already strained water and grassland resources in the Ogallala Aquifer region [eastern Colorado]," the report states, calculating the additional withdrawal of water from the most depleted parts of the aquifer at 59 billion to 120 billion gallons per year - comparable to the amount of water consumed by Denver Water Board customers in a year. Another potential consequence, it warns, is the loss of fragile grasslands...

Lawmakers need to recognize that alternative fuel programs come with a price that is not always obvious, and could create larger problems than the ones they're intended to cure.

Isn't it interesting that the same Mark Udall who has done so much to kill off Colorado's forests might also eventually take the blame for permanently turning eastern Colorado into a dust bowl? And he has done all of this while claiming to be an "environmentalist!"

So Be It

Eric Sondermann makes an interesting point today:

While [ Joan ] Fitz-Gerald has proven experience and a fair number of more traditional constituencies in her corner, such as unions and former Democratic politicians, the 2nd Congressional District is less "New Deal Democratic" than other Democratic strongholds, said political analyst Eric Sondermann.

"Labor doesn't hold as much sway. It's more of a 'green,' higher-education, Moveon.org area," said Sondermann, a political analyst who worked on the campaign to pass Amendment 41, which was backed by [ Jared ] Polis.

Perhaps we shouldn't write "Mark Udall, Boulder" or even "Mark Udall, Eldorado Springs." Eric Sondermann suggests it should be "Mark Udall, MoveOn.org." So be it.

A Change in Strategy and Messenger

It looks like the Senate Democrats aren't quite as anxious as Mark Udall to put Republicans on record as wanting to politicize the military. Now, Harry Reid is asking them to voluntarily sign a letter to the President of Clear Channel condemning Rush Limbaugh.

“On Friday, many Democrats joined me in drafting a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Clear Channel, Mark Mays that we will send out this week.

Oh, Friday, eh? The same day Mark Udall was peddling his embarrassing draft.

Reid's letter tries to make the point that Udall made without putting Congress on record as politicizing the military:

Our troops are fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted. It is unconscionable that Mr. Limbaugh would criticize them for exercising the fundamentally American right to free speech. Mr. Limbaugh has made outrageous remarks before, but this affront to our soldiers is beyond the pale.

One wonders if this language suggests that Harry "The War is Lost" Reid and his band of merry Senate Democrats have now come around to the position that American soldiers should be "fighting and dying to bring to others the freedoms that many take for granted." Hopefully, someone will ask Mark Udall and Harry Reid if they now favor the war and its goals or if these are just more empty words from empty suits.

If they are the latter, they only embarrass themselves further.

Phantom Resolution?

As this is written it is almost 4 pm in Washington. We are yet to see evidence that Mark Udall has actually submitted the resolution he imprudently announced he would introduce today. His official site says nothing. Care to bet that he is having second thoughts?

The left wing blogs, which were cheering for this last Friday seem to have fallen silent. There are two probable reasons for this: 1) it was based on a fraudulent charge, and 2) even the left is unwilling to risk seeing the military politicized for a short term and probably illusive gain.

Ben DeGrow observes on Mount Vitus that the incident will cost Udall respect. What Ben doesn't say is that a failure to introduce this might cost him dearly among the MoveOn.org crowd. He has put himself between a rock and a hard place.

Laughing at the Left

Colorado Confidential's Cara DeGette is publicly gnashing her teeth over the fact that Bob Schaffer doesn't have a web site with much on it.

We hope he puts off building one for many more months. The only folks who would look at it this early are the Cara Degette's of the world who wouldn't have a lot of nice things to say.

Michelle Malkin Writes About Mark Udall's Blunder

Rush Limbaugh, phony soldiers, and the Left’s desperate need for its own “Betray Us” moment

Asks [ ABC News' Brian ] Maloney: “Given the overwhelming evidence to support Limbaugh’s contention that he really was talking about phony soldiers who have faked their service, how does the left justify continuing this fabrication?”

Conservatives Salivating

Newsbusters can't wait for Mark Udall to introduce his resolution. They think it will turn into one long Democrat embarrassment:

Conservatives should hope this resolution is offered by the Democrats, for it would give us a tremendous opportunity to expose the Clinton/Soros/Media Matters/Center for American Progress apparatus. This is especially opportunistic for the press will be all over this debate on the House floor like white on rice given the man in the middle.

Just imagine the theatrical potential of Republican after Republican citing the specifics of how this smear campaign occurred, while entering into the Congressional record the actual tapes of the broadcast in question, as well as the verbatim transcript...

Next, said Republicans could point out that Congress just last year passed the Stolen Valor Act to address a number of abuses of so-called "phony soldiers."

Maybe even more delicious, the person who introduced this legislation in 2005 is a member of Udall's Colorado delegation, Democrat Rep. John T. Salazar.

Wouldn't that be a marvelous debate to be in attendance for?

Life will get entertaining beginning tomorrow.

Just a Charade

A long time ago we learned that the more links one puts in an essay the less likely the audience is to follow any of them. That is not a criticism. It is just a fact.

Last night, Ben DeGrow pointed out the outstanding essay by El Presidente. When we went to it, we saw a lot of links. Fortunately we chose to start following them. They demonstrate that Mark Udall will not just be a fool who is unwittingly politicizing the military when he submits his resolution tomorrow. He will knowingly be making himself a part of the big blue lie machine. That may help him with the MoveOn.org crowd, but it is hard to see how getting involved in this attempt to damage Rush Limbaugh through the use of misquotes will help him with the electorate.

By leading this little charade, Mark Udall will be publicly making a mockery of his own ethics standards, such as they are.

Colorado Anti-War Left Blogger: Udall "An Embarrassment"

I'm not sure where this description would fit into a watcher's "Udall is not a moderate scorecard" ... but one anti-war blogger on the Colorado Left has dubbed Boulder liberal Rep. Mark Udall "an embarrassment":

I mean really ... Udall (and Perlmutter and Salazar) couldn't even screw up enough courage to vote against the MoveOn.org condemnation, but now Udall is introducing a mirror image proposal so the Dimocrats can play 'gottcha' with the Republicans?

For further understanding of Udall's folly, check out the commentary on The Colorado Index and Slapstick Politics for more details.

On Calling Mark Udall a Fool

Earlier this morning we thought long and hard about the advisability of calling Mark Udall a fool on thecoloradoindex. We have been the biggest advocates for a civil discourse in this campaign and didn't want to be seen as hypocritical.

We think that this one time, it is appropriate to illustrate that Mark Udall's attempt to score a political point is foolish, More than foolish, it is dangerous to our democracy in a way that he and his staff should have seen.

When a politician does something as dumb as encouraging the military to politicize itself, we think he deserves to be called a fool. The founders, especially including George Washington, would call him a fool. Why should we avoid calling him a fool except out of an exaggerated and unwise sense of civility?

Now, if only we could get the blogger who called Bob Schaffer "a jackass" in a one paragraph entry yesterday to take the time to justify his use of that term, we couldn't call Mark Udall's supporters uncivil. Since he made no attempt to justify his words, we can, and we will call Mark Udall's supporters uncivil.

Digging Two Graves

Things will get interesting next week. It seems that Mark Udall has put the word out that he is going to introduce a resolution condemning Rush Limbaugh for using the term "phony soldiers." It looks more like an act of revenge for having been "forced" to vote for a resolution condemning MoveOn.org's "betray us" ad than well thought out policy.

There is a saying about revenge: "Dig two graves." Just by floating it, Mark Udall might have dug his own political grave:

SECTION 1. Congress makes the following findings:
(3) Those who serve in the Armed Forces do not relinquish their constitutional right to express their opinions regarding public policy in a manner consistent with good order and discipline.
SEC. 2. Congress --
(2) commits to judge the merits of the opinions of members of the Armed Forces regarding the policies of the United States, including those related to military actions in Iraq, without prejudice or personal bias, including refraining from unwarranted personal attacks;

This resolution, if it were passed, would remove an important democratic safety net and politicize the military. The founders feared a politicized military. George Washington put down a near coup by the Continental Army with a single speech at Newburgh, NY. That coup was being promoted by a few members of the Continental Congress who wanted a stronger central government.

The founders understood that a military that is free to criticize the government publicly (or privately) can be a danger to our democracy. Officers who have a disagreement with the political establishment have always before been required to retire or resign before expressing that disagreement.

This resolution would destroy the concept of an apolitical military, and do so with the blessings and encouragement of Congress.

This resolution won't make Rush Limbaugh the subject of any discussion. It's implications are so grave and so dangerous that it calls Mark Udall's competence and judgement to serve in Congress into serious question. That will be the subject of the discussion, and it will be a fair discussion.

The Onion Takes On Mark Udall

From the Onion:

"Now, I'm no science major, but if I'm being told by a group of people that the protons, neutrons, and electrons need unifying, then I think we owe it to the American people to go in and unify them," Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) said. "After all, isn't a message of unity what we want to send to our children?"

Fire on Pikes Peak

It looks like Mark Udall can claim his own carbon footprint in El Paso County. We have a fire on Pikes Peak today. He needs to hope that it gets put out before it gets really ugly.

Fisking the Aspen Times Letter

The folks at Drum and Cannon pounded the writer of the letter to the Aspen Times in an essay titled "Regarding a Liberal's Letter to the Aspen Times."

The essay isn't separately linkable, so go to Drum and Cannon and look for it.

Politics Can Be Fun

The Denver Post demonstrates that once elections are over, our Colorado Congressional delegation can be good natured, about coffee and donuts, anyway.

Why We Are Different

One of the obligations of a blog or blogger who wants to be taken seriously is to admit mistakes without being asked. A few days ago, we had a link to the Aspen Daily News go bad. We assumed, incorrectly, it now seems, that it was done maliciously.

It turns out that the newspaper has a routine practice of moving items to its archives and assigning a new url. One of the essays on the subject was "Liberals are Dumb as Dirt, Sometimes." That title seems doubly appropriate in this internet age. What if everyone changed url's quickly after publishing them the first time? Google would either double in value or go broke, and we're not sure which.

Note that ProgressNowAction, aka PlagiarismNowAction and Colorado Media Matters would never consider publishing something like this. Does that make us better than them? Maybe not, but it makes us different.

The Left's Intensifying Tug-of-War over Udall's Political Drift

The battle is on within the Colorado Left. Last Friday, the Dead Governors called a poll showing a three-way race for the U.S. Senate "mythical." Counting on recent voting patterns, they try to ward off the strong pressure from the Left that their anointed candidate Mark Udall has started to feel as he abandons his Boulder liberal roots to run for the center of the political spectrum. There is no Green Party threat, they say:

That's all well and good for Schaffer, but no third party candidate received more than 1% of the vote in the 2006 gubernatorial race or the 2004 Senate race. Even the most well-known and well-funded Green Party candidate in recent history, Ralph Nader, managed just 5% of the vote in Colorado when he ran for President in 2000. Touting this three person poll is beyond ridiculous, because a Green Party candidate in Colorado will be lucky to get 2% of the vote.

Is this wishful thinking on their part? It well may be. The war in Iraq has changed up the political dynamic, so that relying on figures from as recently as the last 2 election cycles might make the Dead Governors' logic just that: wishful thinking.

A palpable anger is growing among the Nutroots, as witnessed in this post today from the Metro Denver Greens:

Finally, Mark Udall, John Salazar and Ed Perlmutter cast very wimpy votes in the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday. They voted to condemn an ad in a newspaper because the radical Republicans scared them into doing so.

Hey, you guys, it should be the job of the Congress to bring our troops home, not legislate free speech.

Of course, you can (and should) question the judgment of sanctioning the slander of an honorable American general. But how long will the seething rage among elements of the Left in Colorado abide Udall abandoning the faith?

Green Party candidate Bob Kinsey may become all the more palatable for more and more disaffected Left-leaning Colorado voters. After all, principles never die. The Denver Metro Greens' site says it well: "Progressive and tired of wimply, spineless Dimocrats? Vote Green!"

Udall Votes To Condemn MoveOn's Petraeus Ad, Nutroots Balks

Moonbat Diana DeGette (D-CD 1) gets mad props for her "guts" (which are easy to have in an impenetrable district). Meanwhile Mark Udall, prepping for his Senatorial run to the middle, has earned the ire of the far left, some of whom are promising to withhold their donations:

I received a fundraising request from Mark Udall today.

America desperately needs leadership that will elevate our public debate and reflect the best that our country has to offer. As my track record as Congressman shows, I'm committed to practical, bipartisan solutions to our most pressing issues:

*Finding a way to responsibly leave Iraq: I opposed this war from the start, and I will exhaust every opportunity to bring this conflict to a close so we can rebuild our army and refocus our national security efforts to more effectively fight terrorism.

Rep. Udall, this vote does not reflect the best our country has to offer. It was a waste of resources.

You say you'll exhaust every opportunity to bring the conflict to a close. Is this vote a part of that effort? Are our forces any closer to redeploying now that you and your fellow Democrats have once again succumbed to the Republicans distraction tactics? No sir, they are not.

I will not send money to your campaign when you vote like this.

Stand up to the obstructionists and distractors, Rep. Udall. Stand up for the people of this country who have overwhelmingly expressed their will that the occupation end. Then, sir, I will gladly donate to your campaign.

Udall's purely symbolic bipartisan efforts--attempting to move him to the "middle" in the minds of independents/unafilliateds--have ticked off his key liberal-left constituency and traditional base.

How to read this? They expect Udall to live up to his Boulder liberal reputation and defend the MoveOn Petraeus ads.

And the band played on

We think we can count this generationbluepac comment on our Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:

While the Democrats have painted Mark Udall as a liberal candidate...

Mark Udall is not a moderate scoreboard:
extremist 2
reliably left wing 4
liberal 17
moderate 0
conservative (hunger strikers waiting for this to happen will lose a lot of weight)

This scoreboard was started when we noticed that liberal blogs and the msm were calling Mark Udall a liberal, reliably left wing, and even an extremist. This scoreboard does not include data from any conservative blog and excluded a TV interview of a Republican politician. Those who wish to check its methodology can follow the bread crumbs back.

The funny thing is that it is the Democrats who have painted Mark Udall as a liberal. While someone outside the state occasionally tries to slip in the usual "moving toward the center" canard, most are content, as Mark Udall himself seems content, to leave the label at "liberal" and let the election chips fall where they may.

Smell, Taste, Feel the Bile

PlagiarismNowAction wants the public to know just how much it supports both Mark Udall and the free speech editor at CSU. Probably not office safe. We're not sure who it is safe for. If these guys want to write tasteless stuff, we are more than happy to send brave souls their way so long as their candidates get full credit.

But civility is dead.

Recall, they only have to be right 50% of the time (their standard). What if almost everywhere else, civility were alive? Just a thought.